Firearms proposal from da Basement

[Cambridgeskip]

Hmmmm..... plenty to ponder there. Alas I don't have time to properly reply right now but will in due course.

 

In the mean time maybe something for you to ponder.

 

I know only one person who owns a fire arm. He is a turkey farmer and has a hunting rifle which he keeps for pest control. And equally I don't know one person who fears our politicians. Laugh at yes, despise yes, can't be bothered with yes, but fear? No.

 

Different culture I guess.

[Brewmeister]

Haven't been in the 3G forum for a while (God, Guns, 'n Gays), but it looks like I haven't missed much. The same arguments being made for and against and the same useful idiots (in the historic sense of the word) dismissing the concerns of many as being nothing more than terminal nuttery.

 

Meh, I'm sure everything will be just fine. Our elected leaders won't do anything rash. It's not like our govenment has ever interred any of own own citizens or anything crazy like that. Oh look, a cute kitty video!

[pchadbo]

"And for da record, da National Guard is not federal"

 

Beavah, you may want to check again, when someone joins the National guard, they are enlisting in BOTH the state National guard and the National Guard of the United Staes. so they are simultaneously a state and federal soldier. So yes, the national Guard is a federal force, a matter that the Supreme Court has affirmed several times.

[Beavah]

No, pchadbo, it's really not. Da national guard is da organized militia. It's commander-in-chief is da governor of the state in which it is located, not the President.

 

Da Constitution only empowers the federal government to call up the state militia / national guard in time of war or national emergency. In preparation for such a need, the equipage and command structure is integrated with da U.S. military, so we're not fumbling and bumbling around when a national emergency occurs. That does not make them a federal body, eh? It makes them da well-regulated and organized militia necessary to the security of a free state.

 

B

 

[DeanRx]

Beavah writes..

 

"Does anyone in the USA actually fear that the federal government would ever become tyranical? Really? You honestly think one day you mght become an Orwellian nightmare?

This is a staple of modern American political rhetoric, particularly among less-well-educated rural folk of the former Confederate states. In a lot of cases it's unsophisticated folks being taken advantage of by political operatives who know what works best to generate donations. Yah, some people really do believe it, though I reckon it's more that they get caught up in da emotion and self-righteousness of the argument rather than actually have that as an intellectual belief.

 

That having been said, there is a long tradition of fringe apocalypticism in evangelical Christian groups in America. We have groups predictin' da end of da world or da end of da nation on an ongoing basis. Some apocalyptic literature (like the "Left Behind" series) is quite popular, and an over-emphasis on da Book of Revelation is common in many of da evangelical churches. Again, particularly in da states of da former Confederacy, extending west to "survivalist" types who hide out in da eastern Rockies.

 

Yeh have to add to that long-standin' cultural phenomenon modern economics. Da reality here in America is that small-town rural farm communities are dying. Modern mechanized agriculture means that the demand for farm labor is less than ever, so da population move to urban/suburban areas has accelerated. Even our traditional farm belt states like Nebraska have crossed da threshold where a majority of the population now lives in urban centers. So for older folks in da small-town farm belt, and for others in places like coal mining districts, this really does feel apocalyptic, eh? They feel like da America they knew is being slowly eroded and goin' away. That's leadin' to a lot of fear, and a lot of blaming of centralized "government" (or illegal immigrants, or...) that is takin' their America away."

 

While I sometimes agree (often) and sometimes disagree (less often) with the furry lawyer, this has got to be one of the most offensive and prejudiced things I have ever seen you post!

 

To suggest that the fear of a tyranical federal government rests solely with the rural, un-educated, "hillbillies" is hogwash!

 

Look at where the majority of gun crime is - the URBAN CORE.

 

As for those who fear the federal government overstepping their bounds... its a bi-partisan problem that began shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks.

 

1) Patriot act... you don't need a lawyer, you don't get a say or a day in court... government defines you as a 'terrorist' and they can hold you indefinately. Not saying this is currently happening to US citizens, but its on the books as an option.

