Special Report: Bloomberg reloads in push for gun control

[DanTex]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/04/us-usa-bloomberg-guns-idUSTRE8130BJ20120204

(Reuters) - Among the slick, million-dollar ads for the likes of Pepsi and Honda during the Super Bowl this Sunday, viewers in New York and Boston will see a far more modest spot. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino will be sitting on a couch touting an issue most politicians avoid like the plague: gun control.

The two mayors, whose local teams face off in the big game, are making the pitch for Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), the organization they co-founded in 2006.

...

"We have to face the fact that both Democrats and Republicans have for a while viewed this as the third rail of American politics," said John Feinblatt, who helps run MAIG as Bloomberg's chief advisor for policy and strategic planning. (Bloomberg is an independent; Menino is a Democrat.)

Democrats, who are more likely than Republicans to favor some restrictions on gun ownership, made a conscious decision to stay away from the gun issue in the 2010 midterm congressional elections. The aim: protect the so-called Blue Dog conservative Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives, who didn't toe the party line on gun control. Most were defeated anyway.

...

Given the strength of gun lobby, I can understand why some Dems have shied away from the issue. However, not just on guns, but on all issues where Dems have given ground in order to placate the crazies, it hasn't helped. We end up with less progressive policies, and then the right-wingers still vote Republican.

The vast majority of NRA types and "gun rights" extremists are going to vote Republican, regardless of how much ground Dems cede on gun control. In the same way that anti-abortion fanatics are going to vote Republican even if Dems give in on a women's right to choose. And "Club for Growth" libertarian types aren't going to start voting for Dems just because we abandon the fight against global warming.

Due to the strength of right-wing special interests, gun control is an uphill fight at this moment in this country, but I don't see any reason in principle why we should be able to get our rates of gun violence in line with places like Canada or the UK.

[PavePusher]

1. "...on all issues where Dems have given ground in order to placate the crazies, it hasn't helped."

Yeah, those falling crime rates.... it's turribel, I says, jest turribel. Won't someone think of the children?!?!

Now, to be sure, I'm not claiming a direct link between relaxing firearms restrictions and falling crime rates, but I have to ask: What, exactly, is it that you claim "isn't working"? Is there something we should be doing harder, faster and deeper?

[Callisto32]

2. Harder, better.....

[PavePusher]

3. Oh gawd.....

I just caught myself chair dancing.... Catchy tune!

[Callisto32]

5. Daft Punk.

Great electronica.

I would advise checking out "Aerodynamic" and "Voyager" as well.

[DanTex]

4. By "hasn't helped", I mean it hasn't helped politically.

It hasn't stopped the gun crazies from voting republican. My point is that trying to adopt Republican-lite politics doesn't actually help win over right-wingers like the NRA crowd. Obama has done basically nothing on gun control, and Wayne LaPierre is still going around talking about a conspiracy to take away everyone's guns and the gun crazies and teabaggers are lapping it up.

Of course, gun policy also hasn't helped much in terms of gun violence, but that's a different debate. Crime is down across the board for reasons that have little to do guns. And, despite this drop, in terms of homicide and gun violence, the US is still far away number one among developed nations.

Actually, the drop in gun ownership that has occurred since the early 90's is probably responsible for a small amount of the drop in homicide over the same period, and arguably the Brady Bill helped there as well. But there are many factors that contribute to crime rates, and gun availability is just one of them. In fact, the biggest effect of gun availability is to increase homicide specifically, rather than crime rates across the board, because guns make crime more lethal.

[Callisto32]

6. I don't remember where, but doesn't data indicate...

that there are MORE gun owners now than in the early 90's?

[DanTex]

7. No

Gun ownership is down substantially. Here's a chart of GSS survey numbers on gun ownership, considered the most reliable source by social scientists:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/gun-ownership-hits-new-lo_b_854564.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Social_Survey

[Callisto32]

8. Fair enough.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

9. but, I thought that I had recently seen, a graph on here that showed

the exact opposite of that, in fact, personal and home ownership of guns had increased.

[Callisto32]

11. That is what I was referring to when I said.

I don't know where.

