Reasonable regulations on firearms protect us from criminal lowlifes that want to make an easy dollar. However, when it comes down to it, a crazy person can take a knife and go on a mass stabbing (see recent events Apr 9, 2013). That is the point Cody is trying to make, is that we can't put our heads in the sand and pretend violence is never going to happen. Humans have fought each other since the age of written communication, so it is absurd to think removing weapons will decrease violence.
I hate to sound like a hippie but what _will_ decrease violence is being less judgmental, compromise, reaching out to others, tolerance of those who are different, but most importantly: education.
Just remember, people are creatures of opportunity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Gu...
Germany invaded surrounding territories in WWII, but left Switzerland alone.
> Germany invaded surrounding territories in WWII, but left Switzerland alone.
May have something to do with the preponderance of blond-haired blue-eyed people there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Second_world_war_europe_1...
There was also a report in the mid 80s penned by, among others, former General George S. Patton (who was active during WWII)... "In short, Switzerland is an armed bunker." (PDF page 8, https://docs.google.com/viewer?embedded=true&url=http://... )
http://www.amazon.com/Place-Concorde-Suisse-John-McPhee/dp/0...
10 USC chapter 13 defines the militia as, basically, all able-bodied men aged 17-45, and women's suffrage has effectively expanded that definition to include women.
We don't have conscripted military service at the moment though.
When I was growing up, I understood the Coast Guard to be one of the 4 branches of service.
> Army Reserves,
I would allow that the reserves and guards (state and national) would fit a meaningful definition of "well regulated militia."
> and the rest of us.
10 USC chapter 13 defines the militia as, basically, all able-bodied men aged 17-45
Uh, yeah. This makes as much sense as defining all left handed people between the ages of 22 and 27 1/2 as "pinch-hitters." A definition doesn't make it so. I could see how this might be seen as a hot-button for politics, but the 2nd amendment says that arms are necessary for a militia, not that militias are necessary for ownership of arms, though I would say that this is true from a practical perspective, as opposed to a rights context.
Ever since Sandy Hook, I've been watching videos and reading articles from all sides of this issue. One thing I've taken away from some pro-gun videos is that there are a lot of dangerously untrained and ignorant gun owners out there. Yes, you read that correctly: from watching pro-gun videos. You can find lots of references to kooky things people say at gun shops and dangerous things people do at such shops and gun ranges. I say again: what we have in the US overall is a consumerist culture. To be fair, there are organizations that do a proper job of creating a culture of respect and knowledge for such weapons, but it seems to me that we don't have enough of this.
Another thing I've discovered is that lots of gun legislation is just as wacky and ill conceived as legislation covering reverse engineering, hacking, and the internet. (SOPA, CISPA, DMCA...) In both cases it's formulated by politicians who don't properly know the subject matter as a response to a demagogic hot-button issue, or at the behest of corporate interests.
To me, "gun_owners = bad" is just as much of a problem as "democrats = socialists".
Not according to the Supreme Court. Grammarians have long argued that "In support of a well-regulated militia" is a prefatory clause, and cannot bear on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms", where People is the operative word, and is synonymous with "We the People", of whom this nation is constituted and by which is governed.
Ironically enough, the NRA, currently demonized for apparently endorsing mass killing, considers its main focus to be the training of safe and proper usage of firearms (that is, if you skip over their founding, which was to ensure that freed slaves remained free by giving them a means to protect their freedom). Firearms are interesting in that regard - the more you use them and don't get hurt, the more easy it is to fall into a false sense of security. I liken it to geeks and backups. We all assume it'll never happen to us, so even though we know it to be good practice and all that, sometimes we slip up out of arrogance, or comfort, or whatever.
I can't say that it isn't a consumerist culture, because obviously it is, and you're obviously very right about firearm legislation. I've wondered the same, and often come to the conclusion that probably, all legislation is probably considered poor by those in the know. If you want to have some fun, read up on the Lacey act, which I'm pretty certain makes 99% of all Americans unwitting felons.
A more cynical person might suggest that background checks are bad, and the only evidence you need to prove it is that Congress seems to be all for it. I'm not that cynical, and while I don't have any moral objection to them personally, I do consider them to be at odds with the notion of a Constitutional right. The right to speech, religion, voting, etc., are all practiced freely, without background checks, burden or "common sense" regulation - and just in case, before anyone mentions libel laws, or yelling fire in a theater, those aren't restrictions, but punishments for irresponsible or unlawful use of your right to free speech, in much the same way that laws against armed assault or murder are penalties for irresponsible or unlawful firearm use.
