Welcome to Common Gunsense

I hope this blog will provoke some thoughtful reflection about the issue of guns and gun violence. I am passionate about the issue and would love to change some misperceptions and the culture of gun violence in America by sharing with readers words, photos, videos and clips from articles to promote common sense about gun issues. Many of you will agree with me- some will not. I am only one person but one among many who think it's time to do something about this national problem. The views expressed by me in this blog do not represent any group with which I am associated but are rather my own personal opinions and thoughts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Do I want to ban your guns?

So, here is another question I asked on my post a few weeks ago- Where there is an open mind......:
  1. Do you believe that I and people with whom I work intend to ban your guns?
  2. If yes to #4, how do you think that could happen ( I mean the physical action)?
It has been said repeatedly, no matter what other topic is being "discussed" on this blog, that I, and the people with whom I work want to ban guns and of course, take away Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. Nothing could be further from the truth. No matter. Here are some of the answers I received: 
  • "I do not think you are completely unified, but for the most part yes. Someone like me would not be allowed to own the guns that I do, or to have a carry license. You would use the threat of gun violence in the hands of government to convince us to turn ours in, those who did not comply would get shot." 
  • Yes. Anyone who would with a straight face try to defend a total ban on handguns in DC cannot be believed when they piously declare that they would not favor banning all guns. Typically when the government wants you to do something that you might resist, they send police officers to force you. See also Elian Gonzalez and David Koresh.
  • Let's see; Chicago Gun Ban -- Brady Campaign said it was reasonable, Washington D.C. Gun Ban - ditto. Name a single gun control law you've found to be "unreasonable"? Time and time again, I've asked the question of antis -- at what point, what number of firearm related crimes and deaths will be enough for you to say "we don't need another law". Never have gotten an answer. Since you haven't found a single gun control law to be 'unreasonable' what evidence is there for us to believe you aren't interested in banning firearms?"
  • Multi step process -- one which you and gun control groups seem to be following (just as the U.K. and Australia did)
    A.) Mandate registration and licensing schemes
    B.) Close licensing and registration for new firearms
    C.) Legislate against the possession of 'certain dangerous' firearms; like so called 'assault weapons' or "high capacity" firearms.
    D.) Announce an Amnesty period for people to turn in their now illegal firearms.
    E.) Arrest and convict any person who has possession of an 'illegal firearm'; especially those who use them for self defense.
    F.) Announce the failure of previous gun control laws and make more firearms illegal, make use of firearms in self defense illegal.
    G.) Announce another Amnesty
    H.) Rinse and Repeat until most firearms are gone. If needed make a door to door search."
  • I believe that many weapons that should be available to citizens are not (which IMO is any weapon having a legitimate military, self defense, or utility use) and I don’t see any logical point where the prohibition of weapons will stop short of total disarmament.
     I think the logical path to disarmament is slowly restricting the types of weapons available and possibility requiring a registration likely ostensibly for the purpose of “keeping guns out of the hands of criminals”. The desire of most people to follow the law will do most of the disarmament work if guns are prohibited. But if the location of firearms is know there are several forcible remedies available to the government to deal with dissenters. "
  •  I've only been reading your blog for a few posts, so I don't know where you stand personally. But I own handguns, some of which are even (gasp!) semiautomatic, and the Brady Campaign has supported bans on them. I believe that most casual gun control advocates don't want to ban _all_ guns, and are simply under the incorrect impression that guns are constantly getting deadlier, so we need to ban the new, ultra-deadly ones. But I also see (especially as a New Jersey resident) how every time the new gun control law inevitably fails to fix the problem, the proposed solution is always, always even more restrictions. Anybody who cares about a civil right would be a fool not to think about where that pattern is leading.
    Great Britain shows us how far people who don't want to ban all guns can go, and they show little sign of being done restricting. "
  • "How do we enforce any ban? Confiscation can involve passive seizure of only the contraband that comes to police attention, or midnight SWAT raids. Both are unacceptable. "
  • Some of them do – your European compatriots have banned most gun ownership. Pull gun sale records and send the police to search and seize (It would spark a civil war)."
  • I don't know you personally, but hell yeah I do. You absolutely want to ban some of the guns I own, some of the magazines I own, and at the very least put heavy, heavy restrictions and expenses on gun ownership. But the bottom line is ... I've never seen any anti-gun group NOT oppose the 2nd amendment as an individual right and support an anti-gun law, no matter how restrictive. i.e. the D.C. and Chicago handgun bans. My question to you ... if you could write all the laws and put them into effect ... what guns would you allow me to keep and under what restrictions?"
  • " That question wholly depends on you, who you work with, and what guns I own. However, in general, in the past when gun enthusiasts have tried to sate anti-gun lobbyists, they have always lost gravely, to the point of such absurdity as is seen in Britain, where there have been cases of criminals suing their victims, and their victims being thrown in jail for much of their life. This is nonsense, and such misbehavior by the executive, judicial and legal systems should not be rewarded with total complacency. I am not sure how to answer this question, as you are asking for an answer that's either so self-evident that me answering would be entirely useless, or so deep that I cannot possibly answer. However, to give you an answer, I think that were "guns" to be banned, they would be banned in the usual manner that anything is: through the legal system.'

