I get that guns can be fun. I've shot targets when I was younger and enjoyed it. But there are lots of other things which are at least as fun. I can live without guns.
11
There are 2 highly radicalized movements in current American politics today. Both are adamant and unyielding in their positions, impervious to any nuance, compromise, or reason and largely given to being single-issue voters: the pro-life movement and the extreme anti-gun movement. Both insist upon radical government intervention and control of personal behavior and both demand adherents of opposing positions suffer a complete loss of personal freedom in those areas they find objectionable. The radical right to life demands government control over the decisions of women and control over their bodies. They demand the usurpation of another’s freedom in the name of saving lives. The anti-gun advocates demand a similar usurpation of individual freedom, also in the name of safety and saving lives. Both follow similar reasoning even though both would most likely disavow the other. Both, in their extremes, represent an equal threat to the maintenance of a free republic. Both demonstrate that people value control over freedom and would happily abandon democracy for authoritarianism, if that authoritarianism delivered that which was at the moment most sacrosanct to them. This is how Hitler got elected as well as Trump. Those most convinced of their own righteousness are always those most willing to sacrifice the rights of others.
3
Saw a kid with a dirty black T-shirt get into his pick-up truck at a gas station in the back-woods of New Hampshire. His T-shirt said, "Guns Don't Kill People, Morons Do."
Think he had that about right.
15
Plenty of countries shot their way to freedom without subjecting their entire society, including children, to the might of the gun-production lobby. Because this is what this is really about : corporate power.
I'm sorry for your terrible losses, Mr Gibson.
6
It is my understanding that in early days state militias consisted typically of most able-bodied (white) males of a certain age.
Today, in Georgia, "the unorganized militia shall consist of all able-bodied male residents of the state between the ages of 17 and 45 who are not serving in any force of the organized militia or who are not on the state reserve list or the state retired list and who are, or who have declared their intention to become, citizens of the United States." O.C.G.A. Section 38-2-3. All of the aforementioned groups combined--which do NOT include the Regular Army of the U.S.-- constitute a huge portion of the male population of the state.
So much for confining the meaning of "militia" to the Regular Army and the National Guard.
3
@Diogenes the Cynic
In addition, in Colonial times and later, Georgia counties were divided into "Militia Districts" from which militia men could be formed into companies.
2
Hunters keep hunting with appropriate weapons. There will be highly regulated and insured exceptions, but the remaining guns in civilian hands should be taken up and destroyed.
We have the talent and the will in this Country to accomplish this.
8
Two days ago I flew from Portland to Denver. We all lined up to be xrayed shoeless, while displaying our toothpaste and sunscreen. People had hand lotion and snacks taken away. No one complained about the invasive, time consuming theater of xraying shoes, purses and ereaders , because we think we can and should be safe on airplanes.
Once I got to Denver, I could have bought an AR-15, driven back to the airport, walked up to security screening and started shooting. I could have stopped at any mall, school or church near the airport and started shooting. I could have shot people in the parking lots, in line at ticket counters or baggage claim. But we all agree for those few hours in the air, we should be as safe as possible.
21
America has to closely examine its present and its past and closely examine its collective conscience before it can go preaching about human rights violations to the rest of the world.
There are many things the world loves about the US, but do not mistake respect for the American dollar for respect for the American ethos.
4
It means nothing, except to expose the man's confusion.
3
So, if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em?
6
Oh, but you must sit still. You must do nothing. The American political system is designed to reduce you to being an impotent observer — deliberately. That’s because monied interests never trusted “the Demos”, the people, to respect its primacy (or “act responsibly”, perhaps the most often-heard euphemism).
So, we have what we have. A rich private equity firm buys a gun manufacturer then hires lobbyists to “convince” politicians to write legislation that specifically exempts it from any legal liability should any of its products maim or kill your child.
Should you decide to visit that private equity’s firm offices to protest, you will be physically barred from the premises.
Should you persist in your efforts to meet with the firm’s senior management you will be arrested and charged with trespassing and disorderly conduct, jailed, then hauled before a magistrate to be processed through the criminal justice system.
Should you continue to persist, a civil action will be initiated by the plaintiff — the same private equity firm whose manufacturer created the device that destroyed your child. Their aim is to force you into silence or bankrupt you should you refuse.
The legal system will ignore the reason behind your conduct because its regards it as basically irrelevant; why “the law is an ass” remains true a half-millennium after Shakespeare wrote it.
