I don't usually post on the weekend, but I have been keeping up with the thread. I would like to respond to some of the questions and topics raised by my original post on this thread. My concept was to present an idea of what I consider to be "reasonable" gun control.
The gist was that firearm ownership was governed by a licensing process that included both criminal/mental health background checks as well as mandatory training. Firearms were then registered to a particular owner. The licensing and requirements would be universal in all 50 states and all 50 states would share the data related to the various checks and trianing standards. This would mean that gun owners would have universal rights in all states, including CCW. The only "weapon bans" would be a continuance of those already in existence under federal law and perhaps a cap on extremely large magazines (talking about 100 round drum mags). The goal of such is to stem the flow of guns into the hands of criminals since study after study has found that virtually all guns used in committing crimes began life as legally purchased firearms.
The initial reaction was people waving their 2A rights. To them I would ask, what right given under the constitution is completely unlimited? The answer is none of them. I cannot scream "fire" in a crowded theater. I cannot engage in public assembly wherever I choose and often need a permit to do so. I cannot exempt and get away with anything I wish by calling it a "sincere religious belief", even if it is. Why would one assume that the 2A provides such an unlimited right?
Several posters have pretended they are consitutional law scholars and historians. I admit to having dabbled and in particular dabbling on 2A rights. The history of the amendment is quite interesting as well as to what it's intent actually was. Even more interesting is that when originally created the amendments only applied to the federal government (something that changed after the civil war) and that many states had established religions and even gun control. I will save the detail of the arguments (you can search for my post in the Guns and Hunting forum where we had a very amicable debate), but I will point out that the part about the militia is not a tossed in line. With that said, one of the first people who responded to me actually agreed with that position. They went on to also point out that private ownership of weapons for defense was a matter of common law and not even on the Founders radar when they made the 2A. So, there is a dichotomy between what was meant by the 2A and the keeping of personal defense weapons which was a matter of common law.
Regardless of all of the history (which actually goes against how many here are interpreting the 2A) we do have modern standing. The SCOTUS has interpreted the 2A to imply a right to private ownership. It has also supported that there can be limits and regulations placed upon the exercise of this right. I feel that what I proposed is well within the context of what would be considered constitutional.
If one actually takes the time to read and comprehend what I proposed, what is there to argue with? Are we really arguing against the need for universal licensing including proper background checks with all information available (see Governor Jindal's recent statements re: deficiencies in mental healthcheck systems)? Are we really arguing that gun owners shouldn't have to register their weapons so we can ensure that they aren't getting into the hands of criminals? The only argument made against these rules are references to defense against tyranny and that the government doesn't have the right. Are you all really serious? Do you really think that jack-booted government storm troopers are going to come to your house and take your guns (...and for the record Hitler did not confiscate or ban guns. Please see
this article at GunCite who is trying to get gun proponents to stop making dumb statements)?
What I perosnally find most ironic is that the concept of universal 50-state gun laws, including CCW that could be granted under a system where we were sure that we were only giving "properly trained good guys guns" was met as anathema. Is this not the ultimate empowerment of gun owners? Is the idea of registration and licensing so horrendous that you wouldn't do it in exchange to be able to carry your gun anywhere, anytime in all 50-states?
The next argument is that any gun controls laws would not stop mass shootings. This is a point I would concede and even stated in my first remarks. It wouldn't because mass shootings are carried out by people committed to doing it no matter what. What would be impacted is the "mass shooting" that our country is on an annual basis. Yes, much of it is related to crime and gangs, but the guns almost universally start out as being legally purchased. Tieing guns to their owners and requiring the transfer of ownership at asale to clamp down on this trade, in addition to stiffer criminal penalties related to firearm offenses, would go a LONG way to stemming the availability of guns to criminals. As the readily available supply of guns being trafficked into urban areas from states with lax gun control decreased, the price of those guns would increase, placing them out of the reach of common criminals. It would ultimately take decades to be fully effective, but we must start somewhere.
Many people also argued about the prevalence of firearms and its real impact on crime. I would point out that what I proposed would give gun owners a universal right in all 50 states to CCW with proper training. However, there isn't a ton of evidence that more guns in peoples hands leads to more safety. Here are the top 10 most violent states in the nation, those with the highest violent crime rates per capita:
The most dangerous states in America
1. Alaska
2. New Mexico
3. Nevada
4. Tennessee
5. Louisianna
6. South Carolina
7. Delaware
8. Maryland
9. Florida
10. Arkansas
There is also ample evidence, quite logical, that an increase in the prevalence of firearms in state leads to an increase in firearm related deaths. The irony is that some of the states with the laxest laws happen to appear on the list above. It is hard to correlate increase prevalence of firearms with crime reduction. People will of course roll out states like New Hampshire as an example. They are very correct, NH has lax gun laws and very low crime. Consider this the counter to the above which helps prove the macro point that any correlations are spurious at best.
What we do find though is that areas that have high density and high poverty experience more crime. The ease and availability of firearms in this situation is not a deterrent, but an accelerator. This reinforces the necessity of ensuring we keep guns out of criminals hands and ensure that only competent, law abiding citizens are armed and that those citizens are free to exercise their rights in all 50 states. Somehow, that is anathema to people who are pro-gun.