One Nation Under Guns?

[SecularMotion]

I admit that I’m a bit of a gun enthusiast. I watch action films. I play first-person-shooter games. I find the thought of visiting a firing range appealing. Yet even I am left in a state of revulsion when I hear that over 12,000 people were killed by firearms in the USA last year and even more are expected to get bitten by the bullet in 2014. In fact, the first mass shooting of the year occurred last Sunday in Maryland. So much for New Years and New Beginnings.

Despite being a fan of gun culture, I am certainly not a fan of massacres, and would like to think that even the most die-hard defenders of the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms are in agreement with me. Yet any attempts to regulate firearms and thus diminish the number of gun related deaths in America are consistently beaten down in Congress, as pro-gun politicians and lobbyists successfully argued that such regulations won’t work.

Why not legislate smaller magazine sizes so that less people get killed before a criminal has to reload? Many Congressmen and NRA officials argue that such legislation is a waste of time because criminals won’t adhere to them. I suppose by that logic Americans may as well decriminalise murder, rape and theft. What about at least reinstating an assault weapons ban so that military-grade weapons can’t be put into the hands of the common psychopath? President of the NRA, David Keene, claims that the initial Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 “made no difference” to the levels of gun-related deaths in the USA and that therefore any modified version of the ban would also do little to reduce their drastically high rates of mass slaughter. Well you know what they say: If at first you don’t succeed, fuck it.

http://theboar.org/2014/02/02/one-nation-guns/

[NYC_SKP]

1. Oh gosh, more hair on fire! "Mass shootings" are actually on the decline in America.

I can't believe I bothered to read it...

"Why not legislate smaller magazine sizes"....

Why not legislate smaller magazine sizes so that less people get killed before a criminal has to reload? Many Congressmen and NRA officials argue that such legislation is a waste of time because criminals won’t adhere to them. I suppose by that logic Americans may as well decriminalise murder, rape and theft. What about at least reinstating an assault weapons ban so that military-grade weapons can’t be put into the hands of the common psychopath? President of the NRA, David Keene, claims that the initial Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 “made no difference” to the levels of gun-related deaths in the USA and that therefore any modified version of the ban would also do little to reduce their drastically high rates of mass slaughter. Well you know what they say: If at first you don’t succeed, fuck it.

Obviously one can’t expect to find a single, perfect solution to a problem as big as gun-related violence in America. Naturally these ideas have their flaws, but wouldn’t even flawed attempts at gun control be better than the current situation now where even the clinically-diagnosed mentally-disturbed citizens of the USA can buy any type of firearm without a background check? The situation is more disturbing than the individuals themselves!

As I’ve said before: I am a gun enthusiast. However, I don’t feel as though gun culture and gun control are diametrically opposing ideas. Many enthusiasts across the USA are responsible gun owners that don’t and likely won’t harm themselves or others. The issue at hand is how to come up with laws that limit eligibility to buy firearms and the level of carnage that those firearms can cause, so that massacres like Maryland never happen again.

Gun enthusiast, right.

These are the ramblings of a hopelessly myopic writer (sometimes I hate the internets) who wonders, "I don't want hi cap magazines, personally, therefore you don't need them."

Fuck the author.

[Eleanors38]

6. "Gun enthusiast:" Watches movies, plays video games. yeah.

He asks "why not" on some magazine ban. In proper argument, he should state "why."

[pipoman]

2. Anyone who states anything like:

"Yet any attempts to regulate firearms and thus diminish the number of gun related deaths in America are consistently beaten down in Congress"

Pretending that the 20k plus laws and regulations on firearms don't exist doesn't make them go away. Pretending that the reason the Democratic controlled Congress failed to send Bush (who said he would sign it) a reauthorization for extending the assault weapons ban for a reason other than that the ban was on its way to an overturn in SCOTUS is simply denial. Arbitrary magazine capacities was part of that legislation and was also going to be struck down.

No, what would be good is if those most concerned about gun violence would quit trying to pretend that they don't understand and that they can get these things passed if only people would send their causes more money. If only they would attempt to forward ideas which could actually have an effect on the problem and are constitutional, maybe they could actually do something good.

[oldhippie]

3. This made me laugh .....

I admit that I’m a bit of a gun enthusiast. I watch action films. I play first-person-shooter games. I find the thought of visiting a firing range appealing.