    These are, again, just some of the responses to the questions asked and, as I have already mentioned, some people responded on their own blogs rather than put them on mine. As you can read, not one person who commented believed I wouldn't ban guns if given the chance. It appears that these folks are ready for the worst. We know that gun sales went up right before and after President Obama was elected. Fear is alive and well. He has said nothing anywhere to indicate that he would ban guns. That doesn't matter. Surely he will eventually so better to have an arsenal when the "jack booted government thugs" come to your door to take away your guns. It is interesting that when "googling" the highlighted phrase, above, I was directed to articles about the NRA. That is because NRA Executive VP Wayne LaPierre famously used that phrase to refer to federal agents after which President George H.W. Bush resigned from the NRA. Good for him. What does that really mean? More code words. Anything that smacks of a new gun law is automatically assumed to lead to gun confiscation. 

    The other problem with this faulty reasoning is that there is a slippery slope that will inevitably lead to gun bans no matter what the wording of a law or bill says. The Brady Law, enacted in 1994, has not resulted in a gun ban. The Assault Weapons Ban, enacted in 1995 and allowed to sunset in 2005, did ban certain types of assault type guns from import and sale for many good reasons. Many other types of these guns were still available on the open market. It's now water over the dam since the ban is no longer in effect. As a result, criminals and others have more and more of these type of dangerous weapons and have been using them on our streets- mostly to kill police officers. Cops are outgunned on the streets so they have found it necessary to buy more powerful weapons to protect themselves and the public.

    There is actually a slippery slope going in another direction. Since President Bush took office, and now even in President Obama's term, the Assault Weapons Ban was allowed to lapse and a measure allowing guns in National Parks was attached as an amendment to the Credit Card bill. Guns can now be carried in checked luggage on Amtrak trains. The ATF has been limited in the ability to do it's job because the majority in our Congress is too afraid to challenge the NRA. Permit to carry laws have passed in almost all states and "Stand Your Ground Laws" have passed in many states as well. The Supreme Court has decided in favor of the Individual right to keep and bear arms in two recent cases and applied it to the states. 


    And then, of course, we have candidates for national political office outdoing themselves to assure the gun lobby that they won't pass ANY law regarding guns because they believe the nonsense that doing so will eventually ban guns. Take this article about Delaware GOP Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell in which she wrongly notes that any measure to stop illegal trafficking of small arms around the world would surely lead to banning guns in the U.S. Nonsense. And to make matters worse, her Democratic opponent has to assure everyone that new gun laws are not needed. Nonsense. If laws are needed to assure safety world- wide and in our own country, then they are needed. Please, someone tell me how passing measures to stop illegal gun trafficking so we can prevent terrorist attacks and international carnage will lead to banning guns in our country. So, what's left? Terrorists with guns that were trafficked illegally preying on citizens all over the world? Home grown terrorists shooting at people in our own country because the gun lobby said that stopping them would lead to gun confiscation? Pretty soon, we will have guns everywhere we go carried by dangerous people, whether we want them or not. That does not make common sense.

64 comments:

  1. "There is actually a slippery slope going in another direction. Since President Bush took office, and now even in President Obama's term, the Assault Weapons Ban was allowed to lapse and a measure allowing guns in National Parks was attached as an amendment to the Credit Card bill."

    Yep. Though few realized it at the time, 1994 was pretty much the high water mark for the anti-gun rights movement. Since then things have been starting to move in the right direction. However, the turning of the tide only came after 60 years of law after law chiseling away at our gun fights. We've still got a long ways to go.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 1. To answer your first question, Yes, I do think that there are people that you work with that want to remove all guns from the citizenry. The VPC has an article entitled "Why America Needs to Ban Handguns"
    http://www.vpc.org/studies/unsafe.htm
    To assume that you and EVERY person you work with wants to ban guns would be stereotyping and irrational.

