We really dodged a bullet with Brady II (pun intended)

[X_Digger]

I happened to be looking up the 'Bride of Brady', 'Brady II, The Sequel', aka 103rd congress's S.1878-

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c103:S.1878:

And man-oh-man, was it a stinker. I can only shudder and imagine the backlash that we'd have seen had this piece of offal made it past committee.

Major portions:
-Registration and licensing of handguns and handgun owners
-Handgun License required to buy handgun ammunition
-Licensing of ammunition dealers
-Federal 'Arsenal' license
--- for >20 firearms or >1k rounds (yes, even 22lr)
--- 'may issue' permission from CLEO req'd
--- fingerprints
--- $300 / 3 years
--- subject to all restrictions of an FFL- unannounced 'inspections' and all
-Federal one handgun a month provision
-Jack up all FFL fees (e.g. $1,000 -> $10,000, $50 -> $1,000, $10 -> $1,000)
-No gun shows (sales must occur at the licensee's business address)
-Loss or thefts to be reported in less than 24 hours
-A firearm is not just the receiver, but 'receiver, barrel, stock, ammunition magazine, or any part of the action'
-prohibited weapons- repeals the NFA, and says nobody except law enforcement can possess:
---a firearm muffler or firearm silencer
---a short-barreled shotgun
---a short-barreled rifle
---a destructive device
---a semiautomatic assault weapon
---a Saturday-night-special handgun
---a nonsporting ammunition (yes, it's written like that in the bill)
---a large-capacity ammunition feeding device (more than *6* rounds)
-'Saturday Night Special handgun'
---lightweight
---smaller than a full sized revolver
---has no external safety (bye bye Glock)
---is drop safe (no exceptions made for historical pieces, bye bye Colt SAAs)
---uses 22s, 25, or 32
-'nonsporting ammunition' includes
---.50 BMG
---any handgun ammo over .45
---any handgun ammo over 1,200fps

We'd still be crawling out of the political shitpile had this thing passed.

[aikoaiko]

1. Wow. That would have sucked.

Today, no one would even be interested in sponsoring it.

[ellisonz]

2. Looks good to me...

...maybe a little steep on the fee end. But the basics are reasonable...

Sen Metzenbaum, Howard M. [OH] (introduced 2/28/1994) Cosponsors (6)
Related Bills: H.R.3932
Latest Major Action: 2/28/1994 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. COSPONSORS(6), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)

Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] - 2/28/1994
Sen Bradley, Bill [NJ] - 2/28/1994
Sen Chafee, John H. [RI] - 2/28/1994
Sen Kennedy, Edward M. [MA] - 2/28/1994
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] - 2/28/1994
Sen Pell, Claiborne [RI] - 2/28/1994

[TheWraith]

3. Someone uses the internet to trade child pornography.

Therefore, you need to federally register your PC, have a $1,000 a year PC license, submit to having your browsing history logged, all websites will be federally censored, and possession of an unapproved communication device will be immediately subject to a mandatory minimum of 10 years in federal prison.

Still a big fan of draconian standards to punish the innocent if they're applied to anything else but guns? How about a bill federally mandating that all your phone calls be recorded in a central database where they can be read at any time by the government? After all, if you're law abiding you don't need privacy, just like nobody needs a modern firearm.

[DanTex]

5. Your argument loses effectiveness due to hyperbole.

The problem with the argument is that it has no sense of degree. The exact same argument, in the exact same words, could be made against any kinds of regulations of anything. Just replace the words "a modern firearm" with, say "military grade explosives" or "machine guns" or "nerve gas"...

The fact of the matter is that the appropriate degree of regulation for any kind of object depends on a lot of specifics. Take cars, for example. Not only must every car be registered, but every car has a unique license plate on it so that any police officer or security camera can easily determine which car it is, and then by database lookup, determine who that car belongs to. But if you try to argue that this is "draconian" and comparable to complete electronic surveillance ("having your browsing history logged", "all websites will be federally censored", " all your phone calls be recorded in a central database&quot you will rightfully be laughed at.

And on the other hand, while guns take a heavy toll on society in terms of gun violence and homicide, they don't provide benefits anywhere near to what cars or computers do. Without computers or cars, society would simply grind to a halt. Without civilian gun ownership, not too much would change, except for less people getting killed.

So the question is how to rationally balance the benefits of guns with the very real costs. Focusing only on the "gun rights" misses the point. And, insisting that a handgun registry is a violation of privacy comparable to having your phone tapped or browser history submitted to the government is just plain silly. In the end, you need to weigh costs and benefits, and laws like a handguns registry would be helpful in terms of reducing gun trafficking, while imposing almost no cost at all on law-abiding gun owners.

[pneutin]

6. How would police officers and other law enforcement be able to protect themselves?

Without civilian gun ownership, not too much would change, except for less people getting killed.

How do you expect LEOs to defend themselves against criminals with guns? Are they supposed to use their tasers and nightsticks and hope for the best?

And, insisting that a handgun registry is a violation of privacy comparable to having your phone tapped or browser history submitted to the government is just plain silly.

Do you approve of a computer and IP registry?

and laws like a handguns registry would be helpful in terms of reducing gun trafficking

How exactly does a registry reduce gun trafficking?

while imposing almost no cost at all on law-abiding gun owners.

How do you plan on implementing and maintaining this almost no-cost federal registry? What is your definition of "almost no-cost"?

