Should Security Supplant Some Legal Purchases

Normally I'd just think you Yanks are being paranoid, with all your conspiracies about the "The Government" taking your freedoms away. But now I'm not so sure.

Here in Oz, they're trying to ban access to internet sites that have "criminal content". (well that can't be bad, can it?)

The trouble is the list of banned sites is a secret, the list of potentially criminal subjects is secret and sites listing info about the banned list are also banned.

I suspect the most draconian laws start out as perfectly reasonable

More laws and regulations only mean less freedom. How about we start actually enforcing the laws we have. And it starts with the little things, like being considerate

Well, the individuals in this story are "suspected of a variety of illegal activities". You really can't ban a "suspect" from buying firearms, ammunition etc. if these items are available and legal to purchase in the jurisdiction. That is absurd. I don't see how politicians would go about making it harder for "suspects" to buy weapons than anybody else.

And why would you want to? You would immediately tip them off that they are a suspect. You would drive them to obtain the goods illegally, making it harder to track what they are up to. If they are really up to no good, they will get the weapons anyway.

Well said Arty. The problem with such laws is that they only affect the law-abiding citizen. Bad guys almost invariably acquire their weapons etc illegally.

GA, Guest. This is all about due process. The problem the "due process" could be set up a lot better.

But it does beg another question. That is if we then assume that the rest of the "innocent" population contains a number of potential terrorists should all of these presumably equal folks be allowed to buy weapons with the potential to kill and maim a large number of innocent people? Most of us are inclined to answer "no" to that and indeed around 75 or 80 years ago in the USA we drew the line for personal weapons at whether the gun was automatic or semiautomatic.

We've already decided that many categories of weapons are simply capable of delivering too much lethal power to be posessed by anyone who has not met some far more stringent test that goes beyond the issue of criminal status. But an interesting thing has happened as firearm technology has advanced after WWII. Semi automatic weapons have become capable of delivering far higher levels of destructive power than was common 50 years ago. And the availability of these weapons has greatly increased as our population has gained the material wealth to afford to purchase them.

Trouble is our restrictions on them have not kept pace primarily because most of our people do not see a problem. And there may not be. At least until some US citizens for whatever reason or mission decide to legally purchase a number of modern semiautomatic rifles and pistols and set forth to kill a large number of innocent people at one time. So far the terrorists groups who have drawn our attention have not chosen such an event for their attacks. And so far the Mexican drug cartel armies have been wise enough to keep from pointing too much their new found firepower (much of it from USA sources) across the border.

But what will happen when the time comes that the NRA and it's supporters face the same level of American ire that British Petroleum and its partners are looking at today? A whole lot of responsible American sportsmen, gun collectors, gun hobbiests and people simply keeping a gun for self protection in a dangerous living environment are likely to find themselves facing draconian restrictions that could have been avoided with some reasonable attention to fixing the real problems that gun ownership produces.

It's easy for someone living in Wyoming to say that we've got all the gun laws and restrictions we need. I strongly suspect that is the way it is out in most all of America's "outback". And I'm sympathetic with those folks. But I hasten to note that their ideas might be a little different if they lived in Salinas, CA, once a nice little CA farming town; now a place where gang wars are a part of everyday life and an AK47 is almost as easy to buy as a cocaine and meth.

Ed Weldon

At least until some US citizens for whatever reason or mission decide to legally purchase a number of modern semiautomatic rifles and pistols and set forth to kill a large number of innocent people at one time.

You mean like the assault on the Branch Davidians at Waco, Texas? Ooops, wait. No that was the ATF and FBI acting under the orders of Janet Reno during the Clinton administration.

I strongly suspect that is the way it is out in most all of America's "outback".

Feels nice, does it, to be sanctimonious towards those gun-toting rednecks?

The primary issues effecting the citizenry of Salinas, Ca are far removed and of greater complexity than mere gun ownership.

Demographics are not principle factors of responsible gun ownership, fundamentals don't change.

I threw out the above comments hoping to bring some logic to this discussion. I realize that is a monumental task.

