Most gun owners support restrictions. Why aren’t their voices heard?
Michael S. Rosenwald
![An attendee handles a revolver in the Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. booth on the exhibition floor of the 144th National Rifle Association (NRA) Annual Meetings and Exhibits at the Music City Center in Nashville, Tennessee, U.S., on Saturday, April 11, 2015.Photographer: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg]({"default":{"load":"default","w":"27","h":"40","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAfkUQm.img?h=405&w=270&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f"}})
Once again, their voices are missing from the debate.
Gun owners who favor tighter restrictions on firearms say they are in the same position after the mass shooting in Oregon as they have been following other rampages — shut out of the argument.The pattern, they say, is frustrating and familiar: The what-should-be-done discussion pits anti-gun groups against the National Rifle Association and its allies, who are adamantly opposed to any new restrictions on weapons.
Gun owners who occupy the middle ground complain that they are rarely sought out or heard, yet polls show that the majority of gun owners support universal background checks and other controversial limits. President Obama is reportedly considering using his executive authority to impose new background-check requirements for high-volume dealers in private sales — and many gun owners may support that.
There’s this perception that people are neatly divided into folks who want an M1A1 Abrams battle tank to drive to work and those who want to melt every last gun and bullet into doorstops,” said Patrick Tomlinson, a science-fiction writer and gun owner in Milwaukee who favors universal background checks and longer waiting periods for gun purchases. “There seems to be no middle there, but I know there is. I’m in it.”
The online vitriol can be intense, particularly after high-profile shootings such as the Oregon community college this month that left 10 dead including the gunman, or on Friday at Northern Arizona University, where four people were shot, one fatally.
A.J. Somerset, a gun owner who criticized the country’s don’t-take-my-guns culture in a new book, has been accused by the NRA of hating the Second Amendment.
And last year, when a Maryland gun dealer announced plans to sell the nation’s first smart gun — it connects wirelessly to a watch that must be worn to fire it — protesters threatened to burn the store down, forcing him to back down. A caller told the owner, “You’re going to get what’s coming to you, [expletive].”
“We’re considered weirdos,” said George Legeros, a longtime Virginia gun owner who also supports universal background checks and limits on how many guns people may buy. “Anybody who tries to take guns away is a bad man. That’s why the NRA doesn’t represent me. For lack of a better word, they are too whacked-out. It’s one thing to be pro-gun. It’s another thing to have no common sense.”
Nearly 1 in 3 Americans own a gun. But only 5 million belong to the NRA, which is often portrayed as the voice of hunters, skeet shooters and other gun owners. The squelched majority could emerge as a powerful force in the gun control debate, gun control advocates say, if they ever gain traction — emphasis on if.
Daniel Webster, a firearms expert at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (it receives funding from Michael R. Bloomberg, a gun control advocate), said the country isn’t destined to always have the world’s highest gun violence rates “because many of the measures we need are supported by very large majorities of gun owners.”
Although public opinion polls show that gun owners strongly favor protecting gun rights over curtailing them, when they are asked about specific ideas for restrictions, most are in favor.
Surveys by Johns Hopkins and the Pew Research Center show that about 85 percent of gun owners favor universal background checks, an idea fiercely opposed by the gun lobby. Gun owners also strongly support a federal database of gun sales, prohibiting ownership for those convicted of domestic violence and barring people with mental illness from buying guns.
After a backlash from gun rights advocates last year, Andy Raymond, co-owner of Engage Armaments in Rockville, Md., decided not to sell the Armatix iP1, a .22-caliber smart gun. (Katherine Frey/The Washington Post)
Gun owners and dealers who publicly break with the NRA and other powerful gun rights groups sometimes find themselves being labeled as anti-gunners, traitors or worse.The online vitriol can be intense, particularly after high-profile shootings such as the Oregon community college this month that left 10 dead including the gunman, or on Friday at Northern Arizona University, where four people were shot, one fatally.