 

2) TSA / shoe bomber scare... now we all get to sniff each other's toe jam at the airport because of ONE guy... no big bottles of liquid through the screening areas either... wire and e-mail taps / etc... these are NOT fiction, the law is on the books... all in the name of making the public "safer".

 

3) Now its gun control. well, not ALL guns... just the big bad mean ones. We could get rid of all of them, or a few. We can make folks register all of them so we know where they are at... all this does is erode your personal freedom in the name of "safety".

 

4) The largest expansion of govermental agencies and power (via 'Homeland Security') since the end of WWII. Your federal government is bigger and badder currently than it has EVER been in the history of our democratic expiriment.

 

5) Its one thing to have the government advise or recommend you do something and another for it to TELL you... one of the most staunch gun-control advocates in the country already sees no problem in TELLING the citizens of his city what size of SOFT DRINK they may purchase !!! At what point do we stop being a 'free' society? What are the tools at our disposal to ensure we ALWAYS have the ability to make the CHOICE ourselves?

 

Can the goverment overstep its bounds and run amok in an Orweillian nightmare? Yup, it can... some argue it already has. It happened to a democracy in Europe in the 1930's... we got Hitler and WWII out of that deal. He was ELECTED and overwhelmingly popular at the outset... then he took away the guns... then he started telling everyone what they could or could not do. That is not fearmongerring - it is historical fact. He did so under the guise of "protecting the children".

 

See a common theme here? I am amazed at both the violence I have been witness to in my life thusfar, both at the hands of terrorists, at the hands of our government in wars that have lasted decades without being declared, and mostly the violence committed against innocents in mass killings in my own country.

 

I am also amazed at how quick and willing a large portion (maybe a majority / maybe not) is to abandon their personal freedom and liberty to their government all in the guise of being "safer" for the masses. This happens with the urban, the rural, the un-educated and those with post-doctorate degrees.

 

Gun control comes down to one simple question:

 

Who do YOU trust with your best interest / safety? Yourself and your neighbors, or the government (local, state, or federal)?

 

Those that favor strict gun control cannot fathom the day the government would not act in their best interest. Those that favor personal freedom and liberty view the government as acting to keep the populace "in line", not acting in their best interest.

 

There are a LOT of comparisons between the right to vote, or the right to free speech and the right to bear arms. While some are correct to point out that the right to vote or free speech does NOT kill our citizens, I would argue that without the 2nd ammendment, the government is free to revoke every other right at their will.

 

I live in a major metropolitan city. I have a doctorate degree. While I feel older everyday, I am not yet what you would consider "old" and out of touch. I am certainly not an isolationist, or a doomsday prepper. I have never lived in the south (unless you count Southern California as part of the Confederate states). To lump those who might view the issue the same as I into this narrow group, just to dismiss the agrument I make is irresposible. I am not a wack job anymore than Beavah is...

 

Not sure WHY this is the justification on the gun-control side most often used to dismiss the legitimate concerns of the pro-gun side? Other than they do NOT have a rational response to those who feel their government is continually encroaching on their personal liberty... so the scapegoat is to label the opposing view as irrational, unintelligent, fearmongering.

 

If ANY of the current proposals would do anything to curb gun violence, I'd be all for it. You want a background check on ALL transactions - GREAT. You want a mental health screen? - GREAT. Anything above and beyond that is either a red herring, or an infringement upon MY personal freedom. I don't get offended very easily, but advocating for the demise of my persoanl freedom and then attempting to label me insensitive to the killing of innocents because I stand up for my freedom is very offensive, IMHO!

 

I think the EO signed that calls for the collection of data and study of gun violence is a good thing. I agree, without data - its very hard to formulate solutions that will truely have an effective outcome on the issue(s) at hand. There is common ground to be had. However, its very difficult to reach when all both sides what to do is dismiss the other side as irrational or unintelligent.

 

The issue is far too complex to solve it with a unilateral ban on one type of firearm, one type / size of magizine, etc...

[Beavah]

Yah, hmmmm.... I was mostly tryin' to give some broad-brush cultural context for Cambridgeskip livin' over there in Great Britain. Broad brush it was, and no offense intended, DeanRx. It just takes some explanation to try to clarify why Americans fear their government but no Brits do, even though we have far more protections and checks and balances than they do.

