Printable View
There is no dead horse to beat about which guns should or should not be allowed to be owned, the bottom line is no guns should be owned by anyone but police and military, it is that simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
Countries that have a very tight and well implemented gun ownership legislation have very few fire arm related crimes, and there are many examples in this thread that proves that this works.
This reads rather like "Who will bell the cat?" It's all very well to say that the US Authorities should pass legislation to ban gun ownership, but how can they imlement it and tackle the issue of the very large number of guns in circulation, both legally held and not legally held?Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
That supply chain is massive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
I'd wager that most illegally held weapons are already outside the realms of existing documentation. The only real way you'd reign these in is either under a buy-back scheme where inflated prices for weapons was posted or if by some other event, they become know because of reported crime. The problem is that in a lot of cases, you can't even issue a warrant to search and seize illegal items if you don't even know that there are illegal items to be found.
The supply chain itself is hideously massive. It also includes guns shop owners to are legally licensed to sell weapons. Since there is a profit motive for them to sell stock and to skimp on checks, how do authorities enforce that?
Your first comment is spectacularly naive. If civilians are not allowed to own a handgun for protection in this fairy tale land of your imagination, how do you propose to ensure the bad guys don't get them? Oh yes, I get it--everyone will start to behave and the bad guys will just stop being bad. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Using your shaky logic, there are also numerous examples to suggest that 1) the best way to deter mass murderers is the conceal carry law, and 2) that "gun-free zones" in this country are practically asking for some nutcase to carry out some nefarious plot. I mean, who better to attack than a place that will not have any armed citizens nearby.
I'll tell you what the bottom line is: that my country is a unique one with a complicated, multi-faceted problem, and for people on this forum to think other countries' laws and customs can magically solve them is beyond foolish.
It is beating a dead horse because it is an unrealistic wish, as far as the United States is concerned. There's an old saying that when you want something unrealistic (good or bad), you can wish in one hand and s### in the other and see which one gets you your wish the quickest. Whether it's a good wish, a bad wish, a right wish or a wrong wish... it is (nothing more than) a wish. And it ain't gonna happen here. So let's bury that horse before he starts to smell, m'kay? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
There is no political will for such a thing to become law in the U.S. And even if it somehow managed to make it into law, the Supreme Court would probably strike down such a law as unconstitutional. So yes, that is a non-starter. And that's why I said participating in yet another tired thread, that would just go in circles and whack the dead pony again, was a waste of (my) time.
Let me try again... From a realistic and practical standpoint, do you have any constructive ideas, vis–à–vis the link and data that I presented?
I would say that you are most correct, in that these weapons have probably already gone underground. As the data showed, only once there had been some sort of violation (not necessarily a shooting) by a convicted felon did anything become known about the weapons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Finding ways to enhance the existing traceability of firearms might be workable. The background check system is already pretty good and pretty accurate, from what I've read. But are there ways to improve and enhance it? Finding ways to (legally) make it easier find and prosecute gun smugglers might also be workable. It is impossible for a civilian to legally purchase a full auto or select fire weapon in the U.S. if it was made after 1986(?). And as best I recall, there have been no crimes committed by people who legally owned or possessed these weapons in a decade or more. But crimes have been committed by people who have used illegally procured automatic weapons. Organized crime operations around Brighton Beach, NY and Miami, FL seem particularly crafty at smuggling them in (Uzis, MP5's, AK's, etc.). And some of those then get smuggled into Mexico to the cartels. And even though those particular weapons (or their so-called "assault weapon" cousins) aren't really a major source of the violence problem here (it's primarily handguns), some of the same smuggling operations also deal in black markets weapons of all types, as well as drugs, prostitutes (including children) and fencing operations. Our port security is said to be a joke. How could we improve there?
