The NRA stonewalls debate
Wikimedia Commons
By Charlie Perry
I am a gun owner and have a concealed handgun permit. I do not think our governing body is trying to take my guns away from me. However, the National Rifle Association would like for me and you to believe otherwise.
If the NRA would return to its original reason for existing, we could have much better national dialogues about guns in general, specific types of guns, gun magazines, ammunition and gun safety. Prior to 1977, these, along with marksmanship, were the concerns of the NRA.
Perry is a retired U S. Navy chief. He lives in Callaway.
February 11, 2013 - 6:15 AM
So at what point do you as a gun owner give up your guns and right to own them just because some liberal in Washington DC thinks it will solve a crime problem? I am not a member of the NRA but I want the most strongest voice available to protect the 2nd amendment and my right to keep a firearm. The NRA is not stonewalling the debate. Without the NRA there WOULD BE NO DEBATE. SO Mr Perry if you think a debate is entirely one sided then you need to go back to school and see what true debate really is.
Sorry, you missed the point, Potstech. You saw the word “debate” in the headline and proceeded from there. (The choice of the wording for the headline was The Roanoke Times editors, not mine.) Potstech, this is not high school and we are not debating to see who can rack up the most points. What’s at stake are our children, not some shinny trophy. First, and what I tried to get across in my article, we need to see the real problems and then have open discussions about them. We do not need any entity trying to stifle the conversation.
Mr. Perry, with all due respect, is the debate limited to those children killed by guns? Can we include, as part of a dialog and debate, those lives – including those of children – whose lives have been saved by guns? Is the 2nd Amendment and its intent – an armed citizenry – not a part of the debate? If the NRA (and no, I am neither a gun owner nor an NRA member) were removed from the debate, what would change?
IMO, “the most strongest voice available to protect the 2nd amendment” and anything else in the Constitution is to stay in the favor of the American people. While there is no legislative effort to disarm this nation, there are many of us who believe that a) the Constitution we revere does protect the right to have arms, there is no Constitutional right to any arm you want. Never has been.
The fact that you can also lose your rights, no matter how God given and precious should tell us all something too. Our society will uphold and protect the right to own guns, up until your right to own guns causes more carnage than this nation will stand. Sensible, comprehensive gun control laws can protect citizens and law abiding gun owners both.
The NRA is not interested in ending the carnage, they are interested in keeping the system that makes it easy for gun owners and gun sellers. Trouble is, that system also makes it easy for criminals. Until gun owners trust the Constitution and work WITH us for sane laws, their rights will remain in danger for someday, enough will be enough. You mark my words.
Well said Charlie Perry!
4 – but you lose those rights only through a due process, Sandi, based on a criminal act. Having them removed by fiat is not what the Founding Fathers wanted and establishes a dangerous precedent.
I don’t think the NRA should remove itself from a national dialogue but what may happen is that others will just start ignoring it just because it only sings one song. As to your other questions, 89Hoo: I don’t think we should limit the conversation but we should make every effort to distinguish between constructive and destructive contributions to a national dialogue. Each of us should avoid making straw man and slippery slope arguments, and we should point them out when we hear or see them. The problem in the country is not guns in general. The problem is how do we deal with specific types of guns, gun magazines, ammunition, gun safety and, I might add, keeping guns out of the wrong hands.
7 – I would argue the problem is not guns, specific types of guns, magazines, ammo, etc., but criminals. I also think we owe it to society to take a real hard look at some of the mind-altering prescription drugs that all these mass killers seem to be taking. That is a commonality that should not be ignored, but I hear little discussion amongst the mainstream.
It is not a straw man argument to point out that criminals do not obey laws (it’s pointing out the obvious), and that it would be foolish to expect them to obey other laws.
It is not a straw man argument to point out that banning anything does not solve the intended problem (see bans on alcohol during Prohibition, bans on drugs now) and only bring on unintended consequences, specifically more crime, and absolutely no impact on the use of those banned substances, as it just created a black market for those substances. It is not a strawman, then, to point out that a ban on guns (whether partial, targeted, whatever you want to call it) will not only NOT impact crime and gun violence, but will likely INCREASE it as a black market for guns is created. It’s a supply and demand thing.