    2. Governments in the past have used gun registries to disarm the citizenry. (I think that this is a extreme unlikeliness in the US, just saying it has happened)
    What I think is a bit more likely that more and more laws would be passed decreasing the types of guns you can own, limiting the number you can have, expanding ownership criteria, imposing taxes and fees for ownership, etc. While an actual "ban" might not be in place, the costs and limitations would make it financially and logistically impossible for most of the populous to own guns.

    While I support "common sense" gun laws, I want make sure that those laws are actually targeting the criminals, not citizenry.
    We have plenty of laws that are inadequately/not enforced.

    I guess my question you would be, What laws exactly would you like to see in affect, and what affect do you hope they would have?

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Not all people working on this issue have agreed in the past. As to the laws, I have stated many times what I think is a good law- background checks on all gun sales at gun shows. It would be great to give the ATF all the resources they need to be monitoring gun dealers since they have found a good many who are selling illegally to the Mexican drug cartel, or knowingly allowing straw purchasing. Closing the gap that allows terrorists to purchase guns because their names are not entered on the NICS.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think you meant to write "suspected, but not actually convicted through due process" terrorists in your last comment. There are so many civil rights violations going on with the so called Terror Watch List and No-Fly List that it's not even worth considering using them to take away more freedoms from people who haven't received due process before being placed on some secret list by a non-elected government beauracrat and not having any viable means to seek redress of grievances if unfairly placed there. Not that preventing potential or suspected terrorists from having guns would really make us any safer, since just about any terrorist attack or attempted attack here in the US that I can think of has involved bombs and/or boxcutters. There was that planned attack in New Jersey, but I don't think a few guys taking guns in an attack on an armed military base is going to result in anything but a few more martyrs for Allah. I guess you could also call MAJ Hassan's mass shooting an Islamic terrorist attack, but that would directly contradict what our President has said about that issue.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "The Brady Law, enacted in 1994, has not resulted in a gun ban."

    Have you ever read the text of Brady II? This was the followup bill to the Brady bill enacted in 1994. Your organization was pushing Brady II as a followup. It failed. It was called the "Gun Violence Prevention Act of 1994"

    Here's a link to it at the Congressional Research Service.
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s103-1878&tab=summary

    It required
    1. State licenses for handgun owners.
    2. must be 21, fingerprinted and background checked and must take a "safety course" to get a license
    3. Full registration of all handguns
    4. no pistol bullet sales to non licensees
    5. one gun a month
    6. prohibits all persons indicted or convicted of "using force against another." so if you get into a fistfight at age 18 and convicted of simple assault, you are prohibited until you die.
    7. Special licenses to have more than 20 guns or 1000 rounds of ammo.
    8. mandatory storage requirements around under 16s
    9. guns must be designed to make it impossible for a child under 7 to fire it, and must have a magazine disconnect.
    10. study of "smart gun tech"


    this is a law pushed by your organization. So yes, I think that Brady wants to ban guns. They want to do it incrementally, bit by bit. Today "assault weapons" tomorrow "Saturday Night Specials" (now renamed a more PC "Junk Guns") Next week, "Sniper" rifles, which as far as I can tell includes any bolt action rifle that has a scope and can penetrate a police officer's vest, so basically any deer rifle sold.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think the terrorist thing is interesting. I mean how better to find out if the Government is watching you. They would just have to try and buy a gun and if denied they could assume that they were being watched.

    What is the terrorist list? Is it the same as the no fly list?

    ReplyDelete
  7. So then because you can most of the guns you want but not ALL of the guns you want, that's a gun ban?

    ReplyDelete
  8. The terrorist watch list is quite a bit larger than the No-fly list. There is controversy associated with this because of the number of people wrongly placed on the list. Here is an interesting article about the "terror gap" concering gun purchases: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/individuals-terror-watch-list-allowed-buy-guns-90/story?id=10561483&page=2

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well at least they are reported to the FBI

    "However, for homeland security and other purposes, the FBI is notified when a firearm or explosives background check involves an individual on the terrorist watchlist."

    It is interesting that the Ted Kennedy is said to have been on the list. Also when I click on the link to "Terror Watch list" on that article I get taken to a article named "No-Fly List Has Doubled in Size and Will Get Bigger, Say Gov't Officials" so they might be one in the same.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yes, if law-abiding Americans aren't allowed to buy so called "assault weapons" or specific pistols, what would you call that? It sure sounds like an "assault weapon" ban or handgun ban to me. We can throw around all the English words we want, but when something isn't allowed or is forbidden, it can also be described as "banned."