[DanTex]

8. ...

How do you expect LEOs to defend themselves against criminals with guns? Are they supposed to use their tasers and nightsticks and hope for the best?
By "without civilian gun ownership", I didn't mean the police.

Do you approve of a computer and IP registry?
The point of my argument is that computers, guns, cars, and any other kind of object must each be regulated according to their specific characteristics. Arguments against a computer or IP registry don't automatically translate to guns, because it's more complicated than just saying "registries are bad".

How exactly does a registry reduce gun trafficking?
Makes it more difficult for guns to get diverted to criminal markets. Also makes it easier to trace guns used in crimes, detect straw purchasers, etc.

How do you plan on implementing and maintaining this almost no-cost federal registry? What is your definition of "almost no-cost"?
Here I mean "cost" in the general sense of costs versus benefits rather than any specific amount of money. For example, an outright ban on handguns would have greater benefits in terms of violence reduction than just a registry, but it would also come at a higher overall cost in that it would actually prevent people from owning handguns.

[oneshooter]

9. The Police are civilians, unless you want them under federal law.

"How do you expect LEOs to defend themselves against criminals with guns? Are they supposed to use their tasers and nightsticks and hope for the best?
By "without civilian gun ownership", I didn't mean the police.

Why are the police any different from other civilians? Do you intend to remove their weapons when they are off duty?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in texas

[DanTex]

11. I'm not advocating "no civilian gun ownership" as a policy position.

I'm just pointing out that, unlike, say, cars or computers, if there were no civilian gun ownership, things wouldn't be very different: less violence, but basically society would function the same way it does now. The point being that civilian gun ownership doesn't really play a very important role in society, like computers and cars do.

But it's just a thought experiment, not a policy proposal. If there weren't any bowling lanes things wouldn't be that different either. That doesn't mean I want to get rid of bowling.

[PavePusher]

10. So you want to ignore the Second Amendment and the Fourth....

and create a police state at the same time.

Is this truely what passes for "progressive" or "democratic" these days?

[DanTex]

12. Sorry, I don't follow...

I don't recall advocating a police state, or ignoring any amendments. Just voicing my support for a handgun registry. Not sure how you get "police state" from that. Sounds like hyperbole to me.

[ellisonz]

16. It's like the Gungeon...

...has it's own hyperbole plant. They mass produce the shit here! Well at least until the police state comes and takes it away.

[gejohnston]

18. read closer

-Federal 'Arsenal' license
--- for >20 firearms or >1k rounds (yes, even 22lr)
--- 'may issue' permission from CLEO req'd
--- fingerprints
--- $300 / 3 years
--- subject to all restrictions of an FFL- unannounced 'inspections' and all

unannounced inspections in private residences=police state.

[ellisonz]

19. Like I've been saying...

...you have no individual right to own a firearm. You have a right to serve in "a well-regulated Militia."

[gejohnston]

20. yes and there is

right to privacy under the 4A, because you like the PATRIOT Act.
Please explain and back up your understanding 2A.

[ellisonz]

21. Oh I've done that a dozen times already...

...I'm not going to rehash arguments you were a part of at your pleasure. You've got to admit, at least I'm consistent...

[gejohnston]

22. consistent yeah

but the arguments are, ummmmmmmmmmm
Let's just say you should have taken a critical thinking class.

[ellisonz]

23. Let's just say...

...that when you resort to insults you automatically lose - "Let's just say you should have taken a critical thinking class."

[gejohnston]

28. not intended as an insult

kind of an honest observation. Your side's arguments are almost entirely based on logical fallacies.

[ellisonz]

29. That's your opinion. n/t

[ileus]

25. How is it that I the individual have a firearm then? And they're sold and taxed by our government?

How is it that my state allowed me to gain a permit to carry something I have not right to own in the first place?

How can I go down to the LGS and buy whatever I desire?

How can I buy a 200 tax stamp and buy full autos?



There seems to be a problem with your statement.

[ellisonz]

27. lol

just lol

[beevul]

30. Deny this reality all you like.

"Like I've been saying...you have no individual right to own a firearm."

In some other reality where you call the shots, I'm sure thats meaningful. Or something.

Supreme court precedent says otherwise, however, in this reality.

Guess which is legally binding and which isn't, in this reality.


Make sure you go to LBN/GD and protest the fact US vs Jones wouldn't have been decided the way it was without that same "right wing majority" that decided heller, right after you repeat some nonsense about Burger, wont you?

[ellisonz]

36. Whatever.

[beevul]

39. Lawl.

[PavePusher]

32. Empirical evidence demonstrates otherwise.

Your refusal to acknowledge reality is troubling.

[ellisonz]

34. And your refusal to employ reason...

...is equally troubling because it falls into a trap of denying humanity.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

[PavePusher]

35. I deny nothing about humanity.

I fully recognize that there are bad people who prey on good people and the good people need all the advantages/equalizers they can get.

Or are you offering to provide security for me?

[ellisonz]

37. Are you offering effective gun control...

...to reduce that necessity or are you and your tribe doing everything they can to obstruct and oppose progress?

I think I'll side of the people not pushing guns to make a quick buck.


By John Cole, The Scranton Times-Tribune - 6/29/2010

[PavePusher]

38. If i see some "effective gun control", I'll be sure to let everyone know.

In the mean time, I do not place my trust in criminals.

