My little gun control rant.

[jakk280rem]

...but is also the thing giving us the right.

no, it's not. the right to select for oneself a self representitive government, to bear arms in defence of or in opposition of it, to assemble and speak out in support or protest of that government is a Human Right. It is a birth right. each and every human was imbued those rights at birth by their creator.

 

[hardworker]

Yes, it says arms. The definition of "arms" is very vague. Do F16's count as arms? A line had to be drawn somewhere, and they chose full auto's.

 

[happygeek]

I'll play the devil advocate here. I'm not advocating this either way, just stating a case;

IF a convicted felon, of a violent crime (not felony jay walking) who has been to trial, been convicted of rape, murder, <insert violent crime here> gets out on good behavior, he should be able to own a fully automatic weapon?

Prohibiting that would in and of itself be a restriction imposed upon the Second Amendment.

People who have been duly convicted of a crime lose all sorts of rights, not least of which is freedom of movement. If they've been let out of prison on parole, they're still under a whole host of restrictions including restrictions on travel. Whether it's wise to allow so many out on parole considering the rate at which parolees tend to commit crimes and get re-arrested is up for debate.

Talking about taking someone's rights away who has been duly convicted of a crime is in a whole different league than where the anti-gunners are, since they want to take everyone's rights away.

If we made the case that we should be able to "bear" any arms that the government bears, should we all be allowed Stinger missiles? NBC?

According to Wikipedia a Stinger missile costs $38,000 while a Javelin anti-tank missile costs $40,000 for each missile plus $125,000 for the reusable launch unit. Prices like that tend to result in automatic restriction to the wealthy. If I'm not badly mistaken, both would be considered destructive devices under the NFA, not automatics, and hence you could still buy a brand new one, assuming you have $38,000 plus the $200 tax stamp laying around.

As far as NBC, people have made poison gas, the Tokyo Subway Attack comes to mind. If you're talking about things like nuclear or hydrogen bombs, we're right back in the realm of Bill Gates/Donald Trump like wealth to own one, again restricting such devices to the very wealthy.

 

[happygeek]

On a sidenote, would a Mk19 be considered a destructive device or an automatic under the NFA? If it's a destructive device, you could buy one for around $15,500 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/mk19.htm).

 

[dmancornell]

What irks me even more than the asinine controls on select fire, SBR's, etc. are the fact that police are allowed to have them without paying insane scalper prices. Yet another example of a statist entity giving professional courtesy to another statist entity.

Nothing pisses me off more than seeing the cops blow through taxpayer supplied ammo in full auto in my private club and yukking it up because mere mundanes like myself can't have them.

Apparently the Commerce Clause means only the state and rich people can have select fire guns.

 

[Erik M]

Carpet bombing suburbs wouldn't bode well for reelection hopes.

Karl Marx said something to the tune of it's not who casts the votes, it's who counts them. As CoRoMo said, 2A issues will be the least of the masses worries by that time.

 

[Old krow]

Talking about taking someone's rights away who has been duly convicted of a crime is in a whole different league than where the anti-gunners are, since they want to take everyone's rights away.

I agree, 100%. I'm only playing DA in the realm of this question though and I'm using "small strokes" so-to-speak. While I heartily agree with you, it doesn't answer the questions. The question was specific to felons, and of the violent crime variety, and to answer the "why?" question as to any restriction to full autos.

In fact, I agree with most of what you wrote. The question is only really meant to ask if the "any gun, for any person, at any time" policy is always the right thing to do. Depending on the school of thought, or social circle this can be viewed as a reasonable restriction or a blatant violation of the Second Amendment.

 

[happygeek]

Well, the question is really this: if you can't trust someone who has been duly convicted of a violent felony with a gun, do you really trust them to walk freely among us? I mean, supposedly the whole idea of gun control is to let criminals out on parole to save money on prisons, but it's ok because they'll only commit another crime if they are in possession of a firearm and our laws will stop them from getting one. I mean, that's the idea of gun control, right?