    ReplyDelete
  11. Various anti-gun groups including the Brady Campaign have spoken out against almost all types of guns as being especially dangerous and unsuitable for private ownership. Semiautomatics in general, military or military-derived guns invented after about 1890, almost all rifle calibers (as "cop killer") handguns in general, handguns that are too big, hold too much ammo, handguns that are too small and concealable, semiautomatic handguns, handguns made of anything other than steel or aluminum...

    And proposed limits on who should be prohibited from having guns include anyone who have ever been accused of any crime, ever been treated for any mental issue, has a name similar to any suspected terrorist, or can't afford the license fees. The license could be denied at the whim of any law enforcement officer, with mandatory training not available locally.

    The exaggeration here is only in putting all these notions in one place. All of these have been seriously proposed or enacted as law.

    Even without a general ban on handguns, every gun I own would fall under at least one of these prohibitions.

    I don't believe that there are no guns you want to ban or at least severely restrict.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I guess really it's a trust issue.
    You can't trust anyone with a gun.
    And no body with a gun will trust you.

    I enjoy a weekend of informal target shooting. Should I have to give that up because some of your co-workers beliefs, -unfounded- that a liking of firearms makes me a cousin humping redneck, and a dangerously unbalanced wacko?

    If you look at all these discussions objectively, it's always the antis that start the name calling and insult slinging.

    Us Gunnies just want to be left alone to perfect the art of putting 5 bullets into a half inch space.

    And we aren't even asking that the taxpayer pick up our tab.

    ReplyDelete
  13. That sounds like quite the arsenal. So you think someone would come to your house and demand all those weapons from you? And are you a prohibited purchaser? If not, what are you worried about?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Did I call you a name? You just called yourself a "gunnie". Now that you have used the name, if someone calls you that, will you take offense?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Guess what? According to Heller-McDonald

    Here's a link to it at the Congressional Research Service.
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s103-1878&tab=summary

    It required
    1. State licenses for handgun owners.
    2. must be 21, fingerprinted and background checked and must take a "safety course" to get a license
    3. Full registration of all handguns
    4. no pistol bullet sales to non licensees
    5. one gun a month
    6. prohibits all persons indicted or convicted of "using force against another." so if you get into a fistfight at age 18 and convicted of simple assault, you are prohibited until you die.
    7. Special licenses to have more than 20 guns or 1000 rounds of ammo.
    8. mandatory storage requirements around under 16s
    9. guns must be designed to make it impossible for a child under 7 to fire it, and must have a magazine disconnect.
    10. study of "smart gun tech"


    are constitutional!

    The court held that Heller could register his gun after a background check and be issued a licence! To quote the court:

    Heller:
    But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Heller at 64

    From McDonald:

    It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms. McDonald at 39-40

    Gun regulation is constitutional under the Second Amendment.

    They just can't ban guns.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Gun regulation is constitutional under the Second Amendment."

    I guess that just depends what your definition of "infringed" is.

    ReplyDelete
  17. So ... at what point WOULD you be satisfied with your goals, without extending further legal harassment of someone who has jumped thru enough hoops to go about armed for mundane self-defense?

    I wish to "carry". You wish to impose assorted "reasonable restrictions". I have submitted to criminal background checks, registered purchases, obtained several licenses from a half-dozen overlapping jurisdictions, paid taxes/fees, submit to renewals, etc. - at what point have I done enough that you will stop throwing more obstacles in my way? What are the outer limits of "reasonable" in your continued quest for further restrictions?

    Thing is, we see no limit to the restrictions & obstacles you would impose upon us. Thus, we see no limit in pushing back. Where do you propose we compromise?

    ReplyDelete
  18. "So you think someone would come to your house and demand all those weapons from you?"

    Sen. Feinstein: "If I could say 'Mr. and Mrs. America hand them in', I'd take them all away". She's not the only one, and you know that. The ultimate reason that has not happened is because of Heston's famed quote: "...from my cold dead hands."
    Don't play coy or credulous. You know where both sides stand, and where you stand (though feel free to tell us exactly where that is in no uncertain terms).

    "If not, what are you worried about?"

    If you COULD implement and enforce a complete ban, would you?
    I dare you to say "no" and define where you would draw the line in your "reasonable restrictions".
    We are worried about people who, if we are not vigilant, would do exactly that - just as has happened before.

    "You just called yourself a 'gunnie'. Now that you have used the name, if someone calls you that, will you take offense?"

    No, we won't. It's not an insult, it's an informal description/label we apply to ourselves.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Guns should be regulated like any other potentially dangerous product on the market as should the people who are allowed to have them. Apparently your side is not interested in that.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "The answer is NO. Check."

