If I could go back in time, I'd argue against the 2nd Amendment

[Julie]

I think the 2nd Amendment was a mistake and that it has caused more harm than good. I don't want guns outlawed, but I also do not think they should ever have been given Constitutional protection. I think they should be treated like any other item with good and bad points, and the arguments should have to stand for themselves instead of hiding behind 200 year old logic.

The framers weren't superbeings. In a number of ways, they were dumb as posts. Just because they thought something was important doesn't mean it was or is. And just because they thought something made sense doesn't mean it ever did or still does.

[Myrnalene]

I think the 2nd Amendment was a mistake and that it has caused more harm than good. I don't want guns outlawed, but I also do not think they should ever have been given Constitutional protection. I think they should be treated like any other item with good and bad points, and the arguments should have to stand for themselves instead of hiding behind 200 year old logic.

The framers weren't superbeings. In a number of ways, they were dumb as posts. Just because they thought something was important doesn't mean it was or is. And just because they thought something made sense doesn't mean it ever did or still does.

Please keep in mind that they were writing the Constitution at a time that wasn't that all far removed from the Revolution, and revolutionary ideas were still very strong. The belief that people should have the right to be armed, in part so they could defend their rights in case the government became despotic, was a cherished one.

You could make the argument that the 2nd Amendment has outgrown its usefulness, much like the electoral college. But I think it was a pretty fundamental point at the time it was written.

Myrnalene, Bit of a Founding Father Fangirl

[prr]

Yes, the specificity was an error. If they would have written that we have to have reasonable self-protection of our homes and property, rather than all that stuff about "arms" and "militia," then the courts would be much more free to restrict idiots from keeping hundreds of loaded weapons lying around their playpens and sandboxes.

[ivan astikov]

However necessary and relevant it was then, it seems 'traditionalism' at its most stupid to use it to refer to a society its writers couldn't possibly have envisaged.

[Chimera]

"A woman, arguing against the reasonable defense of Life & Liberty in a savage land? Preposterous!"

Let's not ascribe modern conditions and attitudes to past times. The past is a foreign country.

[Sarahfeena]

Yes, the specificity was an error. If they would have written that we have to have reasonable self-protection of our homes and property, rather than all that stuff about "arms" and "militia," then the courts would be much more free to restrict idiots from keeping hundreds of loaded weapons lying around their playpens and sandboxes.

I'm kind of scared right now, because I agree with prr completely. My main problem with gun control is that I believe that individuals have a right to do what they need to do to protect and defend themselves. I don't think it's reasonable to insist that they have to give up that control to someone else. Whether or not having a militia is going to do any good against a rogue government is highly debatable to say the least.

[mozg]

idiots from keeping hundreds of loaded weapons lying around their playpens and sandboxes.

You mind providing some proof that this is actually a problem?

[What Exit?]

Yes, the specificity was an error. If they would have written that we have to have reasonable self-protection of our homes and property, rather than all that stuff about "arms" and "militia," then the courts would be much more free to restrict idiots from keeping hundreds of loaded weapons lying around their playpens and sandboxes.

Belief, hyperbole or mocking the anti-gun position? I can't read you on this for sure but sounds like the last.

I don't own guns, I have never shot a gun and I believe in stricter waiting lists and registration but I will defend the rights of others to own guns and use them wisely and even in self-defense.

[ivan astikov]

idiots from keeping hundreds of loaded weapons lying around their playpens and sandboxes.

You mind providing some proof that this is actually a problem?

The father of the teenager in the school shooting in Germany the other day, was known to have 15 guns that his son was able to get access to, and then go out and cause mayhem.

How many other fathers do you think would never imagine their own child capable of doing such a thing, and leave their own firearms unsecured?

[xenophon41]

When the Bill of Rights was written, it really was possible to raise a civilian army using available arms and overthrow a despotic government. It had only been a few years since the colonies had done just that -helped of course by the French and by professional European soldiers with artillery, but largely with an army of homegrown forces. The BoR being largely a list of actions the government may not take to limit the rights of the populace, the framers may* have meant to assure the means of the people to revolt would not be removed from them.

From both our modern perspective and a more thoughtful perspective of the time, it may have made sense for them to have followed Jefferson's argument and prohibited the formation of a standing federal army in times of peace**. In any case, the right has been defined by the courts as an individual right to ownership of small arms, which is no longer considered by many to be a sufficient guard against state tyranny.