A.J. Somerset, a gun owner who criticized the country’s don’t-take-my-guns culture in a new book, has been accused by the NRA of hating the Second Amendment.
And last year, when a Maryland gun dealer announced plans to sell the nation’s first smart gun — it connects wirelessly to a watch that must be worn to fire it — protesters threatened to burn the store down, forcing him to back down. A caller told the owner, “You’re going to get what’s coming to you, [expletive].”
“We’re considered weirdos,” said George Legeros, a longtime Virginia gun owner who also supports universal background checks and limits on how many guns people may buy. “Anybody who tries to take guns away is a bad man. That’s why the NRA doesn’t represent me. For lack of a better word, they are too whacked-out. It’s one thing to be pro-gun. It’s another thing to have no common sense.”
Nearly 1 in 3 Americans own a gun. But only 5 million belong to the NRA, which is often portrayed as the voice of hunters, skeet shooters and other gun owners. The squelched majority could emerge as a powerful force in the gun control debate, gun control advocates say, if they ever gain traction — emphasis on if.
President Obama, in a ritual that has become both familiar and frustrating to him, traveled to Oregon on Oct. 9 to console families of the victims of a community college shooting that once again sparked a push for gun reform. (Reuters)
Although public opinion polls show that gun owners strongly favor protecting gun rights over curtailing them, when they are asked about specific ideas for restrictions, most are in favor.
Surveys by Johns Hopkins and the Pew Research Center show that about 85 percent of gun owners favor universal background checks, an idea fiercely opposed by the gun lobby. Gun owners also strongly support a federal database of gun sales, prohibiting ownership for those convicted of domestic violence and barring people with mental illness from buying guns.
Though there is less support for banning high-powered assault rifles — about 49 percent of gun owners would, vs. 64 percent of non-gun owners, according to Pew — gun control advocates are emboldened that a near majority is out of lockstep with the gun lobby.
“I can’t think of a single issue that has generated more noise and more hype in the gun community than the issue of assault rifles over the last several years,” Michael Weisser, a Vermont gun dealer and NRA opponent, wrote on his blog in June. “That nearly 50% of gun owners don’t buy this nonsense should give pause to those who still regard the NRA as a behemoth when it comes to influencing public opinion about guns. To me, it’s more like a case of the emperor without clothes.”
The NRA did not return a request for comment, but its officials regularly argue that many gun control proposals would not stop mass shootings.
After a man killed two broadcast journalists in Virginia in August, Chris Cox, the NRA’s chief lobbyist, wrote in a Washington Times opinion piece that “no piece of legislation pushed by gun control advocates would have stopped him from committing this brutal crime.”
Public health officials and gun owners who want more restrictions acknowledge that in many cases, that’s true. But they argue that tighter control could still save a significant number of lives. The problem, they argue, is that the NRA won’t give an inch, turning up the fear dial, which almost always increases gun sales.
“I can’t think of a single issue that has generated more noise and more hype in the gun community than the issue of assault rifles over the last several years,” Michael Weisser, a Vermont gun dealer and NRA opponent, wrote on his blog in June. “That nearly 50% of gun owners don’t buy this nonsense should give pause to those who still regard the NRA as a behemoth when it comes to influencing public opinion about guns. To me, it’s more like a case of the emperor without clothes.”
The NRA did not return a request for comment, but its officials regularly argue that many gun control proposals would not stop mass shootings.
After a man killed two broadcast journalists in Virginia in August, Chris Cox, the NRA’s chief lobbyist, wrote in a Washington Times opinion piece that “no piece of legislation pushed by gun control advocates would have stopped him from committing this brutal crime.”
Public health officials and gun owners who want more restrictions acknowledge that in many cases, that’s true. But they argue that tighter control could still save a significant number of lives. The problem, they argue, is that the NRA won’t give an inch, turning up the fear dial, which almost always increases gun sales.
