I think the best discussions are the ones where both sides sound like reactionary idiots and with that in mind I must say that even from 1500 miles away, and that being in a city where murder is common as dirt, I am still deeply moved, and saddened, by the news of the Queens murders yesterday morning. Relating to a freedom discussion on another page it is my primary nature to agree with jimb about there being something amiss with the nature of internal freedom in the US but at the same time I want to start seeing a lot less than 30,000 gun related deaths each year (and of course I don't mean to suggest that jimb wishes that number to stay the same, or grow). While clearly not the overall solution to the problem I want to see more restrictions on guns, more buy back programs, more effort goddammit. And I want back that 40 million or more spent on the Clinton investigations and I want it spent on something useful. I want more restrictions in my world. I want my US government to quit whoring itself to the NRA and other lobbying groups that promote ill health, and death. I'm late for work. f Ted Nugent.
Well if it's a call for reactionary idot comments I better jump in. While I tend to not personally like the people who seem to run the NRA (the members of course are a widely varied lot who would be hard to judge so easily) I usually argue their position. I don't get a lot of support from people I know. (In fact, I don't think I have a single friend who agrees with me, but I'm not sure about that.) Also, by way of disclosure, I'll say that I don't own a gun (or any type of weapon outside of a kitchen knife) and have no plans on buying one. Still, I believe that the right to bear arms (see that pesky Constitution) is fundamental to our way of life, and should not be restricted. Most people laugh at this and point out that the Constitution was written way back in the wild days, and that guns were needed for hunting and killing indians and we don't need to do those things any more. But I don't think that is why it is in the Constitution. The right to bear arms, like so many other fundamental parts of our governments structure, is designed to balance power between different groups. In this case, an armed population is a check against the armies (police and military) at the disposal of the government. I don't think you have to be a raving gun toting militia radical to see that our government is held in check by the idea that the citizens will only take so much, and most importantly, if they ever did rise up (which, granted, seems unlikely) they actually could. But I think I see your point. I too (like everyone else I imagine) am disgusted and deeply troubled by gun violence. By any violence really, but guns especially because they are so effective. I would love to see these crimes stopped. But would they be stopped by outlawing guns? (For instance, do you think the guns used in a lot of the shootings you describe are legally registered to the shooters?)
O.K., I know my stance is controversial, and I don't mean to piss people off. I'm open to changing my views. Don't flame me too hard. [Insert picture of me ducking under my desk as I hit post here.]
I have a .20 guauge shotgun my brother gave me. It has a real long barrel. I haven't shot it since leaving NC five years ago, but I have in the past enjoyed shooting it, and other guns. I keep it somewhat nearby, the shotgun, unloaded but close to three hollow point slugs. A .20 gauge is mostly a small bird hunting gun but loaded with hollow point slugs it becomes something else entirely. And I sometimes think about buying a registered handgun. Here in Louisiana we can carry concealed weapons, with some exceptions. The reason I keep hollow point slugs and the reason I think about concealed weapons is because there are times here when the violence gets so prevalent, and close, that I feel it may be necessary to defend myself by killing another human being. And with the uttering of those words what have I become? And no, obviously most of the murders I'm talking about are not being carried out with registered handguns, but the beauty of a buy back program is that by offering 20,40,or 60 dollars for any gun, no questions asked, a community can get rid of a few of its antiquated killing devices, and at the same time stimulate the local crack economy. The antiquated weaponry could then be replaced with new fangled weaponry that perhaps could be made less effective when finding its way into the wrong hands. Or maybe such a thing is just impossible, can't be done. I don't question your stance with the Constitution, and I'm not suggesting we give up our right to arm bears, but the idea that any number of us in armed combat against this government could amount to anything but a bloody fiasco is unrealistic. Sure our FBI looks ineffectual and goofy sometimes, implying by their deadly fuckups that they could be overrun by a well run militia, but that just ain't so. And the FBI would be the least of the problems a revolutionary or defensive front would have to deal with. It is a scary group of agencies at the disposal of our government, and that's not even including our military, which doped up or not, those guys can kick some ass. And so in that sense we John Q Americans really don't even need our guns. We are licked before we start, militarily speaking. There will be no jackbooted ass kicking of the American public because there is no need for it, and nothing to gain. So let's get rid of our guns. No, you go first...no, really, you go, and then I'll go, seriously.
hmm, threads all over the place awaiting responses. ahh, the good ol second amendment. certainly the intentions of the founders was to empower the populace against possible tyranny from the government. as they had just fought a bloody war against an entrenched power, they understood that power is corrupting and only a vast array of checks and balances could maintain a degree of equanimity. so then the question should turn to what can be done to limit the use of guns?
i too have been of the opinion that the right to bear arms is essentially useless in our present day situation with the weapons at the disposal of the government. but as we have seen in vietnam and even kosovo or chechnya or ireland, its one thing to bomb a country back into the stone ages and quite another to occupy a country on the ground.