[liberal_biker]

41. Could you be so kind....

...as to point out exactly where my right to be armed is taken away? I have been over both my state and the US Constitution and I am unable to see anything which supports your assertion. I've also reviewed quite a lot of case law both in the State of Texas as well as the US Supreme Court and see no case law to support your view either.

My right to serve in a militia is more like a duty when called upon. My individual right to be armed seems to be quite intact.

[ellisonz]

46. Depends how you define "infringed" in context.

[liberal_biker]

47. Hm...not really.

Infringed only has one definition according to Webster's:

1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>

I fail to see how you could possibly interpret it to mean anything else.

[TupperHappy]

45. the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Funny. I don't see anything about a "right to serve in 'a well-regulated Militia'" in any of that.

[krispos42]

54. There are three entities in the 2nd Amendment

the state
the people
the militia.

"the people" means "the people", i.e., an individual.

Article 1, Section 2: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States...

Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble...

Amendment 2: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

Amendment 4: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Amendment 17: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof...

...That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct...




Go ahead, explain how "the people" in the other parts of the Constitution refer to a collective right, and how that works in real life with the 1st, 9th, 17 Amendments and Art. 1 Sec. 2.

[SteveW]

74. What you've been saying is wrong. Again.

The Supreme Court has merely affirmed what most scholars of the Second have known since its inception: The individual has a right to keep and bear arms; the militia is only the Federal government's staking of interest in the right of the people; i.e., it is duty-bound to organize a militia. The individual right is not conditioned by the secondary militia clause, but serves the need for militia.

[PavePusher]

31. You advocated ending civilian gun ownership (except, of course, for police...

and, by extension, other government agents) which would violate the Second and Fourth Amendments, and create a society in which only the government and the criminals (and there's a depressing overlap there) would be armed. You then went on to say that that "things wouldn't be very different: less violence, but basically society would function the same way it does now."

Wow. It's obvious that you either haven't thought this through, or are purposely ignoring the obvious consequences (and most of history). I'd have said "unintended consequences", but I have come to believe that you actually do intend the chaos, crime and oppression that would certainly ensue. I don't know why; the Middle Ages were a pretty brutal time. You should study them.

[DanTex]

40. I did not advocate ending civilian gun ownership.

If you read my post a little more closely, I'm sure you can figure that out. I brought it up as a thought experiment, to point out that guns really aren't all that important. And yes, I most certainly do believe that "things wouldn't be very different: less violence, but basically society would function the same way it does now." The point being that, if you suddenly ended civilian ownership of cars or computers, society would grind to a halt. If you suddenly ended civilan gun ownership, not much would change.

The idea that "chaos, crime, and oppression would certainly ensue" is just more of the same childish hyperbole. There are plenty of countries with minimal civilan gun ownership (i.e. UK, Japan), and what they experience is exactly as I described: less homicide, but otherwise not too much is different. The Middle Ages, of course, were a completely different time, and the brutality had absolutely nothing to do with the lack of guns in civilian hands.

Regarding your jab that I should do more studying, I'll say this. You arguments remind me a lot of some of die-hard creationists I met once from one of those fundamentalist universities. In order to maintain their belief in creationism, they had learned sort of a whole alternate worldview, in which the fossil record was an accident, and carbon dating was flawed, and all that. It was kind of funny the amount of effort that went into constructing this fantasy world, all for the sake of preserving the treasured religious beliefs.

And so it is with you and a lot of the pro-gunners here. There's a whole parallel universe, in which the brutality of the Middle Ages is attributed to lack of civilian gun ownership, and a handgun registry is tantamount to a "police state", and all of the academic studies about gun violence coming from top research universities are the result of some "anti-gun" bias. To people outside the NRA bubble, this stuff is patently absurd.

[TheWraith]

13. No, it doesn't. The hyperbole here is from you.

Unless you really believe that possessing a firearm is the same thing as possessing NERVE GAS.

"And on the other hand, while guns take a heavy toll on society in terms of gun violence and homicide, they don't provide benefits anywhere near to what cars or computers do."

Says you. Chances are, you'd find disagreement from the couple million people who defended themselves with a gun in the past year, or the people who hunt for food, or the millions who realize that your evaluation of the "benefits" does not constitute a valid judgment on their lives and actions.

"Without civilian gun ownership, not too much would change, except for less people getting killed."

Actually, that's contrary to established evidence. Case in point, England, which after they banned civilian ownership of guns saw their murder rate stay exactly the same. But they did see a continued spike in petty crime, assault, and home burglaries, since said criminals could now be completely assured that their targets couldn't resist.

"laws like a handguns registry would be helpful in terms of reducing gun trafficking, while imposing almost no cost at all on law-abiding gun owners."

Except that, again, actual experience has proven that to be simply false. For one thing, most crime guns are stolen. For another, handgun registration has never been shown to be effective in preventing or solving crimes proportional to the amount of money it costs. And yes, it does impose a cost, in the range of millions of dollars a year. Here in New York, the cost to the owner averages $200. In places, that goes as high as $500.

[DanTex]

17. The purpose of the nerve gas example was to point out the error in your argument.

Here's what I said:

The problem with the argument is that it has no sense of degree. The exact same argument, in the exact same words, could be made against any kinds of regulations of anything. Just replace the words "a modern firearm" with, say "military grade explosives" or "machine guns" or "nerve gas"...

