When it comes to guns, there are Two Americas

[Demeter]

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/analysis/318

To blatantly borrow from John Edwards, when it comes to guns, there are two Americas.

In one America, Dick Cheney and Antonin Scalia would feel right at home. Guns are everywhere. Hunting is a nearby experience. I remember living in south central Michigan in the early 1990s in wonder when parents would take their kids out of school for the start of deer hunting season. I also remember the fear of driving the interstate highway at night during deer hunting season. The deer would be flushed out of the woods by the hunters, and the creatures often ended up on or near the highway. I have never seen a deer season where the highways were clear of deer remnants.

This is Ted Nugent's America.

In the other America, Dick Cheney and Antonin Scalia would be really scared, especially without the protection they normally receive. In Chicago, we hear stories about kids and adults being killed with guns all the time. I keep hearing about how so many Chicago Public Schools kids were killed this past school year. The news is sadly almost delivered matter of factly, as if it wasn't a big shock.

Those in the first America were thrilled with the 5-4 decision overturning the D.C. handgun ban. Those in the second America were disturbed by the ruling.


We are told in numerous pitches and inflections, especially by the MSM, that we are supposed to understand the rural areas, the working class, the Wal-Mart shopping, recreational hunters...I confess I do understand them better than most people who live in a big city. I was once assigned to cover a hunting festival. I almost laughed when my boss suggested this. "I don't know anything about hunting," I quipped. "Good," he said. "Then you'll ask good questions." And he was right. I looked out of place, asked some stupid questions, and was treated really well by the people there. My boss loved the story, said I got some good insight.

So I do understand the first America. But what I really want is for the first America and Antonin Scalia to understand the second America. I want them to comprehend the worst sections of 21st Century Philadelphia, Chicago, Washington, Los Angeles, and New York. I want them to understand that the rules are different in the big city. Would Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts accept a rule where if a city has a certain number of people living within it, the city could impose a handgun ban? Probably not, perhaps the first America couldn't accept such a provision...Us here in the second America, we are Americans, too. And we want the opportunity for reasonable gun laws that apply to our communities, not just yours.

POSTED BY A DAUGHTER OF DETROIT

[MercutioATC]

1. Political scat

Guns are not the problem. Education and economic opportunities are the problem.

Most Democratic politicians (especially those who support the AWB) wouldn't know a "reasonable gun law" if it bit them in the ass.

[iverglas]

2. and it would be nice if they'd think about the rest of us Americans too

We who live in the bits of America above and below the borders of the United States of America.

Where firearms trafficked out of your America, because of your America's refusal to take responsibility for its own actions, are being used to kill and injure adults and children on our streets.

Where firearms trafficked from the US are being used to intimidate our neighbourhoods over your northern border, and worse, far worse, over your southern border.

Where firearms trafficked from the US are feeding the activities of the criminal organizations on our sides of the borders, organizations that use the firearms trafficked from the US to enforce their territory and settle scores, killing bystanders and intimidating neighbourhoods in the process. And that get them in return for the drugs your criminal organizations need for their own profit-making, community-destroying enterprises inside your borders.

Where people wonder when the fuck we can expect a society / state that is now as mature as the US is supposed to be to grow up and act like an adult, and not like a petulant child that nobody is going to be the boss of.

[beevul]

5. Sigh...

The responsibility of keeping things that Canada and mexico doesn't want in their own country out of Canada or Mexico, falls on Canada or mexico.

The responsibility of keeping things that the US doesn't want in its country, out of the US falls on the US.


Its a simple concept.


"Where people wonder when the fuck we can expect a society / state that is now as mature as the US is supposed to be to grow up and act like an adult, and not like a petulant child that nobody is going to be the boss of."


I bet thats JUST what the bush administration thinks toward Canada and its stance on marijuana:


"when the fuck we can expect a society / state that is now as mature as the Canada is supposed to be to grow up and act like an adult, and not like a petulant child that nobody is going to be the boss of."

Bad reasoning, all of it.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Joe Holmes]

12. Oh, you're a Canadian?

Shouldn't you be hanging out on the Maple Leafs forum or something like that?

[iverglas]

14. oh, you're a 9-post poster?

Shouldn't you be ... hmm ... I'll think of something.

[tburnsten]

25. Oh, so his new status marks him as up for derision?

[iverglas]

29. y'know, if you think really really really hard

Oh, I dunno. A thought might enter your head.

