Time to revisit the 2nd Amendment?

[southsider2k5]

The existence of the law itself can have persuasive force even without threat of stringent enforcement. It provides a standard or a code that you are aware of and are expected to follow.

 

What do you see as possibly changing this situation? Is there any form of additional gun control you'd support?

 

What I believe isn't really relevant to the conversation. Honestly, I don't see much use for guns, I don't own them, and haven't ever even shot one, of any kind.

 

Here's my big picture problem. The framers of the constitution had just broke away from a government that pretty close to literally raped the people of the America's for themselves. The framers forsaw that the individuals in this country needed clear and well established methods of making sure that didn't happen again. Hence why they took all of the steps that did to write in protections for individuals and non-majority groups. They obviously didn't trust big centralized governments. Nothing about our history has proven that to be a untrue thought, in my opinion. Personally I am leery of changing any basic constitutional rights that remove powers from individual people in trade for "safety". Personally I think we have seen enough of an erosion of individual rights in this country.

 

Personally I see common sense ground that could be identified here, but it won't because just like any other debate in this country (voting, marriage, drugs, property, etc...) the loss of political capital in the media is too damned important. The battle of the blogs and soundbytes is more important than good governance. This is exactly how this tragedy has played out. 1. Bad thing happens. 2. Blame favorite thing you don't like for why tragedy happened (guns, hollywood, God, video games, whatever) 3. Scream the loudest.

[Jenksismyhero]

Looks like the solution is to restrict the ability of law-abiding citizens. Technically, they are not actually law-abiding, but since we have no way to screen that, we need to reconsider the ease with which any non-criminal can obtain a gun.

 

And I'm asking how. Presumably gang members use friends or family to get legally acquired guns. What restriction on those family members could be put into a law to stop that gun from getting to a gang member and being used? Gonna do a background check to make sure that the person doesn't have any gang member relatives?

 

 

[StrangeSox]

And I'm asking how. Presumably gang members use friends or family to get legally acquired guns. What restriction on those family members could be put into a law to stop that gun from getting to a gang member and being used? Gonna do a background check to make sure that the person doesn't have any gang member relatives?

 

You're missing my point. I'm not in favor of continuing the status quo when it comes to the availability to get guns for everyone. Families of gang members or the middle-aged dude in the suburbs should be equally restricted. The wide-spread easy access to guns is part of the problem itself.

[Soxbadger]

And I'm asking how. Presumably gang members use friends or family to get legally acquired guns. What restriction on those family members could be put into a law to stop that gun from getting to a gang member and being used? Gonna do a background check to make sure that the person doesn't have any gang member relatives?

 

If a gun you bought or owned is used in a crime, you go to jail for the period of the crime.

 

You act like we cant make rules to stop this. We can make them, it just would require people to really man up about responsibility.

 

To use something close to my heart. If they passed a law legalizing all drugs, I would be okay with a law that stated I was responsible for the actions of anyone who I gave drugs to, or who stole them from me.

 

Its called taking personal responsibility.

Edited December 17, 2012 by Soxbadger

[StrangeSox]

What I believe isn't really relevant to the conversation.

 

If we're in a thread discussing what reasonable gun policy in this country should be, it seems relevant.

[Y2HH]

If a gun you bought or owned is used in a crime, you go to jail for the period of the crime.

 

You act like we cant make rules to stop this. We can make them, it just would require people to really man up about responsibility.

 

To use something close to my heart. If they passed a law legalizing all drugs, I would be okay with a law that stated I was responsible for the actions of anyone who I gave drugs to, or who stole them from me.

 

Its called taking personal responsibility.

 

Um, no.

 

That's not about taking responsibility. You can be 100% responsible and have your weapon stolen somehow. I don't agree with blaming that person if they took every precaution against it, but it happened anyway.

[StrangeSox]

Um, no.

 

That's not about taking responsibility. You can be 100% responsible and have your weapon stolen somehow. I don't agree with blaming that person if they took every precaution against it, but it happened anyway.

 

like requiring that it be stored in a locked safe

 

however, you could possibly restrict straw purchases this way if you had a national registry.

Edited December 17, 2012 by StrangeSox

[BigSqwert]

Um, no.

 

That's not about taking responsibility. You can be 100% responsible and have your weapon stolen somehow. I don't agree with blaming that person if they took every precaution against it, but it happened anyway.

You get your gun(s) stolen and it's used in a crime, you get a warning. Your gun(s) get stolen a 2nd time and you lose your privilege to own guns.

 

Also, if you fail to report your gun stolen and it's used in a crime, you automatically get a misdemeanor charge and 30 days in jail.

