Poll on Gun Decriminalization/Legalization

[walto]

What do you think the law should be on gun ownership? I'm curious about the correlations with Gordon's poll on drugs.

[Brian Olewnick]

Though I think this argument is a bit more complicated than the drug one, of the choices above I go for the unrestricted option. However, I do draw my exceedingly fuzzy line at the point where it becomes unreasonable to insist that a given weapon can be used for self-defense. ie, at one extreme, you shouldn't be allowed to privately own a nuclear weapon. Can you own a ton of dynamite (if you're not involved in a business that does demolition)? My tendency would be to say, "no" as its nature, when used the way it was designed, is too uncontrollable to direct against a given individual or indivduals. But were already into fuzzy territory here and arguments become difficult to resolve. But as far as guns go, I stick to my basic argument that I find it impossible to construe the simple ownership of a weapon (licensed or otherwise) as a crime.

btw, another similarity to the drug poll for me: just as I don't partake of any currently illegal "drug" (hell, Advil's about as far as I go with any drug), I don't own, never have owned and likely never will own a firearm.

[Gary Sisco]

Semi-automatic, Brian. Automatic pistols are a very rare breed. I've never actually encountered one. This is one of the collosally confused "talking points" in this whole subject, which I'm not going to get into again, as it's pointless. Like abortion, no one on this side or that can persuade another who isn't.

And when reason can't prevail ... Well, that's why there's a 2nd Amendment.

[Dr Dave]

This is where I fall off the free-market/libertarian rails. You need a license to drive a car. You should damn well need a license to own a gun--any gun. People should NOT be allowed to parade around with a .45 automatic on the hip. A big Colt may be a thing of beauty and usefulness, but it makes murder just a little too easy for my taste. At least a knife requires the assailant to get up close and personal.

You should not be able to buy or own a gun--any gun--if you've had anything on your record more than a parking ticket. Automatic weapons and weapons easily convertible to automatic performance should be banned, period. Anybody who wants to go hunting can still go hunting. Anybody who wants to target-shoot will still be able to target-shoot. Anybody who needs a handgun because they transport cash for a living will be able to have a handgun.

Anybody who thinks that owning a gun will protect them from Big Government is delusional.

That's my take. Please don't insult my intelligence with appeals to the Second Amendment or the Slippery Slope. You're either a knowing or an unknowing apologist for the NRA, or you're Sisco, believing that you can hole up in the mountains and hold off the Feds until...until when, Gary?

(I'm just picking on Sisco because he's been more eloquent--and consistent--on the subject than most.)

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by walto

What do you think the law should be on gun ownership? I'm curious about the correlations with Gordon's poll on drugs.

Walt, can you explain option 1? What are the current laws on mace?

[Enforcer]

Of the given choices, I chose no restrictions. I'm not the paranoid type. I ridicule conspiracy types. I'm not automatically anti-government. I'm not a collector of guns or a regular at the shooting range (although I do know how to handle and fire one). I'm not a hunter. But I have no illusions about what could happen over the course of a few decades if legislation gradually eroded our rights regarding firearm ownership. As Brian points out, a line has to be drawn somewhere. No nuclear weapons, for example. But making ownership of a gun a crime is not something I can ever support.

Lost in this is the presumptuous notion that guns are usually obtained legally. I won't base an argument for what should and shouldn't be against the law strictly on the ability to enforce it, but it's worth noting that gun laws are ineffective, just like the drug laws that prompted this poll.

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

This is where I fall off the free-market/libertarian rails. You need a license to drive a car.

fwiw, I don't think a government-issued license should be required to drive a car either. Let insurance companies handle it.

[Uli]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

Let insurance companies handle it.

oh my!

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Larry Nagel

Of the given choices, I chose no restrictions. I'm not the paranoid type. I ridicule conspiracy types. I'm not automatically anti-government. I'm not a collector of guns or a regular at the shooting range (although I do know how to handle and fire one). I'm not a hunter. But I have no illusions about what could happen over the course of a few decades if legislation gradually eroded our rights regarding firearm ownership. As Brian points out, a line has to be drawn somewhere. No nuclear weapons, for example. But making ownership of a gun a crime is not something I can ever support.

Lost in this is the presumptuous notion that guns are usually obtained legally. I won't base an argument for what should and shouldn't be against the law strictly on the ability to enforce it, but it's worth noting that gun laws are ineffective, just like the drug laws that prompted this poll.

You guys support the rights of all criminals, once they regain their legal freedom having the right to own guns?

I'm not sure if any of the choices fit my views but I think mandatory waiting periods are thing. Are the gun liberatarians opposed to them?

Walt, how should I vote if I think that convicted felons of crimes involving weapons should be denied the right to own guns and that waiting periods and licensing are good yet I am against banning any specific type of guns or rifles?

