I don't think I've ever understood the gun rights issue in the DU way.

[Peak_Oil]

The more I discuss this issue, the more confused I get. I keep seeing people say that gun rights is a right-wing thing. I am just totally lost. I thought gun rights was a left-wing thing! Power lies in a monopoly on violence. Putting tools of violence in the hands of the common people is the decentralization of power, right? That's how you distribute power to people.

I always thought the right wing was all about centralizing power in a hierarchy, power gathered in the hands of the few so the trains run on time. Isn't that right-wing? Private ownership, authoritarian structures, safety in organization?

I wonder if I'm just a maroon and have no idea what the actual debate is about.

Taking it out of abstract politics, is the gun-banning position based in fear of personal loss? I can understand people who have lost family members to gun violence or people who live in gang-infested hellholes, but why would Soccermom Sally care whether the 18th street gang have AK's in East LA? She's never been there in her life and would never go.

Fill me in. Is this a political/class issue, or a personal safety issue, or is it just a bullshit canard put together by some group I'm totally in the dark about?

[Blue_State_Elitist]

1. delete

[bahrbearian]

2. You'd think Conservatives would be Fiscally responsible or

would want to conserve our resources ..go figure.

[billbuckhead]

3. All the more liberal democracies in the world have stronger gun regs than

we have. Third world hellholes have gun regs like the USA. The most fascist regime in American history is the most progun and the NRA brags about operating out of the White House.

[slackmaster]

11. Plenty of third world hellholes have strict gun control

Bill, you are a master of cherry-picking.

[billbuckhead]

14. No cherry picking. I'm just saying Sweden, Ireland, Australia, Canada,

Italy , France, the UK, Denmark, Switzerland, Japan, Norway, Germany, Belgium, New Zealand, Spain, the Netherlands are all stronger democracies than the US and all have even stronger gun laws than the US which co-incidently has the highest incarceration rate, the highest murder rate and is the only one of the group with the death penalty, Sure sounds like America, once again, is doing the wrong thing because crapitalists can use racial fears and terror to make the most short term profit for the few at the expense of the average citizens.

If using the whole rest of the literate post industrial world is cherry picking, than that only shows the sorry state America is in.

If unlimited access to guns made men free, then Afghanistan, Columbia, Brasil, South Africa, Iraq would be utopias and Massachusetts and Hawaii would be a gulags.

[iverglas]

24. no sirree

"Plenty of third world hellholes have strict gun control"

Nope.

They may have strict firearms laws, but that is NOT the same as strict (effective) firearms control.

The US has strict speed limits in its laws, but there's still an awful lot of speeding goes on, eh?

[skippythwndrdog]

27. What does that have to do with his questions?

[iverglas]

39. just curious

billbuckhead's post was in reply to a post that said:

"You'd think Conservatives would be Fiscally responsible or would want to conserve our resources ..go figure."

That didn't make a whole lot of sense to me as a response to the initial post, but there ya go.

billbuckhead's response was apparently that gun control correlates positively with liberal politics in the rest of the modern world.

So why do you ask:

"What does that have to do with his questions?"

??

[skippythwndrdog]

41. Because I hit reply for the wrong reply.

I should have done it for the previous one. Thanks.

[papau]

4. The NRA is a Gun manufacturer promoting org - no cut back in sales allowed

The GOP endorses that idea.

Most on the left endorse at least a bit of gun comtrol.

Some on the left do indeed want to make gun ownership as hard as it once was for the Brits. And hand gun control on the left has those that want no hand guns to be permitted.

But in general no one - right or left - wants to eliminate guns.

The battle is the left's a bit of regulation/control and ability to stop real baddies from purchase and to have post crime tools to trace

vs

the GOP's free sales to anything that has the money.

Now I belong to the NRA and feel their safety courses are great. But that is not why they started and it is not why they are here today -

And as usual - the GOP blows the "values" blue smoke - in this case one of second amendment and coming to take your guns away - as they support the sales to anyone idea that the gun corporations want.

[jody]

7. "But in general no one - right or left - wants to eliminate guns." OK

in general but in particular several groups on the left want to ban all guns as has been cited ad nauseam by many who posted on this forum.

[papau]

17. true n/t

n/t

[iverglas]

23. true?

jody saying that something has been "cited ad nauseam" in this forum doesn't exactly constitute proof of that something.

I'm just not aware of who or what these "several groups on the left" who "want to ban all guns" actually are, I'm afraid.

And even if they exist, I really fail to see what relevance they have to the discussion in this here and now.

The fact that someone, somewhere, wanted to nationalize all hospitals and force all physicians to work for the state would hardly be relevant in a discussion at DU of how to improve health care delivery to people in the US. I'm not sure why the alleged fact that someone, somewhere, wants to ban all guns would be relevant in a discussion at DU of how to reduce firearms crime, injury and death in the US.

[papau]

44. I read that as True of some posters at DU - that is all - peace :-)

:-)

but your point is well taken that it is not relevant in a discussion at DU - at least in my opinion and yours.

But many gun using folk really get worried when someone - such as a DU person - posts such thoughts

They shouldn't, but they do.

[slackmaster]

12. There shouldn't have to be a cutback in sales

As the population increases, demand for guns should increase at about the same rate.

<sarcasm>

Unless...

If you want to decrease the number of guns in private hands, or the rate of gun ownership. But to do that you'd have to take peoples' guns away.

You don't want to do that, do you paupau?

</sarcasm>

[papau]

16. I do not want to decrease anything - except guns w/folks with no skill

in safety or shooting

Which is the theory that the NRA supports. They do not want government to insist - while I do.

I have 6 guns - my hunting days are over, and I use the hand guns only at the range - and that is done rarely.

I do not believe guns add to safety in the street or at home.

I do believe guns add to democracy's ability to survive.

