Questions

1A. Because private ownership is a right that is protected by the U.S. Constitution.
1B. To keep and bear (carry) are both protected rights. See the U.S. Constitution and a number of state constitutions that make this clear.
1C. It's not a privilege.

2A.+B. Not applicable.

3. I do not support UBCs.

4ABC. I think cops should be armed. With respect to question a, I'm not sure I understand it. In general I do not support special treatment for LE, but I do not have an issue with legislation like LEOSA as a strategic move towards national reciprocity. I guess my framework is special treatment is OK if it's in the context of rights expansion vs. allowing LEOs to maintain access to firearms in the context of civilian bans or restrictions. In the latter case, I do not support special treatment. All cops should be required to wear body cams. I have no issue with that.

Re: 4a, some folks think only SWAT should be armed with lethal weapons.
I'm not against any group of cops having guns but they are IMO undertrained.

I'm undecided on UBCs.

All guns should be confiscated.

Only highly trained cops like detectives should ever be allowed to have guns. And they should never just wander the streets with them.

Guns should not be allowed to be taken home by off duty cops.

All cops should always wear body cams.

Sports shooting should be highly regulated. Guns kept on premises. Ammunition should only be sold via state run dealers and would require a license.

As for the bill of rights and the constitution: theres endless examples of laws and rights changing. Guns should be regulated by society to protect society. The 99% of so-called good gun owners are just gonna have to suffer a bit to protect society.

Of ignoring the Second Amendment and confiscating firearms, do you support trampling the Fourth to allow (unarmed?) police to search homes for firearms?

Also will the Fifth Amendment be observed and owners compensated fairly for properties seized or is that just another little suffering gun owners have to bear?

I'd obviously not send police on suicide missions.

Yes to gun owners being compensated.

As for the fourth amendment. If guns were illegal like drugs and courts followed due process than no seaech or seizure would be illegal.

And btw I'm not suggesting ignoring the 2nd ammendment any more than you're ignoring the 18th. The Constitution has been amended in the past and will be again.

And it was enforced after being passed per the requirements of the Constitution. It also is distinctive in that is the only amendment that did not expand rights. Also it is the only amendment that has been repealed...

In order to "legally" confiscate weapons you would need to repeal the 2nd. For compensation, assuming a very low average of $500 per weapon, you would have to earmark 150 billion dollars to compensate owners. Add on the due process, which you acknowledge to be necessary, to authorized the searches, the framework and infrastructure needed to physically conduct seach and seizure, disposal costs of weapons Etc. you are easily looking at in excess of a 1 trillion dollar bill.

When it is suggested to expand social programs and attack the societal factors that lead people to crime it is "too difficult and too expensive".

The 2nd would have to be repealed.

I am not trying to save money but hundreds of thousands of lives.

That addresses the root cause of most crimes will have a much greater effect. It would reduce all crimes, not just those defined by a single method, be supported by a much larger percentage of the population and would reduce the incarceration rate instead of creating a new criminal class.

Note that this approach would not rule out some kind of gun control which would go hand-in-hand at achieving the goal of a less violent, more egalitarian society. In addition a safer society reduces the motivation to acquire firearms for self-defense thereby likely decreasing overall gun ownership.

Additionally such a strategy plays to the traditional Democratic strengths of equality, free Society and social justice. Authoritarianism and strict, harshly enforced law is traditionally a Republican party value.

Because we can look at Western countries without guns and see that they have much lower murder rates - even though many of them don't do endlessly more to address societal problems.

And of course Europe has much more democracy and social justice and universal education and welfare - as a rule - without guns. It's a fallacy to equate freedom and weaponry. Protecting society isn't a party political value, it's a the most basic thing a society must do. Right now American society fails 30k people a year. Allowing those people to die to protect the right to weaponry isn't a value worth fighting for. It's certainly not worth losing 30k people a year - for decades and decades.

Trying to reduce US crime, which is higher than Europe with or without guns, by increasing democracy and social justice and universal education and welfare we should focus on guns. Because gunz.

Do you honestly believe removing all guns from the US would save every single one of those suicides and homicides?

I want to do BOTH

It seems you only want to do one.

Ask how many hundreds of thousands of Americans would die while the government sorted out social justice. You seem cool with that.