So you must sit still. You must do nothing.
10
Guns are very dangerous
Gun culture is harmful to adolescents
(and adults)
Everybody grow up and restrict them.
12
I am a lawyer who, out of curiosity, have read every federal court appellate opinion regarding the Second Amendment. I am also familiar with all of my state's laws (very stupid) and opinions on guns.
I recently went to a dentist's office that had a number of NRA gun magazines. As I paged through them, I realized that they were made up of out and out lies about the Second Amendment and the intentions of the anti-gun lobby; lies that were intended to scare the daylights out of the readers. Given that the (mostly) rational gun control advocates normally argue from factual premised, it is almost impossible to change minds in this area.
For this I have no suggestions.
20
@Dirtlawyer-
I suggest you start by reading the first half of the 2nd Amendment. “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ...” .
What? Stop right there! Not “The People”? A “well-regulated militia”?
The key concept is “well-regulated”. “Regulated” — as in “regular”. From Latin, “regula”. “Rule”. “Under rule”. “To rule”. Or, “to be ruled”.
After many centuries the underlying concept survives in two forms: the “regular army” and “army regulars”, men governed by The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), subordinated to higher authority, officers commissioned by Congress, everyone part of a chain of command that ultimately ends in the Oval Office.
And guerrillas. “Irregulars”.
When Gen. Lee’s army was cornered by Grant’s in April 1865 he refused to allow his soldiers to disband and flee in small groups to resume fighting later as “irregulars”. “That would bring the war to areas untouched by it thus far”, he said. And they “would not be under the control of officers”. So, he surrendered, and ordered his army to stack arms in a public ceremony.
The idea that small groups of armed men would roam the countryside completely on their own looting and killing until they were hunted down and killed appalled him. Pretty much what we have now when you think about it.
Those fat Americans bellied up to some bar knocking back whiskey and beer then boasting about their right to bear arms actually don’t have one, if you contextually read the statute.
9
@Steve Singer You're right. I've often, or always, wondered why, or how SCOTUS left that "well regulated militia" stuff out of it's opinion. In this particular case, you're preaching to the choir.
4
A weapon has the sole purpose of inflicting cruelty; it is a tool for violence; a gun is for hurting, not designed for knocking tin cans off fences. To pick one up is harmful in spirit and thought. What good comes of this?
28
@BLD Our founding fathers used guns to fight the British and gain US independence. Guns also have a use for personal protection and self-defense.
3
The men of the Revolutionary War were formed into military units and were under the direction of officers who then fought similar military units. They were not a bunch of lone wolf “liberators.” For the most part their weapons may have been in their homes but the main stock of their ammunition was stored in the local armory to be distributed by officers if called for in a confrontation. The 2nd Amendment has been bastardized by the weapons industry, as much to desensitize us to the increasingly militarization of our police and the obscene spending of our budget on weapons of war.
8
People are dying. I have freedom of speech cut I can’t tell fire in a movie theatre. You need a license to drive a car. That license needs to be renewed periodically. Enough with people rights to own guns. Public safety is a greater food. Cory Booker is right. We need strict public licensing on gun ownership.
45
I think the essential question is how a nation, which in its initial statement of intent noted that government exists to ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness has managed to sanctify an artifact whose sole purpose is destruction.
27
@James Quinn
False. Self defense, even if the trigger isn't pulled is a very valid purpose.
3
@James Quinn Don’t look now, but Americans gained their independence by using you-know-what to fight off the Brits. Guns also have a protective and defensive purpose that cannot be denied.
3
Not sure where this fits if at all in this piece but I watched the season ending episode of 'Barry' on HBO the other night and in it Barry shoots upward of 15 bad guys during a rampage. Barry is the good guy in this show. I also watched two trailers for new movies, 'John Wick 3' and 'Rambo Last Blood'. Both of these movies star very big name stars 'Keanu Reeves and Sylvester Stallone respectively, as the good guys. These movies will been seen by hundreds of millions of Americans and an international audience. Both movies have massive death tolls from 'shoot everybody in sight' gun battles etc. Same can be said for a large number of other new movies starring massive stars like the Rock and Jason Statham.
My point is simply that guns are sexy, emboldening, powerful, justice delivering devices in all of these movies and as this is never going to change, I think the horse has left the barn on gun control. America was founded on a wild west, gun culture and America loves guns. I'm not saying it's right but it explains a lot of the sentiment on (not) actually doing anything concrete on gun control. Peace.