The NRA believes that every attempt to regulate is one step toward the promised land of prohibition,” said Michael Chandler, a 60-year-old New York physician and gun owner. “But it’s not. We can do sensible things.”
Though he’s an NRA life member because he supports their safety training courses, he knows the organization won’t listen to his views on gun control. And he’s stopped listening to their views.
“I hang up when they call me,” he said.
If gun owners such as Chandler want their voices heard, they need to organize themselves. There have been several efforts in the past decade to launch organizations of moderate gun owners, but with little success. New efforts are underway.
Rebecca Bond, a former marketing executive, co-founded a nonprofit group called Evolve, which bills itself as “the third voice in the gun debate.” The idea is to bring together moderate gun owners and entrenched gun voices — pro and con — to promote a cultural shift in the gun debate, favoring conversation about safety over political acrimony.
Bond’s strategy: Use humor and a conversational tone. Its videos on gun safety have gone viral — one posits that the Bill of Rights shouldn’t be infringed “as long as people aren’t being dumba--es.” The question-and-answer section on its Web site is both entertaining and welcoming.
Are you opposed to me owning a gun?” it asks. “Nope. There are over 300 million guns out there in America with another 6 million sold every year. We’re not trying to be involved in who’s allowed to own what. We’re just opposed to accidental holes in stuff. Whether they’re in furniture or people or a pizza, we hate accidental holes. We’re staunchly opposed to them.”
Another question: “If you’re ‘neutral,’ why do you interact with known anti-gun and pro-gun groups?” The answer: “Safety is not a side; it’s everyone’s personal responsibility. Also, we’d go on a date with a bloodsucking swamp troll if we thought it would save a life.”
But when it comes to changing the gun debate, dating a swamp troll might be less challenging. The organization raised just $20,042 in 2014, though Bond said it has picked up this year, reaching nearly $100,000. By comparison, the NRA raised nearly $350 million in 2013.
“I feel like I’m driving a truck through a cement wall every day,” Bond said. “Old habits die hard.”
Though he’s an NRA life member because he supports their safety training courses, he knows the organization won’t listen to his views on gun control. And he’s stopped listening to their views.
“I hang up when they call me,” he said.
If gun owners such as Chandler want their voices heard, they need to organize themselves. There have been several efforts in the past decade to launch organizations of moderate gun owners, but with little success. New efforts are underway.
Rebecca Bond, a former marketing executive, co-founded a nonprofit group called Evolve, which bills itself as “the third voice in the gun debate.” The idea is to bring together moderate gun owners and entrenched gun voices — pro and con — to promote a cultural shift in the gun debate, favoring conversation about safety over political acrimony.
Bond’s strategy: Use humor and a conversational tone. Its videos on gun safety have gone viral — one posits that the Bill of Rights shouldn’t be infringed “as long as people aren’t being dumba--es.” The question-and-answer section on its Web site is both entertaining and welcoming.
Are you opposed to me owning a gun?” it asks. “Nope. There are over 300 million guns out there in America with another 6 million sold every year. We’re not trying to be involved in who’s allowed to own what. We’re just opposed to accidental holes in stuff. Whether they’re in furniture or people or a pizza, we hate accidental holes. We’re staunchly opposed to them.”
Another question: “If you’re ‘neutral,’ why do you interact with known anti-gun and pro-gun groups?” The answer: “Safety is not a side; it’s everyone’s personal responsibility. Also, we’d go on a date with a bloodsucking swamp troll if we thought it would save a life.”
But when it comes to changing the gun debate, dating a swamp troll might be less challenging. The organization raised just $20,042 in 2014, though Bond said it has picked up this year, reaching nearly $100,000. By comparison, the NRA raised nearly $350 million in 2013.
“I feel like I’m driving a truck through a cement wall every day,” Bond said. “Old habits die hard.”