I do believe regulations - such as the Mass carry laws and the gun lock requirement when in storage, add to everyone's safety - which can be seen in the fact Mass has the lowest gun related problems in the nation.

[slackmaster]

19. Cool - Please give me your take on two ideas I like

1. Encourage safe gun storage by giving federal income tax breaks to people who buy gun safes. I bought a new one last year. It cost me over $3K. I may be able to take a partial writeoff because I use it for financial records, but I think anyone with guns who does the right thing should be given credit for the full price.

2. Basic gun safety education in public schools, using mock weapons only. Teach every kid (conscientious objectors excluded) the rules of safe gun handling, and to unload common types of weapons.

I agree there is a problem with people who shouldn't have guns having them. Also people who naively believe their children won't play with the unsecured guns when the adults aren't around.

[papau]

21. I like Kid's safety classes with unloaded real weapons - and perhaps

electronic shooting - a brush with handguns but with an emphasis on hunting.

The gun safe idea does not need a tax break - in Mass it is a felony to be without either a safe or other locked storage - but you can get away with $5 plastic gun locks. (which is where poor folks like myself end up.)

:-)

[benEzra]

25. Gun control isn't a traditionally Democratic stance...

it was only adopted by the national party IIRC in the late '80s/early '90s when some authoritiarian communitarian think tanks managed to get their views ensconced in the "New Democrat" platform. Prior to that it was mostly a state-by-state issue.

There are plenty of authoritarian prohibitionists on the right as well as the left (William J. Bennett being an egregious example). And there are lots of pro-gun people on the left as well. 80% of union members in Tennessee are gun owners...

The NRA is a Gun manufacturer promoting org - no cut back in sales allowed

Actually, most of the NRA's money--and their legislative direction--comes from their at-large membership. And we ordinary members elect the board of directors, which sets policy.

If the NRA really represented the manufacturers,

(1) they'd be trying to stop the importation of inexpensive, good-quality firearms like SKS's and Saigas and FAL's that compete with the higher-end, high-$$ manufacturers, and

(2) they'd have sold us gun owners out on the AWB so that they could get the gun manufacturer liability protection bill passed. (The gun companies would be just as happy to sell you a 10-round handgun for $500 as a 15-round handgun for $500.) But the priority was the other way around, because WE, not Remington or Ruger or Winchester, are really the NRA's bread and butter.

The battle is the left's a bit of regulation/control and ability to stop real baddies from purchase and to have post crime tools to trace

vs

the GOP's free sales to anything that has the money.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. We already have a LOT of control on the books, and neither the left nor the right is trying to take that away. Real baddies are already prohibited from so much as touching a single round of ammunition, and guns can be traced post-crime via the paper trail set up by GCA '68.

The current gun control controversies are whether or not to enact sweeping new restrictions on civilian firearms based on silly distictions like what their stocks look like; whether or not to outlaw all firearms holding over 10 rounds; and whether or not to create a registration database that would allow a priori data mining on people who have committed no crime. There is also that rifle ammunition Kevlar penetration issue, but mostly as a sideshow at this point.

But overall, since the late 80's/early 90's, gun-404 party leaders have been manipulated into supporting far more sweeping expansions of gun prohibition than they realize.

[iverglas]

28. not really

Gun control isn't a traditionally Democratic stance...
it was only adopted by the national party IIRC in the late '80s/early '90s when some authoritiarian communitarian think tanks managed to get their views ensconced in the "New Democrat" platform. Prior to that it was mostly a state-by-state issue.

First, the level at which an issue is addressed hardly determines whether it is a right or left issue. For instance, universal health care originated, in Canada, at the provincial level (health care being in fact a subject matter under provincial jurisdiction, by the constitutional division of powers). But the growing attachment of all Canadians to the concept of equality, and the idea that everyone in the society is entitled to the basic benefits of membership in the society, soon made it a "national" issue. It was a "left" value to begin with, and it remains a "left" value (although one that the right is compelled to adopt because it is simply such a universal value).

So while firearms control may not have been a "Democratic" stance in the sense of a stance of the national Democratic party, that does not mean that it is not "Democratic" in the sense of reflecting the values of the Democratic party.

Second, leaving aside the artificial distinction between national and state politics, your time line is skewed.

Mind you ... "Democrat" hasn't always and everywhere meant "liberal", and in this instance -- one that appears to prove you right -- it certainly didn't. The instance in question being part of a history of which I understand the Democratic Party is, understandably, not particularly proud.

http://www-cgi.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/analysis/time/9609/30/morrow.agnew.shtml

Cast your mind back to the 60s ... civil rights ...

In Nixon's calculus, Agnew was a safe-bet border-state novice with no heavy baggage and a Greek-immigrant father, which would help with the ethnic vote. He had been known as a Republican moderate, based on his campaign for Governor against a Democrat who ran on what was then a racially inflammatory slogan: "Your home is your castle."

http://www.goodbyemag.com/sep/agnew.htm

In 1966 he was elected Governor of Maryland. He ran as a liberal Republican, opposing a white supremacist and Democrat George Mahoney. Mahoney’s slogan was “My Home is My Castle.” (Gary Wills characterized this slogan as “Up with the castle drawbridge, let the horde of advancing niggers silt up the moat.”)

http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps12426/www.senate.gov/learning/stat_vp39.html

An arch segregationist, Mahoney adopted the campaign slogan, "Your Home Is Your Castle—Protect It," which only drove liberal Democrats into Agnew's camp. Charging Mahoney with racial bigotry, Agnew captured the liberal suburbs around Washington and was elected governor.

And now ...
http://www.johnjemerson.com/zizka.guns.htm

... the 1966 Maryland gubenatorial race: that year, the Democratic primary was won by a Dixiecrat, George P. Mahoney, when the liberal vote was split between two different candidates. Mahoney ran on an unmistakably racist, pro-gun, anti-open-housing (pro-racial-discrimination) platform: "your home is your castle, protect it!" Sen. Tydings of Maryland was at that time an important gun-control advocate, and this was one of the first important signs of the future power (and racist roots) of the pro-gun movement, which before this time had not been a major factor in politics.

