Skip to main content

View Diary: Dear Founding Fathers... (89 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  why is this a quesion of belief? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mike101, RockyMtnLib

    How about a practical review of the facts?  There are quite a number of rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.  I suggest that when talking about whether a right is being circumscribed by government action or inaction we need to look at laws or their absence in the context of their effects.

    So, how does unregulated weapons ownership affect our other rights?  

    The state may not forbid me to worship in my church or temple, but an incident involving an armed and hostile person may prevent me.  I don't expect a ring of police around every sikh temple and mosque, but waiting for a crime to be committed is too late to prevent the chilling effect on my religious activity.

    The same applies for a non-religious "assembly", say to  provide a controversial health care option for women.

    Perhaps I would like to discuss this state of affairs with you.  I may not speak freely, if you bring a gun.  Government sits by, waiting for a crime to be committed... and you have effectively ended the discussion.  

    Or consider if I go out into the community and you are there.  You can carry a loaded weapon openly in Arizona for example.  If you do, it puts a huge burden on me as a proprietor or customer.  

    In a bar!  Won't be much of a party for me at least.  At a store?  Not real comfortable for the cashier if your credit card is declined.  A school or a community center -- my kids won't be going there.

    Are gun owners so small, so powerless, so fearful, that that they cannot live in a civilized country without the ability to kill at a distance within easy reach?  Well from here, that's what it looks like.  And it sure feels like we who don't own guns are giving up a chunk of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness to accommodate your fear.

    •  You seem to want to put the blame . . . (0+ / 0-)

         on the generic group "gun owners". Can't you see the benefit of controlling those who are demonstrably causing these incidents or are you comfortable waiting until another one of these mentally disturbed social misfits visits someone else's child's school?

      •  You know what? (0+ / 0-)

        I've been opposed to unregulated firearms my entire life.

        I don't have a way to measure the tragedy-ness of an incident.  My claim is that the ubiquitous availability of highly lethal weapons that require little or no planning, physical strength, coordination, training or actual physical contact with the victim are the problem.  That, and the mistaken belief or fantasy that having a gun is going to actually increase anyone's safety.  It's pretty well documented that a gun owner is more likely to be injured or killed with a gun -- over 4 times more likely by one study.  The implication of my original comment is that the rest of us are tired of being the collateral damage.

        Sandy Hook is an example of highly news-worthy event.  A relatively rare mass killing of children in what happens to be a high income 95% white community, by someone who may have had a mental health problem.

        But there are plenty of less newsworthy gun deaths.
        Los Angeles county had over 617 murders in 2010.  Many of those people were latino or black.  Relatively few were children,  most were the only one killed in the incident.  Many of those murders are unsolved -- no physical evidence except the bullet.  Certainly not national news.  I don't have statistics for 2010 or later, but I did come across this interesting assertion:  74% of homicides in 2004 (1,807 out of 2,444) were committed with a firearm in California.

        Eighteen Hundred Murders.  Now consider if many of those killers didn't have access to a gun.  I claim that the moment would pass while the drunk husband tries find a suitable knife, or the road rage incident degenerates into a fist fight, or the gay couple dials 911.

    •  you did not expand on the term "you" and "your" (0+ / 0-)

      so I will correctly assume you were speaking to me personally.  But then again, you don't know me, so you were speaking to a huge swath in reality.  

      I guess you assume I own guns and that I carry guns around.  I don't think my previous post would imply that- hell, you should see me defend smokers and online poker players lol.

      But the point is, you are saying that if someone owns a gun or even carries one concealed, they somehow have defacto infringed on your rights of free speech.

      Hell, it is not like I can defeat you here with a few well strung barbs.  If you honestly believe that, there is very little I can say to change your views.  But this is an open blog, everything we say to each other is really an idea put out to thousands to judge.  All I can say is I don't think a law abiding gun owner is likely to shoot you because he disagrees with your opinion.  If you really think a declined credit card will lead to bloodshed because someone has a gun, you (and I mean you) have a lower opinion of the average American than do I.  

      Look, I understand that many of us were raised to hate guns and to fear there existence.  But if you are interested in the political realm, you must come to realize that many of us were not.  There are at least half of Americans who don't think a normal person with a gun is going to commit murder simply because he has access to a weapon.  

      And remember, my original post was a sincere effort to ask for ideas on how to stop madmen.  I really don't care if someone owns a gun if they are not a threat to me or you.  I want to find a way to stop the lunatics.  

      •  Well since you did not expand on the term . . . (0+ / 0-)

          "you" and "your", I hope I'm correctly assuming you were speaking to me. I didn't assume anything about you because I was actually responding to what  byzantium said.
            I just think arguing against guns is a losing proposition. The easier way to get at the problem of these mass murders is to address the mental illness aspect. Banning "assault weapons" ain't gonna do it.