Frankly, I don't care enough right now (apathy fit) to look it up, but if others are more apt, I would be happy to come back and read data others post. I didn't to through the methodology of the survey posted, and intended to do so later, and come back in with a more formulated reply.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

12. the search fucntion on DU3 leaves a lot to be desired --

count me in on your apathy fit

[SteveW]

36. Here is the Gallup data:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

I hope the graphs show on your computer. They no longer show up (huge blank spaces) on mine. No pictures either.
There is another discussion out there in the ether which compares Gallup's methods with other surveys; I dread trying to re-locate that one myself.

[liberal_biker]

32. Even if it is down substantially.....

...does that in some way negate the right itself?


Last time I checked, atheists, Mithraists, those who worship Norse Gods and pastafarians were all pretty small portions of society. Does this somehow negate their right or religious freedom?

Surveys do not determine my rights. Thanks for trying. Now go back to the kiddie table and let the adults talk.

[SteveW]

37. Ve-e-e-lly interesting. And true. nt

[Straw Man]

10. The major flaw in your argument ...

The vast majority of NRA types and "gun rights" extremists are going to vote Republican, regardless of how much ground Dems cede on gun control.

... is your belief that the gun-owning public comprises "NRA types and 'gun rights' extremists" exclusively. I know that in your world everyone who opposes draconian gun control can be characterized that way; what you fail to realize is that there are many moderate Democrats who are none-of-the-above but are appalled at the anti-gun zealotry of some of the party's factions. There are also uncommitted voters who can be pushed into voting against their own best economic interests by what they rightly perceive as contempt for their lifestyle and an attack on one of their basic freedoms.

The fact that you can lump gun control in with things like global warming and the right to choose indicates a serious lack of perspective.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

13. yes, that sentence went down hard with me as well.

some of the phrasing chosen has a distinct odor of contempt for this Democrat.

[one-eyed fat man]

14. That's pretty much it

In the eyes of anti-gun, so-called "true Democrats" those of us who own guns are contemptible.

"We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that. If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime."

Vermont State Senator Mary Ann Carlson

"I don't believe gun owners have rights."

Sarah Brady, Hearst Newspapers Special Report "Handguns in America", October 1997

[Tuesday Afternoon]

16. those two women can kiss my ass.

[DanTex]

18. I don't equate gun ownership with gun extremism.

I'd hardly describe, for example, requiring background checks on all gun sales as "draconian", and yet this is something the NRA would decry with hyperbolic rhetoric about "freedom". And polls I've seen show that not just the majority of Americans, but the majority of gun owners support this and other common sense gun laws.

As far as lumping in gun control with global warming and abortion rights, well, obviously they are different issues. And yes, there are some anti-gun-control Dems, just like there are some Dems who are global warming skeptics, and there are some Dems who are pro-life. In fact, on any issue you pick, there are going to be some Dems or progressives who side with conservatives on that particular issue, and I'm not saying such people aren't "true Democrats".

But I think my point still stands, which is that most staunchly pro-gun people are conservatives, who are not going to vote for Democrats no matter how much the Dems cave on gun control. Likewise, most people who believe global warming is some kind of hoax against capitalism aren't going to be voting for Democrats even if we cave on limiting CO2 emissions. Etc.

[Straw Man]

19. Perhaps you were unaware ...

I'd hardly describe, for example, requiring background checks on all gun sales as "draconian", and yet this is something the NRA would decry with hyperbolic rhetoric about "freedom".

... that the NRA supported the NICS background check legislation. If you're talking about private sales, private citizens are not able to access the NICS system. Requiring sales between individuals to go through an FFL intermediary is an infringement of freedom -- one which you may think is worth it, but an infringement nonetheless.

When people put freedom in quotation marks, my blood runs cold. It indicates an attitude of unconcern for same.

[DanTex]

20. What indicates unconcern for freedom is trying to pretend that "gun rights"..

...have much at all to do with freedom. Political freedom is a very important thing, and when you try to attach "gun rights" to freedom, you devalue the latter. In the same way that libertarians devalue freedom by suggesting that, say, regulations on wall street banks are an infringement on freedom. Yes, in a sort of sophomoric way, even traffic lights are an infringement on freedom, but to conflate the "freedom" to buy a gun without a background check, or to ignore red lights, with important civil liberties like free speech is silly.