One man's opinion ... but based on pretty good evidence, I'm saying.

The "pro-gun" stance preceded efforts to implement firearms control on a national basis in the US ... but did coincide with racist opposition to civil rights initiatives and was adopted by the agents of that opposition ... and of course also with events like the assassinations of major political/social leaders who espoused the civil rights cause, which undoubtedly did have a role in the emergence of firearms control as an issue on the national political scene.


http://www.amren.com/006issue/006issue.html
a review of John Lott's More Guns Less Crime -- I cite this source, American Renaissance magazine, to expose nastiness to the light of day, not to adopt its positions, obviously:

In 1985 there were only eight states with "shall issue" laws but now there are 31. This means we have a great deal of information on what happens to violent crime rates when there are suddenly a lot more guns in responsible hands, and the results could not be clearer: When citizens might be carrying pistols under their coats, the brutes think twice about doing them mischief.

Not surprisingly, the decrease in crime has been greatest where there was the most to begin with, and this means cities with large black populations. As Prof. Lott explains, "While many blacks want to make guns harder to get, the irony is that blacks benefit more than other groups from concealed-handgun laws." As he notes, the percentage of young blacks in an area is the single variable that best predicts the level of violence. If the non-criminals in these places start carrying weapons it evens the odds and discourages predators – just as it does everywhere else – and there are more predators to discourage.

It uses nice words and pretences of concern about the welfare of African-Americans, but it is what it very obviously is.


There are plenty of authoritarian prohibitionists on the right as well as the left (William J. Bennett being an egregious example). And there are lots of pro-gun people on the left as well. 80% of union members in Tennessee are gun owners...

I must assume that supporting speed limits makes one an authoritarian.

But I really wouldn't agree that one could assume that everyone who drives fast is a left-wing libertarian.

You may do the math.

[DavidMS]

5. The Panic Merchants are hard at work.

Its a first rate socioeconomic class issue to me.

I feel that gun control is a combination of misguided naivete, cynical manipulation of the American public and an excellent way to divide the electorate in their favor. Irrespective of the actual merits of the concept.

I feel that primaraly its an urban/rural issue dealing more with symbolic politics than actual solutions to crime (because that takes money, time, atention). Mostly its an easy way to argue for legal changes that will 1.) anoy the other and 2.) lead to more legislation (we need stronger gun control laws, the ones we have arn't working OR we need stronger protection for citizens who shoot criminals to encourage the pratice).

Its all rather childish.

Edit... edit edit... I finaly got it right.

[jody]

6. You aren't confused, you're just listening to a minority within the

Democratic Party who want to either ban handguns or all guns.

The Democratic Party is going through a rediscovery of its roots as evidenced by the 2004 party platform that says, "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do."

Our platform will undoubtedly go through other changes on RKBA until it returns to its historic role of champion for "We the People".

The People have an inalienable right to defend self and property as recognized by sovereign states before they ratified the Constitution and BOR. Most of those states acknowledged the inalienable or natural right to defend self and property and some of them said arms were the tools of choice to exercise that right. Firearms are the most effective, efficient tools for that job, yet a strident minority within the Democratic Party would deny that right to the People even though SCOTUS has ruled that governments are not obligated to protect an individual unless that person is in the custody of law enforcement.

When that minority view is no longer associated with the Democratic Party along with other divisive issues, then the Democratic Party will regain control of Congress.

[Peak_Oil]

8. Well, hopefully they'll let the AWB sunset permanently.

It's stupid.

The gun show loophole though... what's that?

I have no problems with background checks. It's a good idea to keep convicted murderers away from firearms, methinks. Also good to keep those who hear voices away from guns. Background checks good, AWB stupid.

Maybe the US government should stop selling guns to terrorists, too.

[jody]

9. You are among friends because DU has many members who are

"yellow dog democrats" and also support RKBA as has the Democratic Party until the 1970s or so. The Democratic Party is the party of "We the People" not "We the Corporations". As such, we should be concerned about the very basic rights of an individual which includes the inalienable right to defend self and property. Those who ignore that right are viewed by many voters as being against the People.

[billbuckhead]

10. Only 40% of American adults own guns w Dems owning 31% & nonwhites 24%

Every reputable poll show a vast majority of Americans were for the AWB. The gun issue is really one of race and sex. Urban residents feel we are being held hostage by crime and terrorism enabling gun wackos, weapons manufacturers and their republican fellow travelers. remember that the most fascist regime in American history is also the most progun. Here's the latest Gallup poll on the subject. Since it's Gallup, expect the poll to skew way to the rightwing weak gun regulation crowd. I also included on from Field and Stream and one from the WSJ about the AWB.
-------------------------------------

Press Image of Gun Owner Not Far Off, Except for All Those Women

By E&P Staff

Published: January 04, 2005 10:00 AM ET


NEW YORK A Gallup Poll released this morning reveals that the average American owns 1.7 guns, with the average gun owner possessing 4.4 of them. The press is quick to promote stereotypes of the average gun owner as a white male, most likely Republican, living in a rural area or the South. But how well does reality match the image? The new Gallup Poll shows that the stereotype is not that far off, but with several twists.

For one thing, one out of three American women say they own a gun. That's not much below the overall mark of 40% for all American adults.

As for other elements of the stereotype: More than half (53%) of Republicans own guns, compared with 36% of political independents and 31% of Democrats. Whites are more likely than nonwhites to own (44% and 24%, respectively), according to Gallup.

<http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000745373>
-------------------------------------------------
Even 66% of Field and Stream magazine readers think buyers of shotguns and rifles should have background checks and 67% think assault rifles serve no sporting purpose.

