Will Gun Control Go Away?


PDA






ConservativeMetalhead
June 23, 2010, 06:48 AM
I know this had probably been asked a thousand times but I haven't been told. I know this is a stupid question but I just want to hear opinions. WILL GUN CONTROL EVER GO AWAY? Please, explain your 'yes' or 'no' answer.

If you enjoyed reading about "Will Gun Control Go Away?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
hso
June 23, 2010, 07:07 AM
Is this a legal question or philosophical?

What do you mean by "gun control"? Local, state or fed?

We can safely say that there will always be some laws regulating the sale, possession and carry of some sort of firearms so in a very real sense the answer to your question, assuming you meant wrt laws, is that there will always be some sort of law at the federal, state and local level regulating firearms possession and use.

BeerSleeper
June 23, 2010, 07:12 AM
As long as there are people dumb enough to believe you can reduce gun crime by attempting to deny lawful citizens access to guns, there will be some degree of gun control. When 100% of the population can be educated beyond that minimum level of understanding, gun control can go away. Unfortunately, one good long look at the general public gives a pretty good demonstration of how difficult it is to educate them.

Jframe.38
June 23, 2010, 07:46 AM
Reader's digest answer - No

Long answer - As long as there are power grabbers who want to disarm the law-abiding citizenry we will always have efforts to disarm us. Some thought that Heller and soon to be McDonald would stop this. It hasn't. Just look at NRAnews.com. In New York they are trying to pass microstamping. In Pennsylvania the Brady Bunch want to do away with reciprocity. Every day there is an article on a new assault on our freedoms.

I am staying politically aware and active.

Bubba613
June 23, 2010, 07:55 AM
Gun control today, gun control tomorrow, gun control forever.

Balrog
June 23, 2010, 08:19 AM
Like other issues, it waxes and wanes in political popularity. I don't expect anything on the federal level for the next two years, but if Obama gets a 2nd term, I would expect the gloves to come off and new legislation develop. Now is a good time to stock up on things you want, they will never be cheaper than they are right now.

AirForceShooter
June 23, 2010, 08:23 AM
No it's never going away. At least control in some form.
I figure every court decision in the future will contain the words "subject to reasonable restriction".
There are too many Brady types and people that are just plain terrified of guns.

AFS

shockwave
June 23, 2010, 08:34 AM
if Obama gets a 2nd term, I would expect the gloves to come off

No. Ain't gonna happen. Obama doesn't write laws - Congress does. Both parties (please remember the anti-gun policies of Nixon and Reagan) have tried to enact more restrictive gun laws in the past and both paid a heavy price for it. It's political suicide and a third rail and most of 'em seem to have gotten the message loud and clear.

But we do need some level of gun control. Can't have felons, children, drug addicts, foreigners or the mentally ill buying guns. All of the above eventually could, potentially, obtain firearms but they need to change their status in some way first.

Frank Ettin
June 23, 2010, 09:42 AM
We live in a pluralistic, political society, and in the real world there is going to be some "gun control."

There are a bunch of people out there who don't like guns (for whatever reason). There are also a lot of people who are scared of guns or of people who want to have guns. Some think guns should be banned and private citizens shouldn't have them at all. Some may be willing to go a long with private citizens being able to own guns as long as they were regulated. And these people vote.

We may think these people are wrong and that they have no valid reason to believe the way they do. We might think that many of them are crazy (and maybe some of them are). Of course some of them think that we have no valid reasons to think the way we do, and some of them think that we're crazy. But they still vote.

Of course we vote too, but there are enough of them to have an impact. They may be more powerful some places than others. But the bottom line is there would always be some level of gun control.

Of course there's the Second Amendment. But there is also a long line of judicial precedent for the proposition that Constitutionally protected rights may be subject to limited governmental regulation, subject to certain standards. How much regulation will pass muster remains to be seen. But the bottom line, again, is that we are unlikely to see all gun control thrown out by the courts; and we will therefore always have to live with some level of gun control.