Edited December 17, 2012 by BigSqwert

[Y2HH]

like requiring that it be stored in a locked safe

 

Right.

 

But what he said was no matter what, they're responsible...which I don't agree with.

 

That's the same as lending your car to someone (legally), they are license, insured and of age, them killing someone on accident and then you being held accountable...it's just not right.

 

I think, as with anything, it's about responsibility, and if you meet those standards, you shouldn't be held accountable.

[Y2HH]

You get your gun(s) stolen and it's used in a crime, you get a warning. Your gun(s) get stolen a 2nd time and you lose your privilege to own guns.

 

Also, if you fail to report your gun stolen and it's used in a crime, you automatically get a misdemeanor charge and 30 days in jail.

 

I agree with something like this more than I'd agree with someone who took every precaution and it happens anyway, and them being thrown in jail for a murder they didn't commit.

 

Some of these suggestions are on the verge of going way too far, which is exactly what I said would happen when people suggest laws or legislation when in a state of emotional response.

[StrangeSox]

I agree with something like this more than I'd agree with someone who took every precaution and it happens anyway, and them being thrown in jail for a murder they didn't commit.

 

Some of these suggestions are on the verge of going way too far, which is exactly what I said would happen when people suggest laws or legislation when in a state of emotional response.

 

Soxbadger is proposing hypotheticals that are intentionally out on the edge to illustrate a point, I think.

[knightni]

If you want to follow the Constitution, and maintain a "well-regulated militia;" then, one weekend a month, every gun owner should be required to attend a training course in order to be "regulated." Make gun owners have to work to prove that they are responsible.

[Soxbadger]

Um, no.

 

That's not about taking responsibility. You can be 100% responsible and have your weapon stolen somehow. I don't agree with blaming that person if they took every precaution against it, but it happened anyway.

 

Sorry if it was unclear, but it was in response to the "How can we force people to lock their guns". If you were following all the rules, they wouldnt have broken a crime. I was using the "they didnt follow the law."

 

My solution would force people to. And I understand that its heavy handed, and I really dont like the solution.

 

But at some point we need to hold people responsible.

[southsider2k5]

You get your gun(s) stolen and it's used in a crime, you get a warning. Your gun(s) get stolen a 2nd time and you lose your privilege to own guns.

 

Also, if you fail to report your gun stolen and it's used in a crime, you automatically get a misdemeanor charge and 30 days in jail.

 

Realistically, that is an insane standard. First what other aspects of life do we have anything like that for? Would it stand up to constitutional muster?

 

Second, if we applied that to other aspects of life... Someone robs a bank and kills a bankguard after stealing your car for a getaway tool, you go to jail for murder and bank robbery? Someone steals your identity and defrauds a bank by running up a large number of charges, bank either charges you with fraud, or makes you pay for the charges?

[Soxbadger]

Soxbadger is proposing hypotheticals that are intentionally out on the edge to illustrate a point, I think.

 

Yeah Im making extremely authoritarian suggestions (which goes against my very nature), just to show that it can be done. I dont even know if I like the ideas Im making.

 

haha

[Y2HH]

If you want to follow the Constitution, and maintain a "well-regulated militia;" then, one weekend a month, every gun owner should be required to attend a training course in order to be "regulated." Make gun owners have to work to prove that they are responsible.

 

...in response to a tragic situation, for the safety of all of us, we should also implement the patriot act, allow warrentless wiretapping and spying of citizens, and indefinite detention of anyone accused, without proof, of a plethora of vaguely described situations, too.

 

What we need to do is think this through, be calm, and implement changes that will make an actual difference...not implement changes with knee-jerk reaction that do nothing but detain or inconvenience people with no actual results. For a good example of this, consider body scanners at airports...which have been proven ineffective...yet we use them anyway, all in the name of safety.

Edited December 17, 2012 by Y2HH

[Soxbadger]

 

...in response to a tragic situation, for the safety of all of us, we should also implement the patriot act, allow warrentless wiretapping and spying of citizens, and indefinite detention of anyone accused, without proof, of a plethora of vaguely described situations, too.

 

What we need to do is think this through, be calm, and implement changes that will make an actual difference...not implement changes with knee-jerk reaction that do nothing but detain or inconvenience people with no actual results. For a good example of this, consider body scanners at airports...which have been proven ineffective...yet we use them anyway, all in the name of safety.

 

I thought I already made that pretty clear.

 

This is going to sound cold as hell, but if you want to live in a free society, you are going to have to accept that there are going to be body counts for that freedom.

 

Even if we were to ban every gun, it would not stop people from murdering each other. I often think about how amazing it is that we have so few of these incidents given how easy it is to kill people in modern society.