And this is why I argue that very few people would turn from Dem to Rep due to common sense gun laws like requiring background checks on private sales. You won't find many clear-thinking progressives who will defend the "right" to buy a gun without being subjected to a background check, or who would describe such a requirement as "draconian". This is extremist territory.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

22. Well Said

Agree.

[Straw Man]

23. Oh, you are very, very wrong.

What indicates unconcern for freedom is trying to pretend that "gun rights"..

...have much at all to do with freedom.

You are talking about an individual right that is not only protected by the Constitution but is emblematic of the right to defend one's person, which is the single most fundamental right of all human beings. To deny or infringe that right is the ultimate abrogation of human freedom.

Yes, in a sort of sophomoric way, even traffic lights are an infringement on freedom, but to conflate the "freedom" to buy a gun without a background check, or to ignore red lights, with important civil liberties like free speech is silly.

Traffic lights? Where did that straw man come from? Even Randian enlightened-self-interest drones would agree that traffic lights are beneficial to all concerned.

Maybe you have failed to notice that the majority of gun-rights proponents on this forum are in favor of background checks, and maybe you're ignoring my previous statement that the NRA itself supports the NICS system. I have no objection to background checks. I do have an objection to forcing people to pay a third party to oversee a private transaction to make sure that it is proceeding lawfully. There is already a restriction on selling firearms to prohibited persons. I would like to see a way for a private individual to verify the buyer's status on his or her own: opt-out firearms certifications on a driver's license, for example. I recognize that there's a balance to be struck between the needs of society and the rights of the individual. The resistance to restrictions on private sales comes primarily from those who fear the slippery slope, and who can blame them, especially given the constant reminders from such as yourself that this particular right is held in contempt in certain quarters.

And this is why I argue that very few people would turn from Dem to Rep due to common sense gun laws like requiring background checks on private sales.

Very few people that you know, perhaps. This is probably a function of the circles that you move in. You might be surprised at how many will also either not vote at all or vote Libertarian.

What other "common sense" restrictions are you proposing? Or is that it: the one that will satisfy the Prohibitionists once and for all? Pardon me if I have my doubts.

You won't find many clear-thinking progressives who will defend the "right" to buy a gun without being subjected to a background check, or who would describe such a requirement as "draconian". This is extremist territory.

Any true Scotsmen 'round your way? Clear-thinking ones?

When district attorneys stop plea-bargaining away gun charges of felons caught in possession of firearms; when the wealthy and powerful get in line for their handgun permits like everyone else; when celebrity hypocrites who campaign for gun control dispense with their armed bodyguards and walk the streets like everyone else; when the ATF stops conducting "investigations" that end up putting more guns in the hands of murderous criminals; when it is no longer possible to become an unwitting felon by making a wrong turn across a state line while driving, then come back and let's talk about "common sense" gun laws.

Perhaps you've encountered this quotation from George Orwell before:

The totalitarian states can do great things, but there is one thing they cannot do: they cannot give the factory-worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom. That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage, is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.

Extremist territory? Please ...

[DanTex]

26. I am very, very right!

You are talking about an individual right that is not only protected by the Constitution but is emblematic of the right to defend one's person, which is the single most fundamental right of all human beings. To deny or infringe that right is the ultimate abrogation of human freedom.

As far as the constitution, I think we both know that 2A was designed to protect militias and had nothing to do with carrying a gun for self defense. Unfortunately, its wording is ambiguous enough that it supports multiple plausible interpretations, the most right-wing of which extends the meaning of RKBA to civilian gun ownership outside of militia service, and given the current ideological makeup of the court, the recent 5-4 decisions on ideological lines on this topic (and others) are not too surprising.

But to argue that owning or carrying a gun is some kind of fundamental right is simply preposterous. Your choice of word "emblematic" -- i.e. symbolic -- here is appropriate. Yes, to some people a gun is a symbol of self-defense and personal security, but a symbol and a right are different things. The right to defend yourself means that if someone attacks you, you are not obligated to just sit there and get mauled. The right to personal safety and security means that people have the right not to be subjected to violence and crime.