Before you flog me for being one side or the other I will tell you that I am a gun owner. I am indeed concerned that the same line of thinking that has brought Australia and Canada to the point where they are vis-a-vis gun ownership could well take place here. Likewise I am concerned with how easy it is for the "bad guys" in our society to arm themselves with some pretty heavy weaponry.

That is why I offer what seems to be a lone and distant call for some rationality on the subject.

First, let me ask a question: Why is it that I cannot buy a real 50 caliber machine gun? Before you shout back that it's illegal I'll ask "Why is it illegal?" This should force us into a discussion that really needs to take place. What we really need to confront is the issue of just how dangerous to individuals and our way of life is any given weapon system if made available to a population that enjoys the level of personal freedom we have in the USA.

The next thing we must address is how can we set up a system that allows law abiding and mentally stable citizens to obtain and own the guns they want while discouraging the people who shouldn't have them. Recognize here that no such system will be perfect and there will be at least a few failures on both sides.

Ready to deal with this? Or does everybody prefer to sit back and listen to their favorite ranting millionaire talk show host and barricade his/her extreme position?

Ed Weldon

BTW, it's my humble opinion that nobody should be allowed to own a gun unless he/she is capable of hitting a challenging target more times than not (as a minimum).

Hello Ed,

The next thing we must address is how can we set up a system that allows law abiding and mentally stable citizens to obtain and own the guns they want while discouraging the people who shouldn't have them. Recognize here that no such system will be perfect and there will be at least a few failures on both sides.

So we need to use the system in place already, a diagnosis of emotional instability requiring medication needs a doctor's prescription; the issuance of such prescription should be forwarded in the system to effectively restrict firearm purchases but don't we already have this? Why is it not enforced? What we don't have is the requirement of the doctor's whom discontinue these drugs from patients to submit documentation.

As I see it every major mass shooting incident involved an individual whom had serious emotional instability issues documented an under a clinicians care had been removed from medication immediately prior to the violent events.

Yes some restrictions should be implemented but let's address the issue not the symptom.

Firearms training should be implemented in all junior high schools, familiarization of firearms should be a regular course in elementary school grades. Education and understanding of a danger is your greatest advantage as an individual.

"...our rulers will find considerable dose of falsehood and deceit necessary for the good of their subjects..." -- Plato's The Republic

"What we in America call terrorists are really groups of people that reject the international system..." -- Henry Kissinger, speaking at a conference hosted by AKbank in Istanbul Turkey on May 31, 2007, just prior to the scheduled Bilderberg meeting.

"...it is above all in the present democratic age that the true friends of liberty and human grandeur must remain constantly vigilant and ready to prevent the social power from lightly sacrificing the particular rights of a few individuals to the general execution of its designs." -- Alexis de Tocqueville - Democracy in America, 1835

"In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and power interest, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press of the United States." -- Representative Oscar Calloway, quoted in the Congressional Record of February 9th, 1917

"In a complex society, flexible people survive best, but school... rewards rigid, miserable rule-followers. To be effective and remain independent we need to know how to find things out, how to manage our own learning, but the day prison model school discourages learning for its own sake. Actual learning leads directly to low test scores. Whatever education happens in school happens despite school, not because of it." -- John Taylor Gatto, Weapons of Mass Instruction

"I have been often to, I guess, the mother ship in New York City [the Council on Foreign Relations], but it's good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won't have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future." -- Hillary Clinton

"By the year 2000 all its common citizens should certainly be in touch with the thought of Continental Europe... its English language should be already rooting firmly through all the world beyond its confines... and discussing calmly with the public mind of the European, and probably of the Yellow state, the possible coalescences and conventions, the obliteration of custom-houses, the homologization of laws and coinage and measures... The American constitution and the British crown and constitution have to be modified or shelved at some stage in this synthesis..." -- H.G. Wells, Anticipations, 1901

"What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth [environment] comes from the actions of the rich countries?... So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about? This group of world leaders form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse." - Maurice Strong, May, 1990 interview with West Magazine describing a "novel" that he would like to write

"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." -- Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports, quoted in Discover, Oct. 1989, page 47