Having read everything I can from the Constitution-era framers, I think it's quite clear that they intended every man to have the luxury of bearing arms. I freely concede that felons and criminals do not and should not, as their rights have been restricted as a result of due process. By default, placing restrictions on the right to bear arms for those whose rights have not been curtailed, amended or restricted as a result of due process is wrong, just as unlawful search and seizure is wrong, or unlawful detainment, and citizens should not allow for it. Considering how poorly we've kept our other rights intact, I'm guessing we'll eventually cede more rights in the sway of politicians, but that's no reason we should have to do so willingly.
I think if they wish to infringe our rights, and 90% of everybody supports it, the process is simple -- amend the Constitution to repeal the second amendment. If that can't be done, then it should remain intact, and the right should not be infringed. If the amendment were repealed, I'd happily support it. Otherwise, until such time as it is, I see most legislation as either pointless, aggrandizing or outright offensive.
I would agree with you that the curtailment of rights is offensive. The recent attempt at weakening Habeas Corpus and various assaults on the Presumption of Innocence come to mind.
For the record, I'm not an NRA or NRA-ILA member, though I am a member of the Second Amendment Foundation.
That said, even if we accept that they are in the pockets of arms manufacturers, I don't really see that as being too bad a thing. Arms manufacturers don't have the same degree of exploitative control over their users as, say, telecoms, or software manufacturers.
For the most part, the interests of the manufacturers and gun owners are much more closely aligned than how you find it in the IT arena.
For one, arms manufacturers don't want their name tarnished whenever a nut uses one of their arms to commit mass murder, as well as the headache that inevitably ensues.
That isn't to suggest that they're perfectly aligned of course, but definitely moreso than what we're used to seeing.
Are the Swiss of French and Italian stock preponderantly "blond-haired blue-eyed"? If not, that argument tends to fail, although I suppose the Nazis did prefer killing Slavs et. al. in the east to Western Europeans. (ADDED: see the above Wikipedia link for how Hitler viewed the German Swiss who preferred their French, Italian and Romansh citizens over the greater German volk.)
"It's to the point where the word "militia" is associated with racists and kooks."
That has a lot more to do with demagogic politicians, including one in particular who had a dicey re-election coming up, than anything real. Amplified of course by a media who see all gun owners as the Other.
"Not "well-regulated" at all."
It's a nice ideal, perhaps, certainly a necessity if you live in a bad neighborhood like the Swiss, but history, going right back to our revolutionary war, tells us it's profoundly not in the American character, with exceptions here and there.
And people wonder why I'm a life member of the NRA.
The rest of what you said was equally nonsensical - really, just a slur against gun owners. Do you really think the future leader of an authoritarian, genocidal state apparatus would be anti-government?
>Do you really think the future leader of an authoritarian, genocidal state apparatus would be anti-government?
Most uninformed thing I've read today. You might want to start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch
Just because someone told you that the Nazis were "right wing" doesn't mean they have anything in common with the other groups someone told are "right wing". "Right wing" and "left wing" are utterly meaningless except as terms of abuse.
Edit:
What, in specific, does (say) the Libertarian Party have in common with the Nazi Party?
The best case scenario, IMHO, is that everyone has the means to defend themselves against abuse. I value equality.
The worst case scenario, IMHO, is a single person or group with a disproportionate ability to abuse those who are defenseless against them - and they know it (your fewer-the-better scenario). IMHO, crime happens because people think they can get away with it. Good fences make good neighbors, IMHO, so I feel safer when everyone has a gun, for example, since disarmament creates an opportunity that wasn't there before.
Long story short, please don't say "we," since your ideas are strictly your own.
Did it previously say "We don't like guns and we think..."?
Even if the comment merely describes an opinion about me (and others) without directly putting words into my mouth, that opinion still seems to say that something is for my "own good." I disagree with the prescription and I would like to be excluded from the idea.
I am simply asking to not be spoken for, not saying the commentor isn't entitled to have an opinion. I say clearly above that I am OK with the comment as a mere opinion ("No, that part was OK" ...).
I'm curious if you read my reply closely before responding, or if you decided in advance what you wanted to say if I replied to you, because you seemed not to have received its intended meaning.
To repeat: I am not saying the commentor isn't entitled to an opinion, only saying that that opinion is wrong from my perspective and for my case since it is an opinion about me (and I was included by the word "we"). I am also entitled to my opinion.
On top of that, I also happen to think that my opinions about what is best for me should matter more in the public's view than what someone else thinks is best for me. I am not property to be managed, a sheep to be herded, or a child to be guarded. I am my own person - the horse's mouth, for my part - and I consider it offensive to be spoken for. Have you ever been told something is "for your own good"? If so, did you appreciate it?
