Hi I'm new here and I started wondering this after the tragic events at Chardon High School in Ohio. I was wondering if we could test gun control legislation by considering the extremes of the law. 1. The one extreme is where the law forbids private firearms to anyone in society. The only people allowed firearms are on duty Police and Military servicemen and women. 2. The other extreme is that guns and ammunition are handed out to the public for free and would be compulsory, like ID. So in the school for example, loaded guns would be handed out to students. Which would be the right decision?
Many countries (like Switzerland) require all houses to have weapons. Now, this is because all male members are in the military/Reserve and are responsible for their weapon even when not on active duty. While I am for things like limiting the magazine capacity for handguns. Gun ownership is a right given to all citizens. Now, I also believe that if you do something stupid with a firearm, like shoot your neighbor while playing around, or showing off the weapon and shooting the minister's daughter in the head, you should lose that right indefinately. All firearm owners should have to go through a fire arms safety course, after all, military personnel are constantly going through safety stand downs and familiarizations.
The answer would be "neither". Neither extreme is the right choice. Banning guns from the public prevents those who should be able to own firearms from doing so. Mandating guns allows those who should not have access to firearms to possess them.
All ablebody men between 17-45 are part of the reserve or unorganized militia in the US as well. You can read the militia act of 1903. These kinds of tragic events are horrible and my thoughts and prayers are with the families. The 2nd is there to protect our ability to both counter balance a large standing military. An to provide a very large reserve force for use by the military. As well as an individual right to self-defense. I am not sure what type of handgun was used in the crime. Though I'm sure you understand being military that the first rounds are usually the most lethal. Snipers in the military usually use bolt-action rifles much like the common hunting rifles. I agree weapons are not toys and all laws pertaining to the safe use should be strictly enforced. As anyone should be aware several laws were broken before the actual shooting accured. The fact the subject was chased from the building by an unarmed teacher would suggest it wasn't a high capacity weapon. Facebook messages and other warning signs were ignored and the fact it was a crime of passion due to main target dating subject's ex-girlfriend. Suggest subtle changes in law would not have prevented this event. I know some will attack my position on this issue. That is well within your 1st amendment rights. I should add that if the government rounded up every single legal firearm in the US. The illegal weapons would still exist and the black-market would become the source to obtain them. We have fought a war on drugs for over 40 years. Does anyone think there are fewer drugs on the streets now?
Gun control laws do nothing more than take firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. Criminals do not obey laws, so they will get a weapon one way or another. Even though I am a Democrat, I support the standard Republican stand on this: "We would be better off finding a way to enforce existing laws instead of creating new ones."
I wish more people would take that view and allow this issue to be removed from politics. The 2nd amendment is the main reason I align my self with the republicans. Most Americans concentrate on the left VS right aspect. While ignoring the libertarian VS authoritarian. Most Americans in my view have a libertarian view. Yet we elect leaders on both sides that are authoritarians. Just my opinion but I think that what drives us apart and leaves us dissatisfied with our government.
I think most people are libertarian regarding themselves but authoritarian in regards to other people, especially other "types" of people (where type can be based on pretty much any distinguishing characteristic). We tend to elect authoritarian leaders because successful politicians are very good and tricking us in to thinking they're talking about being authoritarian to all those other people and not us.
I WAS a moderate republican until the party decided to go so far to the right that it was unacceptable to me. The GOP used to be a party about small government, more individual responsibility, and equaility. Today it is about Big Business, religious dogma, big government, and sticking its nose into the affairs of the citizenry. That is why long-time republican Olympia Snow is leaving. She is a moderate in a party where being a moderate is equal to being a liberal. Like many of us, we did not leave the Republican party, they left us.
I agree but being intelligent beings we should understand. That if we allow others to be oppressed we don't agree with. That eventually we will all be oppressed. That would be where the "United we stand, divided we fall" should be adhered to. I also think that much like this year elections you see the extremes control the election process. Which prevents the vast majority of Americans from even voting. Why vote if no one really represent your views. Even myself I vote for in my mind" the lesser of two evils" so I do still vote for things I think are wrong. The only other choice is not participate.
If there wasn't 2 or maybe even 3 supreme court appointment during next 4 years. I would waste my vote on a 3rd party even if I didn't agree with there platform. Just as a protest vote. The justices that Clinton and Obama appointed do not share my beliefs on the 2nd. The one place I think a conservative view is vital is on the supreme court. The republicans nominees are laughable. Makes you think the party doesn't really want to win this year. With the opposition to Obama any intelligent sounding non-extremist that wasn't damaged goods would have easily won. Since that candidate does not exist this year it will be a painful November no matter who wins.
Well, if you look at the President he is actually pretty moderate compared to past presidents. I know most conservatives would not agree but he is. Even in his healthcare reform bill he tried to take formally republican ideas and put them in so the plan would be more accepted. He consulted with the insurance companies, Big pharma, and medical professions. My problem with the Healthcare Reform Bill is that is really solves nothing. It does not really address most of the problems with our system. However, it is a starting point. I am amazed by the fact that for the second time, the GOP can't provide a single viable canidate for president. I actually see very little difference between Romney and President Obama. However, the conservatives will not vote for a moderate canidate, so he has to try and pass himself off as a conservative (and he is failing at that).