 

Yah, I agree that some stuff in the Patriot Act, and DMCA / Copyright law, and some other stuff have swung too far. Those things merit opposition.

 

But they're not tyranny, and they're not Hitler of the 1930s, and we should have the courage and intelligence and honesty and honor to admit that they're not, rather than playin' Chicken Little. Sometimes softdrinks are just softdrinks, eh? Just buy two. What I really don't like is when summer camps use those really small glasses so yeh can't seem to ever get enough to drink. I don't reckon it's tyranny, though. Curiously, most of da urban high-crime areas don't reckon it's tyranny either. In fact, they tend to prefer a bit more government intervention.

 

So I'll stick by my broad-brush overview in a qualified way.

 

Now I know I'm probably pissin' into a northern gale, but let me suggest a few other things.

 

* Gun control does not come down to one simple question. How silly! Appropriate regulation of firearms is a complimicated thing with lots of questions, eh? Balancing different interest, accommodatin' different stakeholders, researchin' different approaches.

* Registering my guns would not erode my personal freedom a lick. No more than registering my car does.

* Homeland Security just consolidated agencies and streamlined reporting, eh? Outside of TSA, it wasn't a huge expansion.

* I trust myself, my neighbors, and my government with safety and lots of other things. My government is just da stuff I and my neighbors decided to work on together instead of separately. I reckon I learned that in Citizenship in da Nation MB back in the day.

* Nobody here dismissed da "pro-gun side" as unintelligent. I'll stick by my critique of those believin' in da imminent national apocalypse as bein' silly, though.

 

Now that we've got that straight, DeanRx, I think da multiple threads on da Scouter.Com forums have found quite a bit of common ground, eh? A lot of it goes substantially beyond any of da proposals that President Obama made, and some of it rejects his proposals.

 

I think most of us agree that da "assault weapons" ban on sales is silly, and da magazine size thing won't really work unless we get draconian like Basementdweller suggests.

 

I think most of us agree that encouraging research is a good thing.

 

I think most of us agree that da time for universal background checks has come.

 

I think almost all of us agree that mental health screening of some sort should be part of that universal background check system.

 

I think most of us are in favor of some form of education and proficiency stuff, tailored to da intended use.

 

Most of us believe unattended guns should be secured, especially if we have kids around.

 

Some of those things are infringements on personal freedom, eh? That's what we do a bit in order to be a part of a community. We give up some of our personal freedom in order to serve and strengthen and be a good citizen of that community. I gave up quite a bit of personal freedom when I married Mrs. Beavah, eh? So gettin' all hot and bothered about personal freedom to use drum mags in an AR15 seems a bit over da top. Doesn't compare at all to dealin' with in-laws.

 

Da problem as I see it is that what we've agreed on above ain't enough to stop the carnage of innocents, or even put much of a dent in it. It wouldn't have stopped Sandy Hook, and I know none of us ever want to see that on our screens again. So we have to keep workin' da problem. Guards in schools are goin' to be about as effective as an assault weapons ban, and more expensive. Da real issue with Sandy Hook is the kid gettin' access to mental health services, and the kid gettin' access to the weapons, and both mom and the kid seemin' to have low psychological barriers to usin' guns on people.

 

So how would yeh address those things, DeanRx?

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[acco40]

How about the death penalty for both the user and owner of any firearm used in a crime? That would act as an incentive for "responsible" gun owners to properly secure their weapons.

[acco40]

The problem I have is the infringement "laws" that restrict that right to law-abiding citizens and with a stroke of a pen turn them into criminals with no activity on their part.

 

Like the ownership of slaves?

 

Like the use of LSD?

 

Like having oral sex with a willing partner?

 

Like drinking beer?

 

Like texting while driving?

 

 

[acco40]

DeanRx - damn right. Them "revenuers" - next thing they'll take away is NASCAR!