It is also not a strawman to discuss original intent of the Founding Fathers.
Now, as I said, I don’t follow the NRA, so I can’t address their arguments specifically…but what arguments are they making that fall outside of the non-strawman arguments noted above?
Enacting legislation IS “due process” too. It is perfectly acceptable action and it is not “by fiat”. An Executive Order is also not considered to be “by fiat” as long as it is under the purview of the Executive’s power. You not liking something does not make it “by fiat”.
My point about being able to lose a right was that the precedent is set for doing so, not what that process is. There were rights granted and also rights not granted in the “original” Constitution that have since been “amended”. It is well within the purview of our society to do and unless the gun advocates work with it as opposed to always against everything, they may find themselves on the wrong side of history some day. Everything has a tipping point.
89Hoo, what do you mean when you say “lives have been saved by guns“? In what situation have lives been saved by guns that were not threatened by guns would be my specific question.
10 – Sandi, there have been many situations where homeowners have protected themselves and their families and property. The case of the woman in Georgia just last month comes immediately to mind. Is your memory seriously that short
9 – no, Sandi, it’s not. Due process requires assumption of innocence, and legislation that arbitrarily declares a segment of the population as criminals without a trial by a jury of peers, without evidence, stands that principle on its head. And establishes a dangerous precedent.
And Sandi, the Bill of Rights granted no rights… the set in stone, acknowledged, existing rights that could not be taken away by the government. In that very real sense they limit the powers of the national government.
No, who could forget the chilling “Shoot him again!” My argument was not against self defense, my question was in what situation have lives been saved by guns that were not threatened by guns? Did the Georgia perp she shot have a gun? Do most shootings only involve one gun?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/due%20process “a judicial requirement that enacted laws may not contain provisions that result in the unfair, arbitrary, or unreasonable treatment of an individual —called also substantive due process”
YOU are singling out the Bill of Rights to claim I am wrong on “granted”. I said the Constitution, not the Bill of Rights. The Constitution was amended WITH the Bill of Rights (first ten) and every other Amendment after them…we’re up to what 27?
I think you are nit-picking because you do not have a valid argument, but it could just be me.
14 – I answered your question. Did the Georgia perp have a gun? Don’t know, but so what? If he did, are you saying the mother should have waited until she was shot, or her kids, before responding? If the perp was armed only with a knife, should she have put down her pistol and found a knife, and THEN waited until he tried to harm her or her kids? If he was unarmed, should she have put down her pistol, and wrestled him mano a mano? Or would you have at least allowed her to go find a Big Strong Man of equal approximate proportions to the perp to defend her? Why are you against women having a means to defend herself in an unequal fight?
You mentioned the “original” Constitution, by which I assumed you meant the Bill of Rights (my mistake). Yes, the BoR were Amendments…but nowhere in the “original” constitution does it “grant” rights; it simply describes the government. The BoR also doesn’t “grant” rights…because they already existed, prior to, and independent of, the Constitution itself.
You may parse the language as you like, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights codified our laws and rights. That is just the way it is. Claiming something predated them or is independent of them is just not relevant IMO, it is you nit-picking and parsing and trying to stir something to a stink. I believe the Constitution grants rights by codifying them. I am not interested in whether you agree. Once a right is taken (by due process), it is most assuredly no longer a God-given right or independent of the Constitution.
You want “those lives – including those of children – whose lives have been saved by guns” included in the discussion about guns as if this is an effort to ban guns or ban guns for self-defense and neither is reality. No legislation exists to ban guns or self defense with guns. It is a straw man argument. In asking have lives been saved by guns that were not threatened by guns, I am basically asking why more guns is the answer to a gun violence problem. Maybe I did not say it well, but the point is that no one is saying there will be no guns for self defense if we have less guns available or make them harder for criminals to get.
#16 Mrs. Saunders…your argument is fallacious. You describe a privilege, not a right.
By such definition, rights are what ever the government says they are, no more, no less.
16 – yes, it codified them, it didn’t grant them. It acknowledged the rights, it didn’t create them.
