Gun-control kerfluffle

[draconis]

With all the hoopla over the Blair Holt gun control bill, and gun control in general, I thought I'd share a few of these comments and quotes that a former dojo-mate and student sent to me tonight.


And before you jump on my case about any of the holes in some of these, they are not intended (here) as serious commentary. They are the equivalent of bumper stickers -- and I suspect that quite a few of them ARE bumper stickers.


Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.

An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

Colt: the original point-and-click interface.

Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

If guns are outlawed, can we use swords? (hell, yes!)

If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words, and matches cause arson.

Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

64,999,987 firearm owners killed no one yesterday.

Guns have only two enemies: rust and politicians.

You don't shoot to kill, you shoot to stay alive.

911: Government-sponsored dial-a-prayer.

Assault is a behavior, not a device.

Criminals love gun control, it makes their jobs safer.

Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them. (Remember, remember, the 5th of November...)

You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

Comments

[miintikwa.livejournal.com]

Colt: the original point-and-click interface.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

As a former Colt owner, I find this one terribly amusing.

[jcbdragon.livejournal.com]

I thought you might like that one!

[ilyena_sylph]

*grins* I love most of those.

Picked up a couple of new "Burma Shave" versions on my drive across IL yesterday:

"Another crook / is sad but wiser / my mother keeps / her gun beside her".

and

"If safe society / is what you seek / you won't find it / disarming the meek."

I love those things. Though my all time favorite is probably "Crooks are many / cops are few / crooks have guns / why can't you?"

[jcbdragon.livejournal.com]

I like!

[mzlizzy.livejournal.com]

I'm always pulled two ways on gun control. See my father was killed when I was 15 by a nut with a gun who terrorized his workplace (Dad was a doctor).

On the other hand I'm a firm believer that responsible adults should have the right to own a gun.

What I'd really like is a requirement that anyone who wants to own a gun go through licensing that would allow them to prove themselves competent. Like getting a driver's license.

I don't think guns are the problem, I think irresponsible people are the problem.

[jcbdragon.livejournal.com]

"What I'd really like is a requirement that anyone who wants to own a gun go through licensing that would allow them to prove themselves competent. Like getting a driver's license."

I can kind of agree with that one, except that the comparison isn't valid -- there is no *right* to drive a car.


"I don't think guns are the problem, I think irresponsible people are the problem."

::DING!DING!DING!:: We have a winner! ;-)

Actually, I think that irresponsible people are a major *part* of the problem -- at least in the case of accidental deaths. Another part is those who deliberately ignore the laws... and the third part is those who think that more laws will protect people from those who fall into the first two categories.

[mzlizzy.livejournal.com]

OK, I admit the car thing isn't the best analogy, but cars, like guns, are technology that can be dangerous in the wrong hands.

As a society we spend so much time educating drivers, I'd love to see us educating people about guns.

Part of the 2nd Amendment talks about a 'well-regulated militia' and you can't deny that if you're going to be part of a militia (or available to serve in one) you need to know what a gun can do, and practiced with it. Not just own one that you keep in a drawer or box. That's like buying a sewing machine and then leaving it in the closet and claiming you can sew.

You may have the potential, but you don't really have the knowledge or skill.

[rike-tikki-tavi.livejournal.com]

Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

And that's the thing. What's wrong about a bit of control?
The point and click quote is cute, though.

[warclaw.livejournal.com]

Nothing is wrong with a little bit of control....but where does it stop? The problem is that the amount and type of control is something that few agree on.

There is a faction that believes (Despite evidence and studies to the contrary, that stricter gun control laws make you safer.

Another faction on the opposite side, favors almost completely unrestricted gun ownership as the way to go. (I do think there should be SOME limits, but not the sort of things that most gun-control advocates are wanting.)

I disagree with both of them, but tend to come down on the side of no-restrictions, simply because once I give up a right, getting it back is almost impossible. Also, Control, like power, for some people is like heroin. No matter how much they have, they want more, and will do almost anything to get it. No matter how restrictive the gun controls are, there are folks who will push for "Just a few more restrictions to "Make us all safer"."

Of the two competing viewpoints, I personally prefer no restrictions. At least in that case, I have the option to either CHOOSE to have a firearm, or not.

Of course, were it up to me, I'd institute mandatory gun-safety courses in school. Kids don't necessarily need to know how to field strip an M-16 or put five in the ten-ring at two hundred yards, but they should at least understand the basics of gun safety and proper weapons handling.

I also believe that the punishments for MIS-use of a weapon should be harsh and unforgiving. If you point a gun and pull the trigger, then no plea bargains, no "I didn't mean it." No "It was an accident." If you are going to pick up a gun, then you shoulder the RESPONSIBILITIES that go with it.