Neither of these have anything to do with guns directly. You can argue that access to a gun improves one's ability to defend oneself (although there is very little evidence that this is true for most people) and you can also argue that lax gun laws result in higher rates of lethal violence, thus reducing safety and security (and here there is much more evidence). The point being that guns are a means to an end, and the appropriate amount of regulations on guns shouldn't be based on some kind of fundamentalist view of "gun rights" but rather on a rational analysis of what will actually best serve the safety needs of people in a society.

And it is difficult to argue rationally that society is better of with gun laws as lax as the US has right now. In fact, the inability to make a case on utilitarian grounds is precisely why the pro-gun side resorts to the "gun rights" argument. When faced with the fact, for example, that no other developed nation has rates of homicide and gun violence even near the US, attempting to deny that gun availability does, on net, lead to more death, particularly at the level of the US, is basically futile. But you can still try to argue that it is somehow worth enduring all this extra violence and death because "gun rights" are so important.

But "gun rights" are not so important. The primary justification is self-defense and personal safety (please spare me the talk of fighting off the forces of tyranny), so loosening gun laws to the point where the net effect is higher rates of lethal violence is completely self-defeating. Particularly when we're talking about things like requiring BCs on all gun sales, or registering handgun, or banning high-capacity magazines, or limiting bulk purchases of handguns and semi-auto rifles, or passing an federal law specifically against gun trafficking, things which really have basically no effect on law abiding citizens' ability to own guns for self-defense, and are only opposed on the dubious grounds of "gun rights" and "slippery slope".

[Straw Man]

28. No.

As far as the constitution, I think we both know that 2A was designed to protect militias and had nothing to do with carrying a gun for self defense.

No. We don't. We don't know that at all.

The right to defend yourself means that if someone attacks you, you are not obligated to just sit there and get mauled.

Unless you are disadvantaged in physical strength or available weaponry, in which case what? You sit there and take your mauling.

You can argue that access to a gun improves one's ability to defend oneself (although there is very little evidence that this is true for most people) ...

There is plenty -- you just choose to ignore it.

... and you can also argue that lax gun laws result in higher rates of lethal violence, thus reducing safety and security (and here there is much more evidence).

No -- in fact, there is evidence to the contrary. Again, you choose to ignore it.

Particularly when we're talking about things like requiring BCs on all gun sales, or registering handgun, or banning high-capacity magazines, or limiting bulk purchases of handguns and semi-auto rifles, or passing an federal law specifically against gun trafficking, things which really have basically no effect on law abiding citizens' ability to own guns for self-defense, and are only opposed on the dubious grounds of "gun rights" and "slippery slope".

Minus ten points for weasel words "really" and "basically."

You began with one demand -- universal background checks -- and now you have five. Slippery slope? I rest my case.

[TheWraith]

34. Keep insisting, maybe someday that'll make it true.

In the meantime, so long as you keep claiming things which are simply wrong, you're going to continue to get schooled. The reality is that the "militia rights" interpretation of the second amendment is a recently invented bit of propaganda to try and claim that somehow the second is the only amendment which does NOT define individual rights. The reality is that hundreds of years of law and jurisprudence has always held it as an individual right, as did the writings of the people who actually built the constitution.

The rest of your arguments are equally fact-free, like the claim that there's "very little evidence" that having a gun helps a person defend themselves, when even the LOWEST number anyone has ever produced cites at least a quarter of a million defensive gun uses per year, and more credible studies say around 2 million. Meanwhile there has never been a provable correlation to lax gun laws and high violence, a fact that if you want proof of, you should simply look at Vermont, which has the loosest gun laws in the country and a very low violent crime rate.

And on, and on. You really should educate yourself so you're not spreading false claims.

[DanTex]

40. Educate yourself...

There was a time when I would have written a long and detailed response showing just how every single piece of propaganda you picked up on that gun blog is totally wrong. It's like you guys all get your false information from the same place, and never think to pop your head out of the bubble and verify the propaganda with reality. Since I must have already corrected over a dozen NRAers on this board spewing the same tired talking points, I'll be brief. If you want more details, you'll have to do some searching yourself.