13
@JJones :
1. Nothing falls into the category of "never going to change." Virtually everything about the way we live today is markedly different from the way we lived 200 years ago. Slavery isn't legal. Women and people of color have far more rights than they used to and (theoretically) equal rights under the law. Theoretically.
2. Canada and Australia, like the US, had/have a big wilderness that was, for better and worse, conquered by humans. Both, like the US, have cowboy-culture or something similar. Yet both also have sensible gun laws, and no massacres. If it can be done there. it can be done here.
3. It *isn't* done here because the NRA has a lobbying stranglehold on Congress -- read Gail Collins's 6-5-19 column about Mitch McConnell's refusal to bring any gun-related legislation to the floor of the Senate. But this, too, can change -- and will. Certain thresholds are breached, the fury spills over the rim of the cup, and action begins, as is the case with the Florida survivors' activism, or the climate-change activism of young people.
4. Soon, so many Americans are going to be teetering on the brink of poverty that the GOP is going to be unable to continue flim-flamming them into believing that *it* is the party that protects them. When we finally have, again, a sane, rational, Democratic majority, sensible gun legislation will prevail.
5. Not everyone finds guns and shoot-em-up sequences are sexy. Many of us find them ugly, terrifying, unnecessary.
27
@JJones
I have to believe that every wrong thinking zealot can be reformed, every destructive addiction overcome, every subliminal seduction identified for what it is, every lie exposed, and every corporation profiting on the blood of innocents defeated. We cannot lay down and just accept that American culture is just gun culture wrapped in the flag, that we are a lust for murder, that murder is entertainment, that killing sells things. We cannot.
8
@JJones
Extreme violence in media. It should be at the exact center of this debate and it should be severely restricted if not outright banned. First Amendment considerations be damned.
1
My proposal for gun control legislation. Something for everyone:
1. All gun sales have to involve background checks
2. No bump stocks
3. Limit on magazine size
4. No sales to convicted abusers or criminals
5. Buy back of Assault Rifles at $25K, and then a ban on them
In return for:
1. A CC permit that is valid in one state is valid in all states
2. A 100-year ban on any other gun control legislation
If gun control people are really convinced that the measures they desire will work, then they will accept this deal. Otherwise, they know they won't work, and will have to admit that their supposed "reasonable gun controls" are actually ineffective and are only the first step toward a total gun ban....which is their goal.
Whenever I present this idea, this compromise, it is rejected by gun control people. Why? It gives them what they say they want. But it does show that the people who are uncompromising are the gun control people, not gun owners. And why nothing will get done.
3
I have some concerns about your suggestions, but the one that stops me in my tracks is the 100-year ban. I couldn’t imagine a 100-year ban on auto safety legislation, and I really don’t think that anyone is trying to take away all of the cars.
IMHO, lawmaking is an imperfect science, and lots of legislative tuning will always be an ongoing necessity.
14
@Frances Menzel
Then if you are not willing to accept that these changes will be the only ones, and that gun owners can expect more, where will gun owners draw the line?
I'll tell you--right where they have. No new laws.
Gallup surveys reveal that 30% of Americans want a TOTAL ban on handguns. Gun owners see that, know that, and respond to that. They know that a huge percentage of people don't have guns at all so banning them requires no changes for them.
So, I ask: if you won't accept these policies, the ones being advocated, and let it go at that, then where should gun owners draw their line in the sand?
Answer: No gun control legislation. Nip it in the bud because otherwise gun control people will chip away.
Either you believe in these proposals, which are the most common ones given, or you don't. If you really believe in them, that they will make a difference, then you have to give something.
It proves my point: It is the gun control people, not gun owners and not the NRA, that is responsible for the stalemate.
"legislative tuning" = more gun controls because the ones proposed, just as predicted, were a ruse to move us all to a gun ban.
1
@Travelers
I oppose private ownership of all assault rifles, but if you're proposing to pay $25K for turning in assault rifles with no accompanying total ban on assault rifles, well, even I would find it hard to resist buying and selling and re-buying and re-selling the government a lot of assault rifles.
But then, when your plan also includes forcing non-concealed-carry permit states to allow concealed carry permits from ANYWHERE, well, I get the sense that your "gun control" proposal isn't being serious or honest about any type of gun control at all.
6