And no I am not aiming for 100% as a realistic goal, but if we managed to drop gun violence to European levels it would save 20K plus people a year.

Now, is that a goal worth fighting for, and something you could try to accomplish without sounding like a hypocrite when you say you care about gun violence? Yes, yes it is.

Heck, people on here don't even want background checks... how in the hell can you think that piecemeal "gun control" is gonna knock more than 10% off the number of dead kids a year. If that's the goal then saying you care about gun violence is IMO hypocritical.

I do not believe for a second that you can be upset about gun violence and yet not want to lower it by more than 10%. That's just a lie.

But you try to reduce a complex issue to a binary solution.

Attempting to eliminate guns, besides merely being tilting at windmills, is only going to affect gun related deaths. My preference is to take action which will affect and reduce all forms of homicide guns included. I will not be so crass however as to say you do not appear to be interested in deaths by other causes.

The reality is that I am looking at both. You are not. My position is therefore more nuanced, because you won't even consider banning guns. I'm open to any and everything but you aren't.

Are for only affecting gun related deaths...we're in the gun subforum. If you'd like to create a post in the lung cancer subgroup we can discuss that there. If you mean non-gun violence, none of it comes close to gun violence... And of course I am very concerned about addressing societal cohesion and economic equality... But.

How many years do you think your solution will take to reduce gun deaths by say 50%? Realistically.

Do you honestly think that the government will ever be able to sort out something complex like that? And what will you say to the families of hundreds of thousands of people killed by guns in the mean time?

Now prohibition will NEVER be completely successful... But imagine how many suicides would be prevented if only criminals had guns. Imagine how many families wouldn't have to bury a child that accidentally was shot, if only criminals had guns. Most of Europe lives in that reality - handguns are only in the hands of criminals - as a rule. And guess what? We aren't all suffering from endless gun violence because we can't defined ourselves.

And we don't have endless gun suicides. And we don't have endless gun accidents. And if we added a gun for every citizen like America has we WOULD have those issues. Why would we want to have those? To stop crime we don't suffer from?

Because you have determined a complete and absolute gun ban is the only option. That is the beginning and end of the solution as you have presented it.

As for banning guns being the Panacea to correct the problem of suicide, ask Japan how that works out. I have worked with high-risk suicide persons before. Those who are serious about ending their lives will often attempt to obtain a gun first. If that is not possible or will take time, a high bridge or building is the next preferred option.

We have reduced deaths by 50% Why not study what is already working and build on that?

The CDC has reported defensive gun use is at least as common as criminal use. What will you say to those victims, who will far outnumber any reduction in homicide and suicide? Are they just another little suffering we have to accept?

I am open to a combination of things. But I don't believe that any societal change on its own will stop the decades long gun violence epidemic or even lower the numbers meaningfully in any sort of reasonable time frame.

As for Japan, that's an utter red herring. In the suicide forest near mt fuji about 25% of attempts are successful. If they all had used guns the numbers would be MUCH higher. Trying to claim that you can add endless guns to a nation with a high suicide rate without raising the suicide rate is nonsensical and obviously so.

The 50% reduction is from the spike in the 90s we're still at higher levels than in the 1950s. In other words after 60 years we haven't lowered gun violence below where we started. And we are losing 30k people a year... Trying to claim that as a victory underscores how little you actually care about your fellow citizens.

Finally - Europe has basically no guns relative to America. Only criminals have handguns. And guess what? We aren't all being murdered. In fact our murder rate is much lower and our gun violence rate is MUCH lower. How can that be if we need guns for self-defense from the criminals with guns?

Put words in my mouth? Where did I ever advocate adding guns to any country?

The US has more than doubled its population since 1950. To have the same number of deaths is a 50% rate reduction. It seems something is working. All while increasing firearms 300%. Tell me aagain about the linear relationship between guns and deaths.

Since the control side likes to conflate suicide and homicide, how do the comparisons work out when we look at European combined death rates. Per the WHO the US suicide rate is 50th, lower than eighteen European countries. Or do you only want to compare homicides now?

You think that people should have the right to defend themselves, but you don't advocate anyone but Americans having them?

It's not the same number of deaths it's the same RATE.