    Now that's settled, please respond to the second half of the prompting sentence, to wit: "... and define where you would draw the line in your 'reasonable restrictions'."

    ReplyDelete
  21. I don't speak for "my side." I speak for me. And no, I am not interested in that -- principally because I do not trust people like you with the power to determine how potentially-dangerous products should be regulated, and/or who should be allowed to have them.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Honest question: have you ever fired a gun? more than once perhaps?
    If not, I'd be happy to arrange the opportunity.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This is a blog for goodness sake. I'm not drawing any lines. You know my thoughts by what I said in this post. Chill out.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "pretty soon, we'll have guns everywhere we go carried by dangerous people, whether we want them or not."

    See, the thing is ... that's already the case. Just because you don't see them doesn't mean they're not there. That's why those of us who are not "dangerous people" want you to stop preventing us from carrying them: those who will not follow the law will not follow the law, and those of us who do follow the law resent being treated like criminals and being rendered impotent against "dangerous people". Further regulations do little.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Nonsense. I don't know one person who carries a gun and I know a lot of people in quite a few cities. You are I'm the minority actually

    ReplyDelete
  26. How many "dangerous people" do you know, and would you be aware of them carrying guns?

    Whether I'm in the minority is irrelevant. In your "dialog" with "gunnies", you've conversed with many people who carry guns. Thing is, none of us are the "dangerous people" you want to disarm, yet we are the ones harassed by your so-called "reasonable regulations" ... while the "dangerous people" get and carry guns with as much ease as totally illegal drugs: those who don't follow the rules don't follow the rules, and imposing more rules on those who do follow rules does little to hinder those who don't.

    We have told you in every way we can: your "reasonable regulations" in practice aren't, so please stop harassing us.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Well there are ~70,000 (1.79% of the state pop) Carry permits that are active in MN last I checked. Most people that Conceal carry do not make a point of announcing it to people especially ones that are active in the Brady campaign.

    ReplyDelete
  28. And we don't intend to disarm you either. Haven't you been reading what I've said. Get it straight- no gun banning!!! That's not legal anyway so just stop badgering me about it. Move on to another subject.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Yes, there are 5,266,000 people in Minnesota- not all over 21 obviously. I rest my case.

    ReplyDelete
  30. To Bob S.- I will not be answering your provactive and insulting questions so give it up.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "And we don't intend to disarm you either."

    When you say that you oppose Open Carry and Concealed Carry, that is disarming us. A gun locked in a safe at home is not us "armed." We wish to keep arms, sure. We also wish to BEAR arms.

    ReplyDelete
  32. ctd- it's the pot calling the kettle black. I'm harrassing you?? Nonsense. It is quite the opposite. I have never been so harrassed in my life. Don't read my blog if you don't like it. That would be the simple solution. I am answering questions and you guys never believe me or choose to put words in my mouth. As I said, this is a blog. Chill out everyone. You'd think a gun ban was just around the corner or something. Maybe it is!! Maybe on Halloween, something really spooky is going to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Did I say I oppose conceal and carry? Find it somewhere in so many words.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I am suggesting that loaded guns carried in public places are potentially dangerous.

    http://www.commongunsense.com/2010/09/can-guns-go-off-without-someone-pulling.html

    Matt Beaty has written a well-reasoned article about why open carrying of guns is not a good idea...
    If everyone starts carrying guns around in public places, how will we know the bad guys from the good guys....
    But when you are trying to get a burger at a restaurant, don't bring your Glock, unless you plan on shooting the cow yourself."
    Normalizing the carrying of guns as if it is the same thing as carrying a carrot or a cell phone ( as one of the advocates of this movement said about this incident; see linked article above) is just plain wrong

    http://www.commongunsense.com/2010/09/i-couldnt-have-said-it-better-myself.html


    Do we need guns at State Fairs and other public places?
    http://www.commongunsense.com/2010/08/guns-politicians-and-state-fair.html

    And that is only going back to August 31 of this year.

    Should I go on?

    ReplyDelete
  35. I'm allowing one more comment from Bob S. so I can respond. If you can find in there that I want to totally ban guns, let me know. Just because there are places where guns can't be or shouldn't be doesn't mean a gun ban. Are we talking about the same thing here? To me, a gun ban is not allowing any guns anywhere. That is not happening. There are still places where people will carry. But I have shown on my blog posts the number of times permit carriers have caused accidental discharges resulting sometimes in death and sometimes doing so on purpose. I am saying that guns in public places can be quite dangerous and we have just begun to see the effects since the laws have not been in affect long enough. It takes about 11 years or so for the effects to show up. We are not beginning to see permit carriers committing crimes and shooting people. It's a plain as it can be.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Ms. Peterson,

    I want to ensure that I am clear on your position, so I would like to restate your words to ensure that I've correctly understood you. You oppose a gun ban. Above, you define a gun ban as prohibiting every person in a society from lawfully possessing any firearm in any location under any circumstances. I don't want to put words in your mouth so please correct me if I am incorrectly interpreting you.

