A little common sense and gun control?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

In the last few years, there's been more rhetoric around gun control. Much of the discussion antagonizes those who value their gun rights, much of it characterizes gun owners as backwards and racist villains. Here's what that approach has done for the gun industry, and for the bottom line number of guns in this country. Perhaps those who favor gun control should attempt a different approach.

I wonder if gun manufacturers thought about funding Obama's campaign. Seems the best thing that can happen to the gun industry is a Democratic President. Makes marketing much easier.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

How are you going to make it more difficult? We haven't been able to figure that out when it comes to drugs.

Why are you trying to say firearms and drugs are the same thing? A kilo of cocaine is smuggled in, then it is diluted and divvied up into hundreds of small packets for sale. If a gun is smuggled in, it stays whole. Why do you continue to push the strawman of the problem of drugs and guns being similar?

One initial step to take, which has been brought up before, is to close the gun show/private sale loophole. There obviously isn't a simple magic wand to wave, but to just throw your hands up and say it is impossible isn't to me a valid option.

[molson]

How about harsher penalties for those who commit gun crimes AND for those who possess firearms and ammunition illegally? More gun crime-focused policing (serve more search warrants when you have probable cause that a convicted felon has a gun or ammunition in their house, etc, and put those people away, and confiscate those weapons. Make this more of a priority than using Terry stops to catch drug users.) Focus on the criminals and not the regular people. And there are a LOT of people in this country who aren't allowed to possess weapons because of prior felony convictions, or because they're on probation. You lose your gun rights even for a misdemeanor domestic battery conviction. Yes, we overuse the prisons in this country, but we can also make the best of these mistakes by going after these guns and these criminals who possess them after they're released.

IMO, there's zero you can do gun-control wise to combat the random law-abiding guy who goes nuts and shoots up a movie theater. Gun control laws could get stricter, they have in some cities and states, but we'll never have a environment in the U.S. where an individual without a criminal history is prevented from acquiring guns. That would essentially be a total gun ban, and that ain't happening.

As I'm sure I said earlier in the thread, the only way to pass stricter gun control nationally is through compromise, like Bill Clinton did. Along with gun control laws, hire more police officers, limit habeas relief, build more prisons, harsher federal criminal laws, etc. (Get over the idea that "compromise" means getting half of what you want instead of giving up things.) Of course, Congress isn't much into compromising these days, and I doubt there's much of an appetite for those kinds of compromises involving police and such in an era where crime has dropped drastically.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by cartman

Why are you trying to say firearms and drugs are the same thing? A kilo of cocaine is smuggled in, then it is diluted and divvied up into hundreds of small packets for sale. If a gun is smuggled in, it stays whole. Why do you continue to push the strawman of the problem of drugs and guns being similar?

Because the people who sell drugs are some of the same people who would like to possess guns. And guns don't need to stay whole. You can ship them in parts and assemble them here.

Plus guns aren't consumed like drugs. One gun can be used over and over by people.

Originally Posted by cartman

One initial step to take, which has been brought up before, is to close the gun show/private sale loophole. There obviously isn't a simple magic wand to wave, but to just throw your hands up and say it is impossible isn't to me a valid option.

I'd be fine with that change, although it's worth pointing out that under 2% of people in prison bought their gun in that manner.

I'm not throwing up my hands and saying it's impossible. I'm saying that most of the rhetoric around "gun control" is empty. There are no real ideas. Just people complaining about guns. Sometimes we come up with a feel good plan that would do nothing, but that's it. People never seem to want to mention that the people who are doing most of the killing in this country don't care about the laws regarding legal ownership. They don't care about a background check or the required training course. They probably are not going to thumb through a pamphlet about "responsible gun ownership" either.

[RainMaker]

As for a real solution, I suggest locking up people who illegally possess a firearm for a long time. If you are a felon and are caught with a gun, you go to jail for 10 years. Double that if your previous felony was for a crime committed with a gun.

Problem with that is the people who want gun control the most are also the people who don't like prisons all that much and don't want people going there for a long time.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

How about harsher penalties for those who commit gun crimes AND for those who possess firearms and ammunition illegally? More gun crime-focused policing (serve more search warrants when you have probable cause that a convicted felon has a gun or ammunition in their house, etc, and put those people away, and confiscate those weapons. Make this more of a priority than using Terry stops to catch drug users.) Focus on the criminals and not the regular people. And there are a LOT of people in this country who aren't allowed to possess weapons because of prior felony convictions, or because they're on probation. You lose your gun rights even for a misdemeanor domestic battery conviction. Yes, we overuse the prisons in this country, but we can also make the best of these mistakes by going after these guns and these criminals who possess them after they're released.