How much or how little control we are saddled with will depend. It will depend in part on how well we can win the hearts and minds of the fence sitters. It will depend on how well we can acquire and maintain political and economic power and how adroitly we wield it. It will depend on how skillfully we handle post Heller litigation.

So whether or not we like it, whether or not we think the Second Amendment allows it and notwithstanding what we think the Founding Fathers would have thought about it, we will have to live with some forms of gun control.

We're left with opportunities to influence how much.

Old Fuff
June 23, 2010, 10:36 AM
But we do need some level of gun control. Can't have felons, children, drug addicts, foreigners or the mentally ill buying guns. All of the above eventually could, potentially, obtain firearms but they need to change their status in some way first.

In a perfect world that’s envisioned by some, everyone respects and obeys laws. In the real world that doesn’t happen. While laws can be passed to prohibit certain people from doing certain things, as long as whatever they want is available in one form or another they’ll either do or get what they want. A perfect example is so called “controlled substances,” or “illegal drugs,” which are completely prohibited at every level (federal, state and local), and in every respect (importation or manufacture, sale, and possession or use). Yet they are widely available, and will continue to be so as long as there is a demand.

So long as there is a desire or demand for guns they will be available, even in the unlikely event that laws are passed to control firearms in the same manner and to the same degree as those that are on the books concerning illegal drugs.

Most of the support for firearms regulation, as well as most everything else, comes from urban areas and those with a leftist perspective that believes in big government and “community interests,” over individual freedom. As long as they prevail gun control, both as laws and as a political issue won’t go away.

Bubba613
June 23, 2010, 11:13 AM
There are laws against murder as well and we still have murders. The fact that a law doesn't eliminate something is not a reason to repeal it.

Old Fuff
June 23, 2010, 11:59 AM
There are laws against murder as well and we still have murders. The fact that a law doesn't eliminate something is not a reason to repeal it.

But the prime question might be, do statutes prohibiting murder really affect the murder rate? Without question, they punish those that commit the crime if they are caught and convicted, but that doesn't really do much for the victim.

Gun control laws are designed in theory to prevent the "wrong people" from obtaining weapons. But like those that cover illegal drugs, that don't do particularly well in accomplishing the intent. More often they have the unintended (?) consequence of disarming potential victims who obey the laws. One could go so far as to point out that they actually encourage crime. In this sense they are different then those that may eventually punish killers.

mljdeckard
June 23, 2010, 12:04 PM
Ultimately no. There will always exist a desire to control the population, and this is not possible while the have effective means to resist.

The momentum is in our favor right now, but this will change eventually.

Bubba613
June 23, 2010, 12:54 PM
But the prime question might be, do statutes prohibiting murder really affect the murder rate? Without question, they punish those that commit the crime if they are caught and convicted, but that doesn't really do much for the victim.

Gun control laws are designed in theory to prevent the "wrong people" from obtaining weapons. But like those that cover illegal drugs, that don't do particularly well in accomplishing the intent. More often they have the unintended (?) consequence of disarming potential victims who obey the laws. One could go so far as to point out that they actually encourage crime. In this sense they are different then those that may eventually punish killers.

Actually the question is, what is the purpose of the law? Murder laws are there to punish after the fact. No society can condone murder and be called civilized. Even if not a single murder were prevented (and it is rash assumption to say that is so) we would still want such laws to punish after the fact.
Yes, gun control laws are designed to prevent "the wrong people" from having guns. And lots of people fall into that category, rightfully so. How many convicted felons (and violent ones at that) get caught with a gun at a traffic stop? How many crimes did that prevent?
We can argue as to what "reasonable" means. But ultimately that is up to society.

wishin
June 23, 2010, 12:55 PM
Some degree of gun control will forever exist. As long as there's violence in the world, there will always be those who believe that guns make it deadly violence, and that we'd revert to the old Wild West mentality.

shockwave
June 23, 2010, 01:05 PM
Gun control laws are designed in theory to prevent the "wrong people" from obtaining weapons.
Not in the slightest. Nobody believes that. We have this discussion over and over and yet somehow, this idea persists that laws making it illegal for felons, drug addicts, violent spouse-beating savages, the mentally ill, etc., to own firearms are invalid because said person can go to Crazy Larry's Underground Street Emporium of Black Market Guns and arm up anyway.