[rike-tikki-tavi.livejournal.com]

I tend to come at the gun control issue from a different point of view because I'm German. We don't have a Second Amendment and the right to own guns is not as rooted in our mental make-up as it seems to be for many Americans (and I'm judging mostly from what I know from tv shows, so I might be totally wrong here).

And on one hand, even though Germany has pretty restrictive gun control laws, we just had a horrible school shooting a few weeks ago and are, at the moment more than ever, aware that those laws will not always make everybody safer. Because the truly crazy ones will never be deterred that way.

On the other hand though, I don't think I've ever heard of a drive-by shooting or something like that happening over here. And armed robberies of gas stations and convenience stores are also pretty rare. So I follow the logic of less easy access to guns for everybody equals less easy access to guns for criminals, too because there are less guns in total.

As for nothing wrong with a little control, but where does it stop, that's why you have political discourse and elections and stuff. But my ideas about gun control are not very formed because it's so much of a non issue for me. I don't know anybody who owns a gun or is in a shooting club. I'm not interested in owning a gun myself and I don't think I'd be capable of actually pointing a gun at another person and pulling the trigger, even to protect myself. So having one wouldn't make me feel safer either.

[jcbdragon.livejournal.com]

"I don't know anybody who owns a gun or is in a shooting club."

Sure you do: me! 8-)



"I don't think I'd be capable of actually pointing a gun at another person and pulling the trigger, even to protect myself. So having one wouldn't make me feel safer either."

This is something that I wish more people who *do* own guns would realize. It takes a LOT to actually look down the barrel at another human being and still pull the trigger. If you're not reasonably confident that you can and will pull the trigger, you're better off not having the gun at all. [And no, I've never had to do it, and I pray that I never will... but if push comes to shove, I will.]

[rike-tikki-tavi.livejournal.com]

Sure you do: me! 8-)

Touché. :D

The question, Could you actually shoot somebody if you had to, comes up in discussion threads about rape and how to make women safer quite often. Sooner or later somebody will suggest just arming every woman, who ever has to leave her house at night, should do the trick. And it gets pointed out to them, that shooting another human being can be [should be] really hard and if you can't do it, your attacker will most likely just take the gun away from you and then has one more weapon with which to hurt you. I always thought, that last bit was an excellent point.

[jcbdragon.livejournal.com]

I agree completely!

[jcbdragon.livejournal.com]

"Of course, were it up to me, I'd institute mandatory gun-safety courses in school. Kids don't necessarily need to know how to field strip an M-16 or put five in the ten-ring at two hundred yards, but they should at least understand the basics of gun safety and proper weapons handling."


Amen! I think that there are a LOT of things that should be considered a part of basic education in life, that don't get covered any more (if they ever did). These include the basics on everything from finances to automotive care to nutrition to usage of common tools to self-defense to outdoor survival to handling weaponry.

[rike-tikki-tavi.livejournal.com]

This is what I meant when I talked about the right to guns not being as rooted in our mental make-up to warclaw. You guys had to fight an actual bloody war, because you couldn't trust your government. [Can one call it "your government", since, as I understand it, the colonist weren't allowed to vote and that's what you in part fought the revolution over?] Anyway, that revolutionary war is huge for Americans and also the reason for the 2nd Amendment, right?

In Germany on the other hand, we had only one revolution that went from the bottom up. Every other major overhaul of society had been initiated from the top. The only time that the people took to the streets because they didn't trust their "elected" officials anymore was in 1989 when the socialist regime of the GDR was toppled and not a single shot was fired there.

[warclaw.livejournal.com]

Yep, and that's one of the reasons why so many are loath to relinquish any of our gun rights. Because once you do, (even if you totally trust and believe in the current govt), what happens down the road? If the government changes into something untrustworthy and/or actively dangerous to us? How do you then get those weapons back to defend yourself?.

[warclaw.livejournal.com]

"The only time that the people took to the streets because they didn't trust their "elected" officials anymore was in 1989 when the socialist regime of the GDR was toppled and not a single shot was fired there. "

And the only reason no shots were fired, was that elements of the GDR government didn't choose to resist the movement more forcefully. A combination of world pressure and sympathizers within the government caused the GDR to allow itself to collapse peacefully. And since the Russians were busy elsewhere, and didn't have the political will to hang on as tightly as they had in the past... If things had been only a very little bit different, we would have seen a replay of 1968 in Czechoslovakia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Spring

In that case, a reform movement was crushed by military force. There were quite a few deaths, and many "Disappeared". Would firearms have changed this? No. The force imbalances were far too great. But it MIGHT have cost a bit more.