 

[Old krow]

Well, the question is really this:

Um... no. I'm pretty sure I knew what my question was. I am not taking the position of an anti-gunner. Just posing that one question. Like I said, I'm only playing inside the confines of THAT question. I'm not leaving that question in any way shape or form to venture out in "gun ban" land, or why ban what, do ban or don't ban.

if you can't trust someone who has been duly convicted of a violent felony with a gun, do you really trust them to walk freely among us?

No, I do not. I agree with that to. I'm all for solving the "crime" issue and firmly believe that if that were successfully accomplished it would all be a mute point. I can't decide if I believe that will happen first or that I will receive social security.

Ok, let's play fair here. I'll give you one on credit, but you have to answer mine

I mean, that's the idea of gun control, right?

In my opinion, no. That isn't the purpose of gun control at all. Let's analyze this statement; gun CONTROL. IMHO it's far more about control than it is anything else. There are a lot of correlations, pick one.

 

[happygeek]

In fact, I agree with most of what you wrote. The question is only really meant to ask if the "any gun, for any person, at any time" policy is always the right thing to do. Depending on the school of thought, or social circle this can be viewed as a reasonable restriction or a blatant violation of the Second Amendment.

I'm not sure anyone is actually advocating for "any gun, for any person, at any time", the only time I've even heard that phrase was when Sugerman or Helmke is throwing a strawman. I think pretty much everyone agrees with the idea of a prohibited persons list, but everyone also knows that making it a crime for a prohibited person to be in possession of a firearms doesn't actually stop them from coming into possession of a firearm. Brady Background Checks didn't do the trick either. So what's the next step? According to the anti-gunners the answer is to attack everyone's rights. We might buy a gun for a prohibited person, so there has to be a one gun a month law. But that doesn't do the trick. So we need a safe storage law, you know, because clearly prohibited persons are getting their guns by stealing them. Except that doesn't do the trick. So we need laws that mandate registration and licensing. Still the prohibited persons somehow get their hands on firearms. And on and on it goes. Don't tell the true believers that their gun control laws don't work, because the laws would work ... if only we'd pass one more.

Where does it end? Well, in the U.K. it ends in a ban. But the criminals still get their hands on guns. So they go after air pistols and kids toys.

If you can't trust a duly convicted person with a gun, do you really trust them to walk among us? Even if we bought the theory that gun control laws do work, what's to stop them from mugging your grandma with a machete, unless grandma is armed?

 

[stuckinsocal]

The story that anti gunners try to sell is that gun control works to reduce crime, keep guns "out of the wrong hands", and all this other BS. Take that away from them, and they no longer have any reason to tell people to convince them gun control is good. It doesn't work. So why keep it when it's blatently unconstitutional? Its only possible redeming quality (stopping "bad people" from obtaining guns) has been proven false, so that eliminates any arguement in favor of keeping such restrictions. I'm against restrictions such as the prohibited persons list and background checks. They don't work and are unconstitutional.
What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand? According the the 2nd Amendment, I have the right to keep and bear arms. If I must meet certain requirements to keep and bear those arms, my right to do so is being infringed. CCW permits are a perfect example. I must meet certain arbitrarily mandated requirements to exercise my right to bear arms. I must pay the government to bear arms. I must complete government approved training to exercise my right to bear arms. How can anyone in their right mind not call that an infringement of my right to bear arms?
My copy of the 2nd Amendment doesn't have any provisions for "reasonable restrictions". My belief is that if people don't like the wording of the 2nd Amendment, then change it by Constitutional Amendment. Otherwise leave it alone and simply obey what it says....."shall not be infringed"

 

[Old krow]

I'm not sure anyone is actually advocating for "any gun, for any person, at any time", the only time I've even heard that phrase was when Sugerman or Helmke is throwing a strawman.

Yes, that phrase was his, but it isn't the only place that it is used. And I didn't say that anyone was saying anything. That's the reason it was a question. I think that the concept of the Devil's Advocate might have been lost here. It means to take up a position that you do not necessarily agree with. It's primary purpose is to strengthen an argument.

 

[Diddlyv]

Actually there is no "need" to regulate fully automatic weapons. It is clear by reading federalist 46 that the intent was the armed citizenry out man and out gun the standing military just to prevent the government tyranny. The founding fathers believed all free men had the right and obligation to defend the country as well. They passed the Militia act of 1792 that required all men 18 to 45 report when called and bring the musket of current military pattern and 40 rounds of ammunition. These items were to be purchased by the individual unless there was hardship then the government would provide the arms. One could argue that a fully automatic m4 carbine is the musket of current military pattern.