<http://www.fieldandstream.com/fieldstream/hunting/article/0,13199,458217,00.html>

---------------------------------------------------
And here's a Wall Street Journal poll on the AWB
<http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm>

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). Sept. 17-19, 2004. N=1,006 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"As you may know, the federal ban on assault weapons has expired, and certain types of guns that were banned in 1994 can now be legally sold again. Overall, are you satisfied that this law has expired, dissatisfied that it has expired, or does it not make a difference to you either way?"


Satisfied
12%

Dissatisfied
61%

No difference
25%

Not sure
2%

[left15]

15. Your post shows why there is so much confusion on the issue.

When quoting Field and Stream, you used the term "assault rifles" as opposed to "assault weapon" or "assault-style rifles" as the article used.

An "Assault Rifle" is capable of full automatic fire (machine gun) where "assault weapons" and "assault-style rifles" are semi-auto.

If you were to ask, (as I think they tried to do) Do semi-auto hunting rifles need other military features, you would get a "NO"

But if you ask should semi-auto rifles be banned, you would also get a "NO"

These are two very different questions, but are rolled together into one. (as the AWB tried to do)

Also, you quote WSJ where they said "As you may know, the federal ban on assault weapons has expired, and certain types of guns that were banned in 1994 can now be legally sold again."

This is false, the AWB did not stop sales, only manufacture.

If the questions were properly asked, you would get different answers. I think the people creating the poll questions know very little about firearms, or the relevant issues.

[papau]

20. the AWB did not stop sales, only manufacture - True - BUT

Firearms manufactured and owned prior to the ban were still legal if you could prove to the ATF that the gun was built as an assault rifle prior to 1994.

So sales continued.

But some sales were stopped - as in the sales of the "illegal" guns!

:-)

[benEzra]

33. Not exactly...

Firearms manufactured and owned prior to the ban were still legal if you could prove to the ATF that the gun was built as an assault rifle prior to 1994.

Actually, you didn't have to prove anything. All restricted firearms manufactured after the effective date had to be marked "military/law enforcement only" and the legal presumption was that any gun without that label was pre-94.

So sales continued.

But some sales were stopped - as in the sales of the "illegal" guns!xt

Actually, sales dramatically accelerated. Far more AR-15 clones were sold in the years 1994-2004 than in all the prior decades combined (the AR-15 hit the civilian market in 1961, IIRC).

I bought my civilian AK-47 lookalike in 2002 because of the ban...and a folding stock for my mini-14 after the ban expired. :)

[papau]

42. LOL-OK- Clones were sold! - indeed if only to give the finger to the gov!

:-)

Sorry but I was a meat hunter and a target shooter in the past.

Never realy felt the need for a AK-47 .... Clone or otherwise.

But you are correct - some friends of mine made a few dollars with the clones!

[Union Thug]

46. I have a WASR AK...

It's just a fun shooter to take to the range on a lazy Saturday morning. I don't really have a 'need' for one, I suppose, but the fun factor definately provides justification enough for me ;-)

[benEzra]

48. The pre-ban civilian "AK-47" was a "clone," too...

since all real AK-47's were/are NFA Class III firearms.

The guns sold during the ban were not "clones" of any firearm banned by the AWB; they were merely other AK lookalikes without the banned name, and with target crowned muzzles instead of capped threads, as the law required.

Civilian AK's are good all-around rifles in the same vein as the old Winchester 94 .30-30, and they are ballistically quite similar (the AK being slightly less powerful). For hunting, they are limited by lack of power, but are sufficient for deer inside 125 yards or so. If I ever take up hunting, that's probably what I'd hunt with (SAR-1 with 5-round magazine and 4x scope).

[benEzra]

18. Support for the "AWB" tracks very closely...

with confusion about what it actually covered.

It restricted ALL FIREARMS HOLDING OVER 10 ROUNDS, with a few inconsequential exceptions. Over-10-round magazines made before 1994 could still be freely bought and sold, so the main effect was to raise prices on full-capacity replacement magazines for defensive handguns (like my wife's Glock).

It also restricted any self-loading civilian firearm from having two or more of a list of mostly cosmetic features, such as a rifle stock shaped a certain way.

It did NOT restrict any military AK-47's and Uzi's and M16's. These were and are restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934.

As far as whether or not you can use a particular firearm for hunting--that is completely irrelevant. Four out of five gun owners don't hunt; are we nonhunters not allowed to own guns?

The "AWB" placed a few silly and pointless restrictions on a bunch of low-powered but nontraditional-looking civilian firearms, without affecting their availability. It is now expired, without affecting their availability. I say good riddance.

[iverglas]

26. there ya go

It restricted ALL FIREARMS HOLDING OVER 10 ROUNDS, with a few inconsequential exceptions. Over-10-round magazines made before 1994 could still be freely bought and sold, so the main effect was to raise prices on full-capacity replacement magazines for defensive handguns ...

(Funny ... I thought guns didn't kill people, people killed people ... and no gun ever did anything by itself ... and blah blah blah ... so what are these defensive handguns? Wouldn't we say that a handgun is a handgun is a handgun, and the purpose for which it is used is the purpose of the person who uses it, not of the thing used? Can I look at a handgun and know, just know, whether it is a "defensive handgun"? Can you tell me how, please?)

So what you have is weak and ineffective legislation. No quarrel from me.

It makes as much damn sense as banning the use of animal by-products for feeding cattle born from today onward, but allowing cattle already born to continue to be fed animal-byproduct feed and slaughtered for market.

A sensible "grandfather" provision in legislation allows people who already own/do something that people are not henceforth permitted to own/do to continue to own/do them, but not to transfer the ownership of the thing or the entitlement to do the thing. Otherwise, there is little damned point in denying permission to own/do the thing in question, particularly when the thing in question is not rapidly consumed or worn out and there are lots and lots of it out there.