On another front, sometimes even the potential of a firearm's presence is somewhat of a deterrent. Interviews with convicted criminals have consistently produced statements from them that they were MUCH more cautious about invading a home where firearms might be present. Remove that fear, and the criminals get bolder. If you have any questions about that, just ask the Australians about their crime statistics...shortly after a campaign of "Buy backs" (BTW, if you make the sale mandatory with jail penalties for refusing, that's not buying, that's robbery/extortion)that took the majority of firearms out of the hands of private citizens, home invasions and robberies increased dramatically. Criminals were quoted as no longer having to fear what the homeowner might have, their only concern was police response....which in some areas (even assuming perfect notification) was often slow in coming due to distances and other limits.

I guess it all comes down to trust, as Dragon has said elsewhere on this thread. Americans, by and large, have a generally lower level of trust for the PTB. We also TEND to dislike others making our choices for us "For our own good"...My feeling is, make your own choices for yourself. Have guns, or don't, that's up to you. Just don't try to dictate to me what I must do...especially when you have no proof that I intend you any harm, nor have I proven myself incapable or too irresponsible to make my own judgments.

IF I was to abuse the right, of course there should be harsh punishments...anything with that much potential for harm, MUST carry with it high responsibilities and obligations for safe/legal use. But until that time...all I ask is to be left alone.

As an aside, I also believe that the current traffic/automobile laws are too lenient, and far too many irresponsible drivers are allowed far too many "Chances" before their privilege is revoked. Cars are just as dangerous, and kill many more people per year than firearms, under just as reprehensible circumstances, but where is the call to restrict them?

[rike-tikki-tavi.livejournal.com]

And the only reason no shots were fired, was that elements of the GDR government didn't choose to resist the movement more forcefully. A combination of world pressure and sympathizers within the government caused the GDR to allow itself to collapse peacefully.

Thing is, I once saw a really well done documentary about the fall of the GDR, which had been produced for the 10th anniversary and it included interviews with most of the people, who'd been in power back then, including the Soviet ambassador in Berlin, Gorbatschov, Bush senior, Thatcher and Mitterrand and the one thing that became apparent, is that the situation was about a hairs breadth away from turning into a massacre. If only one of the soldiers or policemen had lost their nerve and opened fire, the resulting bloodbath could have turned out a lot worse than the Prague Spring. And if the people demonstrating had had guns, too, the risk of somebody loosing it and starting to shoot would have been even bigger, and really, I shudder to think what would have happened.

I guess it all comes down to trust, as Dragon has said elsewhere on this thread. Americans, by and large, have a generally lower level of trust for the PTB.

And I guess I have and Germans have less trust for the mob. Or at least we feel the danger of the PTB turning evil and forcing us to protect ourselves with guns against them is not large enough to warrant making it all that easy for everybody to get a gun.

Having said that, I don't argue that law abiding citizens should not be allowed to own guns. I realize there a lot of valid reasons to want to own a gun like hunting or protection or sport shooting. But I agree with you that any crime committed with a gun should be punished harshly and I also like the idea of licensing like for driving.

[jcbdragon.livejournal.com]

"What's wrong about a bit of control?"

On the surface of it? Not much.

But there's a matter of trust involved in transferring control. Do you trust the person you're giving it to? And in this case, even if you trust those who are currently in power not to abuse their control, do you also trust every single one of them that will come after? And when you get to one of them that you don't trust, how do you take your control back?

[shrewreader.livejournal.com]

Dragon, hon, the Constitution's (c) is 1787 (Came into effect 1788): the Bill of Rights, OTOH, (with the requisite 2nd amendment) is 1791.

Having said that. I don't think this one's gonna go through: given the recent decision by SCOTUS about DC's ban on handgun ownership, they're going to have a lot of grounds to bounce this one out on the basis of judicial review. There's not clear grounds why 18 is a magic number for access to firearms (there are, to my knowledge, at least 3 hunters on SCOTUS). But that's putting the cart before the horse.

I agree with the assessment that the lack of cosponsors is a pretty good indicator that it's not going to get out of committee. And even if it -does,- then it has to get all the way the Senate, and Senate Maj. Leader Reid hunts. It's not going to get introduced. Someone's going to rise to oppose it on the floor.

