So, I think I’m starting to get it. The main thing this gun debate comes down to is that you want to be able to fight your own government. That’s why you need to own such large guns–because they are not for hunting or target practice–they are meant for that inevitable day when the military shows up on your doorstep to stick you in a FEMA camp because you got caught reading the Drudge Report. Fine, I get it. There’s only one problem with this scenario. The military isn’t afraid of your puny assault rifle. They have missiles and drones. This invites another question–should we all be allowed to own missiles in case we have to defend ourselves from the coming dictatorship? If not, why not? Why are our missile rights being restricted?
This question can be translated to the international scene, as well. After all, the conservative argument is that the more weapons everyone has, the more peaceful our world will be. So why the uproar over Iran and North Korea developing their nuclear programs? Let everyone have their bombs, the bigger the better. Sure, we’ll live in constant fear of each other, but we’ll also treat each other more politely. Wasn’t that the theory during the Cold War–mutually assured destruction? A theory which Reagan liked, even! See, the Republicans will totally be on board with me on this.
Um, what’s that you say? You say that Iran and North Korea are ka-razy and should not be allowed to arm themselves to the teeth? Does that mean that not everyone in the world should have access to deadly weapons? So perhaps some individuals in our country should also not be allowed to have guns, because they might shoot them for crazy reasons. Unless America is somehow special and is comprised of only good and peaceful people. But I think our latest rash of shootings puts the lie to that.
eurobrat 
02/02/2013 at 4:59 am
It is a Federal crime for a convicted felon to possess or buy a firearm. Same thing for someone legal determined to be mentally ill. It is a Federal crime to buy a firearm for someone else (straw purchase). There are laws against some people having firearms. The problem is we often don’t enforce it.
How about clearing out the non-violent offenders in our jail (give them an ankle bracelet or something) and fill those cells with violent criminals illegally possessing a firearm?
Sounds like a good idea to me! 🙂
Who Needs An Assault Rifle?
http://free2beinamerica2.wordpress.com/2012/12/19/who-needs-an-assault-rifle/
02/02/2013 at 10:14 am
When I hear my compatriots on the pro-gun side of the debate, they frequently sound like they’re opposed to any restrictions on guns, such as background checks, for instance.
On the other hand, I’m with you on the non-violent criminals. There are far too many people in jail for possession of pot…the scariest thing we can expect from some of those guys is an eating binge.
02/02/2013 at 2:18 pm
eurobrat wrote:
“When I hear my compatriots on the pro-gun side of the debate, they frequently sound like they’re opposed to any restrictions on guns, such as background checks, for instance.”
A lot of gunowners oppose furter restrictions because they simply believe they will be ineffective and only applied against the law abiding. As I pointed out, we have Federal laws that could be used against criminals with guns, but often are not.
A lot of gunowners believe that universal registration will serve only two purposes, further taxation, and eventual confiscation (like what happened in the U.K. and Australia).
It is not that gunowners don’t care about bad people having guns, they just believe – and I think with ample justification – that those pushing for more restrictions are totally dishonest. They don’t want “reasonable” restrictions. No, they want eventual confiscation.
We have ample laws on the books right now to totally put a dent in gun crime, if we would use them. Take the ATF (technically now the BATFE) and what do they seem to do mostly? Harrass licensed dealers trying to find minor technical violations in documentation. Are they out chasing bad guys with guns? A lot of people, myself included, don’t think so.
The ATF is often looked at by other Federal law enforcement with contempt (based on their track record). Just this week it was reported an ATF “sting” resulted in something like $35k being stolen from the ATF, and them losing a fully automatic submachinegun the bad guys stole from them.
A lot of gunowners think the ATF are cowards who basically want to harass honest people and too chicken to go after really dangerous criminals. Maybe that is painting with too wide a brush, but nevertheless over the years the ATF has earned a lot of contempt.
We can create more regulations, registration, and other hurdles for the law abiding to possess guns, mostly punishing the innocent. Or we can on the other side severely punish criminals who use guns. In terms of practicality I favor that latter solution.
And wrote:
“On the other hand, I’m with you on the non-violent criminals. There are far too many people in jail for possession of pot…the scariest thing we can expect from some of those guys is an eating binge.”
A lot of problem with gun violence in the inner cities involves gangs and the illegal drug trade. Anyone with a knowledge of history knows that it was Prohibition that originally gave organized crime a boost (and some would say, myself included, that the Chicago police have yet to recover from the corruption of Al Capone).
I don’t like drugs, but it makes a fair amount of sense that we can’t continue doing what we’re doing. Better to have some drug addicts buying legal drugs than financing ultra violent Mexican drug cartels.
lwk
http://free2beinamerica2.wordpress.com
02/03/2013 at 3:15 pm
Well, that’s the problem right there. The pro-gun rights side automatically equates any gun restriction with future gov’t confiscation of guns. They’re a bit on the crazy side.
