194 replies to this topic

[SacKen]

I wanted to post this separately from the Sandy Hook thread that is filled with emotional ranting. And sorry it is so long...

I've been thinking a lot about gun control and the Constitution trying to sift through all the emotional responses. I've had several adult discussions with my friends, from all corners of the political spectrum, where we discussed the Constitution and the side discussions of the time (Federalist papers, debates during the Constitutional Convention, etc.) and how it all applies to gun ownership and control. We really tried to come at it from scratch without emotional baggage or personal desires. We also tried to focus just on gun control and not the secondary topic of getting illegal weapons off the streets.

In summary, I think we've gone about gun control and ownership all wrong. There's two distinct gun ownership classifications that we have jumbled into a single argument, which causes problems and unhappiness on both sides.

First, the 2nd Amendment is about defense against a tyrannical government. Period. It is not about your right to protect yourself from your neighbor, fire shots in the air at midnight on Dec 31, hunt, or shoot "for fun". The 2nd Amendment also places this right within the context of a "well regulated militia". They used descriptive terms for the militia such as "organized", "disciplined", and "trained". (Ignoring the relatively recent SCOTUS decision where they essentially said the first two parts of the Amendment can be ignored, because if you have to ignore 2/3 of the Amendment to reach your decision, you've probably reached the wrong decision.)

This also means that weapon types should not be restricted under the 2nd Amendment. Pricilla asked in the other thread, why anyone would ever need an assault weapon? Ask the people in the Middle East that, once armed with assault weapons, have been able to cause quite a problem for dictators. That's the reason.

Second, the Constitutions states that we have "unalienable rights", that include, but are not limited to, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Bill of Rights is also not a document meant to list all the rights of the people, but to explicitly point out those rights which are so important for freedom that they wanted to make it very clear that we have those rights even if they have not been explicitly mentioned anywhere. If something is not explicitly assigned to the Government, then we maintain that right, not the Government. Hunting, self-defense, recreation, etc., fall into this category.

Looking at it from this perspective, we should also control as two distinct groups:

2nd Amendment Control: No ban on weapon types, capacities or ammunition. However, you must be a member of a regulated militia group (which, in reality, would probably just be a locally licensed gun club). Membership is "regulated" using the laws we currently use to weed out nut-jobs and felons from being gun owners. These "militias" would include extensive training and discipline related to guns and militia preparedness. Sort-of like a citizen controlled, light version of the State Military Reserve. Also, weapons that would be considered restricted in the second group (described below) would be stored at a secure facility, controlled by the "militia" group, not in your home.

Personal Rights & Freedoms Group: You don't need semi-automatic, military-style weapons with 50 shot clips to hunt or defend yourself against your neighbor. You can hunt with a single-shot bolt-action rifle. You can defend with a 3-shell shotgun or a low-capacity, low-caliber hand gun. I'm not saying laws need to be that restrictive, but let's get real... anything beyond that is preference and not necessary. This ownership still needs to be regulated, even more so than today. It shouldn't be as easy as stopping by Walmart on your way home from the bar, nor should you have weapons in a home with mentally unstable people around. They should also be secure, whether locked in a safe or with some other device that makes it nearly impossible for someone to find it as easily use it.

Until we can separate the personal freedom argument from the 2nd Amendment argument, we'll continue to have a battle where nobody wins. This won't solve all the problems, but I think it is one step of many that we need to take. Things are just getting out of hand and we need to start somewhere.

[cw68]

SacKen, spectacular. Simply spectacular. I think this is very well thought out, in the spirit of the constitution, reasonable and doable. Thank you for sharing.

[tsukiji]

I sincerely applaud your careful consideration of this topic. In general, I agree with much of what you wrote. I do think that the Personal Rights section is subject to some carefully considered debate. I don't think this type of debate would be sufficiently facilitated, mechanically, on a written forum. I think it would be tedious at best.

But just to raise some counter points for your consideration -- you don't have to agree. And, again, this is specific to your Personal Right section; and not a comprehensive list of counter points, just what immediately came to mind.