[iverglas]

15. well now, I wonder what the problem here was

The responsibility of keeping things that the US doesn't want in its country, out of the US falls on the US.


Somebody objected to me pointing out that the US has spent decades killing people, killing livestock, destroying agricultural land, polluting watercourses, propping up fascistic governments and arming right-wing militias that murder and terrorize peasant farmers in Colombia (and not just in Colombia, of course) -- all in aid of keeping the cocaine supply out of the USofA?

And to me pointing out that if Canada took the same approach -- took responsibility for keeping firearms from entering Canada from the US by blowing up a gun show in Ohio -- we all know what the result would be?

And to me suggesting that might does not make right, and the fact that Mexico and Canada are not in a position to blow up gun shows in Ohio, or arm militias to do our work inside the US to keep US-sourced firearms out of Mexico and Canada, is proof only that the US is an international juvenile bully?

Huh. If only something I'd said weren't true.

And if only the US would grow the fuck up and join the modern world.

(Hmm. Maybe someone misinterpreted/misrepresented my words -- "grow the fuck up" -- as having been addressed to an individual here, when they clearly were not.)

The US is a driving force behind international treaties to combat trafficking in illicit drugs. And the US claims what is obviously extraterritorial jurisdiction in that regard -- attempting to extradite CANADIANS to the US because they shipped cannabis seeds mail ordered by customers in the US from CANADA.

See the analogy, anybody? It's not between cannabis and firearms, I assure.

But the US refuses to do ANYTHING to stop the firearms that it is awash in from being trafficked into other countries.

Bully is the only word that fits. Although the adjectives immature, self-centred and vicious, and a few others, certainly do go well with it.



Oh yeah, I forgot.

FUCK personal responsibility, eh? In the case of a state: fuck collective responsibility for that state's own actions.

And fuck anybody who is harmed by those actions.

[beevul]

23. I guess I didn't make it simple enough for you.

Jurisdictions are responsible for keeping the things out that they want kept out.


Read it as many times as it takes. Translate it to french and wear one of those funny canadian thinking toques if thats what it takes.

The US is no more responsible for guns that make it into Canada from the US, than Canada is for MJ than makes it into the US from Canada.

bush would disagree with that, and sadly it appears you would too.

If your country isn't doing what it takes to keep guns from being smuggled in, do something to change it, or ask your government to, but don't be passing the blame eh?

And yeah, Id say exactly the same thing applies to the US, and MJ coming in from Canada.

[MicaelS]

13. When? Never!

Where people wonder when the fuck we can expect a society / state that is now as mature as the US is supposed to be to grow up and act like an adult, and not like a petulant child that nobody is going to be the boss of.

Well one thing if for sure, as long as Canada and Canadians are whom are defining the term "mature", the answer is never.

[iverglas]

16. good evening, gentle sir

Well one thing if for sure, as long as Canada and Canadians are whom are defining the term "mature", the answer is never.

Perhaps you would care to explain what you are saying in that post. I'm afraid I am having a difficult time taking any meaning from it.

When you do, which I trust will be very soon (I recommend that it be very soon, for perhaps obvious reasons), you will want to note that no one here has suggested that Canada and Canadians are or be the ones defining the term "mature".

I will look forward to your reply.

[MicaelS]

27. iverglas

I really don't give a good goddamn what ANY Canadian, least of all you, think, feel, believe, perceive or WTF-ever about any American policy. How's that for an answer? To paraphrase an infamous 1960s statemeant...

"What Canadians think about American policies matter to most Americans as whether or not Canadian like strawberrys."

[iverglas]

28. thank you for your reply

All was actually clear in the first place, you see.

But feel free to continue making an ignorant spectacle of yourself, 'k?

[Newshues]

18. ok, so ban handguns

then the criminals will just use rifles...so what then? Ban all guns? Great! Then the criminals will just use baseball bats. Going to ban those too? How about golf clubs? Knives? Shanks? Going to ban all those?

When people want to kill someone they use whatever is handy. If that's a gun then it's a gun. If it's a club then it is a club. If it's a wine bottle it's a wine bottle. If nothing is handy they just pound the fucking tar out of them until they stop breathing.

Violence isn't about the tool used to commit the violence. It is about using whatever is handy.

And I can hear the wailing now about how guns harm innocents from stray fire......ever think that the middle east is full of suicide bombers precisely because they don't have free access to weapons? Like i said, people will use whatever is handy to achieve what they desire in terms of violence. If the most handy thing around is a little home cooked explosive, a fist full of nails and some mental deficient who thinks blowing herself up to deliver a bomb so that such and such a member of some arbitrary group dies than that is what will be used.