Yes I would agree he actual has ruled to the right of center. On my issue however he is on record as saying we should at least reinstate the assault weapon ban to help Mexico out. Then fast and furious scandal broke he became eerily quiet on the issue. Now I don't think you could get that through congress at least the house. That though is my concerns in the supreme court nomination. That he could set the stage for future assaults on the 2nd. As long as a pro-2nd majority exist in the court we would appear safe for the next decade at least. But if one of the conservative justices dies on a court with 4 conservatives, 4 liberals , and one independent justice Kennedy. I would fear that no challenges to the court in the future would represent my view on the 2nd. If you read the dissenting opinions on both macdonald VS Chicago and Heller VS DC they are kind of scary.I however do not think Obama is a socialist. I would describe him as a controlled market capitalist. As opposed to free market capitalist that most republicans prefer. Even "Obamacare" the individual mandate that concerns me as to government forcing you to buy something. That to me sets a dangerous precedent. Yet it actually is forced capitalism. From what I've read and the fact romney was endorsed by the party elite. Suggest to me it will be Ruled unconstitutional since the 11th district court already ruled as such. I find it hard to believe they would give that issue up if they didn't have inside info. Yes if you could have romney's support, money, and reputation with newts mouth an knowledge of history in a single person. Obama would be in trouble.
The thing about the individual mandate is the fact that insurance companies are in trouble without it. That is the main reason that The Heritage Foundation and most of the major Republicans in office propsed it during the Clinton push for healthcare reform. As far as President Obama and the Second amendment: I have not seen any push by the Obama Adminstration to tighten regulations the entire time he has been in office. Yes, the Fast and Furious scandal was a debacle and people should lose their jobs over it. No Presidency is without its FUBAR moments. Reagan had Iran-Contra, Clinton had selling missles to China, Bush had Iraq Invasion, etc. I left the NRA when Wayne LaPierre went off the deep end talking about President Obama and his "Secret" agenda on attacking the second amendment when there has been no mention of a move. If any President has had an opportunity to tighten legislation it has been President Obama. When Rep. Giffords was shot there was an outcry from the masses. However, despite the pleas from the Democrats to tighten legislation, the President did not act.
You'd have to be clear about why you would take either of these positions. If you wanted to reduce the number of deaths and injuries from firearms you would take position 1. This is only in theory I should add. It would logically follow that no firearms in the possession of private persons would reduce the number of deaths and injuries from firearms simply because they would not exist. If you wanted to ensure that individuals in an armed society were placed on an equal footing you would favour position 2.
That is why I'm concerned for the supreme court issue. Attempting gun control is political suicide at this time. If Obama were to be re-elected he will not ever face voters again. Now congress still wouldn't take action but the justices Obama place on the court would be his legacy. Now that being said I wouldn't trust Mitt Romney(since he most likely be the nominee) in a second term either. From his past views on gun control. I'm aware of the need for the indiviual mandate being vital to the affordable care act. As well as the opinion issued by the US court of appeals DC. Which if you read the opinon from the justice bush appointed to that court it is disturbing. Even though the ACA being upheld is the best chance for a republican victory(due to it unpopularity among independents as well as it ability to energize the base of republican party) it scares me to think of how congress wil use it's power if they can force individual Americans to purchase things they do not want.
I realize you are speaking theoretical but you are overlooking a key aspect in the theory. Out of the 280 mil firearms in the US how would they get them all. Would they go house to house with metal detectors even if they did they wouldn't find them all. Expect people to turn them in that would not be effective at all. You also don't take into account the weapons that would be sent to the black-market that would be created. They would of course come in the same way drugs do. As I'm sure your aware we haven't been able to prevent those from coming in it just rational to assume they will exploit the new found product on their market. So you would effectively just disarm the law-abiding plus make criminals out of citizens that wouldn't surrender weapons. So in short you would still have armed criminals with lots of unarmed victims. As to the arming everyone there are reasons people are not able to have weapons. Either they are opposed to them which is their right or they aren't allowed to for numerous reason is being felons, not mental sound, or underage. You would not want that to change. Neither of the choices of this thread are viable options
It was just a thought I had. In a society where guns are freely available to (near enough) everyone means any teenager can get a gun from someone who has one. That is similar in a way to handing out loaded guns to teenagers at the gates of their school. To me, knowing how young kids can be, that is just not a very intelligent thing to do. But a society where guns can be owned by all is very close that. Just handing them out at school. But I agree with Texdrifter. For the US it may be too late. There is no way that you could do it. If the US had been gun free from the beginning it would probably be like the UK, just stabbings and stranglings and no shootings. The homicide rate would be much less than it is now though.
Yep... OH WAIT! I bet the 2.5 million crimes stopped by people with their guns wouldnt be prevented... so no. Your idea of no guns is just stupid. The people should always have a right to arm themselves. Essentially it boils down to this: we should be able to do anything the government can, and vice versa as far as rights and liberties. Why would you want to live in a country where your military and police force can carry guns, but you never can? Thats a dangerous place to live.
Your depiction of the reality of the issue in the US is right on target - so to speak. Gun control laws in the US should be about minimising death and injury from the lawful use of firearms and reality dictates that the abolition of private ownership of firearms is not the way to do it. Educated and trained users is probably a better tactic. As for criminals and firearms - that's what the criminal law is for, gun control laws have no place there. This is reality as I see it.
Its very dangerous when the government has the power to deem you a terrorist suspect and hold you indefinitely without trial.