[vol_scouter]

Beavah wrote:

 

"I think most of us agree that da "assault weapons" ban on sales is silly, and da magazine size thing won't really work unless we get draconian like Basementdweller suggests.

 

I think most of us agree that encouraging research is a good thing.

 

I think most of us agree that da time for universal background checks has come.

 

I think almost all of us agree that mental health screening of some sort should be part of that universal background check system.

 

I think most of us are in favor of some form of education and proficiency stuff, tailored to da intended use.

 

Most of us believe unattended guns should be secured, especially if we have kids around. "

 

Agree, there should not be a ban on semi-automatic weapons or clips and magazines.

Disagree on research because it will waste money and the answers will be pre-ordained.

Background checks are only for the law abiding citizens and do not hinder criminals. Heck, they can just buy them from the Obama Justice Dept.

Agree, we need to overhaul the entire mental health system. This is the only proposal that would have been likely to have prevented any of the mass shootings. Both the left and right oppose this. So the only thing that could help, hospitalizing the seriously mentally ill, will not occur.

Agree, have proposed that all children be taught gun safety and marksmanship.

There needs to be no new laws. All have a duty to protect children from harm or unreasonable temptation to do something dangerous (a easily accessible swimming pool for example). How I choose to do this is my business and not that of the federal government.

 

Beavah's attack on people who do not share his beliefs in many ways negates his arguments.

 

If you wish to infringe on my rights, then amend the constitution. It clearly states that the federal government cannot infringe the right to keep and bear arms. So quit trying to usurp our rights, follow the constitution, or quit talking about democracy because you do not practice it.

[Beavah]

Yah, vol_scouter, da actual Constitution says that da right to keep and bear arms is in support of a well regulated and trained militia. That right should not be broken, but da Congress in Article I is given full powers to regulate. That's just not da same as some of da other unqualified rights. Haven't we had enough of judicial activism readin' stuff into da Constitution that just isn't there?

 

If yeh want a truly unregulated right to bear arms as an individual, then amend the Constitution instead of tryin' to have da judiciary create new law out of the penumbra of the 2nd Amendment. But then yeh have to explain to me why some arms like military assault rifles are OK, but other arms like mortars, rocket-propelled grenades, shipboard cannon and cluster bombs dropped from my Beech Bonanza are not. Sometimes yeh just have to clear da deer off da runway, eh? All of 'em are arms, eh? The Amendment says arms, not guns. Why should it be restricted to guns? Private individuals and colonial militia had artillery and shipboard cannon at da time of the Founders. Private individuals had easy, unregistered access to dynamite until it was used to blow up an elementary school in Michigan and other crimes. Da Syrians are makin' grenade launchers out of modified shotguns, so why prohibit grenade launchers? If we're worried about tyranny or mob riots in suburban Tennessee, we might need 'em!

 

We also had a right to code duello as part of our personal right to bear arms back in the day. But da evil government took away our freedom to participate in duels. That might make for a more civil society, eh?

 

Yah, yah, I think some of that is just funny, eh? And I'm proposin' it as a joke, not an argument. But when yeh do public policy, yeh have to be mindful of unintended consequences, eh? What yeh seem to be proposing is truly an unlimited, unregulated right to bear arms. I've yet to hear anyone explain to me why under such a "right" high explosives, grenades, and the like are restricted. We'd need those arms to fend off federal tyranny, and it says "shall not be infringed!!" after all.

 

Just as an aside, da federal background check system blocks tens of thousands of firearm purchases a year, eh? So at least it seems to be doin' somethin'. If only we had some research instead of opinion on effectiveness. I agree, right now it doesn't stop all "criminals", because most of da recent criminals or folks who allowed their guns to be used by criminal relatives would have passed the background check. Da rest seem to be buyin' through straw sales or da gun show loophole. We're not seein' lots of imports and da theft rates aren't that high, eh? So they have to be comin' from somewhere.

 

So da federal background check system is doin' at least as well as the BSA background checks, probably better. Are yeh opposed to BSA background checks? An infringement on our liberty?