The 1934 NFA actually did not regulate short barreled rifles, shotguns or machine guns. The law imposed registration and taxation on the transfer of said weapons.

In US v Miller no one actually appeared to challenge the case. The Supreme Court held rather erroneously (had they bothered to check with the military concerning shotguns in WWI or any other conflict) that the military utility of a short barreled shotgun. They obviously overlooked the confederate use of the 20 gauge LeMat Revolver in the War of Northern Aggression.

 

[hardworker]

You have to look at the difference in culture between then and now. Back then, the military musket doubled as a hunting musket. And people didn't go out back and play with it when they were bored. It was a tool. It'd be fine if people would just put the M4 in the closet and only use it when needed, like the Swiss, but they won't. Not without government regulation. And besides, just because we don't have M4's doesn't mean we're out gunned. Let's be honest, the real reason people want an automatic is because they're cool. I'll admit it, they're pretty awesome. But the notion of keeping the government in check with one is absurd. If the guns we have available don't do it, no gun can.

 

[happygeek]

Yes, that phrase was his, but it isn't the only place that it is used. And I didn't say that anyone was saying anything. That's the reason it was a question. I think that the concept of the Devil's Advocate might have been lost here. It means to take up a position that you do not necessarily agree with. It's primary purpose is to strengthen an argument.

I got the Devil's Advocate part, but you forgot to hyperventilate about the 30,000 gun deaths a year. You also forgot to insist repeatedly that the U.K. is a crime free utopia now that they've banned handguns and "assault weapons".

Speaking of England, I stumbled on this http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/r279.pdf while poking around Google. Apparently they've arrested people who were in possession of automatics (who got them for 800 to 4,000 pounds), you can get a 9mm handgun for as little as 150 pounds if it's used or 1,000 pounds if it's new, and there was a strong correlation between the drug market and firearms.

If gun control was going to work anywhere, you'd think it'd work in England. They are an island after all.

Cook and Ludwig did a study on the illegal gun market in Chicago which I recently finished reading. Among their findings was that, similar to England, the guns seemed to be easier to get ahold of than the ammo, gangs tended to have a much easier time getting guns than non-gang member criminals (England's site mentioned this too), and that older career criminals who tend to have more contacts in the underground had a much easier time getting ahold of guns than the younger non-gang member criminals.

I'm not sure how Cook and Ludwig's study helps either side of the argument all that much, there's bits in there that either side can trumpet. The author's conclusion was that the market is "thin" and that enforcement can make it thinner. I came away with the impression that the market is "thin" because the demand isn't any higher.

England's home office has a couple studies on this site that look interesting, looks like lots of stuff to poke through while I'm bored.

I'll wrap up my sidetrack into England's issues by quoting the conclusion to their 2006 Illegal Firearms study:

The illegal use of firearms is not a singular problem but is
complex, entrenched and poses significant challenges to
communities, police and policy makers. Some findings point
to clear recommendations, such as greater efforts to tackle
the availability and conversion of highly realistic imitation
firearms. Most, however, are more challenging and require
social and economic rather than technical solutions.

The emergence of a complex gun culture in which firearms
have become embedded within broader criminal lifestyles
suggests significant limitations to interventions which are
based on a rational choice understanding of offending. It
highlights the need to address the social and cultural
significance of offending behaviour such as gang conflict,
armed robbery and drug dealing. Furthermore, the
relationship between illegal firearms and crime is
constantly changing. Consequently, ongoing efforts are
required to keep abreast of changes to ensure that they are
responded to appropriately.

A number of areas for further research are proposed,
including further re s e a rch on the origins of purpose built
lethal firearms in the criminal economy and the
role of women in relation to the possession and use of
illegal firearms.

(Bolding done by me) It took them a decade after banning firearms to realize that crime isn't as simple as being caused by a gun and that you can't solve the problem of gang wars and black market in drugs related violence by banning guns.

 

[Sam1911]

It'd be fine if people would just put the M4 in the closet and only use it when needed, like the Swiss, but they won't. Not without government regulation.