The guy probably writes this in his pajamas in his parent's basement. He doesn't actually shoot, just watches action films, plays video games, and dreams about visiting a range. Pathetic.

[sarisataka]

4. A gun enthusiast...

who doesn't seem to actually shoot (or even own?) any guns... Odd

"a fan of the gun culture"- what is that? and I thought "gun culture" was a bad thing

I don't know if it is part of the "gun culture" but I did attend a birthday party yesterday with three other friends who carry. Gun came up in the discussion, naturally. We went into a separate room to safely unload our respective guns before looking at improved sights and other modifications people have done to their pistols.

Older children who were curious were allowed to enter, after asking permission, and they could look and touch under close supervision. Any slight flaw in handling safely was gently but firmly corrected by an adult. Soon their curiosity gets sated and they leave.

All the while the discussion was about gun laws and how we were all mystified that things like UBC can not get passed, the NRA is led by a bunch of whack jobs and the gun control movement is their own worst enemy. One person returned a pistol I had loaned three years ago when he took a security job. We agreed we would have had no issue doing a transfer through an FFL for such a long term loan.

After securing the firearms, feeling no need to reload before leaving, we went out and played legos with the kids.

[pipoman]

5. As long as we understand

That the NRA isn't the reason "universal background checks" can't get passed. .the commerce clause is..SCOTUS precedent is..

[jimmy the one]

7. red herring pie

pipoman: . As long as we understand That the NRA isn't the reason "universal background checks" can't get passed. .the commerce clause is..SCOTUS precedent is..

Are you being serious or facetious? if serious this is one of the most ridiculous remarks I've heard this year. You put up two inane red herrings which haven't much to do with background check legality or passage.

[pipoman]

8. It has everything to do with it. .

The only sales which don't require bg checks are between 2 residents of the same state who aren't firearms dealers.

IOW sales between neighbors, friends, local classified ads, etc. There is no big money behind it. Manufacturers and dealers most likely would like the same restrictions on private sales as are on their sales, no? You can't name a single type of legal personal property which intrastate sale between private parties is regulated by the federal government. .none. Why? Because it is unambiguously prohibited by the commerce clause. States can restrict those sales, the feds can't.

This issue (the renamed "gun show loophole&quot is the red herring. It has and does raise more money for gun control groups than any other issue. That is the money behind not making constitutional headway on the issue. .If the issue goes away so do a lot of donations to the big gun control groups.

[jimmy the one]

11. specious times two

straw man: thought the NRA was supposed to be in the pocket of the gun industry. Every private sale of a used gun is a new gun sale lost. You'd think an "industry shill" would be doing everything in its power to inhibit such sales. Wouldn't you?

Another specious & silly remark; YES, the money-uber-alles nra is indeed in the pocket of the gun industry, and nra once embraced universal background checks as late as 1999, and any profits the nra would obtain from private sales are indeed slim to none, but they do it to be deemed gunnut friendly so as to garner favor for politicians which support this illicit loophole, thereby gaining anti guncontrol support in the upper & lower houses of congress. Duh. There are peripheral reasons to the underlying money angle.

pipo: This issue (the renamed "gun show loophole&quot is the red herring. It has and does raise more money for gun control groups than any other issue. That is the money behind not making constitutional headway on the issue. .If the issue goes away so do a lot of donations to the big gun control groups.

Malarky, background checks are just one aspect of guncontrol efforts & I've been donating for a couple decades & haven't seen donation specific requests (or breakdowns) other than attaching it to specific gc efforts - the same as for awbans, superclip bans, et al. What IS true is that near 90% of americans wanted background checks in 2013 but were blocked by the nra controlled upper house/senate. To say that the bg check issue is the prime donation gatherer is specious & sounds like nra propagunda.

[pipoman]

12. Why then have none of the gun control groups

Targeted state legislation and abandoned pretending they will ever pass federal legislation contrary to constitutional limitations on the federal government that they know exists? Why do they not lobby for statutory access to NICS for private sellers? Why don't they set up free NICS checks at gun shows? Why don't they begin a public service campaign to encourage private sellers to use NICS?