 

Beavah

[pchadbo]

 

"Da Constitution only empowers the federal government to call up the state militia / national guard in time of war or national emergency"

 

Beavah, respectfully, the US Supreme court disagrees with you. In Perpich v DOD they held: "Article I's plain language, read as a whole, establishes that Congress may authorize members of the National Guard of the United States to be ordered to active federal duty for purposes of training outside the United States without either the consent of a state governor or the declaration of a national emergency."

 

So they ARE a federal force, not a state force.

 

"How about the death penalty for both the user and owner of any firearm used in a crime? That would act as an incentive for "responsible" gun owners to properly secure their weapons."

 

Great, punish both the criminals and the victims of crime! Lets go back to stoning rape victims for not successfully defending their honor too. It must be the victim's fault right?

 

I am not opposed to beefing up that background checks to ensure that those who should not have access to firearms do not have it, I am also in favor of enforcing the laws on the books, but feel-good measures that are based on the looks not the functionality of weapons are not is what is called for. We as a society need to work together to find an intelligent well reasoned plan that protects the public and the Constiutional Rights of everyone.

[Beavah]

Sorry, pchadbo, but that's training, eh? Not active duty. Yeh have to view da ruling in context with other rulings and laws. Da National Guard is what it has always been, the reserve forces for national defense headquartered in the states, and da front-line forces under the command of the state governor for local defense.

 

Yah, I think we almost all agree that we should say "no" to feel-good measures like da assault weapons ban or armed guards in schools. They're a waste of everyone's time and money. Both of those proposals by President Obama should be declined.

 

Universal background checks and vigorous enforcement against straw sales/trafficking seem to have pretty broad support (except for vol_scouter ). Problem is that's not enough to solve da problem, any more than BSA background checks solve da problem of child molesters.

 

So what should be the components of our Gun Protection rules, and our Guide to Safe Gun Ownership? Da things like Youth Protection and G2SS that we put in place in addition to background checks?

 

Basementdweller, Twocubdad and others are just takin' their shot at "working together to find an intelligent, well reasoned plan". For that matter, so is President Obama, who today chastised some of da liberals:Up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time. Not the girls, but oftentime guests of mine go up there. And I have a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that trace back in this country for generations. And I think those who dismiss that out of hand make a big mistake. [The experience with guns in rural America differs dramatically from that in urban America]. If you grew up and your dad gave you a hunting rifle when you were 10, and you went out and spent the day with him and your uncles, and that became a part of your family's traditions, you can see why you'd be pretty protective of that.

So it's trying to bridge those gaps that I think is going to be part of the biggest task over the next several months. And that means that advocates of gun control have to do a little more listening than they do sometimes. -President Obama.

 

B

[DeanRx]

My solutions:

 

FIREARM RESTRICTIONS

1) You want a background check - fine.

2) You want a mental health eval - fine, more revenue generation for my profession... this would just result in a doctor shopping expirience for the MD that will give you a "Go" on the eval. What is the end result... sue the doctor that gives a pass to the individual that later commits a gun crime?

3) You want to restrict by type of gun or by magazine style / size... well good luck getting the gun ban through congress, it is political posturing. The magazine / rounds limit is a red herring at best.

4) You want to register all firearms - no way... registration is one step away from confiscation, besides those with criminal intent won't register anyways... it only keeps honest people honest and subjects them to infringement by their own government.

5) Some, if not most of the EO's signed by Obama are probably OK - they really don't do much but close some of the background check loopholes that should not have existed in the first place.

6) Tougher laws for crimes committed with a firearm - I'm all for it. One of the problems we have with gun violence in the US is the fact that first offenses where a gun is displayed or brandished, but not discharged in the commission of a crime are relatively light. If you faced an attempted murder charge just for possession of a firearm in the committing of a crime... might make a difference, maybe not.

 

MENTAL HEALTH CARE - this is where the potential for greatest impact lies, yet no one wants to discuss it...

1) What do ALL (not most, but every single one) of the mass shooters in the US have in common? Mental health issues! They don't all use the same gun, they don't all choose the same venue, but after the fact - there is at least one (and in most cases - SEVERAL) people who ID the shooter as being mentally unstable with a proclivity towards violence. Yet, we as a society do NOTHING about it.

