Gun Control.

[Woolleybugger]

First of all, banning new sales or imports of certain types of guns is a nice start and a wonderful statement of intent but it won't do a damn thing about the millions of guns still on the street. Sure it will keep the numbers out there at a static amount but if anyone really thinks this is going to stop a nut from getting his hands on a lethal arsenal, they are fooling themselves. Before anyone even thinks about doing anything about our out of control domestic arms race, let us first define what our goal is when we debate this topic.

Is it taking every single gun that is considered to be dangerous enough to be banned out of private hands?

or

Is it stopping more of them from being sold?

or

Is it turning America into an armed camp forever?

The first one has a legitimate chance of stopping some of these shooting sprees with these lethal weapons. But that only happens when you know you have them all and the penalty for using them is very, very stiff. Consider the perfect world envisioned by supporters of option 1. No one has any of these guns. Not anywhere. They are wiped off the face of the earth as far as America is considered. Is this even possible? I doubt it is in the short term but it certainly is possible over a couple generations.

The second one has no chance of stopping anything really. It just limits the chances that more folks will have more chances to do stupid things with more weapons. This is a worthy goal and should justify passing a law to get this issue started but we will still have mass murders anyway. We all know it so why kid ourselves that this is going to be a magic elixir.

The most important thing we need to talk about is limiting the 2nd amendment to just a smaller set of legal firearms that can be justifiably used in legal uses of firearms per Heller until Heller is overturned or we modify the 2nd amendment. If the nation decided to ban any weapon that fired more than 6 shots without reloading, that could be a way around the vocabulary debate we all have about what is or is not an automatic or semi-automatic weapon. It would allow hunters to have shotguns and rifles that are sporting arms. It is much like single barbless hooks in fly fishing in that it makes the sport a bit more challenging and difficult to learn. It would allow for some types of handguns as well.

But the arms industry in America does not want their markets trimmed down. They want more markets and more options to sell to gun owners. Just like your new Titlest driver you just have to get this year even though you have four of them in the garage, arms manufacturers need you to buy the newest thing as many times as possible. This is about an industry here folks. The NRA is not about your gun rights, its about you as a target market for the arms manufacturers. The NRA is about the last option.

Do we want to really discuss what the end game must be to avoid these murders or do we want to pussy foot around and pretend we are doing something? I think all responsible gun owners are rational and have a vested interest in this entire issue. They know more about guns than the rest of us do and should be part of the process. But first things first. Do we want door number 1, 2 or 3?

 

[afella]

As I have stated before, if ANYTHING is done on the second amendment it has to be constitutional and done in such away that it amends the 2nd amendment and clearly states the intent and aspect of the amendment. If it is not done in that manner we will have the same situation we are in now, where an assault weapons ban was imposed then lost and now we are back at the same point of the discussion we were at in 1993.


I do think that, and this goes in general as a societal issue along with weapons ownership, our mental health and liscensing of firearms in general HAS to be looked at. I am not opposed to legislation which further restricts weapon ownership through various means, and also increases the regulation on weapons much like driving. I think it is a VERY reasonable start to the process to get a reasonable solution mediated between the two sides. Just adressing the weapons will do little if anything and be virtually pointless if you do not address other underlying issues in relation to murders or homicides in this country. It is a broad scope of prospects to address, and weapons certainly are a part of it and should certainly be addressed. They are not the underlying issue of the matter of safety and a dissolution of violence in our society.


In regards to your options, option one could be dictated very easily as every single weapon being banned. Every weapon is dangerous, and should be treated as such. Lesson 1 from any weapons manual, or weapons safety course.


I would also like to point out, I feel obligated, that many people in this country feel any type of infringement on the second amendment or limitation of weapons in this country feel they are being denied their rights. If you agree with it or not, it doesn't really matter. The fact of the matter is that they are your neighbors, family, and friends in many cases. That has to be considered and addressed, to keep in the tradition of a formal and proper discussion and resolution of the matter. Even if you don't like it, it has to be taken into consideration, and vice versa.

 

[Woolleybugger]

I agree which is why I left option 3 on the table which is the status quo.