Another American Political Debate: Gun Control

[Louis]

American drug policy seems to be a recurring topic on this forum, so I thought I would bring up another issue in America: Gun Control. I tried to do a search for previous discussions, but like over 300 threads came up and I didn't read through all of them.

What are everyone's opinions on this? Mine has changed over the years.

I used to be of the opinion that guns for personal protection and sport were perfectly fine. Lately though, my family has been stock piling ammo, handguns, and assault rifles from the fear that these could be taken away or made illegal to possess with the current political administration.

I personally own a Ruger P95 (9mm), a Springfield Armory X D (45 ACP), and an AK-47 (and I'm considering selling this for an AR-15 because ammo is more available right now than the 7.62x39 cartridges; AR-15s can accept both 5.56 NATO and .223 Winchester). I used to have a Glock 17 (9mm) but sold it to my Dad because I'm honestly not a big fan of striker fired pistols (and yes, I know my X D is striker fired and I'm thinking of selling that for a 1911 type pistol). I've been practicing about every weekend lately and I can land all 15 rounds from the Ruger on the target from 25 yards (two hands; slow fire).

I've been considering a concealed carry permit (I live in Kentucky), but honestly I don't feel comfortable carrying a weapon on me at all times. And really, Kentucky is a preemptive open carry state so if I really wanted to carry, law doesn't prohibit me from openly carrying. But really I don't think that is the best idea.

I guess my two main questions are:

1) Should responsible American citizens be protected by law to carry concealed guns for personal protection provided they complete the proper training? (Kentucky requires an eight hour course in safety and law. I really don't think that is enough personally. And you have to qualify for the permit by placing 11 of 20 rounds in the "kill zone" from a target at ~7 yards. I think anyone could probably do this the first time out.)

2) Should a similar Clinton type ban on assault weapons be instituted again?

[Mental]

This one of the few things where I tend to fall out entirely of step with liberal political thinking on the whole.

No gun regulations on ownership. Ever - unless there's a Constitutional Amendment. The 2nd Amendment is pretty clear on that, and I understand why. Much as I deplore the shootings, homicides, and gang wars - especially as far as school shootings go, that is a serious sign we're on the wrong path with our gun culture if not our laws - it's not even so much as "only criminals will have guns" as "only criminals and the GOVERNMENT will have guns" if the 2nd Amendment is compromised.

It's odd, because I find myself in the position of being extremely patriotic through thinking that is more or less akin to treason - America as an institution is trustworthy, I believe. Its government is not always so. And I think this was part of the historical design of the principle in question, and was known to the Founding Fathers, especially due to the fact that the various Revolutionary sentiments going around were in response to corrupt aristocracies in which the peasants were not allowed to bear arms. Remember, our Revolution kicked off a similar wave of that thinking all over the world, with France following right after (God, what a bloody affair that was).

Feudal Japan's history is full of that stuff too. Most of the ninja weaponry we all know and love so dearly - those of us who came of age during the late (and lamented, in my mind) ninja fetish of the late 1980s - comes directly from when various dishonorable samurai oppressed peasants within their fiefdoms. Samurai won't let you have a sword? No problem, tie these two sticks together. Practice hitting stuff with it until it breaks, now go bang it on that guy's pointy helmet.

Sadly, governments are imperfect. There are divine things about the institution, and humans don't tend to do well without it, but in the end, like everything else in this world, the various manifestations of it are made up of people, and nobody in this world is 100% good. The worse incarnations of government in our reality are not a wonderful thing to think about.

The current legal meaning of the Second Amendment was addressed in District of Columbia v. Heller.

In Heller, the Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, with the majority opinion stating that:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

I think this is dead on. "Traditionally lawful purposes" is the key. I believe the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms but does not intrinsically protect the right to their discharge. If you own a gun and use it when you are in CLEAR and PRESENT danger of harm without its discharge, that's protected. Destroying property with it or doing another person harm without being in danger are most emphatically not.

Where I think we go wrong on this as a culture is the way our gun culture has developed - overaggressive, rabid, paranoid, and possessed of a false sense of power akin to that of someone with poor emotional control holding a gun. The NRA is not what I would like to see in a weaponry-rights advocacy group, to put it mildly.

And - though I don't support the assault-weapons ban - I also don't particularly support the attitude of the people who buy five of them "just in case". I'm sort of surprised at you as an AK-47 owner, Louis - it wouldn't really be my choice of firearm for most domestic usage. Single-shot rifles are better for hunting (automatics wreck the quality of the meat), and even in terms of an intruder or whatnot or a break-in, assault rifles would tear up holy hell in your house and have a serious possibility of destroying property or even shooting through walls to harm bystanders. What made you want to own an assault weapon?

Bear in mind, we have an emotional survivor of Virginia Tech on this board, so this is the kind of discussion with which to bring your most soft-edged language. All of us. Opinions may differ - are very probably going to differ - but this is the kind of thing we have to adhere to the rules of respectful debate about. And I do apologize for my opinion, Kup, in light of what you went through, but I have to hold steady on it for now.