Of course they can. Of course they do. Everybody knows that. So let's ditch that tired old argument, OK? The point is that if such persons are caught with firearms, they go to jail.

livewire98801
June 23, 2010, 01:13 PM
Even if it were to go away completely, gun control would be back. There are always two groups of people that want our guns. Those who believe guns are evil (victims of crime that blame the tool over the perp), and those that know gun control is the best way to control the people. The second group plays off the first group and gets things done.

That why even if we were to win the fight, we can't truly relax, someone will always dig it up.

rainbowbob
June 23, 2010, 01:16 PM
But we do need some level of gun control.


To what purpose?

Old Fuff has eloquently covered why they are useless in post #10 & #12.

Punishment is NOT prevention. If the prohibition laws are meant to protect public safety (and that is the at least the official justification for them) - then it can easily be demonstrated they don't work.

Since there are already plenty of laws designed to segregate and punish those that commit criminal violence (regardless of the tool used) - gun laws that merely add to that punishment are redundant, particularly if the punishments for criminal violence are effectively designed and applied (i.e., keep violent felons away from the rest of us).


The point is that if such persons are caught with firearms, they go to jail.

Again, the justification for that is to increase public safety, right? But disarming whole classifications of persons based on our fear of them do nothing to prevent a few of them from attacking us, while infringing the rights of most of them who do not attack us.

Denying certain persons the ability to defend themselves from attack, persons who are otherwise free to operate in society, does NOTHING to increase public safety.

Zack
June 23, 2010, 01:19 PM
I think its insane when people talk about gun control. How about we control drugs/alcohol/cars/vehicles/knifes. Gun is just another object to kill someone with. Sure gun crimes could be higher than other but do not blaime the gun. Look people sit behind a wheel drunk or some people murder people with vehciles... Why not have "car control"?

If the US have 0 guns some day people will still murder. There is other tools... Do not blaime the guns, its the person behind it. A gun can not go off by it self. Just like a knife can not kill someone with out someone holding it.

livewire98801
June 23, 2010, 01:20 PM
To what purpose?

Old Fuff has eloquently covered why they are useless in post #10 & #12.

Punishment is NOT prevention. If the prohibition laws are meant to protect public safety (and that is the at least the official justification for them) - then it can easily be demonstrated they don't work.

Since there are already plenty of laws designed to segregate and punish those that commit criminal violence (regardless of the tool used) - gun laws that merely add to that punishment are redundant, particularly if the punishments for criminal violence are effectively designed and applied (i.e., keep violent felons away from the rest of us).

This exchange right here is both our problem in the current fight, and an example of why we will always have bureaucracy surrounding gun ownership. We don't present a unified front (chanting the 2nd in every fight), instead some of us say "cold, dead hands" and some say "well, we can give up a little here".

We need to stick together. . .

highorder
June 23, 2010, 01:27 PM
We don't present a unified front (chanting the 2nd in every fight), instead some of us say "cold, dead hands" and some say "well, we can give up a little here".

IMO those people haven't thought it all the way through, or they have and they do not support gun ownership to the extent they pretend to.

livewire98801
June 23, 2010, 01:34 PM
In another forum, someone said that shooters will vehemently defend their own shooting sport, but not shooting sports as a whole. Precision shooters don't see a reason for having 'evil black rifles', trap/skeet shooters don't see a reason to have handguns with more than 10 rounds, etc. Few of us (like you and I, highorder) will defend ALL shooting sports.

Of course, most people also miss the real reason the 2nd ammendment, and personal arms as a whole really, exist in the first place. Shooting sports are ways to practice for the main reason to carry arms. Personal defense, prevention of tyranny, and hunting game are my reasons for keeping up with the 'sports'.