IMO, there's zero you can do gun-control wise to combat the random law-abiding guy who goes nuts and shoots up a movie theater. Gun control laws could get stricter, they have in some cities and states, but we'll never have a environment in the U.S. where an individual without a criminal history is prevented from acquiring guns. That would essentially be a total gun ban, and that ain't happening.

As I'm sure I said earlier in the thread, the only way to pass stricter gun control nationally is through compromise, like Bill Clinton did. Along with gun control laws, hire more police officers, limit habeas relief, build more prisons, harsher federal criminal laws, etc. (Get over the idea that "compromise" means getting half of what you want instead of giving up things.) Of course, Congress isn't much into compromising these days, and I doubt there's much of an appetite for those kinds of compromises involving police and such in an era where crime has dropped drastically.

I agree with a lot of this, but I want to focus on the last paragraph. Congress isn't the issue, the GOP is the issue. Obama offered compromise, but the NRA won't give an inch and they have enough backers, mostly GOP, that they can block anything.

Look at what was in Obama's proposal, it's a mix of gun control measures and tough on crime proposals:


Requires background checks for all gun sales and strengthens the background check system. This would include removing barriers under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act so that states may more freely share information about mental health issues involving potential gun purchasers.
Provides states with monetary incentives—$20 million in fiscal year FY 2013 and a proposed $50 million in FY 2014—to share information so that records on criminal history and people prohibited from gun ownership due to mental health reasons are more available.
Bans military-style assault weapons and limits magazines to a capacity of 10 rounds.
Provides additional tools to law enforcement. The plan proposes a crackdown on gun trafficking by asking Congress to pass legislation that closes “loopholes” in gun trafficking laws and establishes strict penalties for “straw purchasers” who pass a background check and then pass guns on to prohibited people.
Urges Congress to pass the administration’s $4 billion proposal to keep 15,000 state and local police officers on the street to help deter gun crime.
Maximizes efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime. The president calls upon the attorney general to work with U.S. attorneys across the country to determine gaps occurring in this area and where supplemental resources are appropriate.
Provides training for “active shooter” situations to 14,000 law enforcement, first responders and school officials.
Directs the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to issue a statement to health care providers that they are not prohibited by federal law from reporting threats of violence to the proper authorities.
Launches a national gun safety campaign to encourage responsible gun ownership and authorizes the Consumer Product Safety Commission to examine issues relating to gun safety locks.
Helps schools invest in safety. The president’s plan calls for more school resource officers and counselors in all schools through the Community Oriented Policing Services hiring program. The plan also calls for the federal government to assist schools in developing emergency management plans.
Improves mental health awareness through enhanced teacher training and referrals for treatment. The plan calls for the training of 5,000 additional mental health professionals nationwide. The plan also calls for coverage of mental health treatment under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008.


edit: I also agree with tougher gun crime penalties, but that won't work without a comprehensive look at prison populations. There are going to have to be a lot of non-violent drug crime offenders let out to make room for gun criminals.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Yes? Illegal guns are easy to come by and there is little to no punishment for carrying one. So the push for more gun control doesn't really seem like it'd fix this problem.

See, that's the issue I'm getting at. It's not that gun control doesn't help, it's that enforcement and punishment don't line up with the gun control efforts (not to mention the widely varied gun control laws in Illinois, including places just outside the city that are much less restrictive). I agree that there's not much point to stricter gun control unless everyone - police, prosecutors and judges - are on board with actually making enforcement of these laws and prosecution of breaking these laws a priority. Having more uniform gun control measures across the state would also help.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Bans military-style assault weapons and limits magazines to a capacity of 10 rounds.

Welp, that renders the rest of it moot.

Drop that & there might be a point or two for discussion.

Then again, "shall not be infringed" is rather definitive.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Then again, "shall not be infringed" is rather definitive.

Amen.

[cartman]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is pretty clear as well. But there must be a reason the NRA left the first part of the sentence off of the mural in the lobby of their HQ.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is pretty clear as well

I love how strict gun control advocates are suddenly strict constitutionalists when it comes to this one issue. Gay marriage isn't in the constitution, abortion isn't either. But the Supreme Court has interpreted the constitution as granting all three rights.