I understand that this is how rent controls, for example, operate in many US jurisdictions. A sitting tenant may continue the tenancy, at the controlled rent, for as long as s/he likes, but s/he may not assign the tenancy to someone else at that same rent.

In some cases, a transfer is possible. A "non-conforming use" -- a use that is being made of property at the time a restrictive zoning by-law is passed -- may be continued by the owner or by someone to whom the owner transfers the land. But the owner may not expand the use beyond the property, or change the nature of the non-conforming use.

The self-negating grandfathering provision of the US's assault weapons "ban" seems to have resulted from a couple of factors.

One might have been the USAmerican obsession with "property rights", and the notion that prohibiting the transfer of something can never be a justified interference in those rights. Well, obviously some such interferences are considered to be legitimate (a tenancy is a "property right" -- under normal circumstances, it can be transferred -- for instance). The point is that in this situation, the property rights of owners of the particular things in question are regarded (by some) as outweighing the interests of the society as a whole in making them generally unavailable.

Another would obviously be the resistance of certain factions on the USAmerican political spectrum to any interference in "gun rights", which ran up against the public opinion that, for whatever reason, some interference in those rights was necessary and justified. The result was apparently a supposed compromise that served the interests of both sides to an acceptable extent.

The problem is that it really did very little to serve the interests that those who sought the ban wished to promote. And the lesson (as many people who defend women's reproductive rights have learned) is that one cannot "compromise" with people who do not have one's interests at heart at all, because they will simply take everything they can -- which will generally be something necessary to someone else's well-being that the right wing simply wants to take away for its own selfish reasons, and not in any public interest -- and give nothing at all.

[benEzra]

30. Some answers...

so what are these defensive handguns? Wouldn't we say that a handgun is a handgun is a handgun, and the purpose for which it is used is the purpose of the person who uses it, not of the thing used? Can I look at a handgun and know, just know, whether it is a "defensive handgun"? Can you tell me how, please?

Because almost all of the people who buy them purchase them for self-defense or defense of family, rather than for hunting or recreational target shooting. Which was the sense in which I used the term. I could have said "full- and intermediate-size self-loading handguns chambered in .380 ACP, 9x19mm, and .40 S&W and marketed primarily for defensive purposes," but I thought "defensive handgun" was a clear enough shorthand for non-gunnies. Apparently it wasn't.

A few target-style handguns were also affected by the ban, but the guns that were the aforementioned handguns.

It makes as much damn sense as banning the use of animal by-products for feeding cattle born from today onward, but allowing cattle already born to continue to be fed animal-byproduct feed and slaughtered for market.

Actually, it made less sense than that. Because at least animal-byproduct feed is a genuine problem.

The #1 traced gun in the United States is the .38/.357 caliber revolver. The only long gun in the top 10 is the 12-gauge pump-action shotgun. Requiring that civilian AR-15 clones be fitted with fake ajustable stocks instead of real ones, or banning bayonet lugs, does not address any real problem. (Unless there are a lot of drive-by bayonettings I haven't heard about.)

The AWB was not intended to solve a crime problem. It was intended to nationalize and codify into law the prohibitionist contention that the only firearms non-LEO civilians should legitimately own are hunting-style firearms (with low-capacity handguns grudgingly accepted for now--but you notice that there was not a single handgun in the "protected" list), and to open a second front in the drive for broader restrictions on firearms ownership.

I must assume that supporting speed limits makes one an authoritarian.

But I really wouldn't agree that one could assume that everyone who drives fast is a left-wing libertarian.

No. But advocating a national speed limit of 45 mph, or outlawing the 3-cylinder Geo Metro as a "high-powered race car that out-runs police and runs down children and has no legitimate transportation purpose" would indeed be authoritarian, would it not?

[iverglas]

35. uh huh

Can I look at a handgun and know, just know, whether it is a "defensive handgun"? Can you tell me how, please?
Because almost all of the people who buy them purchase them for self-defense or defense of family, rather than for hunting or recreational target shooting. ... I thought "defensive handgun" was a clear enough shorthand for non-gunnies.

Yeah. Nobody anywhere buys handguns for purposes other than self-defence, hunting or target shooting. Accordingly, all handguns are either "defensive" or "sporting". No handguns are ever acquired, or used, for any other purpose. And no one in the US is ever robbed, injured or killed by anyone using a handgun for some purpose other than "defensive" or "sporting", or anyone who acquired a handgun for anything other than such purposes. There are thus no handguns other than "defensive handguns" and "sporting handguns". I see. You weren't sinning by omission at all ... or tilting at straw ... at all.

A few target-style handguns were also affected by the ban, but the guns that were the aforementioned handguns.

Yes, I get it. The legislation was aimed squarely at "defensive handguns". The sole purpose of the legislation was to inconvenience people who might need lots and lots of bullets to defend themselves. It's all clear to me now.


Actually, it made less sense than that. Because at least animal-byproduct feed is a genuine problem.

Actually, the problem is BSE in humans -- Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Banning the use of animal-byproduct feed is an effort to address that problem by preventing BSE from being contracted by animals that are eaten by people and that have eaten feed made from infected animals. Animal-byproduct feed, in and of itself, simply is not a problem.

See? Large-capacity magazines, in and of themselves, are not a problem. And I don't think that anyone has ever suggested that they are. Banning the possession of large-capacity magazines was an effort to address the problem of large numbers of bullets being fired in rapid succession at people.

Not a problem, I think I hear you saying. Well hmm. Can you tell us how many people in North America have been diagnosed with Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease? You should be able count 'em without taking your socks off ... or lifting your fingers from your keyboard.

And yet ... all those thousands of law-abiding cow owners have been turned into criminals (if they feed their cows animal-byproduct feed) and inconvenienced and put to considerable expense ... just on a whim. Or no, not a whim, an authoritarian impulse.