Perhaps the rest of America should "grow the fuck up" and take the logical view that the tool isn't the problem, the person using it is.

[iverglas]

30. quite fascinating

And I can hear the wailing now about how guns harm innocents from stray fire......ever think that the middle east is full of suicide bombers precisely because they don't have free access to weapons?

Perhaps you could explain what this has to do with children killed in their beds in cities in the US, and children, young people and adults killed in crossfire on the streets and in the business establishments of Toronto?

I'd be mighty grateful if you would.

It sounds as if you are saying that street gangs are going to start entering bars with dynamite strapped to their bodies and blow themselves up, if they don't have access to trafficked firearms.

That would just be a rather odd thing to say, which is why I'm asking for clarification.

[Newshues]

37. nah, they just set bombs

outlawing firearms wont't stop any of

Where firearms trafficked from the US are feeding the activities of the criminal organizations on our sides of the borders, organizations that use the firearms trafficked from the US to enforce their territory and settle scores, killing bystanders and intimidating neighbourhoods in the process. And that get them in return for the drugs your criminal organizations need for their own profit-making, community-destroying enterprises inside your borders.

All it will do is turn those elements who would use firearms towards other tools. Then we'll have to outlaw those tools...and so on down the line until the only thing left is, quite literally, their own bodies as the delivery system for completely indiscriminate weapons. It will be all there is left to them to "settle scores".

The tool is not the problem because the tool can be replaced.

[AtheistCrusader]

36. They do...

"ever think that the middle east is full of suicide bombers precisely because they don't have free access to weapons?"


They absolutely do. Private ownership of weapons, such as fully-automatic AK-47's, 74's, and whatever else they could get, was wide among even civilians in Iraq, pre-invasion. Somewhere in the 90% ownership range, depending on whether you agree with the methodology of the surveys..

I don't think this is an honest or useful comparison, no matter what.. Washington DC, New York, and Chicago have had highly restricted firearms ownership, for a very long time, and they don't have huge suicide bomber problems.

What is the point of this?

[SlipperySlope]

39. That is not the United States' problem.

Canada's failure to recognize the basic human right to armed self defense is not the United States' problem.

Oh, the US could get involved all right. But do you REALLY want the US exerting pressure on Canada to reverse its draconian gun laws?

Despite what the current US president might think, it is not the place of the United States to run around fixing other countries just because they oppress their citizens.

[Joe Holmes]

3. I've got a better idea-

Lets not ban handguns. Lets ban criminals instead.

[lost-in-nj]

4. My son is a lifetime member of the NRA

a DE in Rifle (22)
and I helped him get there


but

there is no reason he can not wait
or will not wait for a clearance for a rifle/handgun permit

what is the big friggen deal????

lost

[jody]

6. The second America you talk about, e.g. D.C., banned handguns and it did not reduce violent crime.

The ban however did make it impossible for law-abiding citizens like Heller to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

Inalienable rights enumerated in state constitutions and protected by the Bill of Rights protect minorities against the tyranny of a simple majority when establishing laws.

RKBA is one such inalienable right and that was the issue in D.C. v. Heller.

Suggest you read the SCOTUS decision at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

[Demeter]

7. We'll Soon Find Out, Won't We?

Testing unproven legislation on captive humans. Not exactly ethical....

[jody]

8. "Testing unproven legislation on captive humans", what do you mean? RKBA is tested law in the

majority of states, e.g. look at states that have CCW laws.

[spin]

19. Let me update your map from 1986 to 2008...

It seems the "shall issue" states have moved from 8 to 36. I detect a trend here.

[TPaine7]

9. Which is why the D.C. gun ban should have never been passed in the first place.

Or does 2 + 2 still equal 4 when it doesn't suit you?

[spin]

20. Yes, we will soon find out...

It will be fascinating to see how the new guns laws work out in Washington DC.

Will there be more shootings of innocent people or less? Time will tell.

I'll venture a prediction. Crime will not disappear but the nature of crime will change. Criminals fear armed homeowners more than police, so they will go out of their way to make sure they don't run into any.

Washington DC will pass laws on storing firearms that will make it difficult to use one for self defense. However, any homeowner who justifiably uses a firearm to deter a robber will face intense legal scrutiny from prosecutors and may well end up in jail or broke from legal expenses.

Gang related drug activity and shootings will continue. Those who own guns illegally will continue to use them in turf wars.