[Gary Sisco]

Dave -- Why not a license to have children? What is more irresponsible than "allowing" any two nitwits who can rub their parts against each other to be responsible for human lives? Talk about dangerous.

I'm not advocating, just asking. Licensing cars and drivers -- clearly, I mean, this observable, every day, by everyone -- has always been more of a fundraiser for the state than anything else. It's a tax, really, more than anything else. Like dog licenses.

And besides that, as I've said too many times, you don't license constitutional rights. No one needs a first amendment license. Or a fifth amendment license. Or etc.

The Constitution has an amendment process. People who don't like the 2nd Amendment (or anything else in the constitution) have a way of going about changing it. If other people don't agree with you and you lose, tough. If you win, not tough.

That's the way it works. There are all kinds of things that people do and own that bother the fuck out of me, but I'm not going to use the force of the state against them, because I'm not an authoritarian.

[Enforcer]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

You guys support the rights of all criminals, once they regain their legal freedom having the right to own guns?

I'm not sure if any of the choices fit my views but I think mandatory waiting periods are thing. Are the gun liberatarians opposed to them?

Walt, how should I vote if I think that convicted felons of crimes involving weapons should be denied the right to own guns and that waiting periods and licensing are good yet I am against banning any specific type of guns or rifles?

No. I didn't really get to that part. It's a complex issue and it would take a long post to cover it all. A guy is convicted of a crime involving a gun, take away his right to own a gun. You can forfeit your freedom by committing the right felony, and so you can forfeit your right to own a gun.

As far as I'm concerned, anyway.

[walto]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

Walt, can you explain option 1? What are the current laws on mace?

As I understand it, you need a license for it in a number of states. You do here, e.g.

Walt, how should I vote if I think that convicted felons of crimes involving weapons should be denied the right to own guns and that waiting periods and licensing are good yet I am against banning any specific type of guns or rifles?

Hmmm. There's no particular place for that view, I guess. Sorry. Where does that put you among the choices available here?

[Gary Sisco]

Felons are already forbidden to own or possess firearms in the US, so why speculate about it? There's already an answer to the question.

Otherwise, the answer can be found, once again, in the Constitution, which reads, Congress "shall pass no law" which seems like clear enough English to me. And the fact that it was written by people who'd only very recently engaged in armed struggle against their own government, it's even clearer English.

[Gary Sisco]

Finally, I wish people would actually read it. Especially the last sentence. All powers not specifically granted (by the people) to the government in the body of the Constitution reside "with the states or the people." Which means that the government has not the constitutional power to alter the constitution through statuatory or judicial decision. The Constitution spells out the rules for changing it. Use them or don't. If you choose not to, get used to what it says. Whether you like what it says is a different matter entirely. I don't like much of anything that's in it, apart from the Amendments. So what? If I were serious about wanting something in it changed, I'd be engaged in political work to try to amend it. I would not be busy trying to avoid the process because I know that I don't have enough political clout in the population to do so.

Which is precisely what the antifirearms nuts are trying to do and for that very reason.

Do some political work or shut up, is my position.

[sonic1]

I chose "The Constitution doesn't (and/or shouldn't) allow laws to restrict the ownership of any guns."

I have not totally cleared this one through my head though. I no longer believe that any RESTRICTIONS on guns should occur (agreed with the above about nuclear devices, but those are not guns). I am not clear yet about LICENSING. Since I cannot kill anyone with my first ammendment I understand the argument that we may need to keep track of guns. But also I think privacy is important, and this is where we get into tricky territory. How can we protect citizens and at the same time allow them freedom to protect themselves?

I agree that gun restrictions only effect good citizens usually. I don't know the statistics about what guns get used against citizens in crimes, but I would wager that restrictions will not keep guns out of the hands of lawbreakers, and if it is the lawbreakers we are trying to manage, than we need to find another way.

I don't like the NRA for other reasons, though I generally agree with their main purpose, protecting the 2nd ammendment.

I am going to incriminate myself and say I agree with Moore's theme in "Bowling for Columbine". Fear is the problem in this country, not guns. No matter what the truth is about Canada (maybe Toronto is not as peaceful as painted in that movie) Canada still has way less crime and violence than we do no matter how you spin the facts. ANd they have way more guns. Maybe it is the decriminalized pot that makes it so chill there??

[Enforcer]

Originally Posted by sonic1

No matter what the truth is about Canada (maybe Toronto is not as peaceful as painted in that movie) Canada still has way less crime and violence than we do no matter how you spin the facts. ANd they have way more guns. Maybe it is the decriminalized pot that makes it so chill there??

It's the hockey.