Manco
June 23, 2010, 03:58 PM
There will always be some level of gun control directed at the people, but the only gun control I'd support would be directed at the government.

William Lee
June 23, 2010, 04:18 PM
Keep your fingers crossed for a favorable outcome in McDonald v. Chicago. If the case is decided in favor of second amendment incorporation (meaning that the second amendment applies to state as well as federal governments), we might see a nation-wide reduction in gun control. However, if it is not incorporated, be on the lookout for more draconian municipal restrictions that make oh-so-much sense in a globalist world where national borders (let alone municipal ones) are increasingly meaningless.

livewire98801
June 23, 2010, 04:19 PM
Even so, there will still be "common-sense gun control". Common-sense to the Regime of the area, at any rate. Look at DC.

stchman
June 24, 2010, 06:07 PM
Never.

I always try to hit what I am aiming at!!!

mljdeckard
June 24, 2010, 09:58 PM
Um, welcome new guy, but we don't do politics here.

livewire98801
June 24, 2010, 10:04 PM
ldcarson
Member

Join Date: November 14, 2008
Posts: 7

Me thinks we have a troll in our midst. . .

stevelyn
June 24, 2010, 10:53 PM
No. There will always be people out there wanting to control what others do.

Phydeaux642
June 24, 2010, 11:07 PM
but we don't do politics here.

I don't see how anyone could possibly talk about gun laws without becoming political. Talking about gun control is like talking about abortion in that it can barely be discussed without talking politics. And, since we don't do politics here, I guess I can't discuss it.

mljdeckard
June 24, 2010, 11:34 PM
We talk about the guns stuff. When it drifts into areas that have nothing to do with guns, the thread gets locked. Post #27 didn't mention guns at all.

gofastman
June 24, 2010, 11:54 PM
I hope not.
I don't want felons able to legally buy guns.

vett3v
June 25, 2010, 11:04 AM
I hope not.
I don't want felons able to legally buy guns.

Be careful there... If a community decides that getting 2 speeding tickets in a year is a felony.. Poof there goes someone's right to purchase or own guns...

Old Fuff
June 25, 2010, 11:17 AM
Interestingly, back in the late 19th / early 20th centuries in places like Utah and Arizona, it was not illegal for a convicted felon to own a gun, after they were released from prison. Residents seemed to take an all-is-forgiven attitude so long as past criminal activity didn’t become a present one. A case in point was Robert LeRoy Parker, better known as Butch Cassidy. When Butch, a well-known train and bank robber got out of jail he promptly (and legally) bought a six-shooter and probably additional armament. Unquestionably if he couldn’t have legally bought firearms he would have obtained them anyway. Unfortunately it didn’t take Cassidy long to return to his previous occupation, and reward posters were distributed putting a substantial price on his head. These however had everything to do with his leanings toward robbery, and nothing about how he obtained his hardware.

At a much later time I had a discussion about Arizona very loose gun control laws, with a current day lawman. As a practical matter there are very few state or local statutes that are concerned with the subject, and I think we will soon earn a “F-” grade from the Brady Bunch – a fact that gives us great satisfaction. Anyway he said that he didn’t give a hoot who had or carried a gun, because there wasn’t a whole lot he could do about it one way or the other. However if they used the gun(s) to commit crimes it would quickly become his business and he would do something about it. He had a reputation for doing exactly that.

He (and I) keep in mind that former felons come in various flavors- some reformed, some not. When the latter get caught after being involved in a current offence they should be dealt with in light of their recent behavior, and a court should make it clear to them that they should have learned better the first time.

livewire98801
June 25, 2010, 12:42 PM
+1 Old Fluff

I have a cousin who was an avid hunter as a kid. When he was in his late teens, he was in a vehicle accident that was wholly his fault (alcohol was involved), and someone died. I agree with the judge who threw the book at him, it was a stupid move that destroyed a lot of lives.

