Gun safety is biggest unfinished business of my presidency, says Obama

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

There you go, common sense gun control.

If you're willing to throw out the Bill Of Rights and personal freedom for perceived safety.

[rleroy]

Why not have gun safety classes offered in public schools? Familiarize people with weapons at an early age and teach them their power.

[Ummagumma]

Originally Posted by rleroy

Why not have gun safety classes offered in public schools? Familiarize people with weapons at an early age and teach them their power.

Because evil guns will turn them into killer zombies.

[Mack Knife]

Originally Posted by rleroy

Why not have gun safety classes offered in public schools? Familiarize people with weapons at an early age and teach them their power.

Because liberals would go crazy. Look how they ran out ROTC from high schools and darn near did it in most colleges.

You see, the gun control crowd isn't remotely interested in education, indoctrination is their way.

[NJGOAT]

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.

[rleroy]

Originally Posted by Mack Knife

Because liberals would go crazy. Look how they ran out ROTC from high schools and darn near did it in most colleges.

You see, the gun control crowd isn't remotely interested in education, indoctrination is their way.

I'm very very liberal on most issues. I don't see a downside for the general population knowing how firearms work, firearm safety and education. Like it or not (I don't) firearms are a huge part of American society. I personally own a firearm and took appropriate steps to be educated on it's operation, maintenance and safety.

[eok]

Originally Posted by Mack Knife

Because liberals would go crazy. Look how they ran out ROTC from high schools and darn near did it in most colleges.

Just like Obama killed Osama bin Laden, because Bush couldn't. Conservatives talk like they're mean and violent, but when push comes to shove, they're easy to defeat. They couldn't kill Osama and they couldn't keep ROTC in schools. What else can't they do, but just keep talking about doing?

But not all liberals agree about everything. I'm a liberal but am in favor of some kind of miltary training in school, because kids need a well-rounded education, even if they never actually go to war.

[eok]

Originally Posted by Juram

strawman about the 2nd Amendment referring to hunting or target practice when the words of the people who were responsible for the Constitution clearly indicate otherwise.

In the 1700's guns were a much bigger factor in politics than they are now. Random groups of citizens with guns can no longer use those guns to fight the federal government, because it can outgun them with high tech weapons. The 2nd amendment was partly a reaction to what happened in 1776. While waiting for the Delaware River to freeze over, so they could walk across and attack the American army, the British went around New Jersey confiscating guns. Americans wanted their constitution to make it clear that they had the right to keep their guns as a defense against that kind of abuse. Hunting and target practice never had anything to do with it.

But even though the original intent was to prohibit the federal government from confiscating guns, the 2nd amendment has been interpreted much more broadly than that. It wasn't intended to prohibit state and local governments from restricting guns. Only after activist supreme court decisions changed its meaning. But it should be considered unconstitutional for the supreme court to change the meaning of the constitution.

[Montygirl]

Originally Posted by Ummagumma

The Constitution protects religion from the state and state from religion. Under the Constitution, LDS has no right to demand that you become Mormon, worship Joseph Smith, or that your children have to attend religious classes or sermons in public schools.

There's however no law that says that certain things can't be regulated on the local level based on majority vote, as long as that doesn't reflect on the protected rights of minorities. After all, local self-government is a long standing tradition that both our countries share.

So if you live in a Mormon state, they can limit the sale of alcohol on Sundays. They are not infringing on any of your Constitutional rights - you have no protected right to get wasted.

I'd say - even without being to Utah - that from the last quarter of XX century on, it probably had fewer religion-driven intrusive laws than, say, Ireland. It's not like Western Europe is completely homogenous in this respect.

As to kids not playing with other kids because of religion - that's unfortunate, but it's parents' choice. You can't legislate forced social interaction.

I'd hardly call 2 glasses of wine with dinner getting wasted most people are sensible drinkers, hence why since the laws have been relaxed in the last year here on a Sunday you don't see people lying face down on the pavement after a vodka binge they just enjoy meeting friends for brunch with a glass of wine.

Ireland it depends on which part of Ireland you are talking about. If its the republic they make their own laws as they are not part of the UK or England this has been the case for more than 25 years. So if you are talking about the catholic church this does not apply to the UK as this is a Republic, , Northern Ireland is part of the UK and so governed by the same law as the UK. But yes there are parts of Europe where religion does still impact on legislation.

Another good point was made too by those who keep screaming about liberals and generalising when others don't hold their view, not all liberals are anti guns or anti everything as was insinuated by some.

But not all liberals agree about everything. I'm a liberal but am in favor of some kind of miltary training in school, because kids need a well-rounded education, even if they never actually go to war.

[Montygirl]

Originally Posted by thatguydownsouth

That is in disagreement with the entire concept of separation of church and State. If a group of people issue ordinances based upon religious observation, upon others who are not members of said religion....there's a Constitutional issue. Freedom of religion says that you can practice your religion. It does NOT say that you can force your religious views upon others through government ordinances.

Which is the point I was trying to convey. If your majority religion does not drink or socialise outside a church environment(because that is their belief) and you issue laws that make it harder for those who don't follow that faith or any faith to do so by restricting transport hours, sales of alcohol(eg it has to be a State liquor store not a general liquor store and they can charge what they wish) and insisting you have to eat when you have a drink in a restaurant then I would see that as forcing your religious views on others via the state as the church and state are not kept separate. Especially when the majority of people who legislate in that state hold those religious beliefs. Not exactly a balance of power and if all religions were represented at state level here when legislation is created then that law would be gone.

I cannot bring my children into many places that serve alcohol(even some of those that serve food and have music) which is restricted by a religions particular belief put into legislation at state level therefore restricting my freedom to go to certain places when I do not hold that religion or belief and nor do many others.

I agree that in bar only places this maybe acceptable but not for general places. On St Patricks day here which was celebrated there were very few places we could go into to enjoy some Irish music and have a drink to celebrate due to legislation. Kind of defeats the object when St Pats day is all about the Craic and having fun. Do the catholic/protestant church in Ireland advocate this ban, I think not.In Ireland on St Pats day you can go where you like its all about being together young & old. This is an Mormon thing put into state legislation so hardly keeping the church and state separate is it?