Gun Regulation Will Only Work If It Is Federally Enforced

[mudesi]

That's the problem with having a national gun registration and licensing system. It has to be done on a federal level or else it will never work. This is something that can't be left up to the individual states to decide. Some cities have placed strict regulations on guns, even some states have done the same, but that won't do any good if the city or state next door has no gun regulation whatsoever. It'll just allow criminals to make money smuggling guns and nothing will change.

The real problem is the gun and fear culture in America today, perpetuated by the media and the greedy corporations who control the message. People have been brainwashed into believing that gun ownership is an inherent right, even though any reasonable and logical person will agree that the second amendment was not written with that intent, and that "arms" at the time did not mean a TEC 9 semi-automatic.

Additionally tacked on to the brainwashing is the delusional fantasy that gun lovers have that they'll one day save the world like Arnold Schwarzenegger in Commando from the "bad guys" lurking around every corner - The friendly neighborhood murderer and rapist that the gun manufacturers, home security companies, and neo cons love to constantly remind the scared shitless population of.

The result: Gun control legislation will never be passed in the United States Of America. The rational states will try their best, but only federal gun control legislation will actually be effective in reducing the number of gun deaths. There are unfortunately still too many ignorant people in America who refuse to look at the cold hard facts. Gun licensing and registration has worked in other countries. It wouldn't have worked had those countries "let the states" decide. Even in those cases, there is the problem of international gun smuggling, where bordering nations without adequate gun restrictions have dampened the effectiveness of those laws. In fact, fifty percent of gun crimes in Canada are committed with a gun smuggled in from the United States.

Imagine if the United States and Mexico implemented a federal gun licensing and registration program similar to Canada's. The gun manufacturers, the NRA, and the fear mongers would sure lose out, but a hell of a whole lot of people would be saved from premature death and lifelong injuries.

[billyoc]

1. Which means it won't work, because nobody is going to put up with that.

Forget it.

[depakid]

38. The general reason for that is the pervading and irrational fear

or more accurately- the prevalence of cowardice and lack of social responsibility among people in the states. Not to mention of course, the usual systemic corruption and lobbying.

[anonymous171]

2. Wouldn't that be unconstitutional?

I thought 2nd Amendment restrictions were left to the states? :shrug:

[FLAprogressive]

3. Tyranny is OK when it's for a "liberal" cause!

[mudesi]

25. How Is Licensing And Registration "Tyranny"? (nm)

[Selatius]

4. A lot of states would automatically invoke "states' rights" in opposition to the proposal.

The best way to get states to adopt uniform standards or something close to uniform is to offer incentives to get them to come on board, such as block grants or something else. Sure, not all states will get on board, but if enough do, then it should bring some semblance of standardization as far as gun regulation goes.

As far as national gun registries go, it's politically difficult to achieve at any rate. I don't think even Switzerland has one, and they have the highest gun ownership rates in the world except the US.

[One_Life_To_Give]

5. Just create new black market opportunities

Where there is an illicit demand for a product. They will be aquired/transported/manufactured to fill the demand. Not exactly rocket scinece to set up a gun manufacturing plant in an abandoned barn/warehouse ot to just smuggle stuff from the middle east.

[mudesi]

26. Not Exactly Rocket Science?

You must have some experience with "setting up a gun manufacturing plant".

:eyes:

[tangent90]

31. Just because you are ignorant of something does not mean everyone else is.

Some good free advice for you. :D

[Obamanaut]

6. How did that federal prohibition on booze work out? nt

[geckosfeet]

12. It's not phrohibition. It's regulation. Like booze.

[Obamanaut]

16. My mistake. Federal enforcement (from the OP) did not work all

that well with prohibition. Better?

[mudesi]

27. Gun Nuts: Like Pavlov's Dog

Woof Woof! Prohibition! Woof Woof!

Where in my OP did I mention prohibition?

[Obamanaut]

50. See my post 16. and btw, where in my post did I mention guns?

Federal enforcement of prohibition did not work. Better now woof woof?

[jmg257]

7. "Gun control legislation will never be passed in the United States Of America"

Amen to that.

Until you can satisfactorily resolve the issue/fact that 90% of gun crime offenders in Chicago have prior arrest records, I won't be re-thinking why I need to give up the right to own guns.


"In recent years, the Chicago Police Department (CPD) has reported that roughly 45 percent of homicides in Chicago are related to gang altercations or narcotics. The CPD also reports that 90 percent of all homicide offenders and nearly three-quarters of homicide victims have prior arrest records..."

http://crimelab.uchicago.edu/gun_violence/report.shtml

[mudesi]

29. How About Because It's The Right Thing To Do?

Oh wait, you're another gun nut barking like Pavlov's dog. Point out in my OP where exactly I said I wanted you to give up your privilege to own a gun? I mentioned a lot of things about licensing and registration, but I can't find the part where I said anything about prohibition.