That being said, he doesn't have a violent bone in his body. He would never intentionally hurt another human being. He learned his lesson and is completely responsible in his life, and I wouldn't have any problem whatsoever with him owning an armory. But, because the accident was ruled as a felony (vehicular homicide), he'll never be able to own firearms the way things are now.

He's served his time, but will be punished by not being able to hunt ever again. Right or wrong, I don't really know, but it sure seems unfair to keep punishing him.

livewire98801
June 25, 2010, 12:57 PM
Here's a great example of the coming fight when Chicago v McDonald is done. I've seen a lot of articles just like it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37907626/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Art Eatman
June 25, 2010, 02:14 PM
Daley: Always mistaken but never uncertain. Seems to me that his idea of banning gun stores would be a restraint of trade--which laws have always struck me as way too much unused.

Bubbles
June 25, 2010, 02:56 PM
Be careful there... If a community decides that getting 2 speeding tickets in a year is a felony.. Poof there goes someone's right to purchase or own guns...

vett3v brings up a good point. IMO post-Heller & McDonald gun control advocate will focus less on "gun ban" type laws, and more on expanding the list of prohibited persons so that fewer people are permitted to own firearms. Misdemeanor conviction? No guns for you. Taking medication for a mental disorder such as schizophrenia or bipolarism? No guns for you.

Girodin
June 25, 2010, 05:56 PM
I don't want felons able to legally buy guns.

Be careful there... If a community decides that getting 2 speeding tickets in a year is a felony.. Poof there goes someone's right to purchase or own guns...

I'm of the opinion that at a minimum the restriction against felons owning guns ought to apply only to violent felonies and perhaps drug felonies. This would be more in keeping with safety justifications. Denial of gun ownership as a form of continued punishment itself seems a little sketchy. People would be up in arms if you limited activities protected by the first amendment on those grounds.

Girodin
June 25, 2010, 06:01 PM
IMO post-Heller & McDonald gun control advocate will focus less on "gun ban" type laws, and more on expanding the list of prohibited persons so that fewer people are permitted to own firearms.

I imagine the tactic will be that used in D.C., replacing outright bans with expensive, time consuming, arduous, permit processes and the like. This is likely to be rather effective in terms of preventing ownership if it is allowed. Look at the number of people that own guns compared to those that own NFA items. I also know a number of people that have a desire to get carry permits that have yet to do so because the time and/or expense has them pushing it off to another day.

The next legal battle is likely to be the lever of scrutiny that gun control measures must pass. That will key to what types of measures are allowed and which will be struck.

livewire98801
June 25, 2010, 06:18 PM
in Washington State, I feel we have the best CCW permit process until 'constitutional carry' like AK, VT, etc. We're 'Shall Issue', the permit is $55 for five years, and no training requirement. The state restrictions for the permit are the easy (no felony, no involuntary commitment for mental reasons, no pending charges or awaiting trial).

Is it so strange that I'm opposed to a training requirement for ownership of weapons or CCW? I think everyone should be trained in firearms handling and safety before they carry, but I hate the requirement in order to purchase one. Thoughts?

highorder
June 25, 2010, 06:20 PM
'm of the opinion that at a minimum the restriction against felons owning guns ought to apply only to violent felonies and perhaps drug felonies.

Perhaps not?

Drug crime is unregulated business between willing buyer and willing seller.

If you serve your time for doing elicit (non-violent) business you should have the right to defend yourself, not to mention the previously discussed "guess what's a felony now!" effect.

Just my opinion.

ldcarson
June 25, 2010, 06:33 PM
No troll here...Just been overseas for the last few years. Am back for a month before I head back to the sand box. I've been reading alot of history on our country and realize our country is under seige by a liberal progressive agenda. It is rather shocking to me to come back to america and see it in the shape it is in. We have alot of work to do, but when the question was asked about gun control, one only has to look at the politics of it. The lines are clearly drawn, at least as I see it. I don't often get chance to get on here, but don't mistake my low post count for a lack of understanding what is at stake. Having grown up in europe (father was military) I've seen first hand how the socialist left has disarmed its public. Ive seen the right over the years support those same beliefs. The point I was making , How be it very strongly worded is that I believe it started with the left and has moved into the right...why, because the governments do NOT want an armed public that could "change" things in crises. History is full of this, our founding fathers attempted to correct this with the second amendment, why has it even come to the point where we find ourselves having to fight for the right...what have we been taught that even remotly gives creedance to the possibility that this isn't a right at all?

