General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy not here? Australia's Gun Ban Has Worked Big Time
Last edited Fri Jun 13, 2014, 10:52 AM - Edit history (1)
3 minute video that tells the awful truth.
https://www.freespeech.org/video/australias-gun-ban-has-worked-big-time
|
Courtesy David Pakman
EDIT: FIXED LINK.
GeorgeGist
(25,323 posts)The US needs to repeal the 2nd Amendment; otherwise gun violence will remain mainstream. IMO
mattclearing
(10,091 posts)Right now people seem to think that the Second Amendment applies to every insecure, paranoid, ignoramus who wants a gun for no reason in particular. I don't think that was the original intent.
Gun crime in Australia is rare by American standards. Last week they shut down four city blocks in Adelaide (which doesn't sound like a lot, but it's a big part of downtown Adelaide) for a standoff with a guy with a .22 rifle, wanted, in part, for violating the firearms ban. It went from 1 in the morning to noon the next day.
When I found out he just had a .22 rifle, I thought to myself that American police would have just stormed the building, hostages be damned, especially if the alternative was bringing rush hour to a standstill, which it did.
The guy was found dead, seemingly a suicide, but the hostages had been released. Sad story, but the kind you don't see too often here.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-05/rodney-clavell-found-dead-after-standoff-in-adelaide-cbd-brothel/5501504
Keefer
(713 posts)The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment
From: Brian T. Halonen <halonen@csd.uwm.edu>
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
mattclearing
(10,091 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Assault Weapons Bans, stricter background checks, limits on magazine size, concealed carry, even registration are all perfectly constitutional. The only explicit right the 2A presently protects is the right to own a gun in your home for self defense. That is all.
The failure of gun control is political and cultural, not legal. Even Scalia would say that most Australian style laws would be constitutional.
former9thward
(32,074 posts)http://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/australia.php
Australian gun laws would not be constitutional in the U.S.
hack89
(39,171 posts)my major point still stands - the 2A is not stopping strict gun regulations.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Australian type restrictions.
There are effective measures well short of Australian type restrictions. Lets take care of those first and see what the results are.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And Canadians.
We do need to re-evaluate that Amendment. And what it was supposed to mean.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)If we wait to repeal, 100 years from now we will be having the same discussions (well at least the generation after us will be).
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)What, you think that the bill of rights 'grants' rights?!?
*sigh*
No, it would go from being explicitly protected at the federal level to being implicitly protected via the ninth amendment, and still explicitly protected by the various state constitutions.
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)or maybe its just me.
doxydad
(1,363 posts)aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)Restrictions are possible and sometimes preferable.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)but well-regulated modifies militia and not the people. The militia is drawn from the people who keep and bear arms.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)and they would become the basis for a well-regulated militia
an interesting, but seemingly shortsighted, perspective, don't you think?
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)But regardless they needed people to have arms in order to form a militia as needed. The definitions of the militia can vary, but if you the people aren't armed then you don't have a pool from which to draw.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)cautiously selected
as, I am sure, was the intent of that amendment
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)former9thward
(32,074 posts)You can make fun of this guy -- of course you are not posting your picture -- but he would look like a million dollars compared to the average colonialist at the time.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)former9thward
(32,074 posts)DrDan
(20,411 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)He seems like a normal American. Is he too fat for you?
DrDan
(20,411 posts)doxydad
(1,363 posts)aikoaiko:Gun bans are, in my mind, are violations of the 2nd amendment.
OK, then what do you propose to stop the madness of mass murders daily in OUR OWN NEIGHBORHOODS??
I'll wait here.
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)If you know the reason(s) and can provide links, please do so.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)It's name suggests criminal backgrounds, but it includes non-criminals.
Without knowing why a person is on the list everyone whose name appears looks just like the persons committing serious misdemeanors and felonies.
I'm not sure every potential landlord, employer, insurer, college admissions office, etc. can be trusted to do the right thing with such information. I'm not sure that every paranoid neighbor checking up on their neighbor could be trusted with such information.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)to enter my state I.D. (per your request) into NICS in a manner similar to that of an FFL, what in that process could be abused? From my understanding, there is only a notification of Denial or Rejection, not a case history of my interactions with the court system.
VScott
(774 posts)From my understanding (true or not), even the NIC's examiner at the other end doesn't see the full record, only "proceed" or "deny".
Delays occur most often occur with people who have a common name or identity theft (don't ask me how I know )
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)than when a regular NICS b.g. Is performed at Academy or Cabela's, or so it seems.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)the question I was responding to was why can't NICS be available to everyone.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)there is with someone who voluntarily submits his/her name for an intrastate, non-FFL transaction. I'm not trying to be thick, though at times it comes naturally.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)You see it from the point of view of a voluntary thing you do to purchase a gun. I don't have a problem with a licensed gun seller/broker clearing a private sale through NICS for a fee. It's consistent with the stated mission of NICS, even if NICS is riddled with holes and is questionably up-to-date.