What the (...this is the High Road...) HECK does that mean? Who's business is it if I or anyone else wants to get the M4, or any other arm, out of the closet and use it for any purpose that suits me?

And just which government regulation is it that stops folks from misusing arms?

 

[hardworker]

There isn't one. I've already said I don't think they should've capped production of auto's back in 1986. My point is, people go on and on about how auto's are needed to keep the government in check against tyranny, when in reality, they just want to have one because they're awesome. The American people are the most armed people in the world. Assuming you could ever mobilize the people, we've got the government outnumbered easily. The government would have to deploy the army on American soil to stop a revolution, and that would lead to an even bigger mess all around.

Basically, owning auto's is fine. Just don't try to call it anything but what it is: having awesome guns.

 

[AKElroy]

Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson
Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched.

Site the source, please. I need to research this.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Yes, it says arms. The definition of "arms" is very vague. Do F16's count as arms? A line had to be drawn somewhere, and they chose full auto's.

Suppose you could buy an F-16? It would cost more than everybody on this thread will earn in their lifetime. Free market economics would take care of common criminals getting their hands on heavy weapons. Only a hand full of very rich people could buy and maintain something like that. I can't even afford a Barret light .50, much less an armored vehicle to mount it on.

 

[hardworker]

The thing about allowing the purchase of military hardware is that it allows a private individual/corporation to make outfit a private army.

 

[Old krow]

but you forgot to hyperventilate about the 30,000 gun deaths a year.

If I hyperventilated I would no longer be the Devil's Advocate, I would be the Devil.

After 1934 and before 1986 there were an extremely low number of deaths that resulted from automatic weapons. In fact, it was ridiculously low. In 1986 the pressed further measures anyway. I think that I read somewhere that as little as 3 people were killed during those years with a legally owned machine gun. It's pretty clear that they were NOT banned because they HAD done so much damage.

My answer to my own question would have been, yes restrict them, but with the following provisions;

1. The regulation that prohibits felons from owning firearms should have a sunset provision of no longer than ten years. In fact, any EO or Act passed should have one.
2. Not all felons deserve that being stripped of the same rights. The punishment should fit the crime.
3. The punishments still needs to fit the crime. If the Feds can step outside of the Commerce Clause to regulate firearms then they can also step outside to up the mandatory sentencing of violent crimes.
4. The Brady Campaign should help with the bill, funding, and strengthening the sentencing ( and lobby for it too) especially since their ultimate goal is to cut down on crime.
5. Repeal the 1986 act since the total number of deaths wasn't really high enough to justify it in the first place. It was punishment before/in case of the crime.

I generally don't even try to play DA with the statistics because I personally do not believe that they put them together to make a case with them anyway. They're far more productive doing what they already do.

 

[hardworker]

I agree with much of your post. I don't know if it's the content, or just because Old Crow is my favorite bourbon. The problem with this country is that it's too easy to become a felon.

 

[Neverwinter]

Site the source, please. I need to research this.

monticello.org
Digitized edition

If gun control was going to work anywhere, you'd think it'd work in England. They are an island after all.

An island connected to a large continent via a tunnel. It doesn't achieve sufficient geographic isolation. That LCAV thread linked a pdf which showed Hawaii as having the lowest gun death rate at 2.82 in 2007. As usual, they included suicides and legal interventions. With just the homicides, the rate goes even lower.

The problem with this country is that it's too easy to become a felon.

Exactly. When the barrier is set low enough, it becomes easier to exclude the people from their rights as citizens.

 

[happygeek]

I'll have to look into Hawaii later. If an island out in the middle of the Pacific is the only place that gun control can work though, if it works there, how in God's name would it work in the Continental U.S.? We can't even stop guys from walking over the border.

Does England not do some sort of custom's check of traffic coming through their tunnel? If not, how do they expect their gun control to work?

Their study also mentioned that criminals had made some of their guns. One of their recommendations for reducing gun crime was a PR campaign on the inherent dangers to the firer of using a homemade firearm.

 

[the iron horse]

My grandfather always told that this was a free country until FDR became President.
He started the socialists wheels turning toward gun restrictions and a growing invasive federal government.