Your premise asks to completely different questions. 1) do you believe in the reason for the second amendment 2) do you feel bad about the people who are irresponsible and do bad shit that hurts others. And I can, with hand on heart answer both 'Yes'. We now own more guns than their are people in this country and a good percentage of that is as a direct result of this president.
ReplyDeleteSo in light of our dear Presidents most recent comment about confiscation... answer the following question. And if the answer involves trusting the government... wrong answer.
The NRA believes that every attempt to regulate is one step toward the promised land of prohibition,” said Michael Chandler, a 60-year-old New York physician and gun owner. “But it’s not. We can do sensible things.”
We owned more guns then people living here long before this president. You people have found a common scapegoat for every problem that has accumulated over the past 40 years. And you wonder why he governs the way he does.
ReplyDeleteHe is not wanting your guns or anybody else's; that is another right wing lie to excite the base and you TS, I would attribute more intelligence to then to fall for these false statements. The president wants common sense regulation just like a majority of gun owners cited above.
Hell, he just got done saying about the Australian model of confiscation although their mandatory buy-back from what I understand only managed to collect about a third of what was estimated to be out there... I wonder if the criminals turned in their guns. He has done everything he can from restrict the supply of lead to attempting to restrict AR15 ammunition by calling it ‘armor piercing’ ... Kinda like calling a firearm with a pistol grip an assault rifle, to buying enough ammunition to kill every American 7 times over to equip... Dept of Education.. 1.6 billion rounds? What’s up with that? Give me something logical here that I can get my head around.. Dept of Education?
DeleteIn a few short sentences, he validates every fear of those who believe the president, who said earlier that he wanted only “common sense” restrictions on the ownership of guns, was actually advocating the first steps to confiscation.
Now, exploiting the tragedy in Oregon and the mourning for the innocents everywhere, he makes his meaning clear. “We know other countries in response to one mass shooting have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings,” he said last week. “Friends of ours, allies of ours, Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.”
The reason he uses the words ‘common sense’ rather than ‘mandatory buy-back’ is that while he may have the heartbreak of the majority of Americans on his side... He doesn’t have anywhere near the support for erasing the 2nd amendment.. so politically he uses, like all democrat initiatives, baby step programs leading to an ultimate goal.
I unlike you, do not believe in the government following any promises, so the only reasonable guarantee is to be found in law and the law says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”. So show me a proposal that protects, unequivocally, The second amendment and you have my vote but if the government knows who, where and what, the second amendment is nowhere close to being protected... and when the government gets the right to classify people by types that it likes and doesn’t like... Well we can see by recent IRS example.
It’s kinda like having right of trial by jury and due process and looking up to see a presidential ordered hell fire missile headed your way... you just know that concessions elsewhere won’t go well.
I don’t pretend it to be an easy subject but people who don’t like guns or feel their entire purpose is purely recreational; miss the point... a point that will never go away when people seek power over others... not even in this modern world we live in... Perhaps especially because of this modern world we live in.
"I unlike you, do not believe in the government following any promises, so the only reasonable guarantee is to be found in law and the law says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”. So show me a proposal that protects, unequivocally, The second amendment and you have my vote but if the government knows who, where and what, the second amendment is nowhere close to being protected... and when the government gets the right to classify people by types that it likes and doesn’t like... Well we can see by recent IRS example."
DeleteWere you humming "God bless America" in your head while you typed that? Your final para there at least addresses the issue without the flag waving propaganda, which is that owning shitloads of guns is about fear. Whether that fear is rational and whether having the gun(s) adequately addresses the fear is another story. People try to dress this up as some glorious protection of the constitution, and pretend that if they own 10 guns and brandish them in public that they will make the evil government tremble in fear at the prospect and taking their freedom away. I say that when you are that fearful and bitter at the government, you have already given away your freedom.
The 2nd amendment was created out of fear .. hell, even though Hamilton thought that the bill of rights were unnecessary because they were redundant to the words and intent of the constitution silly paranoids insisted. The entire 10 bill of rights were included out of fear.