The AWB was not intended to solve a crime problem. It was intended to nationalize and codify into law the prohibitionist contention that the only firearms non-LEO civilians should legitimately own are hunting-style firearms (with low-capacity handguns grudgingly accepted for now--but you notice that there was not a single handgun in the "protected" list), and to open a second front in the drive for broader restrictions on firearms ownership.

Yup. And speed limits are intended to codify the puritanical notion that nobody should have any fun, and to inculcate Nazi-like notions of social conformity into the freedom-loving USAmerican populace. Next up: a ban on fire-engine red sports cars.


But advocating a national speed limit of 45 mph, or outlawing the 3-cylinder Geo Metro as a "high-powered race car that out-runs police and runs down children and has no legitimate transportation purpose" would indeed be authoritarian, would it not?

Actually, I'd say it would probably be silly. Wouldn't you? C'mon; surely you can give us an actual analogy to demonstrate the "authoritarian" content of firearms control laws. This Geo Metro tale might -- if you were correct about the irrelevance of the content of the firearms control laws in question to the objective they ostensibly pursue -- illustrate the pointlessness of those laws, but not their authoritarian content. For that, you really do need to show some nefarious intent.

There are speed limits. There are also all kinds of other limitations on the features of motor vehicles, where they may be driven, how they may be driven, what fuel they may use, etc. etc. All in the public interest.

A restriction on the exercise of rights that is imposed not in the public interest, but in some private interest or some interest of a segment of the population pursuing its interests at the expense of other segments or individuals (putting this all very simplistically), would indeed, generally, be "authoritarian".

It's unfortunate that the rkba-heads are still flailing about desperately in the darkness trying to demonstrate what that interest might be. Yup, all the liberal/social democrats who support various aspects of firearms control are really just closet racists ... or really really stupid dupes when it comes to this one odd thing ...

[Union Thug]

37. "whether or not you can use a particular firearm for hunting"

I agree with you... irrelevent... BUT, I will add, simply as a tangent, that my SKS would be every bit as good (actually better in some ways) than a Model 94 30-30 for deer. Ballistically the 7.62x39 and the 30-30 are similiar, and as for accuracy, I'll take my Russian or Yugo made SKS's over the little 94 any day.

Sorry, just tangentalizing here.. =)

[papau]

43. But an interesting tangent! - I like the little 94! - but have never shot

Russian or Yugo made SKS's

I wish I was younger and more mobil - sounds like fun!

[Union Thug]

45. My dad gave me a Win 94 when I was 12...

And during the years that I hunted with him, that was all I used (except for his Model 70 .270 that I got to use to take a shot at an elk with - I missed!)

But anyway, it must be because of the barrel length (I will defer to those better versed in such matters), my SKS seems to be significantly more accurate than my old 30-30.

[MrSandman]

40. This does explain one thing...

Every reputable poll show a vast majority of Americans were for the AWB

Now I know why fewer than 100 Representatives were on record demanding that the AWB renewal be voted upon by the House.<sarcasm off>

[slackmaster]

13. Background checks should at least be available on all sales

Right now it's specifically prohibited for anyone other than a licensed gun dealer (FFL holder) to use the best (flawed, incomplete, badly in need of repair) available background check database, NICS.

In most states, if you have a gun to sell and want to make sure the next person to own it isn't a convicted felon or otherwise prohibited from having a gun, your only option is to sell it outright to a licensed gun dealer. Of course you, being an amateur, are likely to lose financially as compared to selling the gun directly to a stranger.

So the financial incentive works against your social conscience. Guess which one usually wins when someone is in a situation where they are selling off valuable personal property.

If we made the NCIS available for confidential use by private individuals, people would have a better opportunity to take full responsibility for the disposition of their used firearms.

[iverglas]

22. strange formulations

Power lies in a monopoly on violence.

Do you think maybe that this is a tad simplistic? Is something other than "a monopoly on violence" maybe in issue when we think about loci of power in modern societies?

Does Fox News have any power at all, by that definition? I don't really see it using violence to achieve its ends, and yet it seems to wield considerable power, if we consider power to be the ability to achieve the result one desires.


Putting tools of violence in the hands of the common people is the decentralization of power, right? That's how you distribute power to people.

Well, that's just fine -- if we actually want to "distribute power to people". If, on the other hand, we recognize that people have power, and we want to ensure that they are able to exercise it, putting the tools of violence in their hands might not be the best approach.

Some of us think that things like elections and elected governments are an equally fine way of doing this, and in fact a very much better way.

Once again, I am gobsmacked at the rejection of democratic concepts by someone claiming to be "left".


I always thought the right wing was all about centralizing power in a hierarchy, power gathered in the hands of the few so the trains run on time. Isn't that right-wing?

Well, no, not by me.

"Right" and "left", by me, have infinitely more to do with the purpose for which power is exercised, and the manner in which it is exercised.

"So the trains run on time" is not an objectionable purpose in itself; however, if it is achieved by coercion and violence or threats of violence against people with legitimate reasons, reasons that are in the legitimate interests of the people as a whole or of minorities or individuals entitled to have their interets protected, for not wanting the trains to run on time, then it would be a "right-wing" purpose. On the other hand, if the aim of trains running on time is to ensure that everyone can go about his/her legitimate business (exercise his/her rights) and goods can be supplied to everyone, for instance, it's quite a good purpose.

What's "legitimate", and who's "entitled" to what? Well, those are always the big questions, the very questions that societies are organized to answer, and that democratic societies collectively establish rules for answering.

"Right-wing", to me, implies power being exercised without the authority of the people. It really doesn't matter to me how many people exercise that power directly, as long as it is legitimized by that authority.

You do seem to be fixating on externalities rather than the substance of the matter, I'd say.


I wonder if I'm just a maroon and have no idea what the actual debate is about.

Based on the careful phrasing that I observe in your post, that wouldn't be my guess.


Taking it out of abstract politics, is the gun-banning position based in fear of personal loss?