Fortunately, the founders installed the means for altering the Constitution, so that we don't have to look back with sad hindsight and think "if only..." We just have to get 38 states to agree on the "self protection" rewrite.***



*[sub:1r8rc703]I feel pretty sure about this one, but of course this is a matter of debate among those more scholarly than I... so YMMV.[/sub:1r8rc703]

**[sub:1r8rc703]"Times of peace" of course can be defined fairly creatively, and we've really not lacked excuses for conflict in our national history, so this mightn't have been quite as effective as Jefferson supposed.[/sub:1r8rc703]

***[sub:1r8rc703]I include myself in the category of those wishing for a more specific delineation in the 2nd.[/sub:1r8rc703]

[Sarahfeena]

I took prr to mean people who actually form militias and march around in the woods, rather than gun-collector types, but maybe I'm wrong.

[What Exit?]

idiots from keeping hundreds of loaded weapons lying around their playpens and sandboxes.

You mind providing some proof that this is actually a problem?

The father of the teenager in the school shooting in Germany the other day, was known to have 15 guns that his son was able to get access to, and then go out and cause mayhem.

How many other fathers do you think would never imagine their own child capable of doing such a thing, and leave their own firearms unsecured?

Obviously an irresponsible and idiotic gun owner and that is in a country with much tougher gun laws and no 2nd amendment. Most responsible gun owners and fathers I know, realize that their child might do something stupid with a loaded gun. I'm sure few would fear what you just described but the horror of the child accidental shooting himself or herself or a friend keeps most guns locked up for the multiple gun owners I know. In fact it seems to be more likely to be the owner that bought a single handgun for protection and lacks proper training that is most likely to leave it in a easy to access, insecure location, like under the bed. I think training and a basic test is an area that the NRA needs to give in on.

Of course you did not link the story, so maybe the father did take precautions that were bypassed.

[ivan astikov]

Of course you did not link the story, so maybe the father did take precautions that were bypassed.

Here ya go.

[What Exit?]

[quote=ivan astikov]

Of course you did not link the story, so maybe the father did take precautions that were bypassed.

Here ya go.[/quote:19nspbex]
Thank you for the link, it does not really show if the father was responsible or not. In fact it seems to be reporting hearsay.

[Chimera]

I have a serious issue with the whole "outrage" at the idea that a teenager has access to guns.

I got my first .22 rifle at the age of 12.
At 13, I passed hunter safety and bought my first shotgun.
At 14, we moved onto a farm and both of those guns were in my closet. I regularly took them out to shoot gophers and other pests.
My father's shotgun and deer rifle were in his closet, easily accessible.

I never, and still have never, shot another human being.

I'm goddamned tired of the moral outrage driven idea that we need to make the entire world child proof and remove everyone's rights in order to ensure that everyone is safe from every fucking thing that could possibly happen in this world.

[prr]

I thought it was my right as a gun-loving American to keep my Uzi collection (and assorted other baubles) loaded in various spots around my kid-infested home, a couple in the living room, a few near the entry points, and so on, so I can quickly arm myself, or any of the teenaged rabble who are hanging out, drinking and smoking crack with my deranged children, to repel any armed intruders who could barge in on a moment's notice. You mean to tell me otherwise? I've got rights, you know, spelled out right there in that gawsh-derned Constitution. I'm protected from your idiotic pacifistic interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, aren't I? Dern tootin' I am.

[Oakminster]

Don't like guns, don't have them. I'm keeping mine, whether you like it or not.

[mozg]

idiots from keeping hundreds of loaded weapons lying around their playpens and sandboxes.

You mind providing some proof that this is actually a problem?

The father of the teenager in the school shooting in Germany the other day, was known to have 15 guns that his son was able to get access to, and then go out and cause mayhem.

How many other fathers do you think would never imagine their own child capable of doing such a thing, and leave their own firearms unsecured?

I don't know how many guys my father had, but I can tell you it was over 50. I had access to them for the entire 18 years I lived with my parents. I bought my first two guns when I was 12 years old, so that I could hunt. I bought 16 gauge shotgun and a .280 Remington rifle.

Wanna venture a guess at how many people I've shot?

The kid in Germany? That's what we call an anecdote. Actual incidents of school shootings are extremely rare. The reason the media makes such a big deal out of them is because they are rare. As they say, dog bites man is not news. Man bites dog, now that's news.

So, I'm still waiting for proof that there is actually a problem that is directly linked to regular, law abiding citizens keeping multiple firearms in their homes. Then, you guys can go about proving that the problem needs to be solved, and that your proposal will solve it.

[Julie]

Then, you guys can go about proving that the problem needs to be solved, and that your proposal will solve it.

What proposal is that?

[Chimera]

The kid in Germany? That's what we call an anecdote. Actual incidents of school shootings are extremely rare. The reason the media makes such a big deal out of them is because they are rare. As they say, dog bites man is not news. Man bites dog, now that's news.