 

There is no answer, and if we are going to look at the 2nd amendment, it should be cold and heartless, not on the back of an extreme tragedy.

 

Emotion makes for bad laws.

[Jenksismyhero]

If a gun you bought or owned is used in a crime, you go to jail for the period of the crime.

 

You act like we cant make rules to stop this. We can make them, it just would require people to really man up about responsibility.

 

To use something close to my heart. If they passed a law legalizing all drugs, I would be okay with a law that stated I was responsible for the actions of anyone who I gave drugs to, or who stole them from me.

Its called taking personal responsibility.

 

They already have that law. Drug Dealer Liability Act.

 

Either way, that's an insane penalty. We don't do that in really any other setting when you're doing something legal.

 

[Y2HH]

I thought I already made that pretty clear.

 

Sorry, I did not see that post...I kind of had to skip some when I rejoined here.

[iamshack]

Realistically, that is an insane standard. First what other aspects of life do we have anything like that for? Would it stand up to constitutional muster?

 

Second, if we applied that to other aspects of life... Someone robs a bank and kills a bankguard after stealing your car for a getaway tool, you go to jail for murder and bank robbery? Someone steals your identity and defrauds a bank by running up a large number of charges, bank either charges you with fraud, or makes you pay for the charges?

I don't mean to derail the conversation at all, but this made me laugh. I have used the phrase "pass muster" with my boss a few times when referring to regulatory scrutiny. He now thinks the phrase is "pass the mustard." I don't have the heart to correct him.

[knightni]

...in response to a tragic situation, for the safety of all of us, we should also implement the patriot act, allow warrentless wiretapping and spying of citizens, and indefinite detention of anyone accused, without proof, of a plethora of vaguely described situations, too.

 

What we need to do is think this through, be calm, and implement changes that will make an actual difference...not implement changes with knee-jerk reaction that do nothing but detain or inconvenience people with no actual results. For a good example of this, consider body scanners at airports...which have been proven ineffective...yet we use them anyway, all in the name of safety.

You think that requiring gun ownership to be more responsible is "knee-jerk?"

[Soxbadger]

They already have that law. Drug Dealer Liability Act.

 

Either way, that's an insane penalty. We don't do that in really any other setting when you're doing something legal.

 

This is premised on the fact that they did not store their weapons legally, which means that their actions were illegal, aka criminal. I thought you kept saying that there was no way to enforce people keeping their guns properly. So it clearly can be done. Whether or not we want it to be done, is a different argument. But that is where the argument should be, why do we not want people to have to lock guns up. Why do we want people to be able to easily transfer weapons to other people. Why do these have to be allowed?

 

And drug dealer liability act wont make much sense if drugs were legalized.

[Y2HH]

You think that requiring gun ownership to be more responsible is "knee-jerk?"

 

I think it's vague, which is the very point I was highlighting. Being more responsible could mean a whole swath of things...vagueness of a law/act and ineffective practices implemented in reaction to this is what we need to avoid.

[Y2HH]

This is premised on the fact that they did not store their weapons legally, which means that their actions were illegal, aka criminal. I thought you kept saying that there was no way to enforce people keeping their guns properly. So it clearly can be done. Whether or not we want it to be done, is a different argument. But that is where the argument should be, why do we not want people to have to lock guns up. Why do we want people to be able to easily transfer weapons to other people. Why do these have to be allowed?

 

And drug dealer liability act wont make much sense if drugs were legalized.

 

The problem with a lot of that is a locked up gun is a useless gun when you have mere seconds to react to the armed robber that just kicked your front door in and started firing off rounds.

 

I think it'd be more responsible if the gun was stolen that you immediately report it as such. If we are going to implement laws, we need to make them effective. Forcing people who own guns to render them useless for the intention of protection isn't effective legislation.

[Soxbadger]

I think it's vague, which is the very point I was highlighting. Being more responsible could mean a whole swath of things...vagueness of a law/act and ineffective practices implemented in reaction to this is what we need to avoid.

 

Well everything is vague when its in the brainstorm stage. I can make things as specific as you want.

 

Gun Ownership Act of 2012

 

1) All guns must be registered yearly.

2) All guns must be purchased legally.

3) All guns must be kept in a locked approved container.

 

Now onto the fun ones:

 

4) All guns must be reported missing within 24 hours of detection.

5) All gun owners with missing guns must file a police report

6) All gun owners with missing guns must allow the police to search their premises.

7) All gun owners who lose more than 1 gun in a 5 year span will have their license to own guns permanently revoked.

 

Failure to follow any of the above listed laws will result in a minimum of X and a maximum of the equivalent sentence of the crime commissioned by the gun.

 

Sincerely,

 

Stalin