Re: the constitution. As I said, there is a degree of interpretation here, so I can't say that people with a right-wing take on 2A like you and Antonin Scalia are factually wrong. All I can say is that you are out of line with the historical evidence. Of course, you are factually wrong when you claim that the "militia rights" interpretation is recent. The opposite is true -- before Heller, 2A had consistently been properly interpreted as pertaining to militias. That's why Heller was understood to be overturning previous precedent and changing the way 2A was interpreted.

As for the DGUs, here's a bit of advice. If you want to push false talking points, stay away from concrete numbers that can be checked. Oh, and if you're going to be making provably false statements, you probably shouldn't highlight the false statements in ALL CAPS! LOL. I'm referring of course to your claim that the lowest (make that the LOWEST) DGU estimate is over 250K a year, which needless to say is completely false (for example), and probably the best sign of all that you have not a clue what you are talking about and have never bothered to read any of the science on gun violence yourself. You're also wrong about Kleck's DGU study being "more credible" -- it was so flawed methodologically that it was subsequently refuted by (at least) three separate teams of researchers. Moreover, counting the number of people who claim a DGU in a survey doesn't prove that those claimed DGUS were actually socially beneficial acts of self-defense, and studies that examined DGU claims in more detail have found that most are not (e.g. escalating arguments where the "other guy started it&quot . Finally, even legitimate DGU claims don't prove that owning or carrying gun on average results in a better outcome in terms of crime victimization. In fact, studies that have looked into this question have concluded negatively, and that the opposite is closer to the truth: the increased risks associated with owning or carrying a outweigh whatever protective benefits there may be, for most people.

Finally, as to the correlation between guns and gun violence, again you are stuck in the NRA bubble, where a few pieces of anecdotal evidence is all it takes to convince anti-intellectual right-wingers with an aversion to science of things they want to believe. But in the real world, the fact of the matter is the US is unique among developed nations in terms of both lax gun laws and very high homicide rates. And the evidence doesn't end there: there are also many peer reviewed studies that have the studied the issue systematically at a more detailed state-by-state and county-by-county level, and concluded that gun availability does in fact correlate significantly with homicide and gun violence. There are also case studies of changes in gun policy, for example in Australia or Hawaii. Etc.

And there's more evidence than that. Unfortunately, some academic studies are not available for free, but there are plenty that are, so you have little excuse for being so hopelessly misinformed. In short, you shouldn't believe everything you read on gun blogs.

[beevul]

41. The intent, as expressed by the framers themselves...

The intent, as expressed by the framers themselves, was to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers - IT being the national government.

And...Oh look, here they are expressing it...some of that historic evidence you mentioned, except this is the kind contained in documents that were enumerated, rather than of the "he said" "she said" variety:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

billofrights.org

That spells out the intent for the document in question. To shackle government - via restrictive clauses. That is the nature of the document, and its intent and purpose.

The right protected by amendment 2, CLEARLY belongs to the people.

The right, is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

The "restrictive clause" applicable to government in amendment 2 states unequivocally, "shall not be infringed".

Why?

"Because a well regulated (equipped) militia is necessary to the security of a free state."

You can choreograph whatever song and dance you like about amendment 2, the declaratory clause, but those facts stand.


Therefore:


The "misconstruing" and "abusing"...is PRECISELY what you would like to see, where amendment 2 is concerned. To that end, you are misconstruing the second amendment, and expecting someone...anyone...to buy into the idea that when read in the correct context, it doesn't actually say what it in fact says.

Well, its settled law. You, and the few holdouts are just gonna have to get over it.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

42. excellent post.

bravo. well said.

[liberal_biker]

43. Perhaps you could do the same.

Start with reading the Constitution, not a study. This is important as it is the basis for our system of government and our society.

Rights are not subject to the whims of public opinion and they do not dry up and blow away because someone has produced a study which implies the right is not justifiable.

In addition, you must begin from the premise that in the United States, the individual does not require permission to do something - only government does. The individual retains all of his rights until such time as he demonstrates he has abused the rights of another and is deserving of punishment from society.