Delete" I say that when you are that fearful and bitter at the government, you have already given away your freedom."
What are you one of those bend over kind of people? If you don't have a healthy respect for the fact that most everyone who enters politics has ambition to lord their version of life over you..
Although your little tryst was a good example of run, dodge and jump... you didn't answer a rather straight forward question... A question that was after all asked of Rick.
"What are you one of those bend over kind of people? If you don't have a healthy respect for the fact that most everyone who enters politics has ambition to lord their version of life over you.."
DeleteThe exact same can be said of people who enter chat boards. The "question" you ask is kind of a set up and actually really is not that straightforward. Here is something I thought was an interesting link http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/amendments/2/essays/142/to-keep-and-bear-arms For someone like yourself, who has an entirely consistent and largely inflexible view of the constitution, this is probably a straight forward question. For someone like me, who has a view that that many things exist in today's world that FFs could not have dreamed of, this is not a simple question. Many people I have talked to who are owners of multiple firearms frequently have this "fear every thing the government does" mentality. Even with abundant firepower that is hundreds of times more powerful than anything existing when the 2nd was created, they still remain paranoid and fearful that at any minute, the whole thing can come crashing down.
So, since answering things in a black and white manner is very important to you, I will answer yes that in the thinking of the day in which the 2nd was written, I believe the logic was sound. Whether that same view fits with precision, however, is a debatable topic.
TS and Max.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if you have considered the march of time in this debate? I know it is almost blasphemy but can you not consider the second in a context of today rather than the year 1791?.At the time the Bill of Rights was ratified by Virginia, therby making it the law of the land.; the provisions of the bill were quite proper, necessary and prudent.
Your nation had decided that Government from across the sea was unjust, taxation without representation was unjust and above all the iniquitous nature of the Government in England was tyrannical. Note the word tyrannical, I have repeated it quite deliberately.
At the time of ratification the nation was so different to the present day. There remained a genuine fear of an overbearing government within the nation. Folks compared what had been with what was proposed for the new nation and a degree of irrationality became apparent. For a decade the nation had been fed a diet of speeches, pamphlets and propaganda extolling the value of freedom and independence from the UK. Many of the founders had been caught up in the propaganda, in fact some had helped generate it.Jefferson,Henry,Hamilton ,Madison and Adams ( both John and Samuel) Had all written about the tyranny of excessive government ( see that word again).
So if we marry the words Tyranny and Freedom, do we get a homogenous mixture? Not really, we get in the case of the United States, an unhealthy atmosphere of what I like to call fear and entitlement. “I am entitled to own a 16in cannon because the second says I can. I do not want a 16 inch but by God I shall defend my God given right to own one”. At the same time, those who neither need or want a cannon live in fear of the person who avails himself of his “entitlement” or in American speak, his “:Right”
So, does the second remain a viable piece of your present? Or is it a valuable part of the history fashioned by so many brave men and women over 200 years ago?. I suggest that the argument so often stated by the Right that the second guards against Tyranny, is hogwash. The argument falls at the first hurdle in that the Government has taken over the role of the Militias, the National Guard is perhaps all that is left of the original idea. In common with whale bone corsets and button up boots, the Militias are now totally obsolete.
If we remove the provisions of the second, what are we left with? Perhaps the opportunity to begin the process of cleaning up the nation by removing so many of the guns now in circulation. Next placing realistic obstacles in the way of more weaponed entering the system. It will not be easy, the worthwhile things seldom are and the population will need to get behind the idea..
The Scot references Australia post the horrendous massacre just a few miles from my home, well it was more like two thirds of the guns that were handed in ( and the owners generously compensated) most of the remainder were duly licensed once the owners had satisfied a fairly strict set of guidelines. In my case I was able to keep my .410 single barrel shotgun for vermin control on our property of ten acres.