As you can see, I was clearly not suggesting that guns are "the same thing" as nerve gas. I was pointing out the flaw in your argument, which compared a gun registry and having your browsing history logged, charging $1000 for a PC license, etc. Of course a gun is different from nerve gas, which is different from a computer, which is different from a car, etc. This is why I went on to say that "the appropriate degree of regulation for any kind of object depends on a lot of specifics."

At least in this last post, you are approaching the problem in a more rational way, by weighing costs and benefits, rather than drawing hyperbolic analogies to insist that gun control represents some kind of totalitarian police state.

Unfortunately, it seems as though your judgement here is heavily influenced by misleading and flatly incorrect claims found in pro-gun advocacy literature. For example, your claim that 2 million people defend themselves each year with a gun comes from a study which is quite severely flawed, and has since been refuted several times over by multiple groups of researchers. You will find this 2M statistic in pro-gun talking points, but you wont find too many gun violence experts who believe the DGU number is anywhere near 2M.

Since you bring up England, it is useful to point out that, among developed nations, the United States has by far the most permissive gun laws and also by far the highest rates of gun violence and homicide. And when I say "by far" I mean, well, "by far". Now, I'm sure you would argue that this is just coincidence, that there are other explanations. And you would be right to an extent: there are a lot of other factors that contribute to rates of homicide and violent crime, however, there is little doubt that gun availability is a factor as well, at least when it comes to lethal crime. Probably the most significant effect that comes from easy access to guns is that crime becomes more lethal. If you compare internationally, you won't find that the US has uniquely high rates of crime across the board, just homicide, and gun homicide specifically.

But the case for stricter gun laws is not just based on the international comparisons -- for example, studies looking at data across counties and states in the US have also found a link between gun availability and homicide. The thing is, the fact that gun availability is a contributing factor in rates of gun violence and homicide does not mean that every time gun laws are tightened, you will see an immediate drop in crime. Because there are many factors at play, it is necessary to look at the data systematically in order to draw valid statistical conclusions. And this is as opposed to the kind of anecdotal reasoning that you employ, for example, in your analysis of the situation in England, where you simply try to fish for statistics that might fit your narrative.

[PavePusher]

33. A point of correction...

"Case in point, England, which after they banned civilian ownership of guns..." Not quite the case, but close when compared to the U.S. They banned almost all civilian possesion and use of handguns; semi-auto and pump rifles and shotguns severely regulated.

[beevul]

15. False assumptions lead to false conclusions.

"The fact of the matter is that the appropriate degree of regulation for any kind of object depends on a lot of specifics. Take cars, for example. Not only must every car be registered, but every car has a unique license plate on it so that any police officer or security camera can easily determine which car it is, and then by database lookup, determine who that car belongs to. But if you try to argue that this is "draconian" and comparable to complete electronic surveillance ("having your browsing history logged", "all websites will be federally censored", " all your phone calls be recorded in a central database&quot you will rightfully be laughed at."

False assumption number one:

"Not only must every car be registered, but every car has a unique license plate on it so that any police officer or security camera can easily determine which car it is, and then by database lookup, determine who that car belongs to."

The above statement is patently false. No, contrary to your mistaken belief, every car in America is not required to be registered. In fact, in the great majority of places, one can OWN as many cars as one disires without licensing them, registering them, or putting plates on them.

One must license, register, and plate them, for USE in PUBLIC, not on private property, and not generally speaking, simply to own them.

So theres your false conclusion.


"And on the other hand, while guns take a heavy toll on society in terms of gun violence and homicide, they don't provide benefits anywhere near to what cars or computers do. Without computers or cars, society would simply grind to a halt. Without civilian gun ownership, not too much would change, except for less people getting killed. "

This is an assumption on your part. Sure, you believe it, but can you prove it?

Specifically, can you prove that privately owned firearms take more lives than they save?

"So the question is how to rationally balance the benefits of guns with the very real costs. Focusing only on the "gun rights" misses the point. And, insisting that a handgun registry is a violation of privacy comparable to having your phone tapped or browser history submitted to the government is just plain silly. In the end, you need to weigh costs and benefits, and laws like a handguns registry would be helpful in terms of reducing gun trafficking, while imposing almost no cost at all on law-abiding gun owners."

First you'd have to be willing to accept that there ARE benefits to guns. Are you?

Second, you'd have to be willing to objectively quantify those benefits. Are you?

Third, until such time as the um..."gun reformers" (rofl, they still haven't figured out that rebranding/repackaging doesn't fool anyone) become trustworthy, the club they would like to beat gun owners with - government - isn't going to be given the go ahead to swing. Many people and groups on your side of the issue have made very plain, and crystal clear, where they'd take things.

And thats just not going to be forgotten.

Fourth, like it or not, some folks feel that rule of law applies to everyone, even government. There is nothing dishonest, disingenuous, or insincere, about people who hold that view expecting government to respect its limitations, and the laws that bind it.

[sylveste]

24. i own

two unregistered cars right now, nary a license plate in sight.

[pipoman]

50. Can you cite a single example

in any society which has dramatically reduce civilian gun ownership (and there are many) which has actually resulted in "less people getting killed"? The fact is that some deaths are likely averted, but the inability of civilian self defense emboldens criminals and results in overall higher crime rates.