And you’re moving the subject off course. No, the claim was that the NRA was clouding the issue; it seems to me that issues the NRA raises – the legitimate use of guns to protect lives and property, the ineffectiveness of gun ban laws (and yes, there are gun ban laws…check out New York and just about any major city sometime), the ineffectiveness of any national ban on anything, the intent of the original language…
…all are legitimate debate issues; the fact that there is broad disagreement on these issues (particularly the last point, as you and I demonstrate) only emphasizes that these need to be discussed. If there were a mandate, a consensus, an overwhelming majority one way or the other…well, then we could discuss whether the issue needs to be discussed.
But simply saying the NRA is clouding the discussion by simply bringing these issues up is wrong. Being these issues up is not destructive, as Mr. Perry implied in post number 7. These are not straw man arguments or positions. They need to be discussed. And the NRA and other gun owner organizations are actually contributing to the dialog, even though a lot of folks disagree with them. Just as Handgun Control is contributing to the discussion, even though a lot of folks disagree with them.
Go ahead and assert some God given right you believe you have that is not in the Constitution, hell, try asserting one that IS in the Constitution that someone or law enforcement disagrees with and see how far you get with it. By and large, in civil society, “rights are what ever the government says they are, no more, no less”. Courts deal with it daily.
The argument with the NRA is not JUST the issues they raise but that they are merely shills for the gun industry with no real concern for the carnage that the lax laws they support have given us. Maybe if they called themselves a union you would get it.
So if you get accosted by someone with a gun, who do you call? Professionals, like the police? You mean these clowns:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130210,0,3955268.story
David Perdue was on his way to sneak in some surfing before work Thursday morning when police flagged him down. They asked who he was and where he was headed, then sent him on his way.
Seconds later, Perdue’s attorney said, a Torrance police cruiser slammed into his pickup and officers opened fire; none of the bullets struck Perdue.
His pickup, police later explained, matched the description of the one belonging to Christopher Jordan Dorner — the ex-cop who has evaded authorities after allegedly killing three and wounding two more. But the pickups were different makes and colors. And Perdue looks nothing like Dorner: He’s several inches shorter and about a hundred pounds lighter. And Perdue is white; Dorner is black.
Oh, and this is the second time this has happened. Who trained these “professional” Keystone Kops?
Kinda makes you feel all safe and fuzzy doesn’t it?
#11, 89Hoo thanks for reminding us about a situation over a month ago where someone protected themselves with a gun. Maybe the reason our memory is “seriously that short,” as you wrote, is because our memory is fogged by the huge number of gun murders that have occurred since then. We’re running, what, roughly 500 gun murders per month in the US? Your problem is that you have no sense of proportion. As I have said before it is a matter of evaluating conflicting risks. The risk to society of having so many guns available is clear: Eventually they find their way into the wrong hands and you end up with a nation soaked in own blood. It’s time to try something different. Play time is over, time to put away the guns, come inside, and have dinner.
19 – so what arguments would you allow an opposing group to raise that would not make them, in your mind, mere shills? I’ll let pass the notion that it is done with no concern for the victims, seeing as their arguments are to allow people to protect themselves so they don’t become victims, which seems a lot more compassionate than having people disarm and allow themselves to become victims (what did Clayton Williams say, if it’s inevitable, just sit back and enjoy it?).
At what point do the points that Handgun Control Inc make them mere shills for the gun grabber crowd? Are you going to call for them to tone it down, too? Or is this one of those Orwell moments (“All animals are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others”)?
#21 2.5 million times per year. That is how often guns are used for self-defense in the U.S.
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Gun-Rights-Self-Defense-Deterrent.htm
http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/stats.html
http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
@ #22: You keep talking about disarming people and that is NOT the legislation under consideration and not the idea under discussion. If you consider the NRA priorities to be straight and their efforts helpful that is your choice. I do not see them that way. They would be for more background checks if safety and keeping guns out of anyone’s hands was their goal. They would be for better controls on guns that the bad guys keep getting if indeed safety was their goal. Their goal is to sell more guns for the gun industry and they do that well. They sell the fear of attack even though the odds of being in such a situation have been going down for a decade. They sell the need for that expensive AR-15 military looking gun for “self-defense” for a reason. And it is not your self-defense. If you believe them or Ted Nugent, we are wasting time discussing anything.