About twenty years ago, there was a wave of high school suicides in the weathly southwestern suburbs of Minneapolis. With each new one, the media coverage grew larger and more hysterical. And every time they had some multi-page coverage in the newspaper and pack of news cameras at a funeral, there would be several more suicides.

Finally, a group of concerned parents, including the parents of some of the victims, organized and began going after the media. They told the media that they should stop being so shrill, they should stop being so hysterical, they should stop the excessive coverage of every death, the hand-wringing discussions and the interviews with hack psychiatrists. JUST STOP.

The local media heeded their wishes and in very short order, the wave of suicides came to an end.

What does this mean?

It means that 50 or 100 years ago when something like this happened, it may have been local news, but it wasn't covered 24/7 by every media outlet in the world. We didn't have Dr. Phil or Dr. Nick showing up on TV wringing their hands over what a huge tragedy it was and how we were all SUPPOSED to be traumatized by it (see also my comments in previous posts about how kids are perfectly fine until their skittish mom TELLS them they're supposed to be traumatized by events).

And we wouldn't have fifty copycat events taking place all over the world either.

So is the problem the free and easy access to guns? No, we've always had that. Therefore the solution is not to confiscate all the guns and wrap everyone in a protective cocoon. The solution is to stop advertising these events on a worldwide scale and telling everyone that they're supposed to be traumatized by them.


Oh, and prr, was there supposed to be something productive in that, or were you just being a jerk?

[mozg]

Then, you guys can go about proving that the problem needs to be solved, and that your proposal will solve it.

What proposal is that?

The implied sentiment that firearms should be either so heavily regulated that law abiding people cannot get one unless they are very rich, or that they should just be banned outright.

There have been a couple of posters in this thread who suggested that free access to firearms is a problem. It is logical to think that their 'solution' would be the opposite of that.

[Julie]

The implied sentiment that firearms should be either so heavily regulated that law abiding people cannot get one unless they are very rich, or that they should just be banned outright.

So you mean the proposal you pulled out of your ass. Got it.

[prr]

Oh, and prr, was there supposed to be something productive in that...?

I don't know. Was there a part of it you disagreed with? Did I say something that a gun owner can't say?

[Chimera]

Not worth taking to the Thunderdome. Just consider it a point made, but now how you think it was made.

[danceswithcats]

I'm disappointed by arguments on both sides. While I support the right of an individual to carry a firearm for self-protection, and/or keep a firearm in their home and/or place of business, I'm not opposed to longer purchase waiting periods and more stringent background checks.

My rights aren't being infringed if a background check is conducted prior to completing a firearm sale, or if a flag is raised because I've purchased a half dozen weapons in the last month, as that could identify me as a straw purchaser.

Likewise, draconian restrictions on lawful gun ownership will accomplish naught regarding crime reduction. I don't think a person who wants to rob the Dollar Store will be dissuaded because he lacks a concealed carry permit.

[Clayton_e]

People are people, and people make mistakes.

Fine if you want to keep some sort of weapon for security. I wouldn't want to be defenseless if I had reason to fear people barging into my house and killing me.

Its too old to google, I guess, but here in the town I live a college student was going to a friend's house late at night after going out to the bars. He mistook one house for another and knocked loudly on a door in the early hours of the morning. When told to leave he knocked again loudly. After being told to leave again he walked away and was promptly shot in the back at point blank range by a 12 gauge shotgun, he didn't even know it happened. The shotgun was wielded by an old guy who everyone who knew thought was a little off. At the trial he claimed he thought it was unloaded and the "click" of the trigger would scare the kid. He got off with probation, IIRC. I remember he got no jail time (the lawyer begged because of the guy's age, he was elderly).

I suggest a burglar alarm, a taser, some pepper spray, and a dog. At least if you end up losing your mind somewhere down the road in a few decades the worst you could do is pepper spray the mailman.

[erislover]

When the Bill of Rights was written, it really was possible to raise a civilian army using available arms and overthrow a despotic government. It had only been a few years since the colonies had done just that -helped of course by the French and by professional European soldiers with artillery, but largely with an army of homegrown forces. The BoR being largely a list of actions the government may not take to limit the rights of the populace, the framers may* have meant to assure the means of the people to revolt would not be removed from them.

I think this is the most interesting aspect of the 2nd, and its current wishy-washy interpretation. On one hand, the weapons a person can own (small arms stuff, as you say) would be sufficient to overthrow a government then but not a government now. On the other hand, the standing army of today is not the standing army of yesteryear, either. I'm not particularly concerned about the US military suddenly imposing a curfew across the nation in the wake of sudden totaltarianism.

