USA Politics

It's not about how many guns are legal & how many are illegal --it's about how many guns you have, period. You've pretty much hit the nail on the head with your "sure" comment. While you clearly view my ideas as impractical & fanciful (in some respects they are; remember I asked you ideally, as we've already touched upon, I never said my ideas were deliverable) --I equally think your fantasy of legal gun ownership existing without illegal ownership (i.e. that the former can exist without the latter) as utterly unachievable.

You're clutching at straws if you believe greater law enforcement will solve the problem of guns falling into the wrong hands. As long as you have mass ownership of guns legally, people (who should not have them) will get hold of them. The way to stop guns getting into the wrong hands is not through greater law enforcement, it's through less guns. This seems pretty self-explanatory to me.
 
Except that is illegal in this country (banning guns) and will be for some time if not forever. It is a Constitutional right, which brings us back to where we started with this and the basic premise that I do not agree with the practice of removing rights from people because other people abuse those rights. That might be more of an American view than a European view, but since this is our country .. that is the only view that matters.
 
Forostar said:
So how else can I read this besides reading that you find abusing this kind of right more terrible (or more important to prevent) than preventing more people to die from guns?
Click to expand...

I do not agree with the premise that people who are law abiding citizens should have their rights reduced or removed because of what a criminal element does.

I believe that is an important American value.

For another Constitutional example, take the Nazi march on Skokie, IL in the late 1970s. The American Nazi party wanted to march in a town where 1 in 6 of its residents were Holocaust survivors. The ACLU, which while not a Jewish organization has/had many Jews as members. We ended up with a Jewish lawyer defending the right of Nazis to march in the Supreme Court.

Rights are paramount
 
bearfan said:
I do not agree with the premise that people who are law abiding citizens should have their rights reduced or removed because of what a criminal element does.
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean like police barging into people's homes without warrants?
 
Forostar said:
I talked about this specific right. You find it more paramount than the lethal danger it causes?
Click to expand...

Yes ... I do not think the 2nd Amendment is any less (or more) important than any other part of the Constitution .. with I guess the exception of the 18th amendment which was repealed.
 
Onhell said:
Oh, you mean like police barging into people's homes without warrants?
Click to expand...

I am not sure what justification they used for that, there are some legally recognized exceptions (mainly public safety/immediate danger related) ... but if the police did that illegally someone can certainly challenge them and take it to court.
 
You know what is amazing to me is the rather large group of people in and out of the USA that stand around pointing fingers at guns while children in and out of the USA starve to death each year. Are under nourished, are sick and have no medical care, are molested, abused, abandon, sold into slavery, or whatever, yet not one thing has been said about that (and US Politics could ease that.)

Foro, your picture may have painted a different type of propaganda had it a picture of a sexually abused child next to a picture of a girl with a gun.

Those are things that can be fixed and affect a far larger group of people.

It frustrates me when I see people fixate on something so difficult to change yet barely spend time on so many other horrible things that go on. It only shows that everyone seems to be driven by the media. Guns are the 'issue du jour', so that is what gets discussed.
 
Forostar said:
So how else can I read this besides reading that you find abusing this kind of right more terrible (or more important to prevent) than preventing more people to die from guns.
Click to expand...
Actually, you're not too far off. The freedom/public safety trade-off is a real one. It comes up a lot, and often (but not always -- see seatbelt and helmet laws) we choose freedom. Now, I am reasonably certain that the Founding Fathers didn't contemplate a huge black market of illegal guns, but they did assume that people would own guns. Does that mean that they accepted the fact more people would be shot than if no one had guns? Probably. That is a trade-off that was made. You can't ban gun ownership by statute, as it would be unconstitutional. I think Bearfan's main point is that, in the U.S., that's a really big deal, regardless of how you feel about gun control generally. Americans take their Constitutional rights seriously, even if you don't. For example, on spring break I actually took my kids to look at the Constitution and Bill of Rights in the National Archives. It was a long line. Those faded parchments trump any and all policy debates.

Now, if someone were to propose a Constitutional Amendment to ban the sale of firearms to civilians in the U.S., on the grounds that it would enhance public safety, that would be different. Yet I'm not sure how I would feel about it. Gun ownership is an important right. The martial law nature of the Boston manhunt made me uncomfortable too -- the police shouldn't be permitted to roll onto my street in tanks and tell me I can't walk in my front yard. One reason to permit widespread gun ownership is to deter that kind of thing. An armed populace is one that can more easily resist tyranny. That may seem like a quaint notion -- confronting a tank with a handgun -- but there are many people who own guns who think it makes them feel a little bit safer, not just from criminals, but from the state. I'm not one of those people (I don't own a gun), but I don't think they are all crazy.
 