Well now.

First, we have "the gun-banning position". Does your giving it a name mean that it exists? Does the name you apply assign any substance to the concept it purports to name? What is this "gun-banning position", and who holds it? Without some substance and some named adherents, I'm seeing straw.

Then we have the leading question. Of all the things that this "gun-banning position", whatever it is, might be based on, you've chosen to suggest "fear of personal loss". I wonder why.


why would Soccermom Sally care whether the 18th street gang have AK's in East LA?

Gee, using a woman to typify the straw person we have erected, one whom we find distasteful. How progressive of us.

I guess Soccermom Sally also wouldn't care about Iraqis killed by USAmerican bullets, or Sri Lankan children orphaned by a tsunami, or the neighbour on her block beating his/her dog. Sally is just a boil of icky self-interest on the bum of the nation.

If not Soccermom Sally, might someone else care whether the 18th street gang has AKs in East LA? Would his/her interest necessarily be illegitimate? Or might it be the natural and desirable interest of a member of a society in the well-being of other members of his/her society? Is it not natural, and in fact necessary, for members of the human species to have and take an interest in the welfare of their fellows? Is it not desirable that they take a particular interest in those of their fellows who are particularly vulnerable to harm?

Is it not left, "liberal", progressive and democratic for all of us to do that? Would it not be rather the antithesis of all those for Soccermom Sally not to give a shit about people in places where "she's never been ... in her life and would never go"? If she didn't give a shit about them, wouldn't that make her kinda right-wing and anti-democratic?


Fill me in. Is this a political/class issue, or a personal safety issue, or is it just a bullshit canard put together by some group I'm totally in the dark about?

Hmm, "it"? Is "it" bullshit? Well, I certainly think the well-being of all the members of one's society, and how a society enhances or fails to protect their well-being, is a political/class issue. And I think that "gun rights" is indeed a bullshit canard put together by some group that I'd be surprised to think you're in the dark about.

[davepc]

29. Ronald Regan is the godfather of modern gun control legistlation

Thats all you really need to know about where the Democrats *SHOULD* be on this issue.

The Mulford Act in 1967 was written specifically to disarm the Black Panthers.

Of course they couldn't write a law that specifically prohibited African American citizens from owning firearms, so they passed a law that limited gun control de facto, but of course all the focus of law enforcement was to take the guns out of the hands of people fighting for their civil rights, while not bothering the new law-breaking white gun owner.

A page straight out Jim Crows playbook.

Pass a law that limits gun ownership, ignore it for whites or at least barely enforce it, while vigorously using the power behind it to persecute black Americans.

'We’re going to the Capitol. Mulford’s there, and they’re trying to pass a law against our guns, and we’re going to the Capitol steps. We’re going to take the best Panthers we got and we’re going to the Capitol steps with our guns and forces, loaded down to the gills. And we’re going to read a message to the world, because the press is always up there. They’ll listen to the message, and they’ll probably blast it all across this country. I know, I know they’ll blast it all the way across California. We’ve got to get a message over to the people.' -- Huey Newton

[iverglas]

31. a page straight out of ... somewhere

Through the looking glass, I'd say.

Again -- hate the source, use it for what it's worth:
http://www.jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm

At the end of June 1968, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee to investigate Juvenile Delinquency -- chaired by Thomas J. Dodd (D-CT) -- held hearings on bills: (1) "To Require the Registration of Firearms" (S.3604). (2) "To Disarm Lawless Persons" (S.3634) and (3) "To Provide for the Establishment of a National Firearms Registry" (S.3637), among others.

U.S. Representative John Dingell (D-MI) testified at these Senate hearings on "gun control". Senator Joseph D. Tydings (D-MD) chaired some of these hearings, in Dodd's absence.

Rep. Dingell expressed concern that if firearms registration were required, it might lead to confiscation of firearms, as had happened in Nazi Germany. Tydings angrily accused Rep. Dingell of using "scare tactics":

"Are you inferring that our system here, gun registration or licensing, would in any way be comparable to the Nazi regime in Germany, where they had a secret police, and a complete takeover?"

Rep. Dingell backed away.

... Tydings later inserted into the hearing record various documents, "concerning the history of Nazism and gun confiscation."

Exhibit No. 62 (see reproduction) is fascinating. This letter -- dated July 12, 1968 -- is to Subcommittee Chairman Dodd from Lewis C. Coffin, Law Librarian at the Library of Congress. Coffin wrote:

" ... we are enclosing herewith a translation of the Law on Weapons of March 18, 1938, prepared by Dr. William Solyom-Fekete of <the European Law Division -- ed. (in original - iverglas)> as well as the Xerox of the original German text which you supplied" (Subcommittee Hearings, p. 489, emphasis added).

This letter makes it public knowledge that at the end of June 1968 -- 4 months before GCA '68 was enacted -- Senator Thomas J. Dodd, now deceased, personally owned a copy of the original German text of the Nazi Weapons Law.

Why did Dodd own the original German text of any Nazi law? Why did he make known that he owned it?

(Gosh, I give up. Perhaps he obtained it in order to refute the ravings of his right-wing adversary? Perhaps he was just an intelligent person with curiosity who wished to be knowledgable about his subject? Anyone needing to know what a campaign of smear and innuendo looks like could start here, I'd say.)

So again, your time line is, if not simply skewed, just a tad one-dimensional, my friend.

Don't you have anything at all you'd like to tell us about Maryland Governor Mahoney and the strangely coincidental co-existence of "gun rights" and racist OPPOSITION to civil rights in that time and place? Feel free to read what I've offered in this thread.

I very much suspect that Huey Newton knew what collective rights were, and would want no more to do with the "gun rights" crowd of the 21st century than any other person of integrity does.



http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/jan-june99/guns_6-18.html

... Last night, McCarthy held the attention of the House as she pushed her amendment to require all gun show dealers to take up to three days to conduct background checks. And her definition of a gun show was any event in which 50 guns or more were on display.

