Mr. Di Ionno details both universes very well with descriptions of shooting ranges where self defense training takes place and the Newark projects where blood flows regularly. He makes an interesting connection between the two.There are two universes of American gun culture.
In one universe, the Second Amendment is a stanchion of protected American freedoms, as sacred as free speech. In this universe, when the right to bear arms dies, so does a free America.
In another universe, guns make blood run in our city streets. They kill and maim criminals and innocent alike, make good people prisoners in their own homes.
Fear. It drives people to get guns in both universes.
Jon Vernick, the co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, in speaking on the 2nd Amendment, said the gun debate must start with ways to "not interfere with that right."
"There are ways to frame the issue properly," he said. "There seems to be a consensus that we must find more efficient and effective ways to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. Half the guns used in crimes come from one-percent of gun dealers. There can be better oversight of those dealers, and better enforcement of laws. In some states, people with long records of violent misdemeanors, DWIs or domestic violence, are still allowed to purchase guns. That doesn't make sense. There should be are common-sense approaches that don't duly interfere with law-abiding citizens."
But what also defies common sense is reflexive opposition to all gun laws. "They're afraid if they acquiesce on any point, it will be first step down a slippery slope in the government's ability to take away guns," Vernick said.
What's your opinion? Do gun owners tend to stubbornly resist any and all suggestions for fear of the slippery slope? I certainly hear that business of gun confiscation quite often.
What about the 1% of gun dealers supplying 50% of the illegal guns? How does that work? Does the destruction of NICS records impede the government's ability to identify them, as we discussed the other day?
I'm afraid my comment to the article was not very helpful. Or was it? Maybe it's possible for responsible, honest people to have guns if they want them without placing it under the umbrella of the Constitution or the Bible or anything else. I would think so.
I say the relevance of the 2nd Amendment in today's world is just about the same as that of the 3rd Amendment. Even the 1st Amendment, when it was written, didn't count for blacks and women, but the gun guys always point to it as proof that these ideas are timeless and inviolable. I say it's nonsense. These guys just love guns first, then the use the Constitution and even sometimes the bible to justify it. Meantime, as you said in the article, blood flows in the streets.
Please leave a comment.
"say the relevance of the 2nd Amendment in today's world is just about the same as that of the 3rd Amendment. Even the 1st Amendment"
ReplyDeleteYup, and if the Gov. decided they wanted to start quartering soldiers in MY home I'd dust off that "irrelevant" 3rd Amendment pretty damn quick.
"There are two universes of American gun culture."
ReplyDeleteActually, there aren't.
"In another universe, guns make blood run in our city streets. They kill and maim criminals and innocent alike, make good people prisoners in their own homes."
That's not gun culture. That's a culture of criminality. That culture exists, despite guns, not because of them.
"What's your opinion? Do gun owners tend to stubbornly resist any and all suggestions for fear of the slippery slope?"
Looking down the slope at places like Chicago and New Jersey, i'd say the fear of the fear is legitimate. Not only have the people who've already slid down the slope lost their rights, but they have to deal with more crime to boot.
There have already been gun confiscations in Chicago, Washington DC, New Orleans and the entire states of California and New Jersey.
ReplyDeleteYou can not say we are paranoid about something happening when it has already happened several times.
As a side note, I started shooting when I was 6 years old and got my first real firearm at age 12.
It wasn't out of fear. My collection has grown from there; most of which have a connection to some very pivotal moments in history.
Do people wear seat belts out of fear, or is it simply a best practice "just in case."
Do people change the batteries in their smoke detectors every 6 months out of fear, or is simply a best practice "just in case."
Sticking your head in the sand and pretending that "it could never happen to me" is not a very wise strategy regardless of what the issue is your talking about.
One of the things my mother taught me was "Expect the best and prepare for the worst."
Preparation and paranoia are 2 seperate issues.
The Pareto principle is a rule of thumb that says that about 80% of results are from 20% of causes. This applies to a surprising number of areas-software bugs, income, sales by store...