I also love how so many people, again in this one and only context, believe that security trumps rights. I'm sure you don't feel that way in terms of the 4th Amendment, or the NSA, or internet surveillance.

Again, as long as they're rights you personally value, they're worth protecting. If you don't personally value them, then other people shouldn't have them.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

I love how strict gun control advocates are suddenly strict constitutionalists when it comes to this one issue. Gay marriage isn't in the constitution, abortion isn't either. But the Supreme Court has interpreted the constitution as granting all three rights.

I also love how so many people, again in this one and only context, believe that security trumps rights. I'm sure you don't feel that way in terms of the 4th Amendment, or the NSA, or internet surveillance.

Again, as long as they're rights you personally value, they're worth protecting. If you don't personally value them, then other people shouldn't have them.

Where do you get that I'm a strict gun control advocate? Because I don't buy into the NRA's half interpretation of the 2nd Amendment? The entire sentence should be taken into account, not just the part that fits best into a certain viewpoint.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by molson

I love how strict gun control advocates are suddenly strict constitutionalists when it comes to this one issue. Gay marriage isn't in the constitution, abortion isn't either. But the Supreme Court has interpreted the constitution as granting all three rights.

I also love how so many people, again in this one and only context, believe that security trumps rights. I'm sure you don't feel that way in terms of the 4th Amendment, or the NSA, or internet surveillance.

Again, as long as they're rights you personally value, they're worth protecting. If you don't personally value them, then other people shouldn't have them.

I don't have a problem with people owning guns, except in the case of military style assault weapons. It's great the founding fathers said we should be free to own guns, but I doubt any of them had the foresight to see what guns would evolve into.

I simply don't see a reason for civilians to own assault weapons.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Again, as long as they're rights you personally value, they're worth protecting. If you don't personally value them, then other people shouldn't have them.

I wouldn't say that at all. I think anyone that argues that the 2nd amendment is clear, is foolish. There's no way you can read the whole thing and say that it's application to modern laws is obvious. The courts are going to decide where the line is, because the amendment is opaque.

[molson]

In the history of the United States, I wonder, how many recognized individual constitutional rights have been "taken back." The 1st and 4th and 5th Amendments have all been interpreted as providing broader and stronger rights as we go.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by molson

I love how strict gun control advocates are suddenly strict constitutionalists when it comes to this one issue. Gay marriage isn't in the constitution, abortion isn't either. But the Supreme Court has interpreted the constitution as granting all three rights.

Is it that they say the Constitution grants all three rights or that the Constitution doesn't forbid people from doing those things? Or that those things fall under the protection of the Constitution?

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I wouldn't say that at all. I think anyone that argues that the 2nd amendment is clear, is foolish. There's no way you can read the whole thing and say that it's application to modern laws is obvious. The courts are going to decide where the line is, because the amendment is opaque.

Cartman was the one who said it was clear, or at least the part he quoted. I agree that it's not. The 2nd Amendment is anything but clear. But it has been definitively interpreted as providing some individual right to bear arms. After that, yes, there's plenty of reasonable disagreement on where the line of constitutionality is. I don't know where that line is, but I think it's not necessarily exactly the same as where it should be drawn in terms of safety and other policy concerns. Because it's a right, which has to trump policy at least to some degree.

Edit: I could make all kinds of arguments about what we could do police-wise to make us safer if the 4th Amendment was weaker. Same with the 1st Amendment. But those are rights, and not automatically trumped by policy arguments or statistics regarding whether guns deter crime, etc.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

It's great the founding fathers said we should be free to own guns, but I doubt any of them had the foresight to see what guns would evolve into.

I doubt they intended gay marriage and abortion rights either.

[cartman]

I'd argue that the 2nd Amendment doesn't grant individual rights, it refers to group rights. The terms used are Militia and 'the people'. If you look at the other places in the Constitution where 'militia' is mentioned, in Article One, Section 8 it describes the powers that Congress has over militias, and Article Two, Section 2 describes the powers the President has over militias. While the term 'well-regulated' doesn't appear elsewhere in the Constitution, it does appear in the Articles of Confederation, which was the supreme law of the US before the adoption of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court did rule an individual right to keep guns in DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, but it didn't say there was an unrestricted right.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by molson

I doubt they intended gay marriage and abortion rights either.