And what does your statistic about gun crime offenders have to do with anything?

[NeedleCast]

43. Gun ownership is not a privilege

it's a right and is defined in the constitution.

[Raskolnik]

8. "People have been brainwashed into believing that gun ownership is an inherent right"

Gee, I wonder where they would get that silly idea?

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[corruptmewithpower]

9. Gun control has contributed to the deaths of over two hundred million

people in the twentieth century. That's more people than were killed by cigarettes during that time. Do you really think a little more of it will save us?

[mudesi]

30. What, Are You Pulling Things Directly Out Of Your Ass?

What in the world are you talking about????

[greenkal]

10. Exactly!

Those violent NRA thugs are always willing to run guns across state borders but if they can't get them in their own states then we'll all be safer!

[Caliman73]

11. Sorry, but you are wrong

The "arms" that the founders of this nation had were the most lethal, most technologically advanced weapons available at the time. If they had TEC 9s available at the time, it would not have changed their mind in the least about recognizing it as a right that "shall not be infringed". That is why they said "ARMS" they did not say, "musket", they did not say "swords" or "pikes", "bow and arrow", etc... They said "arms" as in, anything you can use to defend yourself with. They also argued that it is not just about protecting yourself from your fellow neighbor. It is about defending your liberties from a tyrannical government that seeks to restrict your rights. Most of the founders fell on the side of keeping arms plentiful and available to all citizens.

You are right that cultural influences have skewed our sense of responsibility in this country. There is pressure to resolve disputes or address grievances through violence. That is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.

The other problem with society is that People want to restrict things rather than do the hard work of teaching respect and responsibility. As stated by other responders, Prohibition was a response by perhaps well intentioned people to regulate drinking by limiting the drink rather than by addressing the social issues that influence people to drink excessively. Similarly, restricting firearms is an attempt at making society safer by restricting a tool rather than by addressing issues that increase the likelihood of violence. Prohibition failed and draconian gun laws will ultimately not stop the violence either.

[tangent90]

13. We should be like Germany. Nobody ever gets shot over there.

:eyes:

[mudesi]

33. Nice. Using A Tragedy Like That To Further Your Political Ideology.

Disgusting.

[Richard Steele]

37. Pfft.

nm

[old mark]

59. Yeah, that Hitler fellow really liked gun control, too - had serious penalties

for those found owning guns after the "turn-in" program, especially if you were in certain ethnic, political or religious groups.

Maybe some of the gun control advocates identify with this Hitler guy....
They sure sound like it.

mark

[tangent90]

14. A national (!) system won't work unless it's on a federal (!) level?

Try 1-800-ABCDEFG

[Buck Laser]

15. Car registration works pretty well at a state level.

[benEzra]

17. So, how's that cannabis prohibition working out?

70% of Americans believe, quite rationally (in light of 18th century writings on the topic) that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms. Yes, there are those who feel it is an anachronism that we need to scale back for our collective safety, just as there are those who feel the Fourth and Fifth Amendments are anachronisms that should be scaled back for our collective safety.

No, thanks. I believe the right of mentally competent adults with clean records to purchase, own, and responsibly use non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed NFA Title 1 small arms under .51 caliber (plus shotguns) should indeed be protected.



----------------------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

Thoughts on Gun Ownership

[mudesi]

34. You Therefore Agree With Me

Mentally competent adults with clean records should be allowed to purchase, own, and responsibly use non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed NFA Title 1 small arms under .51 caliber.

Now how do we go about doing that? How about a national licensing and registration law, similar to getting a drivers license, where you have to be screened, pass a few tests, etc?

[Caliman73]

46. You fail to realize that the vast majority of drivers who kill others...

Are licensed and registered. They have passed tests and have been screened to drive an automobile, yet they still engage in unsafe behaviors which cause people to die. Should we ban cars? Should we limit the speed on cars to levels where no physical injuries can occur from their use?

OR...

Should we focus on the societal issues such as mental health, anger management, poverty, substance use and abuse, and others which provide that impetus for the use of firearms, cars, and other objects in an irresponsible manner?

Banning or severely restricting objects has usually not worked in society. Working to understand and fix the underlying problems in society is a long and costly process, but ultimately provides the best chance we have at a solution.

[benEzra]

54. The problem with licensing and registration, as I see it...

is that the UK and Australia both went down that road, and the prohibitionists kept ratcheting up the licensing requirements and red tape until UK gun owners were left with practically nothing, Australia is close behind, and Canada is following the same trajectory.