So in a way, the 2nd is a big mess. I, personally, take it to mean that the average citizen should have the tools at his or her disposal to allow the citizenry to overthrow the government should the need arise. I think that's the intent there. Yet I do not own any kind of gun anyway, because I don't think that we're in any danger of falling into the kind of situation where I think citizens need to be armed.

In any case, the right has been defined by the courts as an individual right to ownership of small arms, which is no longer considered by many to be a sufficient guard against state tyranny.

It wouldn't serve us against a foreign invader, maybe, but there'd be a totally different psychology, I think, when Johnny comes marching home to shoot people he grew up with who are shooting back. (Not that this stopped the Civil War.)

Fortunately, the founders installed the means for altering the Constitution, so that we don't have to look back with sad hindsight and think "if only..." We just have to get 38 states to agree on the "self protection" rewrite.***

Yeah.

[mozg]

While I support the right of an individual to carry a firearm for self-protection, and/or keep a firearm in their home and/or place of business, I'm not opposed to longer purchase waiting periods and more stringent background checks.

What purpose does the waiting period currently server? It used to be that the waiting period was the period during which the background check was conducted. Now, nationally there is NICS and in Pennsylvania there is PICS.

PICS is the Pennsylvania Instant Check System. It covers the NICS database as well as the state database. It takes five minutes to get the approval number. What then is the reason to make the purchaser wait an additional number of days to take possession of the property for which they have already paid, and been approved to purchase?

[xenophon41]

Fortunately, the founders installed the means for altering the Constitution, so that we don't have to look back with sad hindsight and think "if only..." We just have to get 38 states to agree on the "self protection" rewrite.***

Yeah.

Hi erl!!

I hope you caught that I was being just a bit sardonically upbeat there on the amendment process.

[danceswithcats]

While I support the right of an individual to carry a firearm for self-protection, and/or keep a firearm in their home and/or place of business, I'm not opposed to longer purchase waiting periods and more stringent background checks.

What purpose does the waiting period currently server? It used to be that the waiting period was the period during which the background check was conducted. Now, nationally there is NICS and in Pennsylvania there is PICS.

PICS is the Pennsylvania Instant Check System. It covers the NICS database as well as the state database. It takes five minutes to get the approval number. What then is the reason to make the purchaser wait an additional number of days to take possession of the property for which they have already paid, and been approved to purchase?

Very well. My post was based upon my most recent purchase, which was a number of years ago. I dealt with a gun shop owned by a police officer and his wife, and they had a sign posted stating that it took several days for the County Sheriff to process purchase paperwork, as well as ATF, so if you wanted a faster turnaround time, buy elsewhere. I couldn't fault the logic, and was willing to wait. Thank you for the updated information.

[mozg]

Very well. My post was based upon my most recent purchase, which was a number of years ago. I dealt with a gun shop owned by a police officer and his wife, and they had a sign posted stating that it took several days for the County Sheriff to process purchase paperwork, as well as ATF, so if you wanted a faster turnaround time, buy elsewhere. I couldn't fault the logic, and was willing to wait. Thank you for the updated information.

Totally understandable if you haven't purchased a firearm since the instant check system became the way that it's done.

Last time I did one, I went to the store and filled out the forms (4473 and the one for PA), and the dealer called the PICS phone number on the speaker phone. After he gave my name and driver's license number, the system returned my SSN and address. A couple of minutes later, it gave an approval number which had to go on the forms.

I wouldn't want someone to buy a gun before the background check was complete, but I didn't know you were basing that on a prior-to-PICS frame of reference.

[Dragon]

I don't worry too much about the Commies.
I don't worry too much about our government but that is subject to change.
Now guys that look like I do and are not nice people, them I do worry about.

I wish they would only take all the guns from people 65 and over, who live alone and more than a quarter mile from the nearest neighbor. :: I would have so much neat stuff in a week or less that I would be really in hog heaven.. :: < VEG >

[Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

PICS is the Pennsylvania Instant Check System. It covers the NICS database as well as the state database. It takes five minutes to get the approval number. What then is the reason to make the purchaser wait an additional number of days to take possession of the property for which they have already paid, and been approved to purchase?

The reason to require a few extra days is in order to stop people from buying a gun in order to do something rash,like robbing a convenience store or killing themselves, without a little time to think it over. Or,at least, that was Bradley's defense when he was harping on wait-times

I don't know if there have been any studies to determine the efficacy of delay, though. And I definitely don't see how it's constitutional. As a gun-owner, though, I'd be happy to submit to wait-times, if anti-gun nuts would let it end there.

[erislover]

I hope you caught that I was being just a bit sardonically upbeat there on the amendment process.

I believe the phrase is, "It's not impossible."