Seriously, it's the people. Society reaps what it sows, and in the case of huge portions of our country, we've had enough breakdowns, economic and social, that violent crime has become a part of the fabric of our culture. There are no quick or easy solutions to that. It's an ugly truth, isn't it?

[Uli]

I would like Sisco to once and for all let us know why he believes that the 2nd amendment provides an individual right for gun ownership. This question is actually very disputed among experts.

[Captain Hate]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

fwiw, I don't think a government-issued license should be required to drive a car either. Let insurance companies handle it.

Cars require a system of roads and related equipment; licensing should exist to pay for it. Cars (or horses or carriages) aren't in the Constitution.

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by Captain Hate

Cars require a system of roads and related equipment; licensing should exist to pay for it. Cars (or horses or carriages) aren't in the Constitution.

Oh, let 'em charge tolls or something. I was thinking more in the public safety arena. Call me naive, but I'm guessing that insurance companies, with something monetary to lose if they license lousy drivers, are going to be more concerned with standards than the average semi-human behind the counter at the Motor Vehicles Bureau.

btw, Gary or anyone else--Where does the definition of "arms" end in your opinion? Obviously, it includes firearms not in use in the 18th century but does it, say, include bazookas? I'd think not but, exactly why not? The non-explosiveness of bullets? If so, would exploding bullets be able to be controlled? Questions like these are why the issue has fuzzy bounries for me.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by walto

As I understand it, you need a license for it in a number of states. You do here, e.g.



Hmmm. There's no particular place for that view, I guess. Sorry. Where does that put you among the choices available here?

I chose the "status quo" , but it is not a perfect fit. I copied the issues2000.org Gun Control Issue section below with my views in parentheses.

Statistics on Gun Ownership
# 40% of all US homes have guns (I don't)
# 81% of Americans say that gun control will be an important issue in determining which Congressional candidate to vote for. (No)
# 91% of Americans say that there should be at least minor restrictions on gun ownership; (yes)
# 57% of Americans say that there should be major restrictions or a ban. (No)

# "Trigger Locks" require entering a combination to use the gun (or some other locking method); they are intended to reduce inadvertent use by children or other unauthorized users. (No-shouldn't be required)

Background Checks
# The "Gun-Show Loophole" means that there are no background checks when purchasing guns in a private transaction.
(Only support background checks to make sure buyer doesn't have criminal record).

# Guns sold at gun shows through dealers ARE subject to background checks; only those sold privately are not.

Right to Bear Arms
# The Supreme Court ruled in 1939, in a case called "US v. Miller," that the 2nd amendment only protects guns suitable for a well-regulated militia -- for example, sawed-off shotguns can be banned because they're not "ordinary military equipment". (I'll let Uli and Gary discuss this)
# Since 1939, the Supreme Court has not heard any further 2nd amendment cases; the most recent ruling, in 1997, overturned part of the 1993 Brady Bill, but did not address 2nd amendment rights.
# Hence, gun control issues are primarily the subject of Congressional legislation. Gun Control Buzzwords
# The biggest component of the Gun Control debate is whether existing gun laws are sufficient, or whether more gun laws are needed. (My status quo vote should displease anti-gun types more than NRA types).
# Liberals and populists generally favor more gun laws. Look for buzzwords like "more registration" or "more licensing" to describe seeking further restrictions legal ownership; or "close the loopholes" and "restrict access" for further restrictions on illegal ownership. (NO)
# Moderate liberals and populists will generally favor more restrictions on ownership while paying lip-service "sportsmen's rights" or respecting "the right of self-protection." A moderate compromise is to "extend waiting periods" before allowing ownership, to perform "background checks" of varying degrees of severity. (Sounds like John Kerry)
# Conservatives and libertarians generally oppose gun laws. Look for buzzwords like "Second Amendment rights" or "allow concealed carry". A call for "instant background checks" pays lip-service to gun-control advocates: it sounds like a restriction, but means allowing purchasing guns on the spot. (I'm in favor of "allowed concealed carry.")
# Moderate conservatives and libertarians oppose gun laws while acknowledging that restrictions are inevitable. Look for buzzwords like "enforce existing gun laws," which implies not passing any NEW gun laws. Similarly, "more strict enforcement" of gun laws implies a pro-Gun Rights stance, unless it is accompanied by a call for new gun laws. (I'm in the first group)
# Centrists and moderates from both the right and left generally support restrictions on juvenile access to guns, especially in the wake of tragedies like Littleton and other gun-related deaths.
# Positive mentions of the NRA (the National Rifle Association, the largest pro-gun rights lobbying group) implies support of gun rights, while opposing the NRA or "taking on the gun lobby" implies support of gun restrictions. Amendment II to the US Constitution
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (1791)

[Uli]

Gordon what's a populist in your above statistics?