We already have car-style licensure in most states in order to carry a gun in public. To obtain a NC carry license, as I've mentioned elsewhere, I had to pass a Federal and state background check, a mental health records check, an FBI fingerprint check, take a class on self-defense law and pass a written test on same administered by the sheriff's office, and demonstrate competence with a handgun on a shooting range. Despite such requirements, the Bradyites are fighting tooth and nail to revoke my carry license and restrict them to "important people" (I am, of course, a peon and don't rate a license in their worldview).

We have tried registration and de facto licensure for automatic weapons in this country, and the prohibitionists took them away anyway (Hughes Amendment, 1986) even though abuse was nil. New York City tried licensure for ownership (the Sullivan Law), and used it to deny rights to those not wealthy enough to afford a lawyer or connected enough not to need one. NYC and California also tried registration for some firearms, and then couldn't resist banning some of them them and using the registration lists to round them up.

We have a very powerful and well funded lobby in this country that would use any licensing system to attempt to curtail the ownership of "assault weapons," handguns, and other guns they don't like, and it has the MSM in its pocket. The existence of a national "Who Owns What and Should We Let Them Keep It" list would only make it worse. Until that situation changes, licensing and registration will remain dead in the water, IMO.

[Edweird]

18. "fifty percent of gun crimes in Canada are committed with a gun smuggled in from the United States."

So, basically, your argument is that we need more gun laws because gun laws in other countries don't work. That's not a very compelling argument.

[mudesi]

35. Wow. One Of The Stupidest Things I've Ever Read

I don't even know how to respond to that. Did you read my OP AT ALL?

[Edweird]

44. Yes. It's one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

District of Columbia v. Heller

The Court based its reasoning on the grounds:

* that the operative clause of the Second Amendment—"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"—is controlling and refers to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons for self-defense and intrinsically for defense against tyranny, based on the bare meaning of the words, the usage of "the people" elsewhere in the Constitution, and historical materials on the clause's original public meaning;
* that the prefatory clause, which announces a purpose of a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", comports with the meaning of the operative clause and refers to a well-trained citizen militia, which "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense", as being necessary to the security of a free polity;
* that historical materials support this interpretation, including "analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions" at the time, the drafting history of the Second Amendment, and interpretation of the Second Amendment "by scholars, courts, and legislators" through the late nineteenth century;
* that none of the Supreme Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation, specifically United States v. Cruikshank (1875), Presser v. Illinois (1886), nor United States v. Miller (1939).

[Edweird]

45. P.S. Federal Regulation already exists. It's called the NFA.

[Edweird]

49. P.P.S. Regarding your 'tec 9' reference...

You are accidentally kinda right, but you aren't going to like why....

United States v. Miller

The Court also looked to historical sources to explain the meaning of "militia" as set down by the authors of the Constitution:

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

"of the kind in common use at the time. "

AR15's? Yes.
Crappy piece of shit Tec 9? Not so much....

[ManiacJoe]

19. What problem are you trying to solve

with your proposed solution of "federal gun registration"?

[mudesi]

36. Um.....What Do You Think?

How about the insane gun death rate in America as compared to other developed nations???

[sendero]

20. Gun regulation..

.... will work as well as drug regulation, which is to say IT WON'T.

Only the dumbest of the dumb think otherwise. Here's your sign.

[mudesi]

39. Drug Regulation: Like Prescriptions? Like Quality Testing?

OK. Let's stop making sure Tylenol is quality tested. Let's let any drug be sold over the counter, without a prescription. Since it's not working, and all.

Or are you being like the other people in this thread, barking like Pavlov's Dog, taking my OP where I clearly talked about licensing and registration and hearing "prohibition"?

[sendero]

53. No..

... like pot, cocaine, heroin, pcp, meth. Geez, moron.

And in case you didn't notice, there is a huge black market in prescription drugs also.

It's never a surprise to me that folks who think gun regulations will be respected by people who want to shoot other people are not the sharpest knives in the drawer.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[-..__...]

23. 'For the good of all' mentality...

Ehh?

That's a very dangerous and risky path to take.

Cue up the theme from "Star Trek".

Kirk, Spock, "Bones" and a few expendable starship extras beam down to this imaginary dream world where everyone thinks and behaves according to the same "reasonable and logical" thought patterns.

Y'know... a conformist, single minded, bland, boring, homogeneous society with enlarged heads, dressed in the same natural fibers and communicate telepathically in one language and live in peace and harmony.