Some gun related accidents will occur and draw extensive media attention. Some domestic arguments will involve handguns and end fatally. Some children will find improperly stored weapons with tragic results.

Gun ownership will reduce the crime rate significantly. Ten to twenty years from now, Washington DC will allow concealed carry for trained citizens with background checks and the crime rate will drop again.

Overall allowing honest citizens to own firearms and use them for self defense will have a positive effect on life in Washington DC. Gun free zones fail to prevent murder and often encourage carnage.

Twenty years from now we will still be posting pro-gun and anti-gun arguments on DU.

[benEzra]

33. D.C.'s ban was the aberration, not the norm.

The overwhelming majority of jurisdictions in the United States allow mentally competent adults with clean records to own as many guns as we choose, and keep one or more for defensive purposes if we wish. 48 out of the 50 states allow individuals to obtain carry licenses.

The District of Columbia's law outlawing the lawful and responsible ownership of handguns, and outlawing the keeping of ANY gun for defensive purposes, was the "unproven legislation tested upon captive humans," and it was an abject failure.

[bossy22]

11. there is nothing reasonable about banning functional firearms

in the home....its silly to believe that such a law could have a tangible effect on gun violence

reasonable laws should be those laws which can be shown to have a good chance of success and are well thought out- also they must be constitutional- the DC law was neither of the 3

isnt it interesting the gun crime rose and fall irrespective of the gun control laws- it followed the same trend it always did.....

[Real_Talk]

17. Chicago

I grew up outside of Chicago in a gang and drug riddled town. My family owned and continues to own all sorts of guns, The two America's that you are talking are not geographic but idealogical.

There are many people like my family: working class, minority, inner city families that know that the government is not going to protect us from the criminals that infect where we live. Don't let the MSM and so called black leaders like JJ and Sharpton fool you into thinking that guns are just too much for us poor dumb minorities to handle.

That is the underlying message I hear every time some person gets on his/her high horse and tells me how I, as an inner city dwelling minority have no need for a weapon to defend myself an that even if did have one that I'll put my eye out/shoot my wife/kill the neighbor and so on and so forth.

[shireen]

22. your comments are valuable, brings a gritty reality to the situation.

and welcome to DU!

:hi:

[tburnsten]

26. Welcome to DU!

Expect your post to be treated the same as the poster at the top, who was ridiculed for only having 9 posts. or be ignored because your post doesn't sit well with some member's worldview. Good job on knowing the difference between being resposnsible for your own safety (reality) and "having a right to feel safe", which is all some people want out of life and will stop at nothing to achieve that goal, regardless of how hard they need to step on the rights of others to do so.

[gorfle]

21. Something you need to understand.

We are told in numerous pitches and inflections, especially by the MSM, that we are supposed to understand the rural areas, the working class, the Wal-Mart shopping, recreational hunters...I confess I do understand them better than most people who live in a big city. I was once assigned to cover a hunting festival. I almost laughed when my boss suggested this. "I don't know anything about hunting," I quipped. "Good," he said. "Then you'll ask good questions." And he was right. I looked out of place, asked some stupid questions, and was treated really well by the people there. My boss loved the story, said I got some good insight.

So I do understand the first America. But what I really want is for the first America and Antonin Scalia to understand the second America. I want them to comprehend the worst sections of 21st Century Philadelphia, Chicago, Washington, Los Angeles, and New York. I want them to understand that the rules are different in the big city. Would Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts accept a rule where if a city has a certain number of people living within it, the city could impose a handgun ban? Probably not, perhaps the first America couldn't accept such a provision...Us here in the second America, we are Americans, too. And we want the opportunity for reasonable gun laws that apply to our communities, not just yours.

In fact, you do not understand the first America. And I do not mean this harshly, for your stance is a common mis-perception. You are making the mistaken association of firearm ownership in the first America with hunting. Hunting is not a primary reason for firearm ownership in first America. Hunting has nothing to do with the second amendment, and it had little to do with the motivations of our founders for enumerating our right to keep and bear arms. Moreover, there are far far more firearm owners than licensed hunters. Roughly, only 1 out of every 5 firearm owners hunts.

I believe that the ruling favors people living in the worst sections of 21st Century cities. Remember what this ruling was primarily about - keeping a pistol in your home. Increasing the number of pistols inside homes should not have any impact on crimes committed outside the home, unless people are illegally carrying their home firearms outside the home. In which case, the law is not an impediment to them anyway. What it will do, however, is provide people the choice of being able to personally defend their homes with a pistol. If I were living in the worst section of a big city, I would welcome any overture that made my defending my home easier.