Again suicide rates go up when you add guns. And down when guns don't exist. That's not the same thing as saying all countries have the same suicide rates. If a country with a high suicide rate suddenly was flooded with guns the number of successful suicides would go up making the rate higher. Not higher relative to other countries, but relative to what it was BEFORE guns were added into the mix. Because. Guns are much more effective death tools than over the counter drug overdoses and knives. So says all suicide statistics. Many many many people survive non-gun suicide attempts. Most don't survive gun suicide attempts. That doesn't change the number of attempts but the number of deaths.

Telling other countries how they should run themselves. If they wish to allow guns fine. If they wish to ban them fine that is their choice. When I was stationed in the Middle East and was enforcing laws, I enforced the local law not US law or what I thought the law should be.

Ok

Some laughter into your day, even if I don't get the joke

Ireland is in the EU, which means you actually live in a facade of a democracy. But then, I dispute that they are actually more democratic or free.

No, protecting individual rights is the most basic thing a government must do. As for Europe having more individual freedom, that is absurd. In Germany, question the wisdom of having huge numbers of migrants in your borders and the cops will be knocking on your door. Ireland got rid of their blasphemy laws only a few years ago.

Here's the thing, the EU and it's connection to its member states might be opaque at best but local democracy works very very well all over Europe

Protecting rights is also not the most basic thing, at all. Protecting life is the most basic. If your dad your rights are meaningless.

As for individual freedom, it depends how you define it. I know more than one person trapped by college debt or medical bills. Their freedom is extremely limited. If they lived in Europe they would be endlessly more free.

Ireland is a conservative nation - no doubt - but if you think I'd trade endless school shootings for slightly more liberal laws - in a fee limited respects - you'd be wrong. My kids have never even heard of a school shooting. They aren't scared of cops because the cops don't shoot people here. There was ONE missing kid here, back in the 80s, and people STILL talk about it, because it was so rare. Kids walk to school and parents aren't scared or drive by shootings, or accidental shootings, or armed robbery, or home invasion or really crime at all. And that's a huge freedom I wouldn't trade away. The freedom from fear of gun violence. The freedom to not worry my kids will be shot in this week's mass execution. Thats a freedom that's worth all the handguns in the world.

Saudi Arabia has local democracy and even lets women vote, it is still a police state. Besides, pure democracy is two coyotes and a sheep discussing dinner plans.

it works both ways. If you have no means to defend yourself against machete wielding thugs, you are still dead.

The way the founders defined it. In Europe, most of them would not be accepted in college to begin with. That is how it is affordable, very few people go and schools have very high standards.

because thugs don't attack cops there.

. I had all of that as a kid, and everyone had guns. So is almost all of the US. My city is still talking about a stabbing thirty years ago.

There have been something like ten mass shootings at schools in the past decade or more. Mexico has a ban on guns, how is that working out? But you are still not free of gun or any other violence, not completely.

Isn't to allow you to arm up enough to take on any size roving army of thugs you're afraid of. Its to protect you. Not to allow you to protect yourself to the detriment of others.

Youre wrong about colleges in Europe. The systems vary from country to country and that produces numbers that aren't directly comparable to the US system. And of course European countries don't have diploma mills, or people that get a diploma but no education so they can play football.

Put it like this, my kids can go to the best University in the country, and get a four year degree, for 6k a year. That's the most expensive University in the country. In Germany they'd go for free. Utterly free.

Yes not everyone gets into University in Europe but Europe also has backup plans (technical colleges, apprenticeship schemes, etc) that arent just crappy third rate garbage. Which one of the many reasons the standard of living is higher in Europe. It does a much better job of not producing millions of illiterate High School graduates than America, whose education system stinks btw, and it provides help to people throughout their life to try and stop endemic poverty.

Also, it is none of the State's business how many guns you have, who you sleep with as long as it is a consenting adult, how you fuck up your own body. IOW, some politician is not wiser than the average person. Most of them are actually stupid and self serving.

Yes some of the public schools suck here. It does vary state by state, and the worst of them are in the same places the murder rates are high. The problem has nothing to do with the federal government. Some of it is funding, some of it is shitty teachers, kids who don't want to learn, and parents who don't give a shit. Then there is Chicago.