[mozg]

PICS is the Pennsylvania Instant Check System. It covers the NICS database as well as the state database. It takes five minutes to get the approval number. What then is the reason to make the purchaser wait an additional number of days to take possession of the property for which they have already paid, and been approved to purchase?

The reason to require a few extra days is in order to stop people from buying a gun in order to do something rash,like robbing a convenience store or killing themselves, without a little time to think it over. Or,at least, that was Bradley's defense when he was harping on wait-times

And Bradley's argument was stupid even then. People don't walk into a federally licensed gun shop and fill out the necessary paperwork to get a gun so that they can go rob a convenience store or a bank the same day. Of those who do want to amass legally purchased firearms to put them to illegal use, waiting periods don't seem to stop them. John Hinckley, who today claims that a waiting period (the Brady Bill that was pushed through after his attempt to assassinate Reagan) actually bought the gun he used months before shooting the President. He was subjected to a background check, which he passed, because he had no public record of mental illness.

Laurie Dann, Patrick Purdy and Mark David Chapman all acquired firearms by going through the waiting period (in the case of Purdy, 15 days) and then committing their crimes.

Waiting periods don't stop crimes. At best, they delay a Chapman type killer for a couple of weeks. At worst, they end up with a Bonnie Elmasri and her two children dead.

What you do see, and I admit these cases are very rare, is the extremely occasional woman who leaves her abusive husband and wants to get a gun for protection. She buys it, and he kills her before she can go pick it up.

Congressional Record[/i], May 8, 1991, pp. H 2859, H 2862]For example, in 1991 Wisconsin resident Bonnie Elmasri, seeking to purchase a firearm for protection from a husband who had repeatedly threatened to kill her, was told she would have to wait 48 hours to obtain the weapon. Unfortunately, 48 hours was too long to wait; the abusive husband killed Bonnie and her two children the next day.

I don't know if there have been any studies to determine the efficacy of delay, though. And I definitely don't see how it's constitutional. As a gun-owner, though, I'd be happy to submit to wait-times, if anti-gun nuts would let it end there.

Other than John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime, there are a few papers on the web that tackle the argument.

David B. Kopel[/b] Why Gun Waiting Periods Threaten Public Safety]Although the academics have never found any statistically significant effect from waiting periods, it would be incorrect to conclude that waiting periods accomplish nothing. The following section reports results in several jurisdictions that already have waiting periods. The particular jurisdictions discussed were selected because: 1. The police have compiled and released data for that jurisdiction; and 2. The jurisdiction is cited as a success story by Handgun Control, Inc; 3. Data is available to test the veracity of the figures from the police or HCI. The data shows that: 1.Some people with criminal or mental records do attempt retail gun purchases, and are stopped by a background check, 2. Handgun Control, Inc. consistently overstates the efficacy of the background check in its model jurisdictions.

From here

One of the reasons that I find it is folly to give in to demands of HCI and other anti-gun groups is that they always say this is the last inch they want. So you give it to them. Then they ask for another mile, and say you're unreasonable for not meeting them in the middle.

[Sarahfeena]

One of the reasons that I find it is folly to give in to demands of HCI and other anti-gun groups is that they always say this is the last inch they want. So you give it to them. Then they ask for another mile, and say you're unreasonable for not meeting them in the middle.

That's exactly right...it's what always happens when you are trying to solve problems by controling society. People perceive a problem...that murders are committed with guns, for instance...and they look for a solution, which is usually the one that seems the least complex or most obvious. Make guns illegal, and they won't be used to murder people, right? Simple. Except, they can't get rid of guns altogether, so they put restrictions on them. When their solution doesn't work for whatever reason, they don't then assume that their premise was wrong (that making guns illegal means they won't be used to murder people), they assume that the regulations weren't strong enough. So they make more regulations. Still, the problem isn't solved. So they make more regulations. And so on. Problem's never solved, but at least they feel like they were addressing it.

[prr]

One of the reasons that I find it is folly to give in to demands of HCI and other anti-gun groups is that they always say this is the last inch they want. So you give it to them. Then they ask for another mile, and say you're unreasonable for not meeting them in the middle.

That's exactly right...it's what always happens when you are trying to solve problems by controling society. People perceive a problem...that murders are committed with guns, for instance...and they look for a solution, which is usually the one that seems the least complex or most obvious. Make guns illegal, and they won't be used to murder people, right? Simple. Except, they can't get rid of guns altogether, so they put restrictions on them. When their solution doesn't work for whatever reason, they don't then assume that their premise was wrong (that making guns illegal means they won't be used to murder people), they assume that the regulations weren't strong enough. So they make more regulations. Still, the problem isn't solved. So they make more regulations. And so on. Problem's never solved, but at least they feel like they were addressing it.

Which is a great argument for the efficiency of anarchy.