As far as the ATF, yep, they have bungled some projects over the years. It sounds like they might need re-organization or new leadership or more accurate tools to work with (especially for gun tracing). But the fact that they have been inept doesn’t lead me to jump to the conclusion that they want to confiscate everyone’s guns. As far as them harrassing honest people, I have no way to tell how true that is, how honest the people involved really are and if the ATF inspecting them was perhaps justified.
02/04/2013 at 9:05 am
eurobrat wrote:
“The pro-gun rights side automatically equates any gun restriction with future gov’t confiscation of guns. They’re a bit on the crazy side.”
What happened in the U.K. and Australia? Didn’t they require registration, and then didn’t they confiscate a lot of them? That is not paranoia. That is simple history. There are plenty of people in the U.S. who would like to see the same thing happen here. Fortunately we have the 2nd Amendment which so far has been an effective obstacle.
lwk
http://free2beinamerica2.wordpress.com
02/04/2013 at 5:17 pm
I don’t think asking for enhanced background checks is the same as requiring that every gun be registered. I just don’t see anything like what happened in Britain happening here. It took a tragedy like Newtown for the administration to propose even a couple of mild regulations. Quite frankly, I don’t think this gov’t has the cojones to really do something about guns.
02/03/2013 at 4:52 am
So back in the day, on the heels of Shays’ Rebellion, the framers convened a Constitutional Convention that replaced a weak Articles of Confederation with the Constitution, forming a strong central government with a military capability that criminalized domestic violence and insurrection. Then they added the Second Amendment just so armed citizens could battle the government, i.e., the framers themselves. That’s quite a stretch–even for those wild and wacky conservatives.
02/03/2013 at 6:02 am
ojmo wrote:
“Then they added the Second Amendment just so armed citizens could battle the government, i.e., the framers themselves. That’s quite a stretch–even for those wild and wacky conservatives.”
The quotes from the Founders leave no doubt as to their intent. For example, there is a good overview on Wikipedia (quoting):
A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was the well justified concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts expressed this sentiment by declaring that it is “a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved . . . Is it possible . . . that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves or their brethren? or, if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?”[81][82] Noah Webster similarly argued:
Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.[82][83]
George Mason argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of England’s efforts “to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them . . . by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.” He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. “Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.[82][84]
The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected. Therefore, writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included “the right to keep and bear arms” in a list of basic “human rights”, which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.[82][85]
Patrick Henry, in the Virginia ratification convention June 5, 1788, argued for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression:
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.[86]
While both Monroe and Adams supported ratification of the Constitution, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, he confidently contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he contemptuously described as “afraid to trust the people with arms.” He assured his fellow citizens that they need never fear their government because of “the advantage of being armed….”[82][87]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Ratification_debates
lwk
http://free2beinamerica2.wordpress.com
02/03/2013 at 3:29 pm
Ojmo does make an interesting point, however, about the Constitution including the domestic violence clause–and the federal gov’t putting down a couple of the early rebellions. Isn’t that, at the very least, contradictory?
02/03/2013 at 7:54 pm
[The quotes from the Founders leave no doubt as to their intent]
I dunno, if the framers’ intent was to have armed citizens battling the government, why doesn’t the amendment say that just a bit more directly–or at all, actually? Also, if the framers intended what you say, why criminalize “insurrection” in the Constitution, if insurrection was exactly what they wanted? After all, a few cherry picked quotes doesn’t mean much when compared with the actual written law, does it?
02/04/2013 at 4:20 am
ojmo wrote:
“… a few cherry picked quotes …”
Go read the Federalist papers. Educate yourself and you might know what you are talking about.
lwk
http://free2beinamerica2.wordpress.com
02/04/2013 at 4:32 am
eurobrat Says:
“Ojmo does make an interesting point, however, about the Constitution including the domestic violence clause–and the federal gov’t putting down a couple of the early rebellions. Isn’t that, at the very least, contradictory?”
No, not really. There was always in the Framer’s thoughts and writings a tension between legitimate and illegitimate government. As long as government was legitimate then the people would support it, whether it was putting down rebellion in one place or another, or battling criminal elements that victimized the people.
However, should the government become truly illegitimate, should it violate its own Constitution, then they believed it would lose the support of the people, who then could by force of arms bring it down and restore legitimate government.
There really shouldn’t be a lot of question on what they thought. The Federalist Papers (and the Anti-Federalist Papers if you want to the opposing thought) covers in detail what they debated and clearly demonstrates their thought process (which was not 100% unanimous on many things – they sometimes almost came to blows the debate was so contentious).
lwk
http://free2beinamerica2.wordpress.com