My post wasn't meant to be a drive by shooting...just a reaction to information overload upon my return to the states...I'll try to moderate my "feelings" alittle so I don't offend those sensitive souls...

livewire98801
June 25, 2010, 06:42 PM
ldcarson. . . the problem is it's not really a 'right vs left' debate as much as it initially seems. it's a 'control vs freedom' debate. Right now it's the 'left' that has the control side of the board.

We have to defend our freedoms, no matter who wants to take them away. The first two amendments to the constitution are there because they are the most important. Speech is the most important, but it doesn't do any good if you don't have teeth.

fastbolt
June 25, 2010, 07:04 PM
Will Gun Control Go Away?

No.

It will, however, in likelihood, probably have to meet a standard of reasonableness, which will be determined by various courts.

Thanks for your continuing service. Please do your best to remain safe and come back to enjoy the fruits of what you labor to protect for us.

jfh
June 25, 2010, 07:11 PM
ldcarson: Obviously, you are not a troll, and your post is rational; no apology or moderating on your part is needed--it's just in the wrong forum..

THR has a policy of "No Political Discussions." Period, end-stop. For political discussions, go on over to APS.

Jim H.

jeepguy
June 25, 2010, 07:15 PM
it should have gone away when the founders wrote the second amendment in the bill of rights. since that didnt work, i dont think gun control will ever go away.

parsimonious_instead
June 25, 2010, 07:31 PM
I just hope that if the liberal tide is turned back somewhat this November and Obama is replaced by a 2A friendly President in 2012, our side will *NOT* get complacent.

livewire98801
June 25, 2010, 07:33 PM
our side will get complacent

You mean. . . NOT get complacent?

Jim K
June 25, 2010, 07:36 PM
During the fight over GCA '68, its supporters insisted it was necessary to keep "them" from getting guns. "They" were dangerous and criminally inclined. "They" had shown they could not control themselves. The law would end mail order gun sales so all sales would have to be "face to face", a phrase repeated over and over by supporters of the bill. It was assumed that a dealer would refuse to sell a gun if the prospective buyer had the wrong face.

Now no dealer can tell a criminal by his face. There is only one thing a person's face will tell, and that is his or her race. So now you know who "they" are, who are, according to the poliiticians, irresponsible and should not be allowed to have guns. In case you didn't notice, the cities with the most restrictive gun laws are the cities with large numbers of "them."

Yet many of "them" support gun control, accepting that "they" are somehow evil and should not have the same rights as others.

Jim

rainbowbob
June 26, 2010, 07:05 PM
Jim Keenan makes some very good points about the racist underpinnings of gun control, which began in the decades following the Civil War.

In 1968, the Black Panthers openly armed themselves, making a lot of white folks very nervous.

The rise of the drug gangs in the 80's made even more people nervous.

Further "common sense" restrictions of gun rights followed.

leadcounsel
June 26, 2010, 09:51 PM
People never learn. Ebs and flows. History repeats itself.

Girodin
June 26, 2010, 11:45 PM
Perhaps not?

Drug crime is unregulated business between willing buyer and willing seller.

If you serve your time for doing elicit (non-violent) business you should have the right to defend yourself, not to mention the previously discussed "guess what's a felony now!" effect.

Just my opinion.

My professional experience with drug cases causes me to have a slightly different view of many of the felony drug cases and the individuals prosecuted in them.

Art Eatman
June 27, 2010, 08:48 AM
This seems headed off toward philosophising which inevitably gets into politics...

If you enjoyed reading about "Will Gun Control Go Away?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!