so we have the right to bear arms, just what arms do we have the right to bear? can i own a nuclear bomb? how about a jet fighter or a tank? does the constitution say you can bear arms within reason?
ok, im losing coherency, but lets just say philosophically, if thats the right word, we accept the need for the second amendment, how do we practically respond to its abuse without treading on our initial prerogatives? one would think that the threat of the death penalty or life in prison would be enough to dissuade most people from using weapons for malevolent purposes and for the most part this is true but obviously not universal. so lets look at who is misusing guns and see what can be done to mitigate their use. obviously education is the most powerful motivating force along with an opportunity. most gun related crimes, i would argue, stem from a class that feels alienated from the culture at large. they must feel that nothing is worth living for. how else can we look at instances like our recent murders at the wendys in queens? so little to gain, so much to lose, unless you already feel there is nothing to live for.
blah blah blah blah blah. back and forth in my mind. i might also add that the drug war and prohibition added to the problem by creating black markets that were outside the law. so when one is not protected by the law one must protect oneself (although any real protection we have is seemingly illusory). heres some source materials 1 2 3 4. #4 comes straight outta militiaville. #1 is sort of useless but interesting nonetheless.
Buy back programs seem like the perfect solution. Who could argue? No coersion; if you want to have/keep a gun you can. But still lots of incentive to turn them in. Seems like the best of both worlds. Now all we have to do is get the cash payments up. What if it was $100 a gun? $500? $1000? Could you hit a price point where you would get almost all the guns? (Obviously there is a point, for example, $50,000 a gun would surely get almost every gun out there, although that may no be a reasonable number.) Even if it cost a few billion dollars, wouldn't it be worth it? Rather than passing laws, I think people should pony up the dough into a central fund to be used for a nation wide, no questions asked, buy back program.
i think you lost me there jim, if not yourself. no amount of money is worthwhile if guns are not outlawed which you yourself are opposed to. ill buy a gun and turn it in if someone will give me $50000. and then ill go out and buy another 1000 and turn them in. i doubt that gun buybacks are very effective when there are 250000000 gun in america and counting.
long guns si ! pistols no ! No automatics either. All trasactions registered like cars with proper age and legal history req's and no just outside city limits unregistered gunfairs. Buy backs help a little and at least dont hurt as long as Jim doesn't drive gun sales up with his out of balance buy back plan as df points out. On the other hand, hold your ground dude.
long guns si ! pistols no ! No (semi)automatics either. All trasactions registered like cars with proper age and legal history checks and no just outside city limits unregistered gunfair loopholes. Buy backs help a little and at least dont hurt as long as Jim doesn't drive gun up sales with his out of balance buy back plan (as df points out). Other than that, hold your ground dude.
|
- jimlouis 5-26-2000 12:27 pm
Well if it's a call for reactionary idot comments I better jump in. While I tend to not personally like the people who seem to run the NRA (the members of course are a widely varied lot who would be hard to judge so easily) I usually argue their position. I don't get a lot of support from people I know. (In fact, I don't think I have a single friend who agrees with me, but I'm not sure about that.) Also, by way of disclosure, I'll say that I don't own a gun (or any type of weapon outside of a kitchen knife) and have no plans on buying one. Still, I believe that the right to bear arms (see that pesky Constitution) is fundamental to our way of life, and should not be restricted. Most people laugh at this and point out that the Constitution was written way back in the wild days, and that guns were needed for hunting and killing indians and we don't need to do those things any more. But I don't think that is why it is in the Constitution. The right to bear arms, like so many other fundamental parts of our governments structure, is designed to balance power between different groups. In this case, an armed population is a check against the armies (police and military) at the disposal of the government. I don't think you have to be a raving gun toting militia radical to see that our government is held in check by the idea that the citizens will only take so much, and most importantly, if they ever did rise up (which, granted, seems unlikely) they actually could. But I think I see your point. I too (like everyone else I imagine) am disgusted and deeply troubled by gun violence. By any violence really, but guns especially because they are so effective. I would love to see these crimes stopped. But would they be stopped by outlawing guns? (For instance, do you think the guns used in a lot of the shootings you describe are legally registered to the shooters?)
O.K., I know my stance is controversial, and I don't mean to piss people off. I'm open to changing my views. Don't flame me too hard. [Insert picture of me ducking under my desk as I hit post here.]