It very plainly says so in the bill of rights, among other things its the states role NOT to do.

I recognize that the constution - a document designed to be changed if need be - currently doesn't allow for my beliefs. It protects the rights of gun owners over the rights of victims.

I would advocate that it should be changed, the same way many people want to change it to overturn Citizens United.

Correct.



Incorrect. The rights of gun owners are at odds with victims, only in your mind, because you have only one thing in mind - prohibition - which the criminals doing the killing will completely ignore, as they already ignore the prohibition of murder.

Your position can be correctly equated to:

"A fox ate my chickens, so lets go after wolves since they have claws and teeth too, even though they aren't eating my chickens. As soon as we go after the wolves the fox will surely fall into line."

That is your logic. It speaks for itself, but it certainly doesn't say anything good.

The average teenager who got his first hunting license is more "highly trained" than NYPD. Out of curiosity, did you move to Europe because you like the authoritarian EU commission?

"All guns should be confiscated." That won't happen nor is it feasible.

"theres endless examples of laws and rights changing" Laws change all the time whenever the legislature votes. Rights change? You have an alien definition of rights.

"_____ should be regulated by society to protect society." Perhaps society can be protected and even enhanced by having those on welfare subjected to involuntary kidney donation. Perhaps eugenics is good idea and the government should chose who can and can't have children. Maybe the government should choose your spouse for you. Perhaps you should rethink where the line should be drawn and exactly why.


In general, I think the US and its people have made it amply clear that they are not Europeans nor do wish to be. The minority that do have moved. I applaud certain aspects of areas that benefit from the government running and regulating much of the activity.


FYI, the Bill of Rights is incorporated into the Constitution as amendments. If you study US law, it becomes apparent that the rights referenced there are inviolate apart from due process. There have been from time to time laws counter to certain of those named rights and these laws have been or will be corrected. Sam Adams called it "the animating contest for freedom".


Another point, the US does not operate under what is known as parliamentary supremacy. The vote of a legislature is subject to the judgement of the courts. The people have the right to challenge a law.

Rights obviously change... ask black people.

But aside from that if the constitution changes you'll no longer have a right to a gun. If you think you have some sort of god given right to a handgun ... well... that's just nuts.

Comparing eugenics to protecting society from guns, which hey every other western society has managed to do, is absurd on its face. Pretty much the entire western world has freedom, and often more freedom than america, and still manages to not have rampant gun violence. The retrograde opinion is that the right to weaponry is integral to freedom; it's not. It's a blight on America that butchers thousands of innocents a year.

As for the Bill of Rights, amendments etc. As you well know the congress and courts change their opinion regularly on what the constitution means. And the FF created a constitution that COULD be changed, so that - say - if 600,000 people were killed by guns in 20 years something could be done about it. Trying to pretend that Jefferson would've seen thousands of dead kids and just shrugged, like modern gun fanatics do in America - is, at best, a stretch.

Jefferson had a habit of listing things in order of importance, when writing or giving speeches; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Hard for me to think he'd prize your liberty over a thousands of toddlers lives.

Rights don't change. Rights are basic innate characteristics of people. Laws respect and protect rights, or not.

About Jefferson: It would be hard for me to believe that the right to use a tool for self-defense (preserving life being first in that group of three) would be considered a mere liberty. I see self-defense as an aspect of the right to life.

If you disagree with how I view rights as being attributes of the individual rather than conferred by legal recognition, I'm not sure we can discuss very much.

Rights have obviously changed from a legalistic standpoint and will continue to change. You may want to think of rights as something you're born with but go to Syria and see how that works out for you.

Should you be allowed to have a nuclear weapon to protect yourself from Russia's near weapons? Should you be allowed to have anthrax?

And yes we're probably done.

Do you believe that rights are created (or destroyed) by laws?

So if yes, how many votes does it take to eliminate the right of free speech?
If I go to Syria, is it okay if I'm killed or jailed because an official thinks my hair is too long or too short?
Does a right not exist if I cross a border?
Or, if it's the wrong border, do I still have a right to life but might contend with criminals and tyrants who have no respect for my rights?

Rights determine good and evil. Laws are written to reflect rights that good may flourish and evil be discouraged.