Which I don't think you support.

It's laws you don't like that are imperfect you want to do away with. The ones you like that don't have perfect results, well, those can stand.

[Sarahfeena]

One of the reasons that I find it is folly to give in to demands of HCI and other anti-gun groups is that they always say this is the last inch they want. So you give it to them. Then they ask for another mile, and say you're unreasonable for not meeting them in the middle.

That's exactly right...it's what always happens when you are trying to solve problems by controling society. People perceive a problem...that murders are committed with guns, for instance...and they look for a solution, which is usually the one that seems the least complex or most obvious. Make guns illegal, and they won't be used to murder people, right? Simple. Except, they can't get rid of guns altogether, so they put restrictions on them. When their solution doesn't work for whatever reason, they don't then assume that their premise was wrong (that making guns illegal means they won't be used to murder people), they assume that the regulations weren't strong enough. So they make more regulations. Still, the problem isn't solved. So they make more regulations. And so on. Problem's never solved, but at least they feel like they were addressing it.

Which is a great argument for the efficiency of anarchy.

Which I don't think you support.

It's laws you don't like that are imperfect you want to do away with. The ones you like that don't have perfect results, well, those can stand.

I've been trying to figure out how gun laws apply to what you're saying. I have no personal reason for disliking gun laws, considering that I've never touched one in my life. And I'm generally against "control the populace" kinds of laws in general. I have less of a problem in general of those that are passed at the local level, but I tend not to support them where I live. So, it would be nice if you wouldn't jump to conclusions about my opinions on these matters, if you wouldn't mind.

[Sarahfeena]

I should add that it's not so much that I want laws that have perfect results. I just think that if you are going to restrict the rights of individuals to do as they please, you'd better have a damn good reason. And "we think it might work" doesn't really cut it for me.

[prr]

What I'm trying to say, Sarah, is there's something wrong with the argument that says "If a law doesn't make the crime it addresses vanish overnight, it's ineffective and so should be repealed" (which I think you were making about gun laws). So what if gun laws don't make this country 100% safe AND guns as accessible as the most enthusiastic gun enthusiasist would like, simultaneously? That's no reason to declare the law useless. Are anti-bank robbery laws effective in preventing every bank robbery from occuring and also making your own personal banking a friendly, free, and pleasant experience? No, but they work most times in preventing you from saying "Stick em up, I have a gub" every time you run low on cash, and that's what they're designed for. Sometimes you have to add codicils to laws (most times, actually, to fine tune the law).

But you seem to want to strike from books any law that needs tweaking--"Do away with it, it's complicated, it's confusing, you need three years of law school to understand it--and IT DOESN'T ALWAYS WORK ANYWAY!" is the conservative position against lawmaking, applied mainly to laws that conservatives don't like. Oddly enough, though, they're usually fine with laws that are completely ineffective but which address their own issues, like laws that make abortion illegal. If I say, "But people will still have abortions, they'll do it under more dangerous conditions, or fly to nearby countries with abortion clinics, so you won't be preventing that many abortions anyway, just the safe and low-cost abortions" you'd think I'd stuck a skewer in anti-abortion activists. They go "Quantity doesn't matter. It's a good law. Even if it costs a fortune to prosecute, no one understands it completely, and millions of abortions happen anyway. It's a good law!"

[Sarahfeena]

Are you arguing against the "conservative position" or are you arguing against what I've said here? I'm generally not in favor of laws that restrict the rights of individuals to do as they please. Which may be contrary to what the Republicans are up to these days, but as hard as I try, I can't make them listen to me.

Where I'm not getting your analogy with the anti-bank robbing laws is this: in what way is making it illegal to rob banks restricting the rights of anyone other than bank robbers? Again, if you want to restrict the activites of citizens who have no intent to harm anyone, then you need to have more than a guess that the action may actually address the problem that other folks are creating. Folks who have no regard for the rule of law, anyway, BTW, and are not likely to care if the gun they are using is illegally obtained or not.

[ivan astikov]

What you do see, and I admit these cases are very rare, is the extremely occasional woman who leaves her abusive husband and wants to get a gun for protection. She buys it, and he kills her before she can go pick it up.

Congressional Record[/i], May 8, 1991, pp. H 2859, H 2862]For example, in 1991 Wisconsin resident Bonnie Elmasri, seeking to purchase a firearm for protection from a husband who had repeatedly threatened to kill her, was told she would have to wait 48 hours to obtain the weapon. Unfortunately, 48 hours was too long to wait; the abusive husband killed Bonnie and her two children the next day.

If these cases are 'very rare', why mention them?