- jim 5-27-2000 7:16 pm [add a comment]
I have a .20 guauge shotgun my brother gave me. It has a real long barrel. I haven't shot it since leaving NC five years ago, but I have in the past enjoyed shooting it, and other guns. I keep it somewhat nearby, the shotgun, unloaded but close to three hollow point slugs. A .20 gauge is mostly a small bird hunting gun but loaded with hollow point slugs it becomes something else entirely. And I sometimes think about buying a registered handgun. Here in Louisiana we can carry concealed weapons, with some exceptions. The reason I keep hollow point slugs and the reason I think about concealed weapons is because there are times here when the violence gets so prevalent, and close, that I feel it may be necessary to defend myself by killing another human being. And with the uttering of those words what have I become? And no, obviously most of the murders I'm talking about are not being carried out with registered handguns, but the beauty of a buy back program is that by offering 20,40,or 60 dollars for any gun, no questions asked, a community can get rid of a few of its antiquated killing devices, and at the same time stimulate the local crack economy. The antiquated weaponry could then be replaced with new fangled weaponry that perhaps could be made less effective when finding its way into the wrong hands. Or maybe such a thing is just impossible, can't be done. I don't question your stance with the Constitution, and I'm not suggesting we give up our right to arm bears, but the idea that any number of us in armed combat against this government could amount to anything but a bloody fiasco is unrealistic. Sure our FBI looks ineffectual and goofy sometimes, implying by their deadly fuckups that they could be overrun by a well run militia, but that just ain't so. And the FBI would be the least of the problems a revolutionary or defensive front would have to deal with. It is a scary group of agencies at the disposal of our government, and that's not even including our military, which doped up or not, those guys can kick some ass. And so in that sense we John Q Americans really don't even need our guns. We are licked before we start, militarily speaking. There will be no jackbooted ass kicking of the American public because there is no need for it, and nothing to gain. So let's get rid of our guns. No, you go first...no, really, you go, and then I'll go, seriously.
- jimlouis 5-29-2000 3:57 am [add a comment]
hmm, threads all over the place awaiting responses. ahh, the good ol second amendment. certainly the intentions of the founders was to empower the populace against possible tyranny from the government. as they had just fought a bloody war against an entrenched power, they understood that power is corrupting and only a vast array of checks and balances could maintain a degree of equanimity. so then the question should turn to what can be done to limit the use of guns?
i too have been of the opinion that the right to bear arms is essentially useless in our present day situation with the weapons at the disposal of the government. but as we have seen in vietnam and even kosovo or chechnya or ireland, its one thing to bomb a country back into the stone ages and quite another to occupy a country on the ground.
so we have the right to bear arms, just what arms do we have the right to bear? can i own a nuclear bomb? how about a jet fighter or a tank? does the constitution say you can bear arms within reason?
ok, im losing coherency, but lets just say philosophically, if thats the right word, we accept the need for the second amendment, how do we practically respond to its abuse without treading on our initial prerogatives? one would think that the threat of the death penalty or life in prison would be enough to dissuade most people from using weapons for malevolent purposes and for the most part this is true but obviously not universal. so lets look at who is misusing guns and see what can be done to mitigate their use.
obviously education is the most powerful motivating force along with an opportunity. most gun related crimes, i would argue, stem from a class that feels alienated from the culture at large. they must feel that nothing is worth living for. how else can we look at instances like our recent murders at the wendys in queens? so little to gain, so much to lose, unless you already feel there is nothing to live for.
blah blah blah blah blah. back and forth in my mind. i might also add that the drug war and prohibition added to the problem by creating black markets that were outside the law. so when one is not protected by the law one must protect oneself (although any real protection we have is seemingly illusory).
heres some source materials
1 2 3 4. #4 comes straight outta militiaville. #1 is sort of useless but interesting nonetheless.
- dave 5-29-2000 10:53 pm [add a comment]
Buy back programs seem like the perfect solution. Who could argue? No coersion; if you want to have/keep a gun you can. But still lots of incentive to turn them in. Seems like the best of both worlds. Now all we have to do is get the cash payments up. What if it was $100 a gun? $500? $1000? Could you hit a price point where you would get almost all the guns? (Obviously there is a point, for example, $50,000 a gun would surely get almost every gun out there, although that may no be a reasonable number.) Even if it cost a few billion dollars, wouldn't it be worth it? Rather than passing laws, I think people should pony up the dough into a central fund to be used for a nation wide, no questions asked, buy back program.
- jim 5-30-2000 11:20 pm [add a comment]
i think you lost me there jim, if not yourself. no amount of money is worthwhile if guns are not outlawed which you yourself are opposed to. ill buy a gun and turn it in if someone will give me $50000. and then ill go out and buy another 1000 and turn them in. i doubt that gun buybacks are very effective when there are 250000000 gun in america and counting.
- dave 5-31-2000 4:09 am [add a comment]
long guns si ! pistols no ! No automatics either. All trasactions registered like cars with proper age and legal history req's and no just outside city limits unregistered gunfairs. Buy backs help a little and at least dont hurt as long as Jim doesn't drive gun sales up with his out of balance buy back plan as df points out. On the other hand, hold your ground dude.
- bill 6-05-2000 10:16 pm [add a comment]
long guns si ! pistols no ! No (semi)automatics either. All trasactions registered like cars with proper age and legal history checks and no just outside city limits unregistered gunfair loopholes. Buy backs help a little and at least dont hurt as long as Jim doesn't drive gun up sales with his out of balance buy back plan (as df points out). Other than that, hold your ground dude.
- bill 6-05-2000 10:21 pm [add a comment]