Are only rights in a society if that society grants those rights. That might seem a bit like I'm saying you aren't born with rights, but I'm talking realpolitik not abstract.

If you're in Syria you don't have the right to many things. Telling your executioner about your natural rights won't stop a bullet. Nor will it convince them to not shoot the next guy. Alternatively a member of ISIS in France might lose the right to religious freedom as far as clothing is concerned. He can claim that right is connected to his very being and not something a court can take away, but the court won't care one bit.

As for free speech, courts take it away all the time. There's things you cant say and clothes you are required to wear. Your concept of free is informed at best by propaganda. There's not absolute freedom of almost anything in America. Or anywhere.

Good and evil are largely abstract. They're defined by society as a whole and codified by legislation and courts. That's society.

Nope. In America ALL rights belong to the people. Every last one of them, yes they do.

Until and unless they're interfered with via due process, that is the case.

American government grants us no rights. That is reality.

You are confused.

There are endless exemptions to your rights:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

Those rights don't belong to you as much as you might think they do.

You certainly cant spend your money however you want. You can't walk around nude. You can't buy certain plants.

You have substantially fewer right than you think.

I'm suggesting taking away another, to protect society as a whole.

It's not an uncommon practice in fact.

And if guns were as hard to get as anthrax or say the black death - legal but almost impossible to get - that would also be fine.

Did someone say there wasn't?



Yes, they do.



People do it all the time in San Francisco, I can do it here on my property, and where I can't, it is because my rights were interfered with via due process, just like I said.



Interfered with via due process.



I don't have to show I.D. to buy plastic dinner utensils, maybe your perception is wrong.



Of course you are. Its just a complete freak coincidence that you hate guns.



When it comes to constitutionally protected civil rights, its far more uncommon than you would ever be happy with.



Comparing guns which are inanimate, to disease which is alive and acts completely on its own, is a great way to move any discussion forward, its worked so well for your anti-gun brothers and sisters over the years. Its made the anti-gun movement the legislative 800 pound gorilla we know it as today.

how many people have died from black death in America in the last 200 years?

I'd say America would be a lot safer with black death than with gun nuts... at least there's a cure for it.

As for "due process" - we're saying the same thing. You don't have those rights because the state took them away, via due process. I am suggesting the same method for removing guns. Due process.

It's not a coincidence that I think guns - killer of 30k americans a year - and safety are connected.

Far more unhappy? So you admit it does happen? A minute ago you said it never happened. I see.

At any rate, at some point Americans will wake up and take away guns... it'll probably take decades - and millions more dead - but it'll happen.

Let me answer you this: The answer is irrelevant.



Of course you would, because you think that 'gun nuts' are the problem, even though they're generally not the ones going out and murdering people. A percent of a percent of what is commonly known as 'gun nuts' hereabouts, actually harm others.

You see 'gun nuts' as the problem, not because of what they actually do with their guns, but because they stand in the way of what you want done with their guns.

This is my shocked face:



Then admit you were wrong, calling me wrong.



Of course it isn't. You are an anti-gun ideologue. A gun hater.



Now you're just attempting to put words in my mouth. Shame on you (assuming you have any).



I saw that in a movie once:



You got nothing, basically.

you'd be surprised how few gun deaths there are in countries without them.

And I do have nothing now, the same way that people advocating for the end of slavery had nothing for years and years... but eventually - despite how many times people were told slavery was moral, how ending it would destroy America, etc etc - eventually it ended.

This to will pass.

And there you have it. Gun nuts, not the people doing the killing, are the problem, because they stand in the way of your extremist wishes.

Take note, folks.





Ending slavery directly increased the rights of millions. You wish to directly decrease the rights of tens of millions.

Big difference.



And more of the same from you:



If you want a country where adults are treated like children and punished for the acts of other individuals rather than left alone because they haven't committed any acts against others, fine by me, but do it somewhere else.

Garbage thinking like that has no place in America.

Sorry for jumping into this little thread mini-battle, but you may want to re-read your information about Jefferson. I've been studying him extensively for the past few months, and both of your statements... About "600,000 people were killed by guns in 20 years", as well as "Hard for me to think he'd prize your liberty over a thousand toddlers lives"... They're rather untrue from anything I've read about (or indeed written by) Jefferson, who insists on personal liberty (oftentimes the individual right to carry a firearm being directly mentioned) being absolute, independent of the government, and unrestricted by the same. In fact, IIRC, from what I've read Jefferson makes mention of several of your arguments for gun control and dismisses them out of hand as absurdities or consequences of governmental corruption and ineptitude.