    Can you name any place in the world that has what you would consider to be a "gun ban" so that we can look at it as an example of what you think of as being "too far?"

    Thanks!

    Cheers,
    Chris from Alaska

    ReplyDelete
  37. Yes, you have my position correct. Chris.As to your question, I don't have a model in mind because the U.S is such a different country. No other country has a Second Amendment that guarantees a right to keep and bear arms. It would be comparing apples to oranges. We will make our own way in this country towards stopping illegal trafficking and keeping felons, domestic abusers and other prohibited purchasers from being able to legally purchase guns. That won't affect you unless are a prohibited purchaser which I hope you are not. Other than that, I would like to change the way we talk about guns in our country so that we don't have a culture that accepts gun deaths and injuries as just a way of life here and so that people won't think to solve their problems with guns. If we could get people to see that in difficult personal situations, having a gun around may lead to a senseless murder as it did in the case of my sister. When we all think that guns are there for us to use against another human being if we feel threatened or we are having divorce problems or problems with a boss at work or having mental problems, such as depression, or when under the influence of drugs or alcohol, then we still have an unhealthy culture concerning guns. And when people on my side of the issue just want to do the right thing to stop the senseless shootings, we are accused by you guys of gun banning so you object to absolutely every measure that might stop some of the shootings. That is what I want for our country,

    ReplyDelete
  38. There is difficulty in communication because of differing definitions. When we hear 'no gun bans' we understand that all guns will be allowed. It appears that some of you believe that to mean as long as a few types of guns are allowed, it is not a ban on guns.

    I would appreciate clarifying where I have your positions wrong

    You support at least temporarily eliminating people's gun rights without due process if they are accused of terrorism or certain other crimes.

    You want stronger prohibitions on people being treated for mental health issues, not necessarily limited to court-ordered commitment as it is now.

    You do not support further gun bans, not even reenacting the 1994 Assault Weapons ban. You haven't said, but I assume that you do not support something like an ammo ban that would make use of these guns more difficult.

    You want background checks at gun shows. I am still unclear whether you want background checks in other places.

    What did I get wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  39. " You want stronger prohibitions on people being treated for mental health issues, not necessarily limited to court-ordered commitment as it is now."- I just want those court ordered or adjudicated mentally ill to be on the prohibited purchaser list. They are not now in most states except 14, mine included. As to the assault weapons ban, I am still in favor of prohibiting the sale of some types of these guns and the large magazines and other provisions contained in the 1995 AWB. This does not result in a total gun ban, by my definition. It may by yours. It does not allow the sale of certain weapons while allowing the sale of many others. This should not cause a great inconvenience to people unless someone can explain to me why these type of guns are necessary for their self defense or hunting, which is what the Supreme Court has determined in it's recent rulings.

    ReplyDelete
  40. First of all, it should be pointed out that GHWB was never pro gun - he supported gun control in Texas and he bought his lifetime membership in the NRA in the run up to the presidential elections. I think it's clear from their actions that the federal government and it's agents ARE jackbooted thugs and THAT specifically is what the second amendment is all about.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Ms. Peterson,

    Thanks for the reply; I know a lot of comments here get flushed or "reasoned discoursed."

    I don't think a gun ban as you define it exists anywhere in the world. By the definition discussed above, a gun ban would require the entire society to be disarmed, including the police, military, and so on. As long as one person in the society is allowed to have a single shot .22 chipmunk rifle then there will not be a "ban." That level of ban doesn't exist, probably because states that totally disarm their militaries don't get to be independent countries for very long.

    However, I'm surprised you couldn't point to ONE place in the world that has a satisfactory regulatory regime in place, or at least aspects which are admirable. Many of the policies the Brady Campaign purports to support are in place in other countries. For example, Canada has registration and bans on "assault weapons." Mexico bans weapons in military calibers. There are lots of examples out there.

    As Sevesteen points out, I think there's a disconnect with definitions. Your organization has attempted to ban certain weapons that my family owns legally. Perhaps we can agree to be more precise in our definitions. I can say that you don't want to ban all of our guns; your organization just wants to ban "some" or even "many" of them. And likewise, you can say that you don't intend to ban all guns for all people.