[DanTex]

58. Actually there is no evidence that lower gun ownership emboldens criminals and...

...results in higher overall crime rates. This is just an empty talking point.

There was, briefly, a time when it looked like there may have been data to back this talking point. This is when an economist named John Lott produced a few studies supporting the "more guns, less crime" hypothesis. For example, Lott's work is the basis for the often repeated (but false) claim that states that turn to shall-issue CCW laws experience a drop in crime. But then other researchers attempted to reproduce the results and were unable to, and it turns out that Lott's results were due to data errors and flaws in the statistical methodology.

On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that higher gun ownership results in more homicide. For starters, there is the fact that the US has by far the highest homicide rate in the developed world, due to gun homicides. Try as you might, that fact is difficult to ignore.

Beyond that, there are various kinds of statistical studies available. For example, here is one study that looked at changes over time in gun ownership rates as well as homicide rates at the county-by-county level in the US, and estimated that, on average, each additional 10,000 handgun owning households leads to between 1 and 3 additional homicides, and between 6 and 18 additional assault-related gunshot injuries.
http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPubE_guns_2006FINAL.pdf

[pipoman]

65. So then,

you can't "cite a single example in any society which has dramatically reduce civilian gun ownership (and there are many) which has actually resulted in "less people getting killed"."

On the other hand you are attempting to make the fictitious claim 'more guns equal more crime'. I would think this position would be abandoned since the violent crime rate has been dropping for 20 years yet gun sales, people carrying guns and guns owned by individuals has increased dramatically during the same time.

[DanTex]

66. I guess you didn't read my post.

I cited a detailed study which looked at changes in gun ownership and homicide at state and county levels right here in the US, and concluded that drops in gun ownership most definitely did result in lest people getting killed. I also pointed out that if you compare across developed nations you find a significant correlation between gun ownership and homicide. I don't know why I'm repeating all this, because you're probably just going to ignore it again and keep repeating false talking points that you picked up on some gun blog, but there it is.

Like most pro-gunners your facts are completely wrong, and you are entirely unfamiliar with the body of social science literature on gun violence. Gun ownership rates have actually dropped substantially over the last 20 years, despite what the NRA would have you believe. Moreover, just looking at the changes in gun ownership and crime rates at the national level is a very poor way of measuring the relationship between the two, because there just aren;t enough data points and a lot of factors affect crime rates. That's why it is important to look at the data at a more local and detailed level, and do a thorough, controlled statistical analysis, like that study I cited.

In short, given the statistical evidence that is available at this point, it is really difficult to be intellectually honest and also deny that there is a link between gun ownership and homicide rates. There may have been a brief time when this was possible, as I mentioned, before it became clear that John Lott's research was so severely flawed, but by now these things I clear. There's a lot more evidence out there than what you find on gun blogs.

[Clames]

69. It's actually very easy to ignore...

...a fact that isn't a fact.

For starters, there is the fact that the US has by far the highest homicide rate in the developed world, due to gun homicides. Try as you might, that fact is difficult to ignore.

Russia has a far higher homicide rate.

[DanTex]

70. Russia is not a developed nation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

Of course, Russia is a favorite example of pro-gunners of a country with strict gun laws and high homicide. But, obviously, Russia is lawless and crime-ridden for reasons that have nothing to do with gun laws, the same as for the other favorite pro-gunner example, Mexico.

To reach a fair and meaningful comparison, it is necessary to compare among nations that are roughly similar in other ways. Now, no two nations are identical, but developed nations have much more in common with each other than the US does with Russia.

And I think you'd agree with me about this if the topic weren't guns. If I were to point out that the US spends more per capita on health care and achieves equal or worst healthcare delivery than other developed nations, almost all of which have some form of universal healthcare, you'd probably agree that this is a worthwhile piece of evidence to take into account in the healthcare debate. But if some right-winger were to come along and argue that Russia and Mexico also have government provided healthcare, and lag far behind the US in terms of life expectancy, infant mortality, etc., I imagine you'd see the flaw in that argument right away.

[Clames]

77. Your own link...

...states Russia is rated as "High" in terms of developmental standards so you a quite wrong no matter how you spin it. Of course I don't expect rational or factual discourse here on this subject from you. Also, having worked in, and been subjected to, the health care of what you considered developed nations I'd say the US is doing a fair enough job. Go visit England, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, Spain, and even Kosovo for a few years then we'll see what you have to say when you have some practical experience to work with.

[benEzra]

78. Then you fail to understand how far-out "Brady II"/S.1878 was.

A six-round limit would ban the majority of rifles and handguns in the United States, including popular rifles going back to the early 1860s, and pistols going back to the 1890s. Would you be OK with "antiterrorism" legislation that shut down 75% of the Internet?

We do have very tight controls on rapid-fire weapons, large-bore weapons, disguised firearms, etc. That wasn't what Brady II was about. That bill was about banning as many legal guns as possible in order to marginalize the lawful gun culture.

Thing is, had it passed, the backlash would have dwarfed the one against the 1994 Feinstein law, which didn't even ban any guns and only raised magazine prices.

[ManiacJoe]

26. Reasonable: that word does not mean what you think it does.

[krispos42]

52. And if this bill had passed...

...should registered Democrats that were gun owners stayed with the Democratic Party?

Would registered Democrats that were gun owners have stayed with the Democratic Party?