Jim Lucas, if what you cite is true, the CDC will be able to document that pretty quickly and settle the question once and for all, so why would the NRA fight so hard to keep it from being researched at such a level? Oh yeah, I forget, the “tyranny fighters” and Ted do not trust the government like they do gun researchers. Go figure.
#24 Use whatever Newthink “logic” you wish, but banning whole classes of commonly owned firearms & magazines is disarming people.
Allowing the CDC to study gun ownership as a public health issue is the fox guarding the hen house while chewing on a red herring.
No. 23 Jim, that 2.5 million number is probably more like 100,000 but still the point is the same. One problem is that the NRA-owned legislators wont let the CDC even study it so we have to rely on data that is 15 years old. One thing that needs to be studied is how much of the self defense was against other guns.
21, 23 – since I lack a sense of proportion, NW, why don’t you tell me the ratio of 2.5 million times per year guns are used in self-defense to the 6 thousand deaths per year. Not apples to apples, I know, because those times used in self defense likely resulted in more than 25 million lives saved, but it’s an instructive proportion nonetheless. Do you have the math on that?
Name Witheld….I provided the sources, with many foot-notes, for the numbers cited.
Yours?
Withheld
25 million should read 2.5 million…apologies…my typing skills are deficient.
And how do you figure only 100k? Does it matter if the defense was only against other guns? Or do you insist that someone who is threatened only respond with like force, meaning the woman in danger has to lay down her weapon? Seems that a good portion the time, all she would need to do is show it and the bad guy with only a knife or less would back down; bloodshed averted and isn’t that really the best outcome?
With regards to gun deaths do you think any allowances should be made for gang violence, where a death would have likely occured anyway, even if only armed with knives? Got any stats on that?
Finally could the fact that the CDC doesn’t track the type of stats Jim L provided indicate that maybe self defense is neither a disease nor a crime, but the act of exercising a right?
I’m interested in your perspective, your sense of proportion.
Jim Lucas, call it whatever helps you get through the pain, the “logic” I use is the same as when we effectively “banned” a whole class of firearm (automatic weapons/”machine guns”) and made the distinctions for the Title II guns and Class III Dealers. Somehow all you “tyranny fighters” and defenseless gun owners managed. In no realm is limiting selection “disarming people”. When Rally’s closed, people did not go hungry.
I do not think the CDC studies cancer “ownership” either. They study the deaths, causes, cures and preventatives for cancer though. Gun deaths ARE “a public health issue” and are edging towards the vehicular deaths which we also study and try to learn better safety from. Many people wonder why this has not been done for decades and it would most assuredly prove your claims if they were true. Why the fear?
Jim: BusinessWeek, CNN. 25 million lives saved, eh? How we do love to draw conclusions. More like 25 million skunks chased away from the trash, which is the kind of thing that accounts for the 2 POINT 5 million “uses” of guns in self protection claimed on your “enthusiast” web sites. I have no doubt that guns are used in self-protection, but it’s not generally the kind of wild west thing that it’s made out to be. Melt down the handguns, that is what will save lives. Not immediately perhaps but it will.
32 – the decimal placement was my error (see 27 and 30), apologies. But let’s assume your unsupported number of 100,000 lives saved annually (cite a reference, please) is the true number. What is the proportion of the 100,000 lives saved to the 500 firearms deaths per month?
Also, please cite your source for: More like 25 million skunks chased away from the trash…
It might just contribute to the debate if you can substantiate.
In 1958 the switchblade knives were outlawed in this country. They were outlawed because it was decided that they were the most dangerous knives. I don’t remember any big arguments about outlawing them, may be there were some. The point is, we saw a problem and we tried to do something about it.
34 – how did that work?
#33, I didn’t say 100,000 lives were saved. I stipulated that there were approx. 100,000 incidents of legitimate defense of one’s person or property by firearm. That’s much different from saving a life. The numbers (and the analysis) are in the BusinessWeek and CNN articles, and elsewhere. You can search them just as easily as I Googled your 2.5 million number, the links come up very quickly right at the top. Surely you can handle that.
By the way the CDC studies lots of things that are health and wellness related that do not fall under the category of “disease.” Here is the CDC’s mission statement in case you were too lazy to look it up:
“Collaborating to create the expertise, information, and tools that people and communities need to protect their health – through health promotion, prevention of disease, injury and disability, and preparedness for new health threats.”
http://www.cdc.gov/about/organization/mission.htm
Hmm … injury …
Okay, put the 100,000 incidents of self-defense in perspective for me, please. You say 500 gun-related deaths per month (I have actually read as many as 12,000 per year, so let’s go with the higher number).