    As a side note, your group's whole "Terror Gap" thing which you brought up again is one major issue that mobilized me on the pro-Gun Rights side to start with. I am apparently a false positive with someone naughty on the no-fly list (this is common; the late Sen Stevens had trouble, so did Sen Kennedy, so does our Rep, and so do many others). I only found out after getting accosted at the airport multiple times. Now when I fly I have a special "Traveller Redress Number" from the DHS that speeds me through the approval process at check in. However, it vividly illustrated the danger of denying specific enumerated rights to people with little to no judicial or congressional oversight. If DHS had not issued me a redress number I would have had no recourse; the watchlist is classified so you can't even have standing to sue as you can't prove you're on it! How Orwellian is that? I can't imagine that we're seriously talking about stripping other rights -- especially specific enumerated rights -- with the same broken process. Would we seriously talk about pulling people's right to publish inflammatory literature, to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, and so on? After all, I thought that the political left was supposed to be in favor of civil rights, and I was hoping that the most egregious encroachments of the last administration might be rolled back a bit, not expanded.

    I think there will be more common ground if and when your group starts focusing on actual crimes with actual victims and some sort of mens rea that have proven rather than theoretical benefits. By constantly demonizing inanimate objects and law abiding citizens for little or no measurable benefit you alienate people.

    Finally, I'm sorry for your personal loss. I'm sure that you feel as if you are fighting the good fight. I think I can also probably agree with you that there isn't much more for us to talk about as we have very different views.

    See, don't say there's no room for agreement! At least we can agree to be more precise with our words and that it is unlikely that either of us will convince the other via rhetoric. Also, at least I can acknowledge that you support the theoretical right of at least one person in the country to own some sort of firearm, which I suppose may be better than a mythical totally disarmed nirvana (although I suppose it depends on who that one person is...).

    Cheers,
    Chris

    ReplyDelete
  42. Joe believes in his delusions.

    ReplyDelete
  43. " I think there will be more common ground if and when your group starts focusing on actual crimes with actual victims and some sort of mens rea that have proven rather than theoretical benefits. By constantly demonizing inanimate objects and law abiding citizens for little or no measurable benefit you alienate people."
    Yes, indeed, Chris. Only my group apparently has to compromise. I have provided dozens if not more of actual crimes and actual victims. Read my blog. Thanks, though, for your polite responses. I do appreciate that. I wonder, too, why you all think I am demonizing an object. If a certain type of prescription drug kills people, we do something about it. If a crib design has killed some babies, we do something about it. If a toy is defective and causes harm to children, we do something about it. If we find that not wearing seatbelts kills people, we pass some laws. Is that demonizing cribs, prescription drugs, seatbelts or toys? I don't think so. It's only when we are discussing guns that that term comes into play.

    ReplyDelete
  44. "This does not result in a total gun ban, by my definition."

    Not a total gun ban, perhaps, but certainly "a" gun ban.

    The main problem I have with such things is like here in the UK, groups like the Brady Campaign say things like "nobody needs (Gun X)", while omitting the quite undisputable fact that there is no need for a ban on (Gun X).

    The pro-gun people here more than likely see it as an attempt to decieve, having had plenty of that last time the horrid AWB came about.

    For example: there are plenty of them used for sporting purposes, yet the claim is made that there is "no legitimate sporting purpose".

    Thing is, when justifying a ban comes down to "need" or "necessary", there's one problem.

    The pro-gun side might not "need" the mislabeled "assault weapons", but the anti-gun side certainly has no "need" for a ban.

    In such an impasse, common sense all but dictates we move in favour of rights (IOW, no ban), but such a thing seems unacceptable to the anti-gun side, such as when they pushed for your Hughes Amendment.

    I agree that measures should be in place to stop gun crime, but without penalising the law-abiding. If such bans are demanded, a fair compromise would be the repeal of bans elsewhere, giving them far more than you take.

    (Sorry 'bout the length, not really good at short points.)

    ReplyDelete
  45. Yes, Guy, you did "hit the nail on the head." As to your last statement, that is exactly what I, and the people with whom I work, have in mind. I can't see how the law-abiding will be penalized in my scenario. Of course, if the pro gun side sees it as a penalty that they can't have every weapon under the sun that they want but don't need, then we can't ever agree. Therein lies the problem with semantics.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Japete, You really know how to run a great blog discussion. What comments!

    This is not really directed at you, but I'm tired of the discussion of what does "ban" mean. I think the pro-gun guys overuse the word. Often restriction or something else would work better, but they love this buzzword.