We have an almost constant open door policy when owners can surrender firearms, no questions asked at Police Stations around the land. Gun crimes, never numerous here have declined by about eighty percent I believe. On the flip side there are more stabbings than previously but it is believed this is the result of a changing demographic.
In conclusion, something has to be done, either by the Government, the President or the citizens. if by the Government or the President, I await the howling from the hilltop of the word Tyrannical.
I am pleased that the discussion thus far has been polite and reasonable. I concur with the latter part of the final post by Max.
Cheers from Aussie.
I view most everything in the context of present day King and I'll admit, this poses a problem because the world of today was not the world that existed at the inception of the constitution. I can accept that it is a philosophically sound point that the constitution allows the 16 inch cannon. Whether allowing that cannon has a unintended good or bad effects on society is not addressed by the constitution and hence, we as citizens should not be using the government to settle what is really more of a social issue. That latter sentence there may not really be the view of the conservative, but it's kind of what I imagine.
DeleteI have a couple of opinions on this issue. On the constitutional battle front, I see it largely the way you do. I think that using the second amendment as a rationale for buying multiple weapons that are literally less than a step away from military grade is specious at best. Further, I believe that local individuals have a right to decide amongst themselves if they want to place some control on gun ownership just as they do with drivers licenses, the right to consume alcohol, pot and so on. This constitutional fight, however, is something that I believe is a convenient distraction from what I believe the bigger issue is. I see this as a social issue that is not going to be fixed with tougher laws.
Abusive behavior has become the norm, it seems. Why are people so angry? I don't know. In my case, with my studies and a full time job, I have reached a point after two odd years of just feeling plain exhausted and not very patient. that's not everyday mind you and more often than not, I am quite grateful for what I have as I know that millions in this land of plenty work their ass off every day and have little to show for it. Our movies are violent. Our government is violent in how it conducts itself in the world. Our police forces are becoming paramilitary groups. And when you are pissed off, nothing seems quite as satisfying as unloading that misery onto someone else, typically someone who can't respond in kind. Whatever is driving all that, IMO, is not going to be fixed to restricting one particular weapon used to express how miserable we are.
It would be most interesting disarming the American people at this point in time.
DeleteThat would address probably 2/3rds of the firearms in the US. The remaining held by the criminal elements in the US would remain available to still kill. as the gangs, drug people would never willingly give up their guns. With a porous border guns could easily cross the border, an unending supply for the criminal element. Would our country become more dangerous with the criminal element armed vs all people?
Perhaps a better solution would be to address the distribution of ammunition and regulating the ammunition vs. the guns held by all. But then again, the porous border issue would remain.
That was an impressive work in of the border in a discussion where it was not at all relevant ;>
DeleteI realize King had brought up disarmament, but honestly Lou, that is not a mainstream suggestion by anyone. Don't most of the guns cross the border from the US to Mexico? I would agree that the neon lighted pathways into the country where liberals hand out water and hot dogs to the illegals crossing would still be an issue, but wouldn't this be a bigger issue if the ammo and guns were made in Mexico?
Id guns become inaccessible in the US think the drug people will shrug their shoulders and say ok, we're good with that as no one else has a gun???
Delete"In my case I was able to keep my .410 single barrel shotgun for vermin control on our property of ten acres."
DeleteAnd I can guarantee that if the 'vermin' were of the two legged variety intent on causing harm to you or our wife.. you wouldn't leave that .410 passively in the corner.
"If guns become inaccessible in the US think the drug people will shrug their shoulders and say ok, we're good with that as no one else has a gun?"
DeleteThis question might be valid if there were a full push going on to make guns inaccessible to everyone, but there isn't. I haven't read any stories about non enforcement citizens having to shoot it out with drug cartels near the border.
Some good points here and a little misunderstanding by TS as to the reality and the intent of the Australian gun laws. There is also an illustration of the gulf between the US and Australian citizenry concerning obedience of the laws. I think it may be the last which defines the success of the Australian laws.