Would registered Republicans and Independents that were gun owners joined the Democratic Party as a result of this? How about non-gun-owners?

Would non-politically-active people that owned guns be more inclined to join the political process? If so, which party would they likely join?

Would non-politically-active people that didn't own guns be more inclined to join the political process? If so, which party would they likely join?

[ileus]

4. All that and the poor stupid bastards bill wouldn't have any effect on criminals.

but they knew that....targeting criminals is never their true intention.

How very European of them, I suppose if you can't just kill a human right, cripple it.

[Union Scribe]

7. By its stupid definition of firearm and arsenal

You could have one gun with some parts and a bunch of mags and it'd be called an arsenal!

What a steaming bunch of garbage.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

14. A stinker indeed.

Seems like a good distraction from/compromise bait for the AWB.

[krispos42]

53. So, unlike universal-single-payer health care...

...corporatist Dems are willing to go to the far edge at the start of negotiations in order to achieve a middle ground.



Interesting how they want the country to look. A disarmed country being sucked dry by the top 1‰.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

60. Sounds like brigandage to me. ;) n/t

[Pacafishmate]

42. Thankfully a pile of shit bill like this would no longer be possible to implement.

Not only because of lack of political support ,but because "assault rifles" are becoming popular civilian weapons. I wonder how much money it would take to compensate all the current owners of the guns that the antis want banned.

[ileus]

43. passing a shitbox bill like this would be like 1994 all over again for our side.

Only I don't think we could ever recover again.

[liberal_biker]

44. Pretty safe bet

Not only would we not recover, I suspect a lot of us might be so disgusted as to switch teams...

[Simo 1939_1940]

48. <<SHIVER>> NT

[pipoman]

49. The history gun control enthusasts wish to forget..

This bill, brady 1 and the debate surrounding them have a very interesting history ignored or forgotten by many people. As this bill was being created the rise of the early 90's militia movement was gaining momentum. Militia types are (and always have been) around, historically fringe in very small numbers. In the 90's, in the time brady 1 and this bill was being drafted, the numbers shot up and began moving out of the fringe. Small groups sprang up in every single state, among the activists were people who were much more mainstream..business owners, locals, even local law enforcement. People began stocking up on guns and ammo in quantities never before seen. The final version of Brady 1 was accepted reluctantly by many pro 2nd types, if the gun control advocates would have been satisfied with Brady 1, this is likely where the story would have ended, but alas....

On the continuum of activism and call to arms, the line which motivates people usually is quite far to the right. That line began moving left as brady 2 was being debated and drafted. It was still mainly populated by rightwingers, but people who usually are simply right thinkers began becoming involved in these militia movements, even liberal civil libertarians became more vocal and were moving right on this issue. The militia movement was in the news and was criticized, belittled, and ignored by gun control advocates, the media, and gun control legislators. The fact that the numbers of motivated people becoming involved in militias was increasing meant that those who sympathized with the movement, even though not directly involved, also swelled dramatically. Still the opposition to this bill was being ignored by those who were trying to 'fast track' this bill into law. Several small groups or individuals who were on the right edge of the movement began taking action in relatively small ways..local standoffs with police, defiance of existing laws, etc. Then, as this bill was being moved forward, in April 1995, the OKC bombing occurred. The connection was made between McVeigh and the Michigan Militia, even though McVeigh wasn't actually a member of any militia. The legislators, and President Clinton finally took note of the extremity of the opposition to this bill and the bill lost support. McVeigh was a wacko right wing, no doubt, but he represented the extreme right of the opposition and actually had sympathizers. It was apparent that this bill was goiung to continue to incite violence and electoral opposition.

This is the most recent example I can think of where our government was reminded who is boss and the consequences of pushing authoritarianism beyond an acceptable point.

[DanTex]

51. In other words, at the core of the "gun rights" movement are terrorists like Tim McVeigh...

...and right-wingers who sympathise with him.

And by the way, acts of domestic terrorism are have nothing to do with "reminding the government who is boss". Tim McVeigh and his sympathizers are exactly 0% better than Osama Bin Laden and his. I hope you're not actually suggesting that it is good for the government to let threats of terrorism dissuade them from passing legislation that is opposed by a violent fringe.

[gejohnston]

55. that's like saying

the Weather Underground was the core of the anti-war movement.

[pipoman]

56. Really? That is what you came away with?

Behind the "violent fringe" is always, in every sociological model, attitudes and opinions ranging from agreement with the violent fringe's cause, to opposing it vehemently. Usually, the violent fringe is ostracized by society, at times of perceived government overstepping, the mean on the continuum which ranges from violent fringe on the far right (or far left on some issues..see animal rights groups) to activists opposing the violent fringe on the far left (or right depending on the issue) of the continuum. When the mean shifts, in the case of this issue, to the right, more people who were previously left of center on the continuum shift to right of center. This is the same model on every issue and every Presidential election, a shifting of the mean attitude or opinion of the candidates, the political climate, and the activity of the opposing movement. Is violent fringe good? Like it or not the violent fringe is here to stay, if the balance of opposition vs. sympathizers shifts toward the "violent fringe", this is the signals which reign in government or cause it to take action in response to the movement...which is necessary and good

[DanTex]

57. The violent fringe is not good.

By the way, fringe right-wingers get riled up about a lot of things. Because you are opposed to gun control, you have managed to put some kind of positive spin on the domestic terrorism of the 90's, like it put the government in it's place.