1) People should be able to obtain and use any weapon that a criminal might use (through whatever legal, illegal and geographical means available to them). To this end, a shotgun and especially a handgun is woefully inadequate. The assumption here is that you're sufficiently familiar with the use and effectiveness of rifles vs shotgun vs handgun. You've probably heard the phrase "A handgun is the tool you use to get to your rifle" -- there is a reason why.

2) This includes caliber and capacity. Again, assumptions on your part of effectiveness. And also, there are assumptions of scenario which may not hold true, today and/or in the future. No one has an ability to predict the exact nature of a defensive situation. You prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

3) You may be familiar with the phrase "Never bring a knife to a gun fight" -- so, even if a criminal is only using a handgun, why should we limit a law abiding citizen to the same weapon? Why not give a law abiding citizen every advantage to protect and survive? The criminal already probably has the element of surprise in his favor.

I'm not really trying to debate. Again, I agree with much of what you've considered and written. I'm just trying to raise some points which you may not have considered. If you've already considered some of these points and still maintain your position, that's fine.

[SacKen]

... I don't think this type of debate would be sufficiently facilitated, mechanically, on a written forum. I think it would be tedious at best.
...
I'm not really trying to debate. Again, I agree with much of what you've considered and written. I'm just trying to raise some points which you may not have considered. If you've already considered some of these points and still maintain your position, that's fine.

Please don't be afraid of it being a debate. As long as it is not emotional bickering and name calling, it's all good. This is exactly the kind of discussion I enjoy... bouncing thoughts and ideas around. And yes, it is better done in person with a beer in one hand.

I mostly agree with you but think that it's not enough of a reason to keep proliferating more weapons. The only problem I have is that doing a better job of removing those weapons from the streets is needed, not increasing the defense against that ever growing problem. And let's face it, most criminals on the streets get their weapons from people/places where they were purchased legally. Many are stolen from homes originally. Adding more to the system has had no effect on getting the guns off the streets. We need to try something else.

Also, the vast majority of crimes you would be defending yourself against are petty criminals or thugs with a handgun in their wasteband. Not someone bursting through your door with an AK. Nobody is going to get into a long drawn-out gun battle like in the movies. Unless you are trained and good with a handgun, you'll probably miss and hurt bystanders if you start rapidly emptying a clip. Those people are better off with a shotgun in the home. Aim in the general direction and fire. If you are good with a handgun, a couple shots with a 9mm is all you need.

My retired police officer grandfather has a shotgun for that purpose. In his experience, just the click-click sound of a shotgun loading is enough to make people stop in their tracks or run the other way. If they don't, he has personally witnessed the effectiveness of a single shotgun round.

[tsukiji]

I personally think a handgun provides much better protection then an assault rifle, or rifle of any kind - other then a shotgun which is the best protection. A handgun is much more mobile and aim-able in close range then a rifle is.
The rifle is best for long range targets which if they're that far away, they're not on your property yet and you can't shoot 'em anyways.

I guess I would tend to disagree. I don't believe that a handgun is actually close to the protection offered by a rifle. And I don't think that a handgun is notably more mobile unless you're within touching distance. And a rifle is much more accurate and controllable since you have additional indices. I would debate that rifles are not applicable for "close" (depends on what you consider close) ranges (they are certainly better for long range). I might consider shotguns a good compromise between a handgun and a rifle depending on the environment. One's property may not be the same as others. We should avoid generalizing based on one's specific circumstances.

There is a right tool for anything -- depending on where you are and what you're doing, a hammer or a sledgehammer might be the best tool.

[Carl G]

Two quick thoughts

1) I believe you are addressing this largely from a city dweller perspective. If I'm in rural Sacramento County or in the middle of Montana I would want more and higher firepower.

2) When addressing battling thugs with guns, the problem I see is the total lack of regard for human life in many parts of society. Living here in Folsom I felt comfortable getting ride of my guns because of my children. If I lived in less desirable areas I would likely think differently. Where I live would strongly dictate what types of weapons I would want.