REP. CAROLYN MCCARTHY: Dear colleagues, this is an amendment that is common sense. It is common sense for the American people. I ask to you listen to the speakers and hopefully be open minded when you vote.

KWAME HOLMAN: But Michigan Democrat John Dingell argued that gun show dealers and patrons were being characterized unfairly.

REP. JOHN DINGELL: Now, gun shows are not saturnalias of criminals who are bent on destroying the lives and the well-being of innocent citizens. They are a group of innocent citizens who are doing something that goes back as far as Plymouth Rock. They are getting together to sell, trade and to engage in commerce.

KWAME HOLMAN: Dingell, the most senior member in the House, also proposed requiring all dealers to conduct background checks, but limiting the time for that process to a maximum of 24 hours, less than what current law requires. And at least ten dealers would have to be on hand for at a gun-selling event for it to be considered a gun show at all.

REP. JOHN DINGELL: To go beyond this is simply to harass innocent, law-abiding citizens and to hurt people who love to go to gun shows to see their fellow citizens, to talk about guns, to look at firearms, to perhaps purchase a firearm, or more likely to purchase some other kind of sporting accoutrement.

KWAME HOLMAN: Most Democrats argued against the Dingell amendment and for McCarthy.

(Won't somebody tell this Dingell fellow what "citizen" means?)

Seems to me that Tydings, not Dingell, was the real Democrat back in 1968 -- back when Democrats, not Ronald Reagan, were pressing for firearms control at a national level in the US, in the interests of their society and consistently with liberal democratic values.

[benEzra]

32. I don't think the NRA was all that opposed to GCA '68

and the NRA is certainly OK with its provisions today. As is pretty much every gun owner on this board, as far as I can tell.

We're not talking about GCA '68. We're talking about restricting guns that Democrats and everyone else in 1968 thought were perfectly appropriate for non-criminals to own.

M1 carbines were common in '68. AR-15's and FAL's were on the market. Over-10-round handguns were available. But instead of trying to restrict what the law-abiding can own, they concentrated on reducing the CRIMINAL use of ANY gun.

It was not until the late '80s/early '90s that the national party started pushing to redraw the line of demarcation between civilian and non-civilian firearms. And THAT issue has been a loser.

[iverglas]

36. whatever CGA is ...

... it isn't what my post was about, I don't think.

At the end of June 1968, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee to investigate Juvenile Delinquency -- chaired by Thomas J. Dodd (D-CT) -- held hearings on bills: (1) "To Require the Registration of Firearms" (S.3604). (2) "To Disarm Lawless Persons" (S.3634) and (3) "To Provide for the Establishment of a National Firearms Registry" (S.3637), among others.

June 1968, when the Democratic Party was pretty much running the show, no?


We're talking about restricting guns that Democrats and everyone else in 1968 thought were perfectly appropriate for non-criminals to own.

In 1968, or not long before, Democrats and everyone else also thought that big pointy fins on cars were perfectly appropriate for non-criminals to own.

Then big pointy fins (and sharp hood ornaments) on cars got outlawed (Ralph Nader, wasn't it?), because they were determined to be contrary to public safety. Yup, the existing cars could still be driven and transferred. But the transfer was registered, and they weren't invisible when they were being promenaded around the world, and the numbers and lifespan of pointy-finned cars really were limited.

I could name a gazillion things that were generally thought to be perfectly appropriate to own or do at some time in the past. You don't want to hear me say "slavery", do you? Or even "smoking"? Why do you propose that what someone thought, in the circumstances of the time at which s/he thought it, is what should be thought for all time?


M1 carbines were common in '68. AR-15's and FAL's were on the market. Over-10-round handguns were available.

Yup. And if I were to say (having been there) that the world was really a very different place in '68, would you say nay? Do you disagree that circumstances alter cases? That what might be appropriate in one time and place may not be appropriate in another?


But instead of trying to restrict what the law-abiding can own, they concentrated on reducing the CRIMINAL use of ANY gun.

"To Require the Registration of Firearms" ... "To Provide for the Establishment of a National Firearms Registry" ... those look to me to be directed at "the law-abiding".

How the hell do you reduce "the criminal use of any gun" if you cannot reduce criminal ACCESS to it?? Aren't you folks the ones who are so fond of telling us that CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY LAWS?? Why can no one ever explain this strange dissonance in the rkba-head creed to me?


It was not until the late '80s/early '90s that the national party started pushing to redraw the line of demarcation between civilian and non-civilian firearms. And THAT issue has been a loser.

Yeah, and so has opposition to the aggression against Iraq. Things have been going rather bumpily on the reproductive rights front in recent years, as well. Support for same-sex marriage certainly isn't a winning position in the US these days. (Funny how Canada has same-sex marriage ... and effective firearms control ...)

I'm just not taking your point, I'm afraid.

[benEzra]

38. GCA '68 is the Gun Control Act of 1968...

the provisions of which the NRA and gun owners are OK with. That's the law that outlaws interstate gun sales except through a Federal Firearms Licensee, requires that records be kept of all gun purchases from a gun dealer, establishes BATF oversight of gun dealers, etc. etc.

You are correct that Democrats ran the show in '68. And they REJECTED the registration bill. They did NOT ban over-10-round handguns or low-powered rifles with vertical handgrips or whatever. THAT is a recent development. We will certainly disagree on whether it is a good development or not, though.

[Union Thug]

34. I believe it is a class issue.

I grew up around far left labor radicals. All of them owned guns and hunted. I am also a gun owner (and far left labor radical). It doesn't have so much to do with being left wing or right wing, but rather, I personally believe, your lot in life, at least to some degree.

[papau]

47. Damn - you may have hit on something! - As I am a from a union liberal

family that hunted for meat.

Saturday's dinner was red sauce stew with whatever!