The problem, in my opinion anyway, with the entire gun control position is it starts from the perspective of assuming people must justify a need or get permission for something. It functions on the basis of believing government is the source of all rights, rather than the people.

[Atypical Liberal]

35. I disagree.

As far as the constitution, I think we both know that 2A was designed to protect militias and had nothing to do with carrying a gun for self defense. Unfortunately, its wording is ambiguous enough that it supports multiple plausible interpretations, the most right-wing of which extends the meaning of RKBA to civilian gun ownership outside of militia service, and given the current ideological makeup of the court, the recent 5-4 decisions on ideological lines on this topic (and others) are not too surprising.

All nine of the supreme court justices agreed that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. President Obama also agrees with this interpretation.

Furthermore, it is absurd to think that in the founders' day a man would be trusted to keep weapons and ammunition in his home to be used for military service but that he could not use these things to defend himself or his family.

But to argue that owning or carrying a gun is some kind of fundamental right is simply preposterous.

It is an enumerated right of the Constitution of the United States of America, and as the President himself said, this is now the settled law of the land. Its not preposterous, it's reality.

The right to defend yourself means that if someone attacks you, you are not obligated to just sit there and get mauled.

Of course you don't just have to sit there and get mauled. Without a weapon such as a firearm, you can either flee if you are fast enough, submit if you are tough enough, or engage in a physical contest of strength with your attacker. That's the problem though - not everyone is fast enough, tough enough, or strong enough to do those things. That's why the firearm is a great equalizer. Just about anyone can wield a gun.

If people have the right to fight back against an attacker, then they should have the right to effective tools to fight with if they so choose.

The right to personal safety and security means that people have the right not to be subjected to violence and crime.

People do have the right not to be subjected to violence and crime.

They also have the right to fight back if they are victims of violence and crime. Firearms are very effective for fighting against violence and crime, which is why police officers carry them. If they are the preferred weapon of the police for fighting violence and crime, why wouldn't they be the preferred weapon of citizens for fighting violence and crime?

Neither of these have anything to do with guns directly. You can argue that access to a gun improves one's ability to defend oneself (although there is very little evidence that this is true for most people) and you can also argue that lax gun laws result in higher rates of lethal violence, thus reducing safety and security (and here there is much more evidence). The point being that guns are a means to an end, and the appropriate amount of regulations on guns shouldn't be based on some kind of fundamentalist view of "gun rights" but rather on a rational analysis of what will actually best serve the safety needs of people in a society.

The fact of the matter is, the only harm firearms cause society is when they are in the hands of a very small body of criminals. The vast majority of firearm owners are law-abiding and will never be involved in any kind of firearm crime. I'm not going to sacrifice the rights of all the law-abiding firearm owners like myself on behalf of the tiny fraction of criminals who harm society in some vain hope that those criminals will suddenly no longer continue harming society.

I'm going to keep my guns. And if that means that society has problems from a few people that misuse them, I'm willing to live with that inconvenience. As Thomas Jefferson said, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

You're free to rally people to oppose me. But right now, you're losing the fight, and you have been for nearly 30 years.

[quote]And it is difficult to argue rationally that society is better of with gun laws as lax as the US has right now. In fact, the inability to make a case on utilitarian grounds is precisely why the pro-gun side resorts to the "gun rights" argument. When faced with the fact, for example, that no other developed nation has rates of homicide and gun violence even near the US, attempting to deny that gun availability does, on net, lead to more death, particularly at the level of the US, is basically futile. But you can still try to argue that it is somehow worth enduring all this extra violence and death because "gun rights" are so important.[/quote]

As I understand it, when you factor out drug-related crime, US gun crime rates suddenly come into close comparison with other countries.

But frankly, I don't care what the crime rate is. I'm sure that countries with no firearms in them enjoy no firearm crime. But that safety comes at a cost of liberty. Those people don't have the means to defend themselves from violence nor from oppression. If they are happy with that choice, more power to them. I am not, and most Americans are not. We want our freedom, and we will have that freedom whether or not there are crime consequences because of it.

The bottom line is this: I'm not going to allow the actions of criminals to be used as an excuse for you to restrict my right to keep and bear arms.