[The Average Joe]

One more thing to ponder, the text of the 2nd Amendment states,
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Yes, it does say a well regulated militia, however, it plainly says, the right of the people shall not be infringed.
Obviously (based on historical context), their intent was to discourage tyrannical or totalitarian government. They preferred the government to fear the people, not the other way around.
Still, a very thoughtful post.

[supermom]

This is the first time I have ever heard of an automatic shotgun.
Seriously thought provoking in light of the current discussion

[chris v]

This is the first time I have ever heard of an automatic shotgun.
Seriously thought provoking in light of the current discussion

That looks like fun. I would love to shoot that.
I'm still waiting to shoot the 338 sniper rifle "my friend" just bought.

[Logan]

I guess, it can depend upon the scenario in which you view what you need for home protection. During periods of normalcy, I can see no big need for an assault rifle with mega-round clips. But what about after an apoclyptic event. Some kind of disaster, natural or not, where the normal law enforcement is no longer in control or power, chaos is rampant, looters everywhere. Now, I might feel like I need a few 20 round clips and a high power assault rifle.

Unfortunately, if the poop hits the fan and society is taking a turn for the worse, then is not the time to try and find weapons for self protection. So in the words of the Boy Scouts, I like to "BE PREPARED." Do I think an apocolyptic event will happen? I sure hope not and I'm not expecting one. But I do feel safer knowing that if need be, I can protect my family and friends, and I have the gear necessary to survive with no grocery stores.

[chris v]

I guess, it can depend upon the scenario in which you view what you need for home protection. During periods of normalcy, I can see no big need for an assault rifle with mega-round clips. But what about after an apoclyptic event. Some kind of disaster, natural or not, where the normal law enforcement is no longer in control or power, chaos is rampant, looters everywhere. Now, I might feel like I need a few 20 round clips and a high power assault rifle.

Unfortunately, if the poop hits the fan and society is taking a turn for the worse, then is not the time to try and find weapons for self protection. So in the words of the Boy Scouts, I like to "BE PREPARED." Do I think an apocolyptic event will happen? I sure hope not and I'm not expecting one. But I do feel safer knowing that if need be, I can protect my family and friends, and I have the gear necessary to survive with no grocery stores.

The real life occurance of a major earthquake that sinks part of California is a very valid reason. I think most can agree that potentially in our lifetimes this can happen. Scientists have been saying it for years. This is what I prep for. A disaster of that scale will send people into a frenzy and I need to be able to protect my stores of survival stuff in the hills. The have nots will be the problem and they will try and take whatever they can by any means. People get crazy when they're hungry.

[Chris]

Sad to say there is no such animal as an "assault rifle"............. That is just political hype and what the press says because they don't know any better..... They kinda do exist but it depends on criteria, historical date, and definition which has not really been resolved. Maybe the STG 44 was the first one........ Maybe the PPshah of the Russians...... Maybe the Thompson 45............. Again and again, I have told the ones who do not know a thing about guns here that my 1941 M1 Garand is so much more lethal than my 2011 Sig556 (AR type weapon) which can hold a 30 round clip if I decided to break CA laws........... ( I can only have a ten round mag her in CA). My Garand holds only 8 rounds in it's enbloc clip but I can readily reload it...... It is the weapon that took it to the Germans and the Japanese in WW2...... They really had no answer to it as they were still using bolt actions for the most part. Sure, machine guns were very prevalent with the Germans but a Garand will knock your butt down dead at 500 meters as a machine gun is good to only 100 meters or so with any accuracy... I was at the range last Friday with a couple of friends and I was shooting another Garand I own, my 1945 Springfield.......... Off hand, holding an 11 pound rifle, I hit an 18" by 18" steel plate at 200 meters 3 times out of 8 rounds.........Not great as I am out of practice......... The times I missed I only missed by inches....... Off hand once again...... This is kinda hard to do and takes some practice.... Anyway, more gun laws will not do a thing, will not prevent another one of these terrible events. If they try and ban semi autos all they will get is more dead folks at the hands of criminals because the law abiding folks were disarmed. Not me of course, from my "cold dead hands" as Charlton Heston used to say........... And if you really want to talk weapon types this guy in CT used the wrong weapon........ I won't say it here just in case another wingnut is reading this but there is a very common and ubiquitous weapon for close range that puts the AR or any handgun to shame............ Chris