It is a big and complex problem. And I don't believe that the answer(s) will be simple. As much as I know about firearms, I still find myself asking more questions than I have (realistic and practical) answers. But by approaching it from a rational, root cause standpoint, I believe that at the very least, the problem can be attacked and lessened. For instance, gun shop owners probably won't sell new firearms straight off the shelf to a felon or someone with funny I.D. The penalty for that is loss of his FFL, and then he's out of business... after he gets out of jail. The problem of "strawman" purchases, where someone buys for another, is one that would have to be looked at very hard, IMO. Also, from reading that study, friends and family members also seem to be major sources for felons to secure firearms. I wouldn't think that they could (realistically) plead ignorance at not knowing that Jimmy Joe Bob had been in prison for the past ten years. So severely prosecuting those people should be another effective avenue.Quote:
The supply chain itself is hideously massive. It also includes guns shop owners to are legally licensed to sell weapons. Since there is a profit motive for them to sell stock and to skimp on checks, how do authorities enforce that?
Just some things/ideas/questions off the top of my head. But I'd like for others to read that study and see what ideas come to your mind. I really would like to have a good, constructive discussion about this topic. None of us wants to hear about innocent people getting shot and killed. So what are some real ideas here, folks? But I have no time or patience to discuss a Santa's wishlist. That's like those ditzy girls who are running for Miss World Bikini Queen, who foolishly wish for world peace when they ask them a deep question. Let's talk about the issue at a rational, unemotional, mature, data driven level. Yeah?
Whether we agree on the topic in general or not, I figured Rollo wouldn't let me down. Thanks, man!
So going back to the probable unconstitutionality of proposed changes - what do you think is the real possibility that the second amendment be actually amended to, for example, change "right" to "privilege"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
Is the second amendment really written in stone?
Dunno. But, it's part of our Bill of Rights (which we modeled, sort of, after England's), so it's pretty sacred.Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
We have repealed an amendment, however. The 21st overturned the 18th (Prohibition) so, theoretically, it may be possible to "amend" and amendment.
Politically, this would have very little traction. Philosophically and practically, we like our guns (I'm not a gun owner).
Don't worry Race - We keep letting the Islams in so i a bit they will throw out the entire constitution. ie see egyptQuote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
I think that the words of Paul Ryan, VP hopeful are appropriate here:Quote:
Originally Posted by keysersoze
"We face a very big choice. What kind of country are we going to be? What kind of country are we going to give our kids?"
- Congressman Paul Ryan, VP Debate, 12th October 2012.
Any constitutional change isn't going to change the country overnight. I do ask the question though, to what extent does the constitution shape the thinking of the nation. How different would have America had been if the wording of the Second Amendment been closer to that of the Bill of Rights Act 1689 and which is still in force in most Commonwealth Countries (re the Doctrines of Acceptance and relevant acceptance acts).
Bill of Rights [1688]
Subjects’ Arms.
That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.
- Bill of Rights Act 1689.
How would America have turned out if the Amendment had read something like:
The people may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.
The reason why I suggest this is largely because through various High Court interpretations, the rights of citizens in Commonwealth countries equate with that of "Protestants" (which one very important exception in the Succession to the Crown Act 1707). Countries like Australia and New Zealand and even Canada and the UK have far lower rates of firearm related homocide and crime, yet their citizens still retain the right to arms through the Bill of Rights Act 1689.
What kind of country are you going to be? What kind of country are you going to give your kids?
None of the amendments is written in stone. Any of the amendments can be amended. But doing that is even more difficult than just passing a law. If the Constitution (or Bill of Rights) had to be amended in order to make some future/proposed law constitutional, then I see that as a very time consuming and politically costly task. Would that, in itself, "fix" the problem? Would it help? How much would it help? Over what period of time? How would such a law be enforced, since now you'd be talking about prohibiting firearms ownership among the law abiding, as well as the convicted criminals (who couldn't own guns before)??? Open questions, as I do not know the answers there.Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
But IMO, it is not the wording of the Bill of Rights (or any other law) which is the root cause of the problem. There are already laws prohibiting convicted criminals from possessing firearms. They have neither the right nor the privilege to own firearms. But as is their nature, criminals tend not to follow the law. So rewording a law seems to have little effect on their behavior. And restricting the rights (or calling rights "privileges") of the generally law abiding might cause them to react very negatively.
I posed my question the way that I did because I believe it's very unlikely that the various people on this board will ever agree on the issue of private firearms ownership in the U.S. But I would think that we actually could agree on some measures or laws (or something) that might decrease the availability of guns or the incidence of gun violence by those who, as the data showed, commit a disproportionate number of gun crimes (and other crimes), considering their representation within the population.