Of course, more recently, the thing that has upset the right-wing fringe is that we have an African-American president whose middle name is Hussein. Should we interpret this as a signal of "overstepping", and maybe this should be "reigned in", perhaps by discriminating against Muslims and immigrants? Would that be a "necessary and good" part of the process by which the violent right-wing fringe affects the course of our politics?

Or maybe we can agree that people who either sympathized with Tim McVeigh or participated in the thinly veiled racism that is the birther movement are despicable right-wing idiots. Let's not sugercoat the rise of domestic terrorists and hate groups as part of sociological model by which the government is kept in check. The rise of violent right-wing extremists is a bad thing.

[pipoman]

63. Apparently you are denying

that virtually every single issue of any significance has extremists. Therefore we really have nothing to talk about.

[DanTex]

71. It's a bit more complicated than that

Not all extremists turn to violence. And when extremists turn to violence and terrorism, the more mainstream members of a movement don't always try to sugarcoat the terrorism as a check on government overreach the way that you attempted to do.

On certain issues today -- guns and abortion come mind -- it is simply impossible to argue the "both sides" line. People on the far left of these issues simply don't advocate, threaten, or employ violence anywhere near the amount that people on the far right do. Not only that, but even more mainstream pro-gunners and pro-lifers tend towards incendiary and violent rhetoric in a way that pro-controllers and pro-choicers don't.

On top of that, the mainstream right on these issues often takes a line similar to the one you are pushing towards these acts of violence and terrorism by extremists. For example, they'll often imply that "Tiller the baby killer" somehow had it coming. Or that Tim McVeigh was an extremist, sure, but that sort of violence is just the result of the "people" pushing back against "government overreach" and the government should fear the people blah blah blah...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

59. "terrorists like Tim McVeigh" are at the radical extreme...

...of the gun rights group. Those types take a one dimensional, black and white view of their issues.

Thinking that McVeigh types are in any way representative of gun rights types is like thinking that the fringe 911 conspiracy folks are in somehow typical of a mainstream group.

You may as well say that the Westboro Baptist Church is a the core of the Christian movement.

[DanTex]

61. True, McVeigh is a radical extreme.

Nevertheless, the "gun rights" movement is an extremist right-wing movement which makes widespread use of incendiary anti-government rhetoric, stuff like "second amendment solutions" and "watering the tree of liberty", etc. But, yes, there is a difference between violent rhetoric and actual terrorism, obviously.

I can't personally testify to how widespread sympathy for Tim McVeigh runs among hardcore pro-gunners. However, keep in mind I was responding to a post that claimed that the McVeigh, his sympathizers, and the general rise of violent militias in the 90s played a role in limiting the amount of gun control that is passed: "It was apparent that this bill was going to continue to incite violence and electoral opposition." If pipoman is right about this, that the threat of violence played a role in limiting gun control legislation, then this means that essentially by definition the gun rights movement made successful use of the tactic of domestic terrorism: by engaging in violent acts against civilians, and threatening even more violence if certain political demands weren't met, they managed to alter the course of policy.

I'd draw a comparison here between pro-gunners and anti-abortionists. There are are plenty of people who oppose abortion but don't threaten or shoot abortion doctors, and don't harass women outside of abortion clinics. And yet the extremist fringes of the anti-abortion movement have, sadly, had an effect on the availability of abortion services to women. As such, it's hard to argue that the anti-abortion movement is not a violent movement, given that some of its "successes" have come through violence, and also given that the more mainstream parts of the movement don't really go out of their way to repudiate the violence, and often can be found fueling the anger and hatred that drives extremists to violence. Witness, for example, Bill O'Reilly's FOX piece on "Tiller the Baby Killer".

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

62. We should ask...

...if this:

...the threat of violence played a role in limiting gun control legislation...

...was what he intended to communicate.

[pipoman]

64. Not just the threat of violence..

the threat of violence alone is ostracized by everyone. It is sympathizers, people who agree strongly, and people who make voting decisions shifting, which results in political action.

"...the threat of violence played a role in limiting gun control legislation..."

It did play a role. Violence by anti war radicals on the left played a role in the political action taken to end Vietnam too...they had non-conspiratorial sympathizers, people who agreed strongly and people who shifted to their side of the argument at the ballot box..it took all to effect change. There are many examples of shifting support for parties, candidates and policy which has extremists..on both sides of the isle.

[friendly_iconoclast]

73. That reminds me of a (possibly apocryphal) quote from Malcolm X:

"People talk to Martin Luther King because they don't want to talk to me". I've noticed the same sorts of thing with ADAPT:

http://www.adapt.org/

People that would never dream of particpating in a blockade or other civil disobedience have become "sympathizers, people who agree strongly, and people who make voting decisions shifting".

[krispos42]

67. An interesting question

If terrorism is widely supported... it is terrorism? "Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason."


If the people in government have absolutely nothing to fear in terms of violent uprising from the people they govern because the populace abhors anything but transformation within the political system... what will the people in government do?



However, the core of "gun rights" is not McVeigh. The core of the anti-government movement is. The problem is that civilian disarmament is a major red flag warning of an oppressive government, and the perception is that when a government undertakes a major step to disarm the population, something is wrong.