(And thanks for the heads up, because now I have a 'current events' issue to put on the kids' quiz!! :)

Now. Having said that --

This bill clearly goes too far. I don't own guns, I don't hunt, and even I don't want to see this kind of bill go through. I think the decision about allowing youngsters access to guns is best left in the hands of the states (because letting a kid have access to a gun in Maine is different from Texas, and they're both pretty rural...), and I don't think that federal fingerprinting for gun ownership is a good idea. I just don't trust them that much.

Now -- I do think registration and licensing is a good idea. This is mainly because I think that -good- gun control is hitting your target (are you listening, Mr. Cheney?), and that licensing, in the same way that we license drivers, is a relatively efficient way of ensuring that. I also think that a simple Federal mandate to change state gun license laws to 'may issue' from 'shall issue' would probably address a lot of the horror crimes committed with legal guns. If the license issuing authority has the right to say 'dude, you look like you're a maybe not as compliant with your meds as you ought to be. Why don't you have a chat with our quality of life division before we talk about you having a gun?' then you have an effective, flexible check on not-safe people getting guns, which, really, is about as far as I want government to go.

Government can do jack and shit about letting professional criminals get guns. Government -should- do neither jack nor shit about letting the law abiding get guns (even if they're Waco whackos). There's not a lot they can do effectively about the unbalanced getting access to legal guns: what they can do, perhaps, maybe they should have the authority to do better.

In conclusion: do free men ask permission to arm bears? :)

[jcbdragon.livejournal.com]

"Dragon, hon, the Constitution's (c) is 1787 (Came into effect 1788): the Bill of Rights, OTOH, (with the requisite 2nd amendment) is 1791."

I didn't write 'em, I just copied and pasted them.

[saxononyx.livejournal.com]

having a really wacko view of this issue I shall not take a side at this point.

[jcbdragon.livejournal.com]

Actually, I'm curious what your "wacko" view is. If you don't feel like discussing it "in public," feel free to lock the post, or email, or whatever.

BTW, I'll be in town again next week if you'd like to get together.

[saxononyx.livejournal.com]

It very simple I believe in exactly what the second amendment says.

The purpose of the right to bear arms is a well regulated militia.
I believe every adult has the absolute right to bear arms, BUT every adult who chooses to bear arms is automatically part of the militia and is required to under go all militia training, drills, and to be available to be called up to serve at any time.

all rights come with responsibilities, in the case of bearing arms that responsibility is to be part of the militia. So any one who owns a gun also spends 1 weekend every other month and 2 weeks a year training and is available for call up to help vs any condition the govener, or president deem necessary.

[jcbdragon.livejournal.com]

"The purpose of the right to bear arms is a well regulated militia."

I'm sorry, but I can't agree with that. What it says is that because a well-regulated militia is necessary, the peoples' right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It neither says nor implies that only those who serve active militia duty have this right.

The gentlemen who wrote it had excellent command of the language, and made their intentions quite plain in the verbiage here and in other papers they wrote during the same period. These men had just faced a revolution in which the populace had to fight against the military forces of the "established government" at the time. They knew from first-hand experience that sometimes things can get so bad that the only way to resolve them is to overthrow or break away from the current leaders, and wanted to be sure that the citizens of their new nation would never be stripped of that ability.

Furthermore, your option requires that the person be *accepted* by the Guard/militia. What about those who fail to meet the requirements for admission? For example, I'm 4F -- medically ineligible because of my asthma and an irregular heartbeat. The Air Force and Navy recruiters both were *drooling* over my ASVAB scores... right up until they saw my medical profile. Since I *can't* serve, should I therefore not be allowed to carry firearms?


I agree that all rights come with responsibilities. As for bearing arms coming with the responsibility to be a part of the militia, every male citizen in this country is already required at age 18 to register to be called up for military service. So while they aren't doing active duty, they *are* available to be called up for military service if the country's need is deemed to be high enough.

[saxononyx.livejournal.com]

Not active duty, Militia, a very different concept. I just love how the who first half of the second is totally ignored by everyone. Break down what it says. 1) a well regulated militia is necessary. 2) because of #1 the peoples right to bear arms will not be abridged.

Thus the reason for #2 is #1. Thus any one who uses the right to bear arms is part of the militia.

The militia is not the same in any way as the professional armed forces, and is required to take any one who chooses to be a member (i.e. owns a weapon). It is the requirement of the government to find a place for all members of the militia. There is no 4-f.

only two classes of people should be banned from owning weapons 1) convicted felons and ex-felons, 2) those with certain mental disorders (i.e Me, I don't and should not be allowed to carry a weapon)

The draft if horribly illegal and unconstitutional in my opinion. to make it right the first thing is to get rid of MALE in it. Females can and should serve just as much as men, and in fact in many areas such as fighter pilot they prove to be better than their male counter parts.