[Louis]

The AK-47 is semi-auto. We have two of them in my family as well as two SKSs (you can think of it as an early AK-47; they accept the same cartridges although ours are later variants that accept AK-47 magazines). All of our magazines are thirty round. Its more along the line of recreational use (as in shooting targets) and because we believe it is our second amendment right to own such weapons. If people aren't owning weapons protected by our second amendment rights, it would be like taking it for granted. We also have a Mosin-Nagant M44 Carbine (5 round bolt action rifle issued by Russia during World War II; 7.62x54; pretty insane 1000m range too).

None of our weapons are loaded unless we plan on shooting them (mostly at my Grandmother's farm out in the middle of nowhere.) All of my pistols have chamber locks through them and are also locked in a secure location. Honestly, I think that is common sense gun safety.

You also have the position that Sine poses, if you have a well armed populace it could possibly give the government reason to fear its people. Its what I believe our government was founded on. We didn't like the laws and taxes imposes by the British so we armed ourselves and fought back. Of course, this is the 21st century and our government probably fears our votes more than our armaments.

Something else are waiting periods on firearms. I bought the Ruger P95 less than a month ago. In Kentucky, it takes less than five minutes to complete the form and have the FFL call it in. My whole purchase took less than 10 minutes (I already knew what I wanted before I entered the shop so that cut down on time too.). I think some other states still have "cool off" periods.

My next purchase is probably going to be a Walther P22 along with a Gemtech Outback II suppressor. As long as you file the proper federal paperwork, suppressors are also perfectly legal. It takes 3-6 months for federal approval though and I have no reason to fail a federal check. There is also a substantial fee for a "tax stamp" to make such purchases. And really, the only reason for the suppressor is the "cool" factor and I don't have to wear hearing protection when "plinking."

[Louis]

And I guess to give some background on why I've learned to use firearms over the years is that I don't want to be a victim. My grandfather was murdered by two escaped inmates from Oklahoma (Michael Dale St. Clair and Dennis Reese).

There isn't much information about Reese. He has a life sentence in Kentucky for testifying against St. Clair (plea bargain). St. Clair has two capital sentences in Kentucky (one for capital murder and they other for capital kidnapping).

From the Kentucky Department of Corrections regarding Michael Dale St. Clair:

ST. CLAIR, MICHAEL DALE, DOB 1-15-57, was sentenced to death September 14, 1998 for Murder in Bullitt County. On October 6, 1991, in Bullitt County, Kentucky State Police was dispatched to a shooting incident on I-65 between Senora and Glendale and found an abandoned truck, which belonged to the victim. On October 8, officers responded to a scene of a body being discovered in Bullitt County off of Old Boston Road. On December 19, 1991 Michael St. Clair was arrested for the murder of Frances C. Bradey who was shot with a pistol. St. Clair also received a second death sentence for capital kidnapping from the Hardin Circuit Court on February 20, 2001.

http://www.corrections.ky.gov/inmateinfo/deathrow.htm

He also has a Canadian Coalition Against the Death Penalty Web site:
http://www.ccadp.org/michaelstclair.htm

I also have an aunt that has been missing since 1994 (my murdered grandfather's daughter). Her site is http://www.melisasloan.org

[Mental]

I know what the Mosin Nagant is, it's actually the sniper rifle that Kojima used for Metal Gear Solid III (set back in the Vietnam era) as well. One of the most accurate rifles of the day, supposedly.

I'll put it this way: I support the 2nd Amendment because I don't want the NRA crowd to be the only ones who are allowed to own guns.

[Louis]

Yeah, the Nagant is also in Call of Duty: World at War.

[SineSwiper]

I think I stated this before, but let's be clear why the 2nd Amendment was put in place. It was not put in place to shoot deer (or any other animal for food) nor to protect oneself from criminals. These are nice side effects and ideas that many people now seem to believe is the reason why it's in place, but they are not.

The 2nd Amendment was put in place so that if the government turned completely against the people, the people have enough weaponry to oppose the government and overthrow it.

This doesn't mean that the people need to have military jets or nuclear weapons. (The latter would definitely be where I would draw the line.) But it does mean that if a large chunk of the population rose up and fought against the US army, then the population would win. Or, to quote myself:

Sure, you don't need guns to start a riot, but riots are disorganized emotional displays of power in anger over their government. A well-armed militia is an organized rational display of power over their government. It's important to have both options available, because in this day and age where our armies have the latest technology available, the populace will need all of the help they can get to start a revolution, if the need arises. It's always been that more than the size of the military is needed to do something like that, but the scales should not be so unbalanced that it's impossible for even a 1/10th of the population to stop an army.

I will say this once, and I will continue to say it: Why do both political parties cherish one Constitutional Amendment, and shit on the other?

[SineSwiper]

Also worth looking at is some example cases. One I found pretty staggering:

United States v. Walters - On July 15, 2008, the Third Circuit upheld, against a Second Amendment challenge, a federal law that prohibits possession of firearms within 1,000 feet of a school zone and so denied a request to dismiss an indictment of Rupert Walters.