ReplyDeleteTS suggests my .410 would be immediately to hand in the event of a threat. Perhaps TS is correct but threats from gun toting outlaws are rare as hens teeth in Australia unless one belongs to the sub culture of violence which exists everywhere in the world. My .410 needed to be stored in secure storage in accordance with government regulations .Non free standing gun safe. bolted to the floor or to the wall from INSIDE the safe and made of specified steel with a double lock(security type). Ammunition must be stored separately and a gun license must be produced in order that a box(25 cartridges) can be bought. The capital city of Tasmania has I believe but one gun store so supplies are somewhat scarce. Trade in Guns is strictly limited and the only weapons permitted are shot guns with less than three magazine capacity. small bore rifles of the repeater type, semi and fully automatics are banned. Sporting rifles of limited size and magazine capacity are permitted. A license to hold such a weapon is only issued against written permission from a land owner to hunt on his property.
I surrendered my gun when I was about 75 as I considered I had reached the age when I was simply not safe with a firearm. Having been a shooter all my life it was a sad day when the little pop gun was handed into the local Police Station.
In my original post on this topic I tried to bring forward a foreigners view that US citizens are still living the American Revolutionary dream. It is only my observation and I very much doubt those reading this will share my views. Strangely TS may understand because of his long exposure to European culture.Max also but that may perhaps be due to his political leanings. On the other hand, William will never understand my concern as he wanders the land in search of a reason for revolution and a leader such as Sam Adams, John Hancock or even Jefferson with his majestic prose.
Louman has often referred to the porosity of your borders and has put forward the need to perhaps control ammunition supplies. Both are good points and unfortunately I can see no real solution to the border problem other than draconian penalties for infringement. Not sure this is the way to go and something outside the square may be necessary. If some way could be found to proscribe the NRA so that they became a fraternal order of gun owners dedicated to safe shooting then that may be a start. The NRA in fact were apolitical until Government introduced what were moderate gun laws. It is now obvious to all that the NRA are basically an arm of Government. Why on earth would any organization protest at the need to carry out police checks on a prospective buyer of a firearm? Why no cooling off period and why no ban on firearms designed for the military which have but one purpose, the taking of life by one human being of another.
It may assist if someone here could explore the State regulations and the “States rights: existing under the constitution with a view to changing a situation which even most Americans see as needing change. I have not tried to understand the “States Rights” part of the constitution, it is simply too difficult for my limited intellect. Perhaps there is a way forward there.
Cheers from Aussie.
Your right, I didn’t realize that Australia like the UK required that you lock up your weapons beyond even your own access... but then again I guess they are no longer deemed weapons... they are just like... a tennis racket but with a really good serve.
DeleteI’m not sure I follow your comments about the obedience of laws... What Oz is so perfect that you have nt crime? No Rape... not robbery... no burglary? I am almost certain that ring over Australia is ozone depletion and not a halo.
I still stand by my statement, at least when you had your firearm. If you as a 74 year old man were confronted by the possibility of danger posed to either yourself or your family member and unlocking that cabinet and loading that rifle was the only way you could deal with the danger... you would.
Yes living here in Britain has opened my eyes to the way the state feels about self defense... they would rather you die than use enough force to insure your safety in a situation that you neither provoked or expected... It’s not even legal to have a lock blade folding knife in this country and I swear by my Swiss-tool! It wasn’t until I had been here 6 months that someone asked me about it because I carried it everywhere (You never know when you need a cork screw or a wood saw or a file or a damn 3” blade knife)... anyway he informed me that it would be wise to read up on the law regarding folding knives and stop carrying it before the police saw it. Oh yes... budget constraints for this constabulary are such that they well be selectively responding to burglary...