[aikoaiko]

24. What about the Americans who just want to have the tools to protect themselves from..

...criminals or other oppressors who threaten their lives with and without guns?

Hunting really has very little to do with the 2nd Amendment.

[pipoman]

31. My take from the actual relative safety of my home (not a perceptual safety)

In one America, Dick Cheney and Antonin Scalia would feel right at home. Guns are everywhere.

This ruling will not result in "guns are everywhere", approx 1/3 of homes in the US have guns for defensive reasons, this may result in DC being no exception to that stat.

Hunting is a nearby experience. I remember living in south central Michigan in the early 1990s in wonder when parents would take their kids out of school for the start of deer hunting season. I also remember the fear of driving the interstate highway at night during deer hunting season. The deer would be flushed out of the woods by the hunters, and the creatures often ended up on or near the highway. I have never seen a deer season where the highways were clear of deer remnants.

Someone has either provided you bad information or you are projecting your belief based on faulty analysis. While some auto vs. deer accidents may be caused by hunter flushing deer, most are caused by states attempting to schedule deer hunting season with the annual deer rut (mating season). During rut deer are far more active at night than any other time of the year. Rut is triggered by lower temperatures and shorter days. If it were not for the culling of the deer population property damage (auto vs. deer) would increase exponentially. This is not to mention the effect of over population would (and does) have on the health of the deer population as a whole. Bottom line, deer hunting greatly reduces the chances of your being involved in an auto vs. deer accident and produces a much healthier deer population.

In the other America, Dick Cheney and Antonin Scalia would be really scared, especially without the protection they normally receive. In Chicago, we hear stories about kids and adults being killed with guns all the time. I keep hearing about how so many Chicago Public Schools kids were killed this past school year. The news is sadly almost delivered matter of factly, as if it wasn't a big shock.

Really? There are lots of murders in Chicago? I thought Chi-town had essentially banned firearms? How could that be? Are people routinely killed by legally owned firearms at the hands of law abiding citizens? Or are the vast majority of these deaths caused at the hands of criminals engaged in their occupation? Assuming the latter begs the question; how will allowing law abiding peaceful people to keep a gun in their home for self defense going to effect the gun murder rate? I suggest that it will not effect it beyond the natural selection which will occur when the not too bright criminal element is faced with the poor choice of intended victims as it has in virtually every other area of the country where there is no or little impediment to defensive firearms ownership. Further, as in most other areas when a law abiding citizen exercises his/her right to self defense then faces criminal prosecution, the public outrage will result in a "castle doctrine" like statute.

Would Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts accept a rule where if a city has a certain number of people living within it, the city could impose a handgun ban?

Maybe if there was even one shred of proof that a handgun ban had any effect what so ever on over all gun violence, which there isn't. Hand gun bans only make the ignorant or those unwilling to face the truth feel safe.

And we want the opportunity for reasonable gun laws that apply to our communities, not just yours.

So now we all know that your idea of "reasonable gun laws" is banning them. See this all you gun control freaks who constantly state "nobody wants to ban guns, we only want "reasonable gun laws"".

[Name removed]

32. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[backscatter712]

34. This is why gun laws should really be implemented on local & state levels, not nation-wide.

Laws in one part of the country don't make sense in other parts of the country.

Laws in inner cities that would require licensing, restrict certain types of weapons, and are aimed at curbing gang violence don't make sense in rural parts where most firearms are used for hunting and shooting trap.

[tburnsten]

35. The right to fight back against an attacker in your own home

is not a right that changes by geography, and is the right that was in question in the heller case. Gangs can be combatted in far more effective ways than just banning citizens from owning guns.

[SlipperySlope]

40. That is why abortion bans should be implemented on the local & state levels.

[SlipperySlope]

41. That is why Habeas Corpus should be suspended at the local & state levels.

[SlipperySlope]

42. That is why dissent should be censored at the local & state levels.

[Real_Talk]

43. bingo

that is the logic that I hate. Urban minorities need more rules than rural whites because essentially minorities are too stupid or violent to be treated with the same freedom as their more trustworthy white rural counterparts. Why don't we also curb the other rights that cause problems fighting gangs, like freedom of speech and assembly or those damn search and seizure rules.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

38. Would that be the Chicago with the strict gun control laws?

In light of that fact I'm not sure I understand the point.

David