What I specifically object to is the notion of -everyone- having access to query NICS. Such access to NICS is an invitation to use of the data for things other than for clearing people for gun purchases. Across our society people are eager to find ways to separate good from bad people, to create social distance between "us" from "them", I don't think everyone can be trusted to act humanely and socially responsibly with the information it holds.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)could bandy about a potential buyer's "Disapproved" NICS status, even without having any supporting evidence. I envisioned a swipe-card set-up whereby a buyer could use NICS at an FFL.
Perhaps better is a FOID system whereby a state issues an official I.D. with an encoded clearance to buy/possess firearms (based on a voluntary B.G. check), instantly invalidated upon a court finding post-issuance.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)that -if- everyone had access to it, for -whatever- purpose they wanted to use it for, then landlords would use it to clear renters, bankers to clear people for mortgages, insurers to grant policies, employers to clear new hires, etc
The name National Instant CRIMINAL background Check System is misleading, it contains more than persons with criminal backgrounds. The NRA and many gun owners distrust registration lists, yet, the NICS database goes far beyond such a list and taints by association all the people whose names are one it. NICS data is certainly the type of government list for which the general public should be concerned about mission creep/intergovernmental sharing and commercial access.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)which pinpoint the vast majority of gun-owners; their residence, arms types, numbers, activities, persons of interest rankings, etc.
Snowden took the drama outta paranoia!
spanone
(135,871 posts)aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)Crunchy Frog
(26,629 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Assault Weapons Bans, stricter background checks, limits on magazine size, concealed carry, even registration are all perfectly constitutional. The only explicit right the 2A presently protects is the right to own a gun in your home for self defense. That is all.
The failure of gun control is political and cultural, not legal.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)This country is too fucking crazy, though.
hack89
(39,171 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)And no, the militia part doesn't negate the SCOTUS' interpretation of the 2A. It's settled law. And the people flat out reject it by a huge margin.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)That 2A thing sounds stupid. I'm so grateful we don't have it here.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Guns are so romantically linked to our independence and lifestyle that it's politically impossible to attack the idea of having weapons.
In our most proud national moments like the American Revolutionary War and WW2, our heroes are represented as men who used guns. Those images come down to us as little kids in school. We grow up around guns our whole lives, so it doesn't feel strange. Almost like guns are a part of the environment. So when gun massacres occur, they are viewed as an act of God (mental illness).
Australian law logically makes more sense. But the Founding Fathers are practically demigods, so the 2A is viewed as sacred.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)some sort of serious crime and they believe the founding fathers to be infallible even though we have quite a few Constitutional amendments already indicating we don't agree with them about certain things. Things like direct election of senators and pretty close to direct election of our President, just for starters.
Just about every person I know born overseas thinks the 2A is batshit crazy. And it is.
Crunchy Frog
(26,629 posts)dilby
(2,273 posts)The two countries are culturally quite different, yes they are both full of white people who speak English but that is pretty much where the similarities end. It would be like saying, "hey giving every man a gun worked for Switzerland, why not here?"
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)John Adams? Dead.
James Madison? Dead.
Thomas Jefferson? Dead.
Everybody else even tangentially involved in the writing of the US Constitution? Dead.
In a democracy, we don't live under the control of a cabal of dead guys. We decide.
Here.
Now.
And if the ownership of guns becomes too much of a public danger, then we should take whatever measures are necessary to protect ourselves.
I personally do not favor banning guns (because it worked to well when we banned alcohol) but I couldn't give a flying fuck what a bunch of dead politicians think.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)They shit on the Constitution to make us "safer."
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Let me restate this. Every generation of Americans decides what kind of democracy we're going to have. The idea that we'd be slavishly following the dictates of a bunch of guys who have all be dead for two centuries is lunacy. Even Jefferson himself didn't think the country should be governed that way.
So fuck the constitution. If we need to write a new one to reflect the 21st century, then god damn it, let's do it.
But I'd sick of hearing people trying to grammatically parse the 2nd Amendment while kids are getting shot down every day in this country.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Assault Weapon Bans, magazine limits, UBCs, even registration are perfectly constitutional.
Your problem is cultural and political, not legal.
dilby
(2,273 posts)Goodby New Deal, Goodby minimum wage, Goodby Civil Rights. Yeah your idea sucks.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Every law passed by Congress can be overturned by a subsequent Congress. That's always been the case and so my suggestion really doesn't apply to that.
But we have a constitution (and a subsequent Supreme Court) that now counts corporations as people, doesn't recognize the fundamental equality of all persons in this nation, and allows hooligans posing as a "well-regulated militia" to roam the streets armed to the teeth.
Our constitution is fucked up because we're trying to run a 21st century government based on 18th century political philosophy.
hack89
(39,171 posts)The constitution is not your problem - it is lack of public support.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)You should really be careful about that. Plus we are not a Democracy but a Republic which is different.
Turbineguy
(37,364 posts)don't seem to want to kill each other as much as we Americans do.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)People Control, Not Gun Control
This is my generic response to gun threads. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that werent secured are out of control in our society. As such, heres what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. Im not debating the legal language, I just think its the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because its clear that they should never have had a gun.
1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learners license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.).
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.
Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a drivers license you need a license to fish, rent scuba equipment, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)cowardly ass kissers who are afraid to do what is right for the country if it means pissing off big donors or hate radio hosts.