They are so concerned about public safety that they almost banded kitchen knives over a certain length after the Wolverhampton machete attack in 96. They take health and safety regulations here really seriously. A couple of police refused to enter 3 feet deep water to rescue a man having an epileptic seizure because their supervisor wouldn’t let them... they hadn’t been properly trained in water rescue and could not enter water over ankle deep... The guy lay face down in the water for almost a half hour before proper ‘rescue’ personal arrived.
I to have limited ability to understand some of the 'common sense' things that pass for... common sense.
Cheers from Old Blighty
Just a comment about this. Yes, most people would like to find a solution to the idiots going around senselessly killing innocent people... but a large segment of those people are still asking the question: “How do you do that and preserve the intentions of the 2nd amendment?” All suggestions are entertained.
DeleteThe left don’t want to even think about going down the States' rights road for a lot of reasons. The most obvious would be the 10th amendment with transfers without question the guarantees of the US constitution to every citizen in every state... the 2nd amendment among them. The other is that if they promote the idea that states have the right to regulate firearms then they would have to concede that states also have the absolute right to regulate things like abortion....That one is kryptonite!
You have a passion for ignoring De facto changes in the real world. In the South, the abortion issue has already become de facto illegal. By using local law making with near pure Republican majorities, quite a few states have damn near outlawed it. You point carries on paper, while in the real world, something different has already occurred. I'm guess you would probably say that the 2nd is correct, because it was there at inception while abortion was just one of many decisions after the fact that was incorrectly decided. Still, as it stands, both are legal under the constitution, and from the right, I see an inconsistency. The inconsistency being that they want unfettered, unregulated access to firearms, yet, they want to use the government locally to outlaw what has been a constitutionally decided issue. Again, whether that issue was decided correctly is a fair debate to have. But it's beside the point in this discussion here.
DeleteThis might surprise you, but I more or less favor the approach of letting states set their own gun laws. In contrast to Hillary's wailing, "YOU DIDN'T SIGN THE BRADY BILL", I thought Sanders gave a thoughtful and solid answer. I agree with him in seeing this as a different issue in rural versus metropolitan areas and I don't agree with a one size fits all approach. If it was left to states to decide and some states decided to put some restriction on ownership, I doubt you would support that, maybe I'm wrong. but when I once said local people should be allowed to make that decision, you slapped that down quite decisively.
I believe I am much more consistent here than a lot of conservatives. I do not support any movement to ban ownership of firearms, but I am willing to support some reasonable limits, just as I am also willing to support some limits on abortion. In contrast, conservatives want 100% freedom on the 2nd, but also want the ability to create a de facto outlaw of abortion, which, in several southern states, they have accomplished.
I’m not ignoring anything... While there are states that are using ... creative measures... to restrict abortion, it is nothing that the left would want to acknowledge as ‘legitimate recourse’. Restricting abortion by creating some obstacle to medical qualifications or some such excuse is no different than out president attempting to control guns with ammunition. And just as no restrictions abortion crowd will fight those laws... Restriction of ammunition as a way to undermine the 2nd amendment is going to wind up in the federal docket soon enough.
DeleteAgain, I don’t think there is one gun owner in America than actually cares about life that wouldn’t love to find a solution to the very real problem of insuring the 2nd amendment and reducing the violence perpetrated with guns. It is all well and good to say that you don’t support the abolition of the amendment but it is no different than saying that you support the due process clause of the 5th amendment while the government implements indefinite detention in its many Omni bills any shrugging it off by saying that what they do in Washington doesn’t affect you. With anti gun folks as rabid about removing fire arms from the America as they are while disregarding the serious miscalculations of the psychiatric community, ‘supporting’ the 2nd amendment while a gun confiscation program tucked into some obscure piece of legislation has the ability to identify every single gun owner.
Do you also support states regulating the other 9 bill of rights amendments as well? That in many ways is exactly what the 10th amendment was supposed to prevent. These discussions are starting to get to the heart of the perversions created to usurp the provisions of the constitution rather than properly amend it... and that is a good discussion to have.