ReplyDeleteIf you follow the curve out, you will see that it isn't all that unlikely that the top 1% volume gun dealers are responsible for nearly half of all sales. This is especially true because there are still a lot of one-man "dealers" who buy and sell just a few too many to be safe without a dealer's license.
Mike W. said, "Yup, and if the Gov. decided they wanted to start quartering soldiers in MY home I'd dust off that "irrelevant" 3rd Amendment pretty damn quick."
ReplyDeleteLemme get this straight, Mike. You'd obey the federal government if they decided to quarter soldiers in your home, but if they decide you have to give up your guns, you'd do the "cold dead hands" thing?
Does that mean you obey the laws you agree with and the others you resist?
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
ReplyDeletemikeb,
No, Mike W is saying that he would resist the illegal action of quartering soldiers just as much as he would resist the illegal action of confiscating firearms. The reason he would have to "dust" off the 3rd amendment is because it is the only one that has never had a court challenge in the 225 years of our country's history. So in effect it has been gathering dust. That doesn't mean it is no longer in effect though.
You don't understand sarcasm do you?
kaveman said, "There have already been gun confiscations in Chicago, Washington DC, New Orleans and the entire states of California and New Jersey."
ReplyDeleteArent't they for the most part better described as "gun bans?" Or, are you saying it boils down to the same thing?
kaveman said, "There have already been gun confiscations in Chicago, Washington DC, New Orleans and the entire states of California and New Jersey."
ReplyDeleteArent't they for the most part better described as "gun bans?" Or, are you saying it boils down to the same thing?-MikeB
No they are not the same thing and that's not what I was trying to say.
I don't have the time to spell it all out for you but if you want to learn the truth, go here and watch the series.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlhIW8X5cRU
Seriously, educate yourself on what HAS ALREADY HAPPENED.
Have a nice day.
Or maybe this is more your style?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlhIW8X5cRU
kaveman, You sent me the same link twice. I really didn't find it very illuminating. Nothing new there really. The CA laws are such a hodge podge mess that even the cops don't know what's legal any more.
ReplyDeleteBut don't you have a problem with that expression they keep using, "these gun laws make criminals out of law-abiding citizens." Doesn't that violate one of the one of the main tenets you guys believe in, the idea that each person is responsible for his own actions? You certainly apply that to criminals. If the law changes and you're no longer in compliance with it, you have a choice, obey or not. No one has the power to make anyone else a criminal or anything else for that matter. Isn't that right?
If the law changes and you're no longer in compliance with it, you have a choice, obey or not. No one has the power to make anyone else a criminal or anything else for that matter.
ReplyDeleteHave you SEEN CA's firearms laws? I'd be surprised if a good percentage of CA gun owners haven't broken several gun laws without even knowing it.
There are so many damn laws, with so many vague interpretations that it's impossible to know them all, much less keep track of changes.
RE- Confiscations. What was happening in some cases mike was the State would change a gun law and apply it retroactively, making a gun that was legally bought and owned in the past suddenly illegal. They then told gun owners that their now illegal weapons had to be turned in.
This exact thing happened in CA with SKS rifles. Is that not confiscation? Should such a law be obeyed?
"these gun laws make criminals out of law-abiding citizens."
ReplyDeleteMaybe that isn't the exact choice of words I would use, but...
Laws are (or at least should be) a contract between society (or government) and individuals, to balance the rights and needs of individuals with society. Some people are given limited authority to enforce the contract, with restrictions to reduce abuse of their power.
When the laws become so complex that even people wanting to obey all of them have a difficult time, when the authorities can generally find some violation on anyone, then the contract is broken.
Do you really have freedom of speech if every time you criticize the authorities, you risk arrest for some technicality in how you spoke? Or even arrest for some unrelated violation that is only applied when you bother the authorities?
As a moderate libertarian, I want minimal, consistent and sensible rules and restrictions evenly applied. It must be possible for you to exercise all your civil rights without jumping through excessive hoops, and without fear of being busted for technicalities. The ideal is the golden rule, but the imperfection of people needs more specificity than that.