I should point out that I'm not saying these things to take thought away from the issue of gun control. However, if one decides to take a high and mighty stance, lets look at a larger picture.
 
Wasted's post
Wästed The Great said:
You know what is amazing to me is the rather large group of people in and out of the USA that stand around pointing fingers at guns while children in and out of the USA starve to death each year.
Click to expand...

Not to make light of Wasted's post (well, maybe a little), it reminded me of a guy I knew in college who, every time he would get bored with an argument, he would say, "Well, but what about the children? How does it affect the children?" and then walk off. It was actually a rather clever way to shut people up.
 
I just find it interesting how people focus so tightly on one subject. I suppose that since it garners national media attention it is a 'big deal'.
 
Cornfed Hick said:
Actually, you're not too far off. The freedom/public safety trade-off is a real one. It comes up a lot, and often (but not always -- see seatbelt and helmet laws) we choose freedom. Now, I am reasonably certain that the Founding Fathers didn't contemplate a huge black market of illegal guns, but they did assume that people would own guns. Does that mean that they accepted the fact more people would be shot than if no one had guns? Probably.
Click to expand...
I don't think they knew certain things that are known these days. E.g., that people who suffer from mental illness should not have a weapon permit. Mental illness was probably not even known as it is now.
Times have changed.
Cornfed Hick said:
That is a trade-off that was made. You can't ban gun ownership by statute, as it would be unconstitutional. I think Bearfan's main point is that, in the U.S., that's a really big deal, regardless of how you feel about gun control generally. Americans take their Constitutional rights seriously, even if you don't. For example, on spring break I actually took my kids to look at the Constitution and Bill of Rights in the National Archives. It was a long line. Those faded parchments trump any and all policy debates.
Click to expand...
I do take it seriously, because I see how it blinds people for what really goes on in society. If that constitution is so bloody important, it needs an update and fast. It should serve society, not hurt. Time to make some adjustments.

Cornfed Hick said:
... there are many people who own guns who think it makes them feel a little bit safer, not just from criminals, but from the state. I'm not one of those people (I don't own a gun), but I don't think they are all crazy.
Click to expand...
But do you agree that there is a category of people who should not own guns, as described above?

Wasted, bear with me, I'm not easy to shut up. ;-)

I am honestly curious if and why people find a very old constitution more important than the hurt it causes.
That picture shows what "by law" the Americans find more dangerous. Call it propaganda as you wish, but everything can be get rid of, as long as it's not in the constitution.

You know what? This constitution is used as a fucking tool. Tools are not goals. Rules and laws should serve mankind in a positive way.

It reminds me a lot of how the Bible is (mis)used as a tool by orthodox Christians.
Taking things literally, blinded for reality, minds fixed on the holy scripture, and punishing everyone who deviates from it. The lack of room for wisdom to realize that something might not work anymore.

Its original purpose might have been freedom, but right now it limits people in their ways. The idea that sick people can easily have guns makes people afraid.
 
Forostar, I think what you are missing is that the Courts have ruled that some limitations can be placed on rights. There are some in effect on gun ownership. The whole issue about screening for mentally ill is not a 2nd Amendment issue at all, there is little doubt that if a law passed it would be upheld, though it might run into privacy issues which would make it pretty ineffective.

What has been ruled, rightly so, as unconstitutional has been attempts to ban guns in their entirety. That seems like a lot of leeway to me, there can be anything in the middle but not including a total ban to no restrictions at all.
 
Aha, we're getting somewhere, slowly. :)
There is room for middle ground! Now if only the Reps in the Senate would listen.
 
That goes back to where this conversation all started ... that the bill that was proposed would have done nothing to prevent the shootings that created this uproar to begin with and that screening mentally ill in this country is very difficult given laws protecting medical privacy. About all that could be screened are those officially declared insane (which almost always happens with a conviction, meaning they are already screened) or those who declare themselves mentally ill .. which I would assume will be no one.
 
Now I'm confused. My understanding of the issue is not that guns should be banned in their entirety. People should have access to guns...if they need them. And by need I mean people like police, and...hunters. Essentially. I don't understand why anyone should be able to go out and buy a gun without first needing some kind of license, strict restrictions, background checks, etc. etc. They should have a reason for needing a gun. That reason should be something like: I'm a recreational hunter. Not: I'm a college kid living in a city and I feel the need to defend myself. From what???? Those dastardly fat squirrels in the park? Learn a martial art, buy an axe, a baseball bat. We don't live in cabins in the woods anymore where we might be attacked by 'natives' or bears. I think there's a mismatch here between the reality of life in the 21st century and ideology.
 
There are some restrictions and background checks in effect now ... varies from state to state ... but I am not sure asking "why" is valid legally. There is also a wait period in effect for someone buying a gun (i.e. if I go to buy one now, I would have to wait 3 days to pick it up)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top