By "disarm" I mean undertaking measures to reduce the number of guns per capita, and reduce the average number of cartridges per gun in existence. This is broad, of course, but it could mean licensing, fees, waiting periods, deliberately insufficient staffing, registration, limits on number of guns owned, limits on ammunition purchases, outlawing certain calibers, etc.

For example, some countries prohibit owning any firearms in any caliber that was used by any major military in the last century. So you can't own anything in 5.56 NATO, 5.45 Soviet, 7.62 NATO, 7.62 Russian, 7.62 Short Russian, .30-06, .303 British, 9mm Luger, .45 ACP, etc.



Now, as the US population slowly urbanized, gun ownership was slowly decreasing. However, the frantic panic of "assault weapons" turned attention to these firearms, and people became interested in purchasing them as they knew more about them. More powerful than a pistol, and faster shooting than a bolt-action hunting rifle, people began purchasing them for home-defense reasons as well as hunting and plinking.

[DanTex]

68. The problem with that argument is that this is a preposterous statement:

civilian disarmament is a major red flag warning of an oppressive government

That's just right-wing hyperbole, similar to, and generally voiced by the same people who also say things like this:
--The rise of Barack Hussein Obama is a major red flag warning for the coming imposition of Sharia Law
--Gay rights and easy access to abortion are major red flag warning for the loss of common morality and the breakdown of society
--Obamacare is a major red flag warning for a transformation to a Stalinist command economy
All of these statements, including this idea that gun control is some form of government oppression, are the stuff that right-wing fearmongering is made of. And there are also parallels in terms of the rise of right-wing hate groups and violence.

If we were talking about, say, the assassination of Dr Tiller, I hope you wouldn't try and whitewash it with the same "the government must fear the people" nonsense.

In a democracy, the government should fear getting elected out of office. They shouldn't fear for their lives. Members of congress should not have to worry that if the vote to raise taxes on the wealthy to provide healthcare for the needy, that some right-wing crazy is going to smash the windows of their offices, threaten their families, or maybe even worse. That's terrorism.

And they also shouldn't have to fear that if they take steps to try to reduce the epidemic of gun violence in this country, and try to get homicide rates down in line with the rest of the civilized world, that some right-wing crazy is going blow up a building. That's also terrorism.

[ileus]

72. They don't have to fear, they only need to work within the laws they already have.

There are plenty of laws on the books to curb the object, they need to work from the human perspective from here on out.

The "they" you speak of are our elected officials, not a mass bilderberg group that doesn't have to answer to anyone for their actions. "they've" have to be gently reminded from time to time at the polls that limiting our rights to make themselves feel better isn't acceptable. It's that reminder at the polls that they fear, not the common firearm owning American. We've gave up way too much on this right already.

[Straw Man]

75. Nice associational fallacy.

That's just right-wing hyperbole, similar to, and generally voiced by the same people who also say things like this:
--The rise of Barack Hussein Obama is a major red flag warning for the coming imposition of Sharia Law
--Gay rights and easy access to abortion are major red flag warning for the loss of common morality and the breakdown of society
--Obamacare is a major red flag warning for a transformation to a Stalinist command economy
All of these statements, including this idea that gun control is some form of government oppression, are the stuff that right-wing fearmongering is made of. And there are also parallels in terms of the rise of right-wing hate groups and violence.

Right-wing fearmongers sometimes also say "It rained yesterday." Does that mean it didn't?

[krispos42]

76. It's not preposterous

Look around the world... there are plenty of highly oppressive governments. In fact, I'd wager at least a dollar that far more people live under oppressive governments than not.

There is false equivalency which is used by the right-wingers, there is no doubt. But wondering all why all of a sudden the government wants to disarm everybody? The most worrying answer is that they plan to do something very unpopular and don't want resistance. Especially when there are other crime-reduction strategies that can be performed. More cops, more community policing, more conflict-resolution, drug legalization, etc.

Naturally, civilian disarmament is only one aspect of this, but it's a big one.


But worry about Sharia law as it pertains to Obama requires believe in absurd, small-scale, and easily-disprovable "facts". Which is the opposite of the inner workings of government and the private meetings and plans of the rich and powerful.

Gay rights, abortion and the breakdown of morality is really about the failure of "christian" morality to retain quite so tight a hold on government... it's really about the huge majority complaining about not being able to dominate like they feel they're entitled to.


The problem of legislators and the president worried about being voted out of office is a pretty big one. With the entrenched 2-party system, the gerrymandering of congressional districts, and the revolving door between congresscritters (and their staffers) and Big Lobbying, the thread simply isn't there. Even in a year of big turnover, the re-election rate is something like 90% in Congress.

I know what some of the solutions are, but I also know they're not going to be implemented, which leaves us... where?


"And they also shouldn't have to fear that if they take steps to try to reduce the epidemic of gun violence in this country..."

But they should fear backlash when they tread upon our rights. I'll also note that gun violence is at 50 year lows, as is non-gun violence. I'd much rather the Democrats spend their political capital on fixing income inequality, which would also reduce gun violence as part of reducing ALL violence.

I'll finally note that things like the AWB were not about trying to "reduce the epidemic of gun violence", since the weapons targeted were not commonly used in crimes. It was about a heavy-handed attempt to change the culture by targeting something the politicians just didn't like.

[ileus]

79. The 2A had dodged a lot of bad laws over they years....the worst may be yet to come.