If a person's relationship has gone so far down the pan that you have to buy a gun 'for protection', shouldn't you really have got your kids out of that situation earlier? If she'd got her gun on the day, and shot her husband in front of the kids, would all have been fine and dandy?

[Shodan]

If a person's relationship has gone so far down the pan that you have to buy a gun 'for protection', shouldn't you really have got your kids out of that situation earlier?

She did try to do that - that's why he murdered all three of them.

If she'd got her gun on the day, and shot her husband in front of the kids, would all have been fine and dandy?

Fine and dandy? No. Better than having all three murdered? Most rational people would say so.

Regards,
Shodan

[prr]

Make guns illegal, and they won't be used to murder people, right? Simple. Except, they can't get rid of guns altogether, so they put restrictions on them. When their solution doesn't work for whatever reason, they don't then assume that their premise was wrong (that making guns illegal means they won't be used to murder people), they assume that the regulations weren't strong enough. So they make more regulations. Still, the problem isn't solved. So they make more regulations. And so on. Problem's never solved, but at least they feel like they were addressing it.

This reads to me--tell me if I'm wrong--that you think that anti-gun laws are already too complex and still not perfectly effective ("So they make more regulations. Still, the problem isn't solved. So they make more regulations"). Am I correct in thinking that you'd rather have NO gun laws in preference to imperfect ones? Because that's how I read the above post.

[ivan astikov]

If a person's relationship has gone so far down the pan that you have to buy a gun 'for protection', shouldn't you really have got your kids out of that situation earlier?

She did try to do that - that's why he murdered all three of them.

If she'd got her gun on the day, and shot her husband in front of the kids, would all have been fine and dandy?

Fine and dandy? No. Better than having all three murdered? Most rational people would say so.

If you could prove to me that killing her husband would have been the solution to all her and her children's problems, I'd be more convinced.

Someone so weak she allowed her situation to get that bad she needed a gun to feel safe, would be a little unlikely to bounce right back after shooting her husband. Say her kids were fucked up by seeing their mum do this and went on to be problems themselves, would that be better than them being dead?

[Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

If you could prove to me that killing her husband would have been the solution to all her and her children's problems, I'd be more convinced.

It sure would have been a solution to the whole 'Daddy's a psychotic maniac trying to kill us' issue.

Someone so weak she allowed her situation to get that bad she needed a gun to feel safe, would be a little unlikely to bounce right back after shooting her husband. Say her kids were fucked up by seeing their mum do this and went on to be problems themselves, would that be better than them being dead?

Are you really suggesting that this woman and her children were better off dead than being survivors of abuse?

[ivan astikov]

Than being survivors of abuse who then go on to fuck up others lives, yes.

But only suggesting, and not with any great conviction.

Like in one of those hypothetical questions where you are asked if you would push Hitler's baby buggy in front of a bus, if you were whisked back in time.

[Glazer]

When the Bill of Rights was written, it really was possible to raise a civilian army using available arms and overthrow a despotic government. It had only been a few years since the colonies had done just that -helped of course by the French and by professional European soldiers with artillery, but largely with an army of homegrown forces. The BoR being largely a list of actions the government may not take to limit the rights of the populace, the framers may* have meant to assure the means of the people to revolt would not be removed from them.

From both our modern perspective and a more thoughtful perspective of the time, it may have made sense for them to have followed Jefferson's argument and prohibited the formation of a standing federal army in times of peace**. In any case, the right has been defined by the courts as an individual right to ownership of small arms, which is no longer considered by many to be a sufficient guard against state tyranny.

Fortunately, the founders installed the means for altering the Constitution, so that we don't have to look back with sad hindsight and think "if only..." We just have to get 38 states to agree on the "self protection" rewrite.***



*[sub:1p72m4ab]I feel pretty sure about this one, but of course this is a matter of debate among those more scholarly than I... so YMMV.[/sub:1p72m4ab]

**[sub:1p72m4ab]"Times of peace" of course can be defined fairly creatively, and we&#39;ve really not lacked excuses for conflict in our national history, so this mightn&#39;t have been quite as effective as Jefferson supposed.[/sub:1p72m4ab]

***[sub:1p72m4ab]I include myself in the category of those wishing for a more specific delineation in the 2nd.[/sub:1p72m4ab]

It is still possible for a populous to overthrow a tyrannical government. Even an unarmed populous. Just look to the U.S.S.R. in '89. When enough of the people have had enough, there is nothing a government can do except kill them all. Having an armed populous means not having to put up with nearly as much shit.

[eleanorigby]

I find I can't talk about this stuff because of the response given by the pro-gun folks. "Anecdote" my ass. These are REAL people who are hurt, maimed or dead by gun use and misuse. You all tout how "safe" guns make you feel (and that is how they are advertised to women), but gun safety gets lost somewhere in there. There is no denying that a gun makes any situation more dangerous--even among people who have excellent safety records and are responsible etc. I would love to rewrite the 2nd amendment, but I am not sure how to frame it.