Are you qualifying the incidents of self-defense based on how the bad guy was armed? Does it matter if the defense was only against other guns? Or do you insist that someone who is threatened only respond with like force, meaning the woman in danger has to lay down her weapon? Seems that a good portion the time, all she would need to do is show it and the bad guy with only a knife or less would back down; bloodshed averted and isn’t that really the best outcome?
With regards to gun deaths do you think any allowances should be made for gang violence, where a death would have likely occured anyway, even if only armed with knives? Got any stats on that?
36 – so why does the CDC NOT track the times guns are used in self-defense? They track lightning strikes, railroad deaths…certainly an incident of someone protecting himself with a firearm qualifies as a preparation against a health threat.
#37 #38, the CDC might be able to track such things if the federal legislature could wrest itself from the grip of the NRA. Presently the CDC’s hands are tied and they are not allowed to study hardly anything gun related. (source: Union of Concerned Scientists) If there were 100,000 incidents in which people used guns in defense of person or property, how many of those would have resulted in a murder, or a serious injury, or a rape, or a kidnapping, or significant loss of property, if the gun was not available as a tool of self-defense? I have no idea what the answer is, and I don’t think you do either, and I bet it would be very hard to determine. But the point of federal research agencies is to study things that are difficult, right? The numbers we DO know are the additional risk to society for having guns so readily available, because we can compare our gun violence statistics to other countries that restrict or prohibit firearm ownership. And remember that the 500 per month (or 1000 as you claim) is only the murders. To that number one must add the use of firearms in the commission of other felonies such as robbery (over 100,000 per year but declining), aggravated assault (over 125,000 per year, declining), nonfatal gun injury including assault (50,000 per year, increasing). All of those things are “gun violence” too. If you get to count every time a guy prevents his wallet from being stolen by brandishing a gun, I should get to count every time a wallet gets stolen by someone brandishing a gun. All that extra “gun violence” adds up to well over 100,000 (the latter number, I concede, is disputable). It’s always easier to count things that happen and harder to count things that don’t, but to the extent possible we should compare apples to apples. (Source of data: factcheck.org)
What we DO know, NW, is that if there were 100,000 incidents in which people used guns in defense of person or property, NONE of them resulted in a murder, or a serious injury, or a rape, or a kidnapping, or significant loss of property (to the intended victim, that is).
Isn’t that the important stat?
Since, I think we can both agree, in all likelihood SOME of those perps carried firearms and would likely have agreed in some of the intended victims being killed, the acts of self-defense actually lowered, at least nominally, the gun murder rate.
Isn’t that important?
And YOU are the one bringing up the qualifiers, NW. If you want to count every time a wallet gets stolen by someone brandishing a gun, that’s fine; a crime is a crime. But since you’re counting things that cannot be counted, let’s count the number of times someone defended herself with a weapon and didn’t report it. Given the abilities of keystone kops these days, and the propensity to charge people who were legally defending themselves, who could blame them?
Now, I don’t have any more numbers than you do. But this whole discussion gets back to the original point: these are not strawman issues, and to claim one side or the other is muddying the waters is simply not true.
#40 The fact that there are things that are not reported to law enforcement is exactly why different kinds of studies are needed. There are estimates of unreported rape, somehow this data is gathered. I don’t think these are straw man issues at all, but I think my overall hunch just differs from yours. My hunch (call it a hypothesis if you will) is that without all the guns society would be a safer place. Most of the hundreds of thousands of crimes involving guns would not happen, although some would still happen with knives and various blunt objects. And regarding your 100,000 stat, I’m glad your analysis of that number has retreated from “100,000 lives saved.” Maybe now it’s 20,000 B&Es with intent to commit robbery thwarted (some of that is undoubtedly documented by convenience store security cameras), 15,000 rapes prevented, etc., such that all of the various categories add up to 100,000 (or whatever number it really is).
Guns, ALL types of guns are here to stay no matter what laws are passed. All this gun control gibberish is worthless and distracts from the real problem, holding people responsible for their actions.