        •  well I might agree with you (0+ / 0-)

          but I am not sure.  Sure mental health is a part of the problem, but I don't see from this a solution.  Those who think lunatics are "allowed" to purchase firearms through traditional means are simply wrong.  If the laws need to be changed to improve on this prohibition, that is a likely a good thing.

          As per you assumption that I was speaking to you, the fact that my response was to another should  quell that idea.  

          •  and in fact (0+ / 0-)

            There are many sane people committing murders with weapons they legally own, and who, if it took a little more effort to take someone's life, might think the better of it. Just from the perspective of reducing domestic violence deaths alone, it makes good sense to regulate firearms.

            •  I hear what you are saying byzantium (0+ / 0-)

              and it seems heartfelt.  I am not going to discount it out of hand, but I do have a question.  If you believe murders of passion will be reduced if the killer is required to exert more effort; does that not imply that the real problem lies elsewhere?

              •  And those issues should also be address (0+ / 0-)

                If you look at murder through the lens of age and gender, 18-24 year old males have the highest rates of homicide.  I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that testosterone and poor impulse control are big factors.  

                Time and life experience and social relationships are going to reduce their propensity for rash violent actions. In the meantime, reduced access to the easiest, and least personal, of tools for taking a life is going to help.

                In Israel, I seem to recall, you can't get a license to own a gun until age 27.  That, my friend, is a policy that targets gun violence and this demographic in a way that is not much different from how we license drivers.  

                You see, I'm looking at guns as a social problem not unlike smoking in public places.  And you are looking at them as what?

        •  The point I'm trying to make is this: (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TurkeyCreek

             You are not going to make much progress going after guns. SCOTUS has ruled. I think doing something comprehensive about the mental health issue is possible. The families of these people are begging for help. Nothing comprehensive is going to be done about guns. I hope we expand the background check to gun shows and the internet. That's probably all that's possible.

          •  let me take this opportunity to explain the gun (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lorell

            show loop-hole to those who want to know the real facts.  I  don't care if people agree with me on guns or any other political issue, but I have proven through many years here that I do not lie about the facts.

            Many people talk about the "gun show loophole" but I wonder if they really know what that means. And to be clear, I am including politicians when I say this.

            Here are the hard facts, with no political opinion involved.  There really is no "gun show loop-hole".  What it comes down to is this.  There are two types of sellers at gun shows.  There are the traditional sellers, who have federal firearms licenses, and there are average joes who have nothing but some guns they might sell and others they might buy.

            The traditional sellers are licensed FFA  holders, they are required to run all sales through the NCIS (national criminal background check) just like any gun store, it doesn't matter if they are at a gun show or a swap meet, it is the law.

            The so called gun show loop-hole really describes the non gun dealers who usually buy a booth and then display a few guns to sell.  These are legally regular citizens just like you and me, but they plunked down a few quid to have a table at a gun show.

            So here is the rub.  In most states, people are allowed to sell their property.  It is no different than selling a car or even a t.v.    It does not matter if the sale takes place at a gun show, a parking lot, or your living room.

            So the only way to end the "gun show loop-hole" is for a federal law that says individuals can not sell their firearms property to another individual unless the buyer goes through an NCIS check.  So if I own a gun, and want to sell it to my buddy, we would have to go to the local gun shop and run an NCIS on my buddy before the sale, and at a price of course.

            Anyway, no one can deny what I have said here, it is simple fact.  So I hope people at least now know what is meant by the "gun show loop-hole".  I am not arguing either way here, I played it strait down the middle.  

            Simple translation of the "gun show loop-hole" is that many want to federally legislate that gun owners can not sell there firearm property to another person without an NCIS check.  It really has nothing to do with gun shows.  As a said, gun dealers with ffa licences must run the same checks at gun shows as they do in gun shops.  

      •  Well now I am talking to you (0+ / 0-)

        I have been threatened a few times by people with firearms.  I must have done something right, because I was never shot.  And I am not actually in fear that someone will shoot me.  I claim the idea that gun deaths are mostly caused by lunatics is mistaken.

        Did you know that if you put a life-like turtle decoy in the road, you can depend on it to be intentionally run over by 6% of drivers?

        just sayin'.

        •  well, I have never been threatened by people with (0+ / 0-)

          guns, so I must be doing something exceptionally right :)

          I do hope you are well, and stay that way, it is just a discussion on the internet.  We are on the same side here right?

      •  Well then. (0+ / 0-)

        You, Sir, sound like one of the more intellegent people in this community of bloggers.

        I wouldn't mind a discussion with you some day so as to convey a few ideas I have to curtail these madmen who commit these horrific crimes you speak of.

        What say you?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site