No, they prefer to pretend that the impossible is possible if only those most concerned will just support their causes. Many people make their living with this tact, if the issues are actually solved their paycheck goes away.

[Straw Man]

13. Duh, indeed.

Another specious & silly remark; YES, the money-uber-alles nra is indeed in the pocket of the gun industry, and nra once embraced universal background checks as late as 1999, and any profits the nra would obtain from private sales are indeed slim to none, but they do it to be deemed gunnut friendly so as to garner favor for politicians which support this illicit loophole, thereby gaining anti guncontrol support in the upper & lower houses of congress. Duh. There are peripheral reasons to the underlying money angle.

So it's all about money except when it isn't? Be careful -- you'll hurt yourself with all those contortions of logic.

"As late as 1999"? Why not just say "fifteen years ago"? And then try to pretend that it's current information.

BTW, the NRA does not "obtain profits" from any gun sales. It is not in the retail firearms business.

[jimmy the one]

14. flip flopping nra

straw man: Be careful -- you'll hurt yourself with all those contortions of logic. BTW, the NRA does not "obtain profits" from any gun sales. It is not in the retail firearms business.

straw man previously: thought the NRA was supposed to be in the pocket of the gun industry. Every private sale of a used gun is a new gun sale lost. You'd think an "industry shill" {nra} would be doing everything in its power to inhibit such sales. Wouldn't you?

As you can see, it was you who first suggested nra was losing money/profits by favoring 'no bg checks';
.. might wanna try to uncontort yourself.

straw man: BTW, the NRA does not "obtain profits" from any gun sales. It is not in the retail firearms business

I guess you need some schooling in nra tactics 101; for most, if not most all new firearms sold, the nra, with the gun makers permission, puts in a little packet explaining to the new gun owner some things & congratulating him on his new purchase & how it's so important to protect his/her 2nd pretendment rights that a one year membership in the nra would be so desirable for him/her, that he/she would have a progun orgasm on the spot. An nra one year membership goes from $25 - $35, a lifetime membership about 200 or more. So the nra does indeed profit by gun sales, not directly that I'm so aware of, but indirectly by getting new members or donors, as well by intertwining with the gun makers.

straw man: "As late as 1999"? Why not just say "fifteen years ago"? And then try to pretend that it's current information.

You have no point, they have FLIP FLOPPED 180 degrees on background checks in the past 15 years, now opposing something which nearly 90% of americans have supported.

[Straw Man]

15. Sigh ...

straw man previously: thought the NRA was supposed to be in the pocket of the gun industry. Every private sale of a used gun is a new gun sale lost. You'd think an "industry shill" {nra} would be doing everything in its power to inhibit such sales. Wouldn't you?

As you can see, it was you who first suggested nra was losing money/profits by favoring 'no bg checks';
.. might wanna try to uncontort yourself.

Read carefully. I suggested that this would only be a problem for the NRA if they were an "industry shill," something that you contend they are. I'm attacking your contention, in case you hadn't noticed.

I guess you need some schooling in nra tactics 101; for most, if not most all new firearms sold, the nra, with the gun makers permission, puts in a little packet explaining to the new gun owner some things & congratulating him on his new purchase & how it's so important to protect his/her 2nd pretendment rights that a one year membership in the nra would be so desirable for him/her, that he/she would have a progun orgasm on the spot. An nra one year membership goes from $25 - $35, a lifetime membership about 200 or more. So the nra does indeed profit by gun sales, not directly that I'm so aware of, but indirectly by getting new members or donors, as well by intertwining with the gun makers.

And when I buy a pair of boots online from Midway USA, they ask me if I want to "round up" my purchase price by making a donation to the NRA. Am I to understand, then, that the NRA is "in the pocket" of the footwear industry?

[Straw Man]

9. I thought the NRA was supposed to be in the pocket of the gun industry.

Every private sale of a used gun is a new gun sale lost. You'd think an "industry shill" would be doing everything in its power to inhibit such sales. Wouldn't you?

[Eleanors38]

10. U.S. v Lopez (SCOTUS) places the Commerce Clause front & center

in the debate over the fed's powers to enact gun regs. The case didn't settle matters or stop challenges, but the CC and its scope are debatable and not a "red snapper."

I support UBCs, and one way to pass them is through state legislation -- which doesn't involve the CC.