Or free black people?

But I believe that is the reason you have the Supreme Court. To help bridge the gap between what they knew then and what society now is.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

Where do you get that I'm a strict gun control advocate?

Originally Posted by cartman

I'd argue that the 2nd Amendment doesn't grant individual rights, it refers to group rights.

I'd say that's a pretty strict interpretation, and one contrary to well-established appellate court precedent.

Are you saying that people don't have the individual constitution RIGHT to bear arms, but you're OK with the state and federal government not banning full ownership as a legislative choice? What restrictions on gun ownership would you want to pass if there were no individual gun rights at all?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

I'd say that's a pretty strict interpretation, and one contrary to well-established appellate court precedent.

Are you saying that people don't have the individual constitution RIGHT to bear arms, but you're OK with the state and federal government not banning full ownership as a legislative choice? What restrictions on gun ownership would you want to pass if there were no individual gun rights at all?

There are already restrictions on gun ownership by felons and people with mental issues. Which fits in with what I'm saying, as the amendment says "the people", not "a person".

[molson]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Or free black people?

But I believe that is the reason you have the Supreme Court. To help bridge the gap between what they knew then and what society now is.

Sure, which is why it amuses me when people who are all on board with constitutional rights of gay marriage and abortion are all suddenly all about the precise language of the constitution and original intention of the drafters when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by molson

Sure, which is why it amuses me when people who are all on board with constitutional rights of gay marriage and abortion are all suddenly all about the precise language of the constitution and original intention of the drafters when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.

I guess the difference being, I don't want to tear down the court because it makes some decisions I disagree with. That's life. You win some, you lose some. I don't think people should have military grade assault weapons, the court disagrees with me.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

There are already restrictions on gun ownership by felons and people with mental issues. Which fits in with what I'm saying, as the amendment says "the people", not "a person".

So you don't think the constitution protects individual gun ownership. That necessarily means that you think a total government ban on individual gun ownership would be constitutional.

But, I think you're saying that even though the constitution doesn't give them the right, you would still oppose a total ban, but would just want some more restrictions. Is that right? What would those additional restrictions be?

[molson]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I don't think people should have military grade assault weapons, the court disagrees with me.

The Federal Assault Weapon ban was upheld in the courts. We don't have it today because it expired and the legislature didn't renew it. Several states still do ban assault weapons and those bans have survived constitutional scrutiny as well. The Supreme Court did reject Chicago's handgun ban, but I don't think that's been successfully extended by anyone to reject any states' assault weapon bans, but I don't follow this stuff that closely.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

So you don't think the constitution protects individual gun ownership. That necessarily means that you think a total government ban on individual gun ownership would be constitutional.

But, I think you're saying that even though the constitution doesn't give them the right, you would still oppose a total ban, but would just want some more restrictions. Is that right? What would those additional restrictions be?

The language of the 2nd Amendment would not allow a total ban. Like I said, my interpretation is that it is a group right. Congress and the President are allowed by powers vested to them in the Constitution to regulate the Militia, which the first part of the sentence of the 2nd Amendment describes. But they are not allowed to invoke a blanket ban on firearms to everyone, which is what the second part of the sentence of the 2nd Amendment spells out.

[molson]

Originally Posted by molson

So you don't think the constitution protects individual gun ownership. That necessarily means that you think a total government ban on individual gun ownership would be constitutional.

Originally Posted by cartman

The language of the 2nd Amendment would not allow a total ban. Like I said, my interpretation is that it is a group right. Congress and the President are allowed by powers vested to them in the Constitution to regulate the Militia, which the first part of the sentence of the 2nd Amendment describes. But they are not allowed to invoke a blanket ban on firearms to everyone, which is what the second part of the sentence of the 2nd Amendment spells out.

I said a ban on "individual gun ownership."

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

I said a ban on "individual gun ownership."

Which would, by default be a ban on "the people", if by that you mean no one would be allowed to own guns.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

Which would, by default be a ban on "the people", if by that you mean no one would be allowed to own guns.

No, one could think that individuals can't own or purchase guns, but could be members of organized militias who could be collectively armed. That's what I always assumed people who really push the "militia" language think.

I'm not sure how that would work in practice, and the courts have never had to sort out whether a couple of friends on a hunting trip could be a "militia".