Of course anyone that even dares to stray from the collective beehive is banished to the nether regions or vaporized in a combustion chamber.

Fuck you (and Canada and Mexico), and your imaginary dreamscape.

I'll take "Commando" over "Star Trek: The Bubble Heads" any day.

[mudesi]

40. LOL! The Good Of All Is Dangerous And Risky!!

Fuck the good of all! It's all about ME ME ME ME ME!!!

[-..__...]

60. All is fine and well...

until which powers that be and/or populace gets to decide what is good for all.

[tanngrisnir3]

24. It could be argued, then, using your same line of reasoning, put charitably....

any reasonable and logical person will agree that the second amendment was not written with that intent, and that "arms" at the time did not mean a TEC 9 semi-automatic.

That our military and police forces should be limited to muskets.

After all, what we use now doesn't match up with "arms" as they were understood at the time.

Logic isn't your strong suit.

[mudesi]

41. Oh God....

Do yourself a favor: Don't call someone illogical after making the most inane, illogical statement I've ever read here, ever.

[tanngrisnir3]

47. Clearly, you are unacquainted with logic, and yet you attempt to reference it.

Why would you do that? I mean, other than being unable to actually address the post.

Is this typical for you?

[Belial]

28. illegal gun sales in Canada??? You have got to be

kidding me.. I thought the masses were all about gun control there.. oh yeah.. only people breaking the law have the guns? It's not going to happen here.. when the horse is dead.. get off..

[mudesi]

42. Another Person Who DID NOT READ THE OP

Yeah. Fifty percent of the guns came from America, where there are no adequate gun control laws. Do you guys just plug your ears, close your eyes, and go "la la la la la" whenever someone dares to suggest that maybe guns ought to be licensed and registered?

[Belial]

56. I am 100% for the registration of guns and having the owners

be licensed. I have all my guns registered and I had to get fingerprinted, etc when I did mine. Someone has to get the criminals to license theirs though.

[slackmaster]

32. The Canadian gun registry has been a multi-billion dollar boondoggle

And has not improved public safety in any measurable way.

What problem would it be intended to address here?

[fascisthunter]

48. good idea

[Donald Ian Rankin]

51. Nothing short of repealing the 2nd ammendment would do very much good.

And while that would do a lot of good and very little harm, there is no chance of it happening, sadly.

[dysfunctional press]

52. The result: Gun control legislation will never be passed in the United States Of America.

and thank goodness for that.

but since it has now been resolved, shouldn't we move on to more important issues?

[benEzra]

55. What's with the obsession with TEC-9's?

That company has been out of business for years, and those guns are no longer made. TEC-9's were unreliable, didn't fire any faster than an ordinary Smith & Wesson or Glock and were a lot slower to reload, were much harder to conceal than a more ordinary looking pistol, and were harder to hit with. As a result, sales dwindled and they went out of business years ago.

The "assault weapon" bait-and-switch isn't about TEC-9 pistols; it's about the most popular small- and intermediate-caliber centerfire rifles in America.

"arms" at the time did not mean a TEC 9 semi-automatic.

The "press" didn't mean broadcast media, glossy magazines produced on high-speed webb presses, or books discussing sexuality, either, nor did "speech" mean web forums, telecommunications, or standup comedy. Does the First Amendment not apply to those things?

[Squatch]

57. This thread is adequately flame-y. I approve.

:popcorn:

[galileoreloaded]

58. I fully approve of your right to not own a firearm, whatever the definition

in fact, it's probably a good idea. I suspect you had a negative experience that has helped form your opinion. I myself don't particularly like large bodies of water after an incident in my youth. Negative experiences can cause a severe physical and emotional pain memory and resultant phobia.

While I am not a gun owner, nor a mass murderer, you pose an interesting perspective often echoed here on DU and in other places. I think that the challenge will be for you to effectively enforce your perspective on others without the same experience.

I would love to prohibit humans from activities around large bodies of water, as they can be very dangerous and require much respect, but unfortunately nobody wants to listen to me either. I try and try to explain how dangerous boats and the ocean are, and the multitudes of lives lost, many en masse, engaged in non critical or recreational endeavors. Thousands every year. For no reason, at all, except for engaging in reckless and selfish pleasure.

I am dead serious about this. The problem is that life and living pose inherent risks, that unfortunately you cannot indemnify yourself from completely.

But I will make you a deal. I won't ever pick up a gun (and encourage others to do the same), if you promise to work very hard to help me on my crusade to keep people off boats.

Together, we can in our own little way, and with co-operation, perhaps save just one individual. With my luck though, the one I convince not to go on their cruise to the Carribean will probably die in a car crash or from cancer. I can't win.