[mando]

I found this really insightful post on: http://www.allegianc...i-want-fly-f-14

This line of thinking - particularly with regard to present reality behind the notion of defense against tyranny - has occurred to me over the course of this debate. This guy put it in words pretty well if you ignore some of the "less eloquent" bits around the ends of his argument.

Paul MacArthur

I have always thought gun enthusiasts were weird. I just don't understand their fervor for guns. I served in the military, earned several marksman medals, and I have a very healthy respect for firearms (weapons as we were trained to call them.) So much so that I wish to stay very far away from them.

With that said I understand the possibilities in the world. There are some people that are capable of really horrendous acts. I believe we all should have the means to defend ourselves from them. I'll never join any cults that seem to worship guns or accept them like utensils at the dinner table. Both outlooks are very unhealthy and I believe are part of the problem more than they could ever understand.

The argument that the right to bear arms is fundamental to our freedom is very valid. However, most of the people that profess this argument don't understand what it entails. They imagine themselves fighting an army of Obamas or Reagans in some perverted abstract notion of heroism. They also falsely believe that their government fears them. Both of these notions are false.

America is the country where its government fears its people the least. With the bloated military budget and emphasis on a strong military it has the capability of wiping out any partisans in a matter of days if it wanted. The ironic thing is most of the conservative gun lovers are the ones that have voted to give the government this power in the first place by not budging on the military budget. No the government doesn't fear any of us. You should know better. I do agree with you however, that it should.

When it comes to blows, you aren't going to be shooting at Obama or Bush. No you'll be shooting at your own sons and daughters who signed up for the National Guard or active duty when they are called up to stop you. Also you'll be up against Joe Sheriff from down the road who your kids had sleep overs with when they were growing up. Sure you can call them Feds and whatever other names you have for them, but it won't be so glorious and pure as it is in your mind right now. Both sides will believe they are protecting the Constitution. The only difference is you'll be calling them the tyrants and they and their TV media will call you terrorists.

Even though the notions of the right to bear arms in the face of tyranny has a sense of American revolutionary romanticism about it. The reality is you'll be killing Americans who believe they are protecting themselves and loved ones from you and your crazy friends. It will be ugly and messy just like the school shootings. I'm sure those perpetrators also had some romantic notions about how glorious it would be for them when they leave this world. The media calls that mental illness by the way.

So you can tout all your tough guy attitudes about this all you want. It will only lead you and those who rise up to stop you to a real dead end. Leaving the rest of us with another tragedy to contemplate the problem of the use of firearms in America.

I suggest you wake up and realize the BS of your noble ideas and where they'll get you. There is an underlying problem in this country that is systemic and embedded in our upbringing. Gun related violence is a symptom and proof that the problem exists. Mental illness only exacerbates the problem in each particular instance. But if you would rather keep professing your mantras of political rhetoric rather than deal with the real problems, just ignore everything I just shared.

[Carl G]

The real life occurance of a major earthquake that sinks part of California is a very valid reason. I think most can agree that potentially in our lifetimes this can happen. Scientists have been saying it for years. This is what I prep for. A disaster of that scale will send people into a frenzy and I need to be able to protect my stores of survival stuff in the hills. The have nots will be the problem and they will try and take whatever they can by any means. People get crazy when they're hungry.

Think back to the riots in SoCal. I remember a bunch of businesses burning in Koreantown, except those businesses being protected by shop owners with guns. I would like to be holding a pretty powerful gun with a large clip if that were me.