42 – well, it will likely have the effect of turning all who legally own guns now into criminals. Look at New York state for a fine example of just that.
JimW, how do we hold someone willing, or planning to die “responsible for their actions”? Were that possible, how is catching the fox after the slaughter doing us any good?
I get it that you think the discussion is “gibberish” but can you not see that it is a big ugly problem we are wrestling with? If we do not talk about it, or worse, choose “sides” and neither will even consider the other’s POV, what solution does that hold? Or are you saying there is no solution?
#43, nobody has to be a criminal. If guns are made illegal, then you’re only a criminal if you don’t turn yours in by the deadline. I think this is one of things the NRA is afraid of … they’re worried a lot of their “law abiding” members will choose to become criminals.
I would propose that the government provide financial compensation for guns that are turned in. They could call it a stimulus package. We would save the money back in the decreased violence.
#42, that guy who shot up Sandy Hook… how do you propose we hold him responsible for his actions? Even his mom can’t be held responsible for leaving her guns where her crazy son could get them because she’s dead too. Your vague bromide doesn’t hold water.
#45 What “doesn’t hold water” is your apparent assertions on both the philosophical and/or practical realm.
First, the assertion that taking weapons from citizens will lesson gun crime.
Second (and especially in light of the first) the assertion that I should give up my Constitutional rights to fuel the first flawed assertion.
45 – due process be damned, eh NW? Without doing a thing, a whole class of citizens is found guilty of a crime, no trial no jury, no evidence of wrong-doing. Just on the notion that a gun somewhere might be used in a crime. Put as much lipstick on that pig as you want, it is what it is.
Kinda like banning all computers on the notion that some computer somewhere might be used to view child porn.
45 – that “stimulus package” won’t be worth a damn when someone breaks into my house with intent to do harm to my family or myself. No thanks, I’ll keep my guns…preferably legally.
35 – obviously not very well…since I was born AFTER they were outlawed – yet I’ve seen plenty of them in my lifetime.
49 – what? You mean a national ban on something was unsuccessful? I’m stunned, given the rousing success of the bans on drugs and alcohol.
#50 or Slavery or the disenfranchisement of women or Blacks in combat positions? (Understand: I’m not a fan of “banning all guns”, but there are models wherein a national ban on something was and continues to be successful…)
51 – the difference between your examples and a ban on something like guns (or drugs, or alcohol) is that slavery and disenfranchisement were corrected by recognizing freedom denied and removing the infrastructure (for lack of a better term) that denied those freedoms.
It’s a whole ‘nuther kettle of fish to go the opposite direction – to install infrastructure specifically to deny a freedom.
I should also point out that slavery was ended through an act that changed – amended – the Constitution, not by an act of Congress that sidestepped it. Why don’t those who would enact some form of gun control propose a constitutional amendment?
#52, what about the freedom of the slave owner to own and control private property (which was the legal status of slaves)? Again, keep in mind, I generally agree with you on this issue, but the argument that ” a national ban on something was unsuccessful” has its flaws.
Those who would enact some form of gun control can’t and won’t seek the Amendment process because they know full well it would be a losing proposition, as it should be! It also is the goal, I think, too modify, restrict, or curtail certain aspects of the Second Amendment, not to overturn it. That process has historically been done through legislation, not Amendment.
53 – part of the issue with slavery, aside from the notion of slaves being considered property, was that even among the slave owners in the north AND south, there was even if only subconsciously, a desire to find a way to end it without disrupting the economy, I’m not trying to paint a rosier picture of slave owners or the practice, and I’m certainly not trying to make excuses, but most slave-owners didn’t care for the institution either. The war effectively ended that objection by disrupting the economy and the entire social structure anyway so a wrecked economy was no longer an excuse to maintain the practice. Yes, there was resentment and resistance borne of racism, but the majority of citizens had more pressing problems (like putting food on the table) than trying to keep their slaves.
But that’s a whole ‘nuther discussion, apologies for the digression.
I just don’t think it’s an exact parallel to equate an institutionalized denial of freedoms with a ban on a basic right…though the comparison is interesting.