Your readings obviously differ from mine. Send me your reading list? If I've missed something as significant as what you're saying -that badly-, then either the histories, or myself, are wrong, and I'm inclined to believe that I'm more likely to be wrong than history.


I'll respond as I can, but my time is limited and turbulent when available. Take care. Looking forward to your response.

...and yes, it is related to your reply:

What is your opinion on Native rights and tribal sovereignty?

Sorry I can't a sweet that because I don't know enough about it to have an informed opinion.

I feel what's done to native Americans over the centuries has been a massive crime however.

Sorry if that's not a good enough answer for you.

...are sovereign nations. Native Americans are also the most reliable (though small in numbers) Democratic voting bloc. We are also very likely the most heavily armed demographic in the country. Here on the Uintah and Ouray reservation, probably 90% of all households keep firearms, and it just isn't for hunting either. When you look at our history, you will see that the first thing the government did prior to dispossessing us of our lands and rights was to disarm us so we could not resist. It was a hard lesson that we learned very well, and unless and until the federal government can demonstrate that they will treat with us honestly and fairly, we will remain well armed.

As a sovereign entity, are you ok with allowing us to make these decisions for ourselves, or do you think that "gun control" should be imposed upon us even against our own better judgement?

I don't really know enough about your sovereignty to comment.

Saying that wiki says this:

"On the other hand, the unitary states, like the Indian tribes, cannot print currency or conduct foreign affairs, or exercise other powers assigned by the Constitution to the federal state. Viewed in this light, tribal sovereignty is a form of parallel sovereignty[1] within the U.S. constitutional framework, constrained by but not subordinate to other sovereign entities."

and

"Laws adopted by Native American governments must also pass the Secretarial Review of the Department of Interior through the Bureau of Indian Affairs."

and

"The idea that tribes have an inherent right to govern themselves is at the foundation of their constitutional status — the power is not delegated by congressional acts. Congress can, however, limit tribal sovereignty. Unless a treaty or federal statute removes a power, however, the tribe is assumed to possess it.[25] Current federal policy in the United States recognizes this sovereignty and stresses the government-to-government relations between Washington, D.C. and the American Indian tribes.[26] However, most Indian land is held in trust by the United States,[27] and federal law still regulates the political and economic rights of tribal governments."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovereignty_in_the_United_States

I'm no expert, but would assume based on the above that the US government would have the means to impose a gun ban on tribal lands... whether or not that makes any sense again I can't answer.

I would have to know more to make any sort of reasonable reply.

Our primary focus in native rights activism is to throw off the yoke of government interference in our affairs.

"Limited" sovereignty simply means that the government can step in and stop us from taking action that "they" don't like, and it is usually over access to natural resources.

That said, our existence as nations is far from secure. We'll keep our arms until the day comes that y'all can guarantee that full sovereignty and autonomy will be protected. We've managed to govern ourselves just fine for thousands of years, and the decision on our bearing arms isn't yours or the governments to make.

As we all know, it's not about guns, it's about control.

Re: "We'll keep our arms until the day comes that y'all can guarantee that full sovereignty and autonomy will be protected." I think everyone, and most certainly every Native American, has learned that any guarantee from a US politician isn't fit to use to wipe your ass.

Of all firearms from native Americans?

Because that's where we are.....people let it be known often at the ballot box.

The same argument was made to protect slavery and fight civil rights. And gay rights. Progress often starts with a minority saying something unpopular. I recognize that telling people that their fellow citizens right to life is more valuable than their right to a gun is controversial and unpopular. I don't care though because I believe that their lives are worth being a little unpopular.

But I understand popular is important to you. That fine.

I did not read every word, but those I read did not include ammosexual or any other penis references.

Good discussion folks. One you can see the issues and thoughts a bit without muddling through the insults and knee jerk auto responses.

I hadn't realized there was so much crossover between Camp Weathervane and the pro-control crowd...

...what is that?