If the NRA would come out and just admit that guns can and do cause some major problems in this country/culture and that they are going to get aggressive about gun education and safety, then I'll believe (or have more faith in) those people who turn purple as soon as the 2nd amendment is mentioned. I am so sick of the shrill "anti-gun nut" characterization. I don't want to take away your precious penis substitute (see? I can be just as offensive!). I want sane, sensible laws in place. Maybe Chris Rock is right: make guns easily available and make bullets almost impossible to get...

No one needs an automatic weapon in every day life. No layperson, anyway. You don't NEED it--you want it. That's different. We live in a violent culture, which I heartily deplore. Too many people think that a gun is a way to solve problems. Where is the outrage when a child is killed by their Daddy's gun? There is none. The NRA says it's "anecdotes" and that it's "rare". How about ONE death is one death too many from such a cause? And the stories about how this one or that one had guns in their cribs etc are anecdotes, too-- useless in the debate because as always, MMV.

I think we need to legislate something very like the seatbelt laws. Your "right" to travel through your windshield or through the vehicle does not extend to me getting hit by your flying body in or outside the car. There is also the cost of health care and rehab for such people, born by us as well (whether directly through those who don't have insurance or by increased premiums due to the high cost of such care passed on to us), so we enforce seatbelt laws. I have no answers, but I am disgusted by the position of the NRA--it seems to be a bastion of paranoia and hostility, instead of a center for education and moderation.

[mozg]

These are REAL people who are hurt, maimed or dead by gun use and misuse.

It took me one Google search to find the name of someone who died alongside her children because of gun control laws. Those are real people too, eleanor.

You all tout how "safe" guns make you feel (and that is how they are advertised to women), but gun safety gets lost somewhere in there.

You have obviously never been to a firing range, or a defensive firearms class, or any firearms safety class. You've based your fears on misinformation, and you've let your ignorance on this subject drive you. That is a shame.

There is no denying that a gun makes any situation more dangerous--even among people who have excellent safety records and are responsible etc.

And I'm sure you're about to back that up with some facts.

If the NRA would come out and just admit that guns can and do cause some major problems in this country/culture and that they are going to get aggressive about gun education and safety, then I'll believe (or have more faith in) those people who turn purple as soon as the 2nd amendment is mentioned.

The NRA should never admit something that isn't true. Guns don't cause problems in this country. Poverty, overcrowding, the lack of stable family structures, gangs and the illicit drug trade cause problems. People with problems get violent, and guns happen to be one of the tools they use.

I want sane, sensible laws in place. Maybe Chris Rock is right: make guns easily available and make bullets almost impossible to get...

Chris Rock is a comedian and an actor. I would no more ask him for firearms advice than I would ask my gunsmith about how to make a career in Hollywood.

No one needs an automatic weapon in every day life. No layperson, anyway. You don't NEED it--you want it.

I'm under no obligation to prove need for everything I buy. Interesting, though, that you immediately jumped on fully automatic weapons that are extremely expensive, hard to obtain legally, and have only been used in one crime since 1934.

And that one was police owned.

Where is the outrage when a child is killed by their Daddy's gun? There is none.

Accidental firearm deaths of children are extremely rare, and when one happens it is almost guaranteed to be national news. The reason you're not seeing all the outrage over such deaths is there really aren't that many of them to be outraged about.

How about ONE death is one death too many from such a cause?

One death from drowning backyard swimming pools is too many. One death from bicycle accidents is too many. One death from getting hit with a baseball in little league is too many.

Do you know how ridiculous it is to go down that path?

I have no answers, but I am disgusted by the position of the NRA--it seems to be a bastion of paranoia and hostility, instead of a center for education and moderation.

As opposed to your obvious firearms and firearms safety expertise and your logical, rational approach to the subject?

You're completely ignorant of firearms, firearms laws, firearms safety, organizations that teach firearms safety, the actual prevalence of firearms deaths with respect to children, the prevalence of fully automatic firearms in criminal acts, and have not even got a basic understanding of the topic at hand. I could almost deal with your opinions if they came out of someone who had any knowledge whatsoever of what she was talking about. However, it's really clear that you have nothing but fear and ignorance. I don't even know where to begin correcting your misconceptions.

Than being survivors of abuse who then go on to fuck up others lives, yes.

There's really no common ground to start from when someone thinks a person is better off having been murdered than surviving abuse.

People can recover from a lot of things and go on to have happy, productive, well-adjusted lives.

Murder is not one of those things.