Yes, the 13th Amendment to the Constitution did “end” slavery, but let’s be real here, it was done with plenty of political machinations and the deals were not pretty. Bad feelings and the vestiges of the abominable evil and it’s detritus haunted this nation, and harmed people even to the point of lynching and death, well into the 1960′s and if truth be told, still do. JUST getting an Amendment through the political process, like any other big legislation, is not the neat solution to this problem and certainly not a tidy one.
The repeated reference that gun owners make, as in #48, to their willingness to be a scofflaw were that to happen is certainly a hint of just how successful such an effort would be even if it met with legislative success. Not to mention that Obama or any President who tried would likely join Lincoln. Hell, the ACA had people wanting him dead FGS.
I no longer think there is any answer that will be forthcoming until the saturation point with gun violence is reached. Certainly the brutally obvious evil of slavery and Jim Crow took a long, long time to reach their tipping point. I had thought the deaths of those children would be that moment, but I seriously misread the determination of the NRA and even well meaning “tyranny fighters”.
Name Withheld, I admire your stance, even from the safety of anonymity it is a bold position to take. However, our swords will be plowshares before guns are banned, confiscated or even not in ready supply in this nation.
I don’t think it moves the gun control prospect forward to argue from that POV. You are welcome to keep at it and I hope you don’t lose your passion over the brick wall you have and will encounter.
Sad to say, not only can I not ♫ “Imagine all the people living life in peace” ♫ I cannot even imagine the handful of people on this blog getting along and respecting each other.
Hoo, I appreciate your thoughtful response. I would have to disagree, though, on one point: Slavery was both an economic and social institution. The institution of race-based White Supremacy was firmly entrenched in Southern states (and in the Northern ones!)and White Southerners were not keen to see that institution ended, no matter the economic consequences.
I agree there is no “exact parallel” here; I was just responding to the basic premise that a national ban on something couldn’t work.
Again, I don’t think anyone (of consequence) is calling for “a ban on a basic right” rather, a limitation/restriction of that basic right, as is the case with any of the rights guaranteed in the Bill Of Rights.
I am thoroughly enjoying our dialog: I believe it shines a light of hope on the possibility for a rational national dialog. (OK, maybe I’m getting carried away, but I do enjoy reading and cogitating on your viewpoints).
#47 the phrase “due process” doesn’t really apply. Supposed you were previously accustomed to spraying your crops with a popular pesticide, and the government decided the risks associated with that pesticide outweighed the benefits and banned its manufacture, distribution, and use. Now, if at that point you continued to manufacture, distribute, or use that pesticide, then you would be committing a crime. If there were 10,000 farmers using that pesticide, and they were asked to stop because of the severe health risks associated with that pesticide, would you complain that a “whole class of citizens is being found guilty of a crime without due process?” No, you’d simply say that regulations changed. And whether to behave criminally from that point forward really is an individual choice. You do take responsibility for your choices, don’t you, 89Hoo?
Sure NW, when my actions harm people. If I had a gun properly secured, and no one has committed s crime with it, then confiscating it not only denies me due process, it is theft as well.
sounds more like youd blame the government for your choices. your answer reminded me very compellingly of the title of this thread … stonewalling.
Now you are catching on Name W, “blame the government” is the normal reaction for any issue as long as it is a Democratic administration. Blame the poor is the second most popular.
57, 58 – I think I need to expand a bit. Constitutional amendments aside…
In the example you provided, the possession of the pesticide is not illegal. In the New York law, mere possession of certain firearms and accessories has been made illegal, without proof of intent even to use. In the example you provided, there is no reason (let’s stipulate) for having that pesticide other than to spray it on my crops. If I have a couple 50-gallon drums of the stuff sitting in my barn (which is not a crime), no one is being harmed if and until I use it on my crops, and then I would be guilty of a crime; and since using it would be illegal, I the farmer would be best served to find a legal way to dispose of the stuff. Since it is a single-use product, one could stipulate that possession is intent to use, intent to commit a crime.
(Making the manufacture and distribution illegal is pointless, because in the case of this single-use product, since it is illegal to use it, no one would make it and distribute it anyway. That’s the marketplace.)