[sonic1]

Conservatives and libertarians generally oppose gun laws. Look for buzzwords like "Second Amendment rights" or "allow concealed carry". A call for "instant background checks" pays lip-service to gun-control advocates: it sounds like a restriction, but means allowing purchasing guns on the spot. (I'm in favor of "allowed concealed carry.")

lookie that. I am a conservative.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Dave -- Why not a license to have children? What is more irresponsible than "allowing" any two nitwits who can rub their parts against each other to be responsible for human lives? Talk about dangerous.

I think parents should be licensed, yes. It was the first item on my platform back when I was proposing myself as Monarch of the United States.

I'm not going to argue the contents of the Second Amendment. Some thinks it says one thing, some says another. No one who thinks the one will ever admit to the legitimacy of the other, and that's the way it goes, ring-a-leevie-o.

[Uli]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

I'm not going to argue the contents of the Second Amendment. Some thinks it says one thing, some says another. No one who thinks the one will ever admit to the legitimacy of the other, and that's the way it goes, ring-a-leevie-o.

Neither am I. But everytime this subject comes up, the gun nuts act like they have the gospel on the constitution. That's why my position for the gun nuts is now, practice some law or shut the fuck up!

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Finally, I wish people would actually read it. Especially the last sentence. All powers not specifically granted (by the people) to the government in the body of the Constitution reside "with the states or the people." Which means that the government has not the constitutional power to alter the constitution through statuatory or judicial decision. The Constitution spells out the rules for changing it. Use them or don't. If you choose not to, get used to what it says. Whether you like what it says is a different matter entirely. I don't like much of anything that's in it, apart from the Amendments. So what? If I were serious about wanting something in it changed, I'd be engaged in political work to try to amend it. I would not be busy trying to avoid the process because I know that I don't have enough political clout in the population to do so.

Which is precisely what the antifirearms nuts are trying to do and for that very reason.

Do some political work or shut up, is my position.

[walto]

btw, Gary or anyone else--Where does the definition of "arms" end in your opinion? Obviously, it includes firearms not in use in the 18th century but does it, say, include bazookas? I'd think not but, exactly why not? The non-explosiveness of bullets? If so, would exploding bullets be able to be controlled? Questions like these are why the issue has fuzzy bounries for me.

I read a lengthy (probably too scholarly) piece on this subject by Garry Wills several years ago. I think it was in The Atlantic.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Congress "shall pass no law" which seems like clear enough English to me.

It's the clearest English there is and should be respected everywhere it is encountered in the Constitution, for example "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

However, that English is not used in the Second Amendment which says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In fact, the language of the 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law," is arguably weaker than the 2nd Amendment's language which says that the right of the citizen to bear arms "shall not be infringed." Shall not be infringed by who? Congress? The individual State? Local government? All of them? The 2nd Amendment could be read very broadly to forbid any gun law at all, and not just those laws instituted by Congress.

As a practical matter, I think that would be wrongheaded. I am for strongly enforced weak gun laws like background checks and penalties if a gun is used in a crime.

[Henry Mars]

Twice in my 54 years my .45 has gotten me out of serious trouble. My idea of gun control is to be able to hit what/who you are shooting.

On the other hand violent felons shouldn't be allowed to have guns.

And besides I look rather attractive when removing my business suit jacket sporting my Miami Classic shoulder holster containing my PT945.

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by Henry Mars

My idea of gun control is to be able to hit what/who you are shooting.

Henry is so cute & cuddly.

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

This is where I fall off the free-market/libertarian rails. You need a license to drive a car. You should damn well need a license to own a gun--any gun. People should NOT be allowed to parade around with a .45 automatic on the hip. A big Colt may be a thing of beauty and usefulness, but it makes murder just a little too easy for my taste. At least a knife requires the assailant to get up close and personal.

You should not be able to buy or own a gun--any gun--if you've had anything on your record more than a parking ticket. Automatic weapons and weapons easily convertible to automatic performance should be banned, period. Anybody who wants to go hunting can still go hunting. Anybody who wants to target-shoot will still be able to target-shoot. Anybody who needs a handgun because they transport cash for a living will be able to have a handgun.

Anybody who thinks that owning a gun will protect them from Big Government is delusional.

That's my take. Please don't insult my intelligence with appeals to the Second Amendment or the Slippery Slope. You're either a knowing or an unknowing apologist for the NRA, or you're Sisco, believing that you can hole up in the mountains and hold off the Feds until...until when, Gary?

(I'm just picking on Sisco because he's been more eloquent--and consistent--on the subject than most.)

I pretty much agree with every word of this.

[bluenoter]

Originally Posted by Henry Mars

And besides I look rather attractive when removing my business suit jacket sporting my Miami Classic shoulder holster containing my PT945.

You wouldn't to me. I don't watch TV.