2) Make it easier (or at least possible) to have people with severe mental disabilities and a violent tendency committed against their will by family members or health care professionals. This used to happen. It is now viewed as cruel and most folks who really need to be in a controlled environment institution are mainstreamed into society. Plus it costs $$ that most benefit managers (read insurance companies) do NOT want to spend... they'd rather

3) ID via family, healthcare workers, and law enforcement those with mental health issues that show a predisposition towards violence - AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT !!! If any research is done into the mass shooters in the US, most will be found to have had more 'minor' incidents of violent outbursts / acts PRIOR to the 'grand event'. We need to ID these folks and intervene BEFORE the episodes escalate.

4) We need to STOP the notion that once someone is given a diagnosis, it absolves them from personal responsibility. I see this ALL THE TIME in practice... Johnny can't help it, he's ADHD. Mary can't help it, she has personality affective disorder. Yeah, OK - maybe they really do - but it does NOT give them free range to act like a savage in society! Way too many parents get a diagnosis, then its an attitude of "Well, my child has been diagnosed X,Y,Z... its not their fault... there is nothing we can do about it..."

 

Here's a clue - From what we know (which is very little) Adam Lanza's mother had to QUIT her job to stay home and basically babysit her 20-something son because he couldn't function on his own. He is obviously bigger and stronger than his mother, but she (nor anybody else in a position to do something about it) thought it was a bad idea to have the living arrangement they had - with an arsenal of firearms in the house to boot! No matter of legislation is going to overcome piss poor judgement on the part of parents.

 

PHYSICAL SECURITY FOR PUBLIC AREAS - this is a tricky one...

1) I don't think armed guards in schools are a good idea or would help. I don't think armed pilots or TSA agents on board flights have done much either... but no data is availible - so how do we know?

2) Sinlge entry point and exit point for schools during the day - good idea. Need a double lock door system (i.e. one going into the school office - one going from office out into the school) where if one door is open, the other must be shut and locked. The front office staff at Sandy Hook would still be victims, but it might have stopped the gunman from accessing the remainder of the school. I think this is a very good idea... and can be implemented in most schools with minimal fiscal impact.

3) A deadbolt lock internal on ALL classroom doors. Once an alarm is sounded - all classrooms are locked and students 'shelter in place'. Most victims are targets of opportunity - so making a "harder target" should be the first priority. Again a pretty simple, cost effective solution that will do a LOT to deter the types of mass killing we are trying to avoid. Same thing with Theaters or places where other large crowds gather... fire safety doors must be on buildings, but if there was an alarm to alert the building manager that a door had been proped open... might have been a different outcome. Much better than armed citizens shooting it out in a crowded room, eh?

 

CHANGE THE ATTITUDE TOWARDS VIOLENCE - not sure what role this plays, or how best to go about it... but it couldn't hurt.

1) We need to stop glorifying violence in media. I fear that ship has sailed and I'm not sure what impact it has on desensitization of youth, but its worth a try...

2) Why is it the MPAA looks more sternly on movies that show a naked human form or a scene depicting sex, than one showing a human being violently killed or dismembered? My personal view is our puritian values, mixed with our gun culture have this viewpoint backwards... how is sex worse than killing in the media?

 

Sorry for the long post, but the furry lawyer asked what I would do... well this is it. Will it stop the next Columbine or Sandy Hook? I don't know. I wish there was some magic solution that if we just did that - we would KNOW it would never happen again.

 

The truth of the matter is - bad people will always find access to firearms and attempt to do harm. The best way to prevent this is to make ourselves a hard target, and second to meet the evil with weapons with good people with weapons...

 

As for NASCAR... I'm not even a fan Acco40

[JoeBob]

Dean,

 

I'm with you as far as you go.

 

I'd like to add discussion about the media self-regulating to NOT publish the names and pictures of shooters who think that they will be made famous if they kill enough people in their suicidal blaze of glory.

 

Is there enough evidence to convince news outlets that self-glorification was at least partially to blame for heinous acts?