But if that's not what you mean I have no idea what you mean. I don't get your distinction between individual and group rights if you think that individuals can exercise group rights on their own.

[cartman]

It isn't that difficult:

There has been a concerted effort by the NRA to try and change the meaning of the 2nd Amendment to say that an individual has the sacrosanct right to have any means and amount of firearms they want, and it would be unconstitutional for any law to try and say otherwise.

My take is that there is plenty of language in the Constitution, as well as Supreme Court precedent that squashes the NRA's interpretation. If the NRA's interpretation was accepted, then the laws such as the ones limiting felons and mentally ill from owning firearms would be ruled unconstitutional. Since there is case law showing that the rights of individuals to own firearms can be limited, that shows it is not an absolute individual right.

[Peregrine]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

As for a real solution, I suggest locking up people who illegally possess a firearm for a long time. If you are a felon and are caught with a gun, you go to jail for 10 years. Double that if your previous felony was for a crime committed with a gun.

Problem with that is the people who want gun control the most are also the people who don't like prisons all that much and don't want people going there for a long time.

I'm big time in support of this. I'm pretty liberal on most things, but I support gun ownership - have all you want as long as you're not hurting people or committing crimes. However the illegal weapons and illegal ownership by felons, etc are really what drives crime and drive the crackdowns on guns - so seems to me that the NRA would be all in favor of increasing sentences for illegal gun ownership.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

It isn't that difficult:

There has been a concerted effort by the NRA to try and change the meaning of the 2nd Amendment to say that an individual has the sacrosanct right to have any means and amount of firearms they want, and it would be unconstitutional for any law to try and say otherwise.

My take is that there is plenty of language in the Constitution, as well as Supreme Court precedent that squashes the NRA's interpretation. If the NRA's interpretation was accepted, then the laws such as the ones limiting felons and mentally ill from owning firearms would be ruled unconstitutional. Since there is case law showing that the rights of individuals to own firearms can be limited, that shows it is not an absolute individual right.

I agree that there's no ABSOLUTE individual gun right, but you're saying that the constitution provides ZERO individual gun rights, and that it's only a "group right". Under your interpretation, the government could ban individual gun ownership, but not "group ownership". The courts would have to figure out the difference between the two.

Edit: Or, you're saying that the "group right" gives me the individual right to buy and possess guns, subject to restrictions if I'm a felon or whatever. But this is after you insist that the 2nd Amendment isn't an individual right. If the 2nd Amendment isn't an individual right, it isn't an individual right. But I think it is, and the courts have clearly held that it is. Like every other right, it isn't absolute.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by molson

I agree that there's no ABSOLUTE individual gun right, but you're saying that the constitution provides ZERO individual gun rights, and that it's only a "group right". Under your interpretation, the government could ban individual gun ownership, but not "group ownership". The courts would have to figure out the difference between the two.

Edit: Or, you're saying that the "group right" gives me the individual right to buy and possess guns, subject to restrictions if I'm a felon or whatever. But this is after you insist that the 2nd Amendment isn't an individual right. If the 2nd Amendment isn't an individual right, it isn't an individual right. But I think it is, and the courts have clearly held that it is. Like every other right, it isn't absolute.

Isn't he saying that there is no guarantee of individual gun ownership; meaning that if you are not deemed to be mentally fit enough to have that responsibility you won't be owning a gun? That is a completely reasonable assumption.

[molson]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Isn't he saying that there is no guarantee of individual gun ownership; meaning that if you are not deemed to be mentally fit enough to have that responsibility you won't be owning a gun? That is a completely reasonable assumption.

Ya, I guess that's it, it's just semantics of the meaning of an individual right.

Individual rights aren't necessarily absolute. But when people start focusing on the militia language I assume they're arguing for a shrinking of the individual right that the Supreme Court has clearly interpreted the 2nd Amendment as providing. The Court went on and one in Heller about the individual nature of the right v. it being some collective, militia-based right.

You either have a constitutional right to an activity or you don't. If you have the right, it's not absolute. If you don't have the right, the government or individual states can ban the activity if it chooses to.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

Again, as long as they're rights you personally value, they're worth protecting. If you don't personally value them, then other people shouldn't have them.

You won't see me argue this point at all.

Hell, I've commented somewhat regularly in recent years that "rights" are an entirely artificial construct that mean no more or no less than what the people in charges of the biggest & best tanks say they mean.

The Constitution is, afaic, a tool. A means to an end.