But "gun rights" are not so important. The primary justification is self-defense and personal safety (please spare me the talk of fighting off the forces of tyranny),

Now you just said earlier that the primary purpose of the second amendment was for a militia and not for self-defense or personal safety. You must understand that one of the reasons for having a decentralized militia system was to prevent a concentration of military power in the hands of the federal government that could be used by the forces of tyranny.

So even you must admit that the second amendment is first and foremost about fighting off the forces of tyranny. Self-defense is merely a happy consequence.

so loosening gun laws to the point where the net effect is higher rates of lethal violence is completely self-defeating.

We've had loosening gun laws for nearly 30 years, and all crime including violent crime continues to decline.

Particularly when we're talking about things like requiring BCs on all gun sales,

I have no problem with background checks so long as they are done in a manner that preserves anonymous firearm ownership.

or registering handgun,

I will never register any firearm.

or banning high-capacity magazines,

Since the intent of the second amendment was to put military-grade small arms in the hands of civilians, civilians should have access to military-grade magazines for those arms.

or limiting bulk purchases of handguns and semi-auto rifles,

I don't have a problem with this in principle. I doubt very many people make legitimate bulk purchases of firearms.

or passing an federal law specifically against gun trafficking,

I'm not sure what you are trying to pass a law against specifically here. I suspect what you are after is already illegal.

things which really have basically no effect on law abiding citizens' ability to own guns for self-defense, and are only opposed on the dubious grounds of "gun rights" and "slippery slope".

With damned good reason, too.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

44. broke it down, point by point. thanks.

well done.

[gejohnston]

21. NICS was the NRA's idea

Many of us here would support background checks for private sales. Some states do. Gary Kleck thinks there should be such a requirement. I think it would better to lobby each state assembly mostly because of the commerce clause. How do you feel about the opt out NICS check and endorsement on state issue IDs? Someone here floated that idea. No endorsement, no gun. If you opt out and later you decide you want a gun, go to DMV.

or, provide incentives for private sellers to have FFL broker deal or have it consigned. There is a local pawn shop that actually uses "selling to people you don't know is dangerous" in their ads. Of course, they want you to take their guns to them.

Seems like we offer ideas and the "antis" ignore it and want nonsense that defy forensic science like George Pataki's (R) casing collection.

IIRC, the Blue Dogs issue was more about health care (more accurately obstructing), being paid off by Etna et al.

[Lurks Often]

27. You are ignorant regarding private sales.

From the Miriam-Webster online dictionary:
Definition of IGNORANT:
1 a: destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also: lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics> b: resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence <ignorant errors>
2: unaware, uninformed

Private sales are regulated by STATE law, not Federal law. Some states do not require background checks on any private sales. Some states require background checks on handguns, but not long guns and some states require checks on both.

Here is the relevant section of CT law, directly from the Dept of Public Safety web site:

"Private Sale of Firearms

Pistols and Revolvers
Federal Law states you may only buy a handgun in the state in which you reside.

You can only buy a handgun in Connecticut, if in addition to being a resident, you have a valid Permit to carry Pistols or Revolvers, a valid Eligibility Certificate, if you are a licensed Firearms Dealer or if you are a Sworn Police Officer.

A DPS-67-C and a DPS-3-C (4 copies) must be completed. The seller of the handgun must contact the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit at [phone], or 1-[phone] and obtain an authorization number for that sale. This number is to be added to both forms. The DPS-67-C is to be retained by the seller for 20 years. The seller should retain the original copy of the DPS-3 for their records, give one copy to the purchaser as a receipt, submit one copy to the local police authority where the purchaser resides and submit a final copy to the Commissioner of Public Safety.

Rifles and Shotguns
Sales of long arms between non-licensed dealers, commonly referred to as second hand sales, require no paperwork or notification, however, it is strongly recommended that all firearms be voluntarily registered. In the event of loss or theft of firearm this will provide easy retrieval of information for insurance or police information and assure return of recovered property. (exception: sales conducted at gun shows require NICS authorization check and transfer paperwork) The only restrictions are the seller may not sell to anyone under 18 years of age, or to anyone the seller knows is prohibited from possessing firearms."