So, it's illegal to own a firearm if you happen to live next door to a school? That certainly sounds unconstitutional to me. Seems pretty cut and dry there. (Though, looking at the actual motion, it seems like the person arguing the case was an idiot.)

[Zeus]

Any reason for owning a gun (ie. putting the amendment in in the first place) has gone the way of the dodo.

Now, if you could actually get your fellow Americans to properly use that amendment MAYBE there'd be a reason. But there really is no good reason the way society is now

[Tessian]

Any reason for owning a gun (ie. putting the amendment in in the first place) has gone the way of the dodo.

Now, if you could actually get your fellow Americans to properly use that amendment MAYBE there'd be a reason. But there really is no good reason the way society is now

That's not true at all; as stated the 2nd amendment was put in place so that the population would have the power to revolt if their government got out of hand.... how is that an outdated concern? If anything it's moreso these days because every government on the planet is taking steps to remove their population's ability to arm themselves. Did our governments all stop being corrupt and untrustworthy over the past couple decades?

To butcher a famous quote: People should not fear their government; the government should fear its people. Somewhere along the line most people lost sight of that...

[SineSwiper]

Again, we had this debate before, and it ended with me winning, or at least me getting the last word.

[Julius Seeker]

When did I wander onto the fucking I Al-Qaeda forums?

[SineSwiper]

When did I wander onto the fucking I Al-Qaeda forums?

Supporting what our founding fathers did to overthrow the British government is considered just the same as Al-Qaeda. Gotcha!

[Louis]

Speaking of Al Qaeda...What are your feelings on American military force in the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters?

Personally, I don't agree with using American funding and troops in these locales. I am a firm believer in American non-interventionism (when pertaining to military engagements; humanitarian efforts are different in my opinion). American non-interventionism has been around since the creation of the American government (You can Google quotations from George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc.) I believe reforms could have been made on American soil to protect American lives. Such as increased border security as well as immigration and international traveler reforms.

I also don't agree with the wire-tapping without a warrant policy that began post 9/11 during the Bush administration.

[Mental]

My feeling is, we need to be in Afghanistan. The Taliban will continue to attack us. They have no interest in negotiation, they never did, and they are absolutely 100% past the edge in terms of extremism. I know too much about guerilla terrorist methodology to think border controls or immigration reform would stop them; I took a course from former Secretary of Defense William Perry at Stanford, and believe me, the options for covert terrorist action are creative beyond words.

For instance, as I doubt al-Qaeda's reading this forum, I feel safe in sharing that it would not be hard to mount another major attack on American soil, through our seaports, while everyone is still too focused on threats from the air. (He discussed this among other things in class.) It is not hard at all to get a boat with a briefcase bomb into a major American seaport, which you don't want to think about too long or you'll freak out. This is one of numerous options that I've barely seen anyone talking about...trust me when I say that it's far better to remove the reason for an attack than it is to try to stop the manifest ways people can screw us up.

We don't need to be in Iraq and never did.

But both conflicts have been terribly mismanaged. We needed to not divert troops from Afghanistan to Iraq, period, and we need to focus much more on surveillance and espionage with qualified translators and less on horridly expensive ground occupation. The lack of Arabic translation competence in these wars is one of the most saddening things for me to see...having taken a year of Arabic in college has made me very aware of the exact ways the Army and CIA are fucking blowing it.

And I think that, whatever Iraq started as, by about 2005 or so it had become more or less a way for various mercenaries to drain the Treasury while assuring Bush he was doing a stellar job. This is one of the things I'm pretty clear on, and pissed about. LOSE THE MERCENARIES. They're no good. Mercenaries make war for the sake of getting paid. You want to spend money on something, put it into the real military instead.

Obama's position on this is very similar to mine, which is pretty nice to see. I think he also understands the fact that we have to maintain a strong presence near the Pakistani border...Pakistan is actually our biggest national security threat, I think, other than right-wing domestic terrorism. (That should not be discounted, I've already noted three threats or almost-threats against Obama's life alone on the Internet in the last year.)

And, warrantless wiretapping is a no. Warrantless anything is a no.

[Mental]

I am a firm believer in American non-interventionism (when pertaining to military engagements; humanitarian efforts are different in my opinion).

If you really do believe this, agitate for change in CIA policy regarding the Middle East. We've had sticky fingers there doing black ops since World War II.

If you want to know why the Iranians are perpetually infuriated with us, read about the CIA-supported British coup of democratically-elected Prime Minister Mossadegh in 1948. He was upset with British Petroleum's exploitation of Iranian oil and made steps to nationalize it, which is why Britain and the CIA overthrew him and put the Shah in place, which is one of the most goddamned dishonorable and corrupt things America has ever done.

We had a great opportunity to have a democratic Iran, forward-thinking and relatively liberal, without having to do anything except abstaining from fucking with them, and we blew it because we decided we had to continue to have their oil - and fuck them if they decided they had a right to the resources underneath their own soil. But that's the oil industry for you...and one of the big reasons I consistently speak out on behalf of renewable energy.