    The other thing I picked up is when we focus on guns, which are the most tangible and easily addressed part of the problem, that does not mean we cannot also work on crime and the many other factors involved.

    ReplyDelete
  47. The Hughes Amendment is a major example of why it is so hard to find common ground.

    Emotionally, it is a no brainer--Machine guns are about as scary as it gets, and it is pretty hard for a civilian to claim a legitimate 'sporting need'.

    But there was not a problem with legitimately owned machine guns. As far as I have been able to find out, there have been only 2 machine gun crimes committed by legal owners since the NFA was enacted in 1934. 2 crimes in 50 years is evidence that the system prior to the Hughes amendment was adequate, not that it needs to be tightened further.

    The 94 AWB is another example of emotion over reality. Most of the 'evil features' are irrelevant to crime--was there really a problem with bayonet crime? Is there a good reason a rifle can't be adjustable to fit different people? How is a pistol with the magazine in front of the trigger worse than one with the magazine in the grip?

    The only part of the AWB that could possibly have any relevance to crime was the 10 round magazine limit. Was there compelling evidence of crimes enhanced by the 11th or subsequent rounds fired without a chance to reload?

    So many proposals are based on emotion and so few based on evidence that our natural reaction is that the overall goal can't logically be merely reducing gun violence, but rather elimination of guns owned by ordinary people. This may not be YOUR goal, but the evidence I see shows that it is in fact the goal of the Brady Campaign. I cannot see any other reason for bans of features not significantly used in crime and violence.

    ReplyDelete
  48. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Agreeing with Sevesteen.
    Why ban something which is virtually never used in crime?
    Machineguns, assault weapons, hgh capacity magazines, etc...all scary, but virtually unused in crime when/where legal.
    Most "gun crimes" involve 1-2 shots with a handgun.

    Most laws the Brady group has pushed amount to partial, if not total, bans on guns and harassment of law-abiding citizens. You may not see it, but we DO live with the consequences of laws the Brady group managed to pass, and we DO find them needlessly harassing. As people who do not commit crimes, and as owners/users of classes of guns rarely used in crimes, we wonder why we are to take the brunt of regulations you claim are "reasonable".

    Between that and your unwillingness to specify the limits of your intended regulations (esp. by not specifying any of 20,000 existing gun control laws as going too far and worthy of repeal), along with your board-level association with organizations which do have a history of pursuing gun bans, the cause of our suspicion should be obvious.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Are you kidding?should I support an extremist militia group? I find you and your groups to be unAmerican. And what the heck are talking about here? An uprising against your own government? Isn't that treason?

    ReplyDelete
  51. US law defines "the militia" as all able-bodied males aged 17-45.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I'm laughing out loud. You guys ate getting crazier with every attempt to justify your lies. Move on.

    ReplyDelete
  53. You conveniently left put the section following the sentence you included above. It says that the men and women in this age group can belong to a militia ad part of the Nationsl Guard. Then there is the section about the unorganized militia groups such as you defend. On no way does the US government support militia groups such as yours

    ReplyDelete
  54. No, it says that the National Guard is part of the militia, which is divided into "organized" and "unorganized" (the 17-45 group), which together form the US Militia - not to be confused with independent anti-government "militias".

    See, here's the problem: we are trying to discuss what we consider reasonable, yet you keep insulting and dismissing us while facilitating a group which in practice harasses millions of loyal and law-abiding citizens - and you wonder why there is hostility.

    ReplyDelete
  55. You are wrong. The first militia group IS the National Guard as we know it the second "unorganized' group is the extremist militia anti-government groups to which you seem to sympathize. There is no other way to view this. You know very well that U S law does not support militia groups. Move on. I'm done with this ridiculous back and forth.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Well they did support a militia. Congress even passed a act.

    On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "[a]n act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:
    [E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack

    ReplyDelete
  57. The last time I checked it was, and still is 2010

    ReplyDelete
  58. That was directed to the "first Militia" considering congress officially created the everyone is the militia a 124 years before the National Guard I would say you are incorrect about the National Guard being the first militia. Unless you mean something different by first

    ReplyDelete
  59. What I meant, Anthony, is that the first paragraph of the legal definition of "militia" refers to the National Guard. Of course, we all know that the National Guard was not the first militia.

    ReplyDelete
  60. They suffer from AFD (anachronistic fantasy disorder.

    ReplyDelete
  61. US CODE
    TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311 § 311. Militia: composition and classes
    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b) The official classes of the militia are—
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    ReplyDelete