To get a pistol permit in CT requires fingerprinting, one, possibly two background checks* and course taught by a NRA certified instructor**. You cannot buy a handgun without a pistol permit in CT.


* The first background check is done by the local PD, who gives a town permit, once you have the town permit, you submit your application to the state police for the state permit. I am presuming that the State Police also do a background check.

** The NRA has a political side, the very vocal wing of the organization that pushes pro gun legislation and supports both Democrat and Republican politicians that are pro gun. It also has a training side that itself is non-political (although individual trainers sometimes will express their personal political opinion) that sets standards for training and range safety nationwide. The fast majority of police trainers are going to be NRA certified trainers.

[SteveW]

38. In the Guns Group, I think, allows condemnation of gun-owning Democrats. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

45. more than just "moderate" dems, every questionairre I have taken

Last edited Tue Feb 7, 2012, 12:44 PM - Edit history (3)

places me, philosophically and theoretically with Ghandi.... down and to the left...


and, I am not talking about scratching my back

I am always amazed how DUers are at such a disconnect when it comes to this issue.

[aikoaiko]

15. It brings me delight to watch him waste millions on his failed group and message.

Keep up the good work, Mikey.

[pipoman]

17. Of coarse..a dupe OP..

so I'll dupe my response..

[ellisonz]

24. Agreed.

You can't run away from wedge issues. You have to grin them down like Davy Crockett to a bear...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

46. when a grin is all you have....

ever tried to outrun a bear ? :grin:

[ellisonz]

48. I thought all bears were friendly!

(:grin

[Tuesday Afternoon]

49. ah, Boo Boo! Got a picnic basket?

[liberal_biker]

50. You don't have to outrun the bear....

...you only have to outrun the person you brought with you....

[Tuesday Afternoon]

51. yeah, pretty much

grin and "bear" it

[ileus]

25. gun control is a regressive policy....

fix the real problem...it has nothing to do with an object, but the critters that use that object to gain something they're socially missing.


Taking away a basic right just to feel good isn't the answer....never was, never will be.

[oneshooter]

29. As long as Bloomie keeps shooting blanks, he can "reload" as much as he can afford.

[gejohnston]

30. I'm still waiting

for the special report, or did I miss the specialness of this?

[aikoaiko]

31. I must have missed this propaganda. Did it air?

[SteveW]

39. Didn't see it either. Perhaps it was the studied subtlety amid the polar bears. nt

[Atypical Liberal]

33. I don't think that is true.

The vast majority of NRA types and "gun rights" extremists are going to vote Republican, regardless of how much ground Dems cede on gun control.

I don't think this is true.

The hallmark of the conservative mindset is the perception of self-reliance. We all know the "bootstrap" argument doesn't actually hold water in that no one is an island and everyone owes some part of their success (or failure) to the environment that they live in.

But conservatives believe in it wholeheartedly, and their perception is their reality.

The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental part of the idea of self-reliance. It is the ultimate repository of force to use to defend yourself and your family - to rely on yourself for this defense rather than rely on the government.

This idea of self-reliance is the "guts" in the old cliche of "God, Guns, and Guts"

The religious angle is a waste of time.

I think the "guts" angle is going to resolve itself in time. As more and more people, conservative and liberal alike, find themselves in a more and more precarious financial situation while businesses continue to reap record profits, sooner or later even the staunchest conservative is going to have to wonder where the trickle-down is trickling too.

But the "guns" leg of their three-legged stool can be easily and instantly knocked out from under them.

If you remove the distraction of the wedge issue of gun control it will instantly remove this issue which is often the single issue many conservatives use as a litmus test for who to vote for or against. Let me say that again: A lot of people just flat out won't even consider any politician who doesn't support the right to keep and bear arms.

By taking this issue off the table, you allow voters who might not vote Democratic to at least start considering other issues. Now a lot of these people may well be hung up on "god" issues like "family values" and abortion and so on, and those people are lost causes. But a lot of people are more focused on financial issues and we may well have a shot at those kinds of voters.

[aikoaiko]

47. "viewers in New York and Boston"- this was just political campaigning.

No attempt to actually reach of broader audience.