Long story short, please don't say "we," since your ideas are strictly your own.
This sounds like you are saying the commentator is not entitled to voice their opinion of the effects of a policy on a group if members of that group might hold a different opinion. You call this "speaking for you"; I say this characterization is incorrect - it is "speaking about you".
I'll stipulate it and give some more thought to your position in that context. It definitely colors things a bit; I'm not sure whether it legitimately changes things.
On the flip-side, would you feel differently if the attribute being discussed was clearly not a feeling?
"I don't like guns and I think the fewer people have them, the shorter we are", or some such.
Unfortunately the price we pay for having convenience is people with nefarious purposes also have that convenience.
Blythe Masters, the creator of the CDS, is about to be put on the financial chopping block for her influential role in "nefarious purposes" (aforementioned creation of "convenience" and usage) that others also have the same usage of such "convenience".
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/05/02/jpmorgan-caught-in-sw...
Where am i going with this?
I'm sure the unemployed youth of spain and greece would long to get their hands on a couple "Liberators" for their "nefarious purposes".
If 100% of law abiding citizens' guns were to evaporate tomorrow, that doesn't make us any safer, as it still leaves possession of guns in the wrong hands.
Ignoring that though, I'd feel remiss if I didn't point out that people can already legally produce weapons at their home and amass their own 'secret arsenals' with readily available technology (a drill press, $200 on Harbor Freight). The ATF allows for the purchase of what's referred to as an 80% firearm, which means it's a block of metal in the shape of a gun that simply hasn't had its trigger group milled out. A $200 drill press and a $100 jig allow me to currently manufacture a large number of firearms for personal use, so long as I don't manufacture them with the intent to sell.
This might make it somewhat easier, and future generations of it almost certainly will, but at least for the moment you can rest assured that the printed product is vastly inferior to the firearms I can already manufacture in my garage and are not more convenient to make.
That seems overly simplistic. How many people that shoot people were — before the shooting — law-abiding citizens? Probably lots.
Put more simply, guns are a complicated issue. Eliminating all guns from the planet wouldn't solve all crime, nor would arming everyone on the planet. As a pragmatist, I find it hard to blame the hammer for the actions of the carpenter wielding it, but that seems to be so often the case when guns are involved.
The 'common sense' legislation that's been proposed may or may not help the problem, but there is no guarantee that either would occur. It's been proven over and again that there's no single bit of legislation that would have prevented the Newtown massacre, except for any legislation that would have prevented anyone in Adam Lanza's sphere of influence from having any firearms or weapons whatsoever. Further, considering the aim of the current crop of legislation is aimed at preventing firearms categorized as 'assault weapons' from sale, which account for a miniscule percentage of crimes, it seems misdirected.
More to the point though, is whether or not firearm legislation does anything for the good. Criminals vastly prefer unarmed victims. Making it such that less of the populace is less armed might sound like a good solution, but has not proven to be.
Kennesaw, GA is an extremely strong counterpoint. In 1981, they enacted a law encouraging every household to own a gun. Between the year the law was passed and the following year, crime had dropped something like 80%. In the 25 years that followed, they were able to celebrate the township's 25th anniversary of being murder free. Perhaps more interestingly than that is that it didn't prevent crime at all, but seems to have displaced it rather effectively. Crime around Kennesaw, GA is higher than crime in Kennesaw, GA, and is even higher than Georgia at large. This suggests, to me at least, that criminals will still be criminals, and crime will still occur, but where criminals know there is an armed populace, they'll seek out greener pastures.
Further, most mass killings occur in "gun free zones". The Aurora, CO theater shooter bypassed a number of closer or larger theaters to seek out one further from his house that specifically banned guns from being held on the premises. We can't ask him, obviously, because he's dead, but this suggests that he sought out the area where he was likely to go longest without being stopped, and also suggests that law-abiding citizens not intent on performing crime, generally obey the law, as there was nobody there armed to stop him.
So, while I don't necessarily begrudge you the complaints you have, that doesn't necessarily indicate that regulation would, in fact, do any good whatsoever, and could actually contribute to the problem.
Another counterpoint, is that one of the least likely demographics to commit any form of crime, but especially armed crimes, are people registered for concealed carry.
That depends on your definition of lots. The vast majority of gun homicides occur during the commission of another crime. Most gun homicides can be directly related to drug crime.
If you don't have a concealed carry permit, in most states, you're already committing a crime by carrying a concealed loaded gun around with you (there are exceptions--depends on the state).
Do some research, look at the number of concealed carry permit holders convicted of gun related crimes--in most states it's a handful each year.