But a firearm is not a single use product. People hunt with them, people use them for sporting purposes (the President shoots sporting clays all the time, remember), people use them for self-defense, and people collect and speculate with them. There are illegal uses for them, of course. But declaring me guilty of a crime simply for owning a gun (assuming I did) IS denial of due process. It assumes I am going to deny someone of life, liberty or property or do them harm.
59 – that’s a very convenient response when you don’t get the answer you want. Accuse the other guy of stonewalling. It’s also pretty desperate.
The reason I said you were stonewalling is because your answer #58 was a non-answer. You reiterated your “due process” objection without any reference to the analogy I had proposed. You apparently were aware of that, as your #61 was a much more positive response.
No analogy is ever perfect. The reason ownership is part of the equation for guns is because mere ownership engenders risk to society because of the chance that weapons will fall into the wrong hands (which, lo and behold, they do). That is less of a problem with a harmful pesticide.
There might be a multitude of uses for something like RDX (protecting one’s property by mining the fence line, removal of unwanted shrubs and trees, just getting your jollies blowing stuff up), but you are not allowed to own it because of the RISK that society incurs from that ownership.
Pardon my ignorance. ..RDX?
63 – so now you’re changing your analogy to include ownership?
Don’t they allow Wikipedia there in the commune? LOL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RDX
The commune? That’s funny…
NW, I thought we were talking about pesticides, not explosives? Is the analogy shifting again?
Never mind.
In 61, I limited the comparison to a product that was limited use, let’s say a pesticide that whose use, manufacture or distribution has been outlawed. Since you made no mention of ownership or possession, I stipulated that since there is only one use for this substance, and its use has been outlawed in this example, then possession indicates an intent to use. I’m not entirely comfortable with that, but okay.
The difference is that firearms have more than one legitimate use, in addition to self-defense. The left keeps assuring us they have no desire to outlaw self defense, hunting, sporting clays or collecting, so there should remain legitimate uses for firearms.
In this case, I maintain, declaring some or all firearms or firearms accessories to be outlawed on the notion that they might be used in a crime constitutes a violation of due process, because it declares the owner guilty of a crime he did not commit.
The above paragraphs are by way of recap, not, um, stonewalling.
Now you have introduced RDX (or we can say there are legitimate, non-pesticide uses for a pesticide), saying that there are legitimate uses, and that by my logic, banning them would constitute a violation of due process.
You are right.
Let me re-introduce the notion of banning the internet, then. There are certainly legitimate, non-illegal uses for the internet. The potential, though, to exploit children via on-line child porn exists everywhere there is a computer hooked to the internet. Would you advocate removal of all internet connections on the notion that they MIGHT be used to harm kids? Even if their owners have committed no crimes?
At this point, we can go one of two directions.
We can ban things on the basis that they might be used in a crime. And automatically indict with legal action, with no proof, no evidence, no trial by jury, no due process the owner on the basis that they owned an object that might be used in a crime.
Or, we can punish, with severe, meaningful punishments, those that actually commit the crimes. And we can allow people the means to defend themselves, an entirely legitimate enterprise.
I’m not really changing my analogy because the “ownership” detail is really beside the point. The point of the analogy is that the government has the responsibility to regulate individual activities that engender risks to the broader population, while respecting the counterbalancing benefits. That’s true whether the activity is the ownership of a gun or the agricultural application of a pesticide. Where we differ, I believe, is in our evaluation of the balance between benefit and risk of gun ownership. I think the risks associated with widespread gun ownership outweigh their benefit.
69 – I disagree of course, on the government’s authority or responsibility.
But to be clear, you WOULD support an internet ban on those same grounds?
This is great. This is what we need to do and I hope the numbers keep growing and from more of us. Now, about #34: The reason I inserted the 1958 act into the conversation was to show that we have attempted in the past to remove something akin to arms from out society. What we can learn from that is two things: 1. It may not have been as successful in getting rid of switchblade knives as we would like; and 2. (and more important to me) is that no one made any attempt to outlaw or take away other knives. Sorry that no one picked up on that.
71 – it was also entirely ineffective.
Knives dont cut people …
73 – now THAT is stonewalling.
Are you going to answer the question I asked in post #70, NW?
No, I wasn’t planning on it because I didn’t see the relationship between the question and the rest of the discussion. I’m basically tired of this thread and will not return to it.
76. – hehe…okay.