"The ideal household [in early America] aimed to produce its own food, clothing, shelter, entertainment, transportation, medical care, education, child care, and social security. A large fraction of the population never got there, but as a City on the Hill to strive for it was an ennobling vision which some families, especially on the frontier, succeeded in making happen. It was this idea of being personally empowered, in contrast to the servile states of Europe and Asia, which acted as a magnet for the world's peoples - not the prospect of two cars, a house in the suburbs, and the latest computer junk." -- John Taylor Gatto, Weapons of Mass Instruction

"It is not unknown for a people to take pleasure and pride of a sort of sacrificing their will to that of the prince, thereby marking a kind of independence of soul in the very act of obedience. In such nations degradation is far less common than misery. There is a great difference, moreover, between doing what one does not approve of and pretending to approve of what one does: one is the attitude of a man who is weak, the other a habit that only a lackey would acquire." -- Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

Is this the Year 2010, or is it "1984"?

No Government Bureaucratic laws are going to take away my God -given Constitutional right to purchase a weapon of my choosing, just because there are "quote" suspected persons or terrorists amongst us? Bull-puppy!

Anyhow, a bullet is a bullet is a bullet regardless of from what type of weapon it was fired from! And I'll be damned if I ever turn in my semi-automatic AR-15/M-4 A2......as I bought it for match shooting at the range as well as home security/defense....and I'm no nut-case either. I just prefer to own this type of weapon for my familiarity with it (I'm a Vet), ease of maintenance, and for its stopping power....ditto if I had owned a Springfield M1903 .308 rifle (used by the US Army in WWI) or a M-1 Garand (WWII)...the result would be the same on the target if I pulled the trigger.....

If the Government can't enforce the laws already on the books, then there are some problems with the Judicial system in this county that seriously need a look at and revised and strengthen. but don't take away my and everyone else's' (US Citizen) right to bear arms. The founders of the Constitution were very wise men giving us this freedom and it had not be taken away!

The main problem is that there will always be a Black Market for weapons where the criminals, terrorists, and just plain nut jobs can buy a weapon of choice if they have the right amount of cash on hand, and this includes fully automatic weapons. Unless Government can control the Black Market or demolish it, then there will always be the wrong types of weapons in the hands of the wrong people, but not the average John Q. Public......there will always be greed, which is the underlying foundation for the weapons Black Markets.

Case in point from about 20 years ago. I am a former US Army Officer (Active & Reserves). I have sat on several soldier's Court Martials because they were greedy enough & dumb enough to steal several crates of M-16A2 Assault Rifles from an Armory where they access on a daily basis.....they were too stupid enough to think they could sells these weapons on the Black Market to gang members in a certain Metropolitan city on the East Coast, but got nabbed by undercover ATF agents and FBI. Now these 3 convicted Sergeants are cooling their heels in the prison at Fort Leavenworth for at least another 10 years.........GREED played a huge role here, and it happens every day!

Time for the Federal and state governments to finally wake up and smell the coffee!

Well Capt you said it all for me so I guess I don't need to post now.

Well said except for one key point.

"The founders of the Constitution were very wise men giving us this freedom and it had not be taken away!"

As you stated earlier in your post these rights are god-given and not man-given. There is no human authority which take away these rights are they are endowed by our creator. (define as you wish) Some of the Founding Fathers were hesitant to enumerate these rights due to the fact that they may be construed as right given by man and, therefore, taken away. The 2nd Amendment is the lynchpin in the whole grand experiment. Without a capacity to counter our government sponsored militias (read police, military, etc) the capacaity for the government to usurp the People rises expontially. "A well regulated militia..." refers to the people keeping the government thugs in check not some sort of minute-man organization. The attempt of this law is blatantly unconstitutional and, if our courts are still doing their job, will be deemed null and void.

" if our courts are still doing their job, will be deemed null and void"

If not, we may ultimately have to deem them such, and demonstrate that fact, ourselves.

That, too, was in the thoughts and consciences of our Founding Fathers. That, too, was reason for the 2nd Amendment.

Replied in error.

Your "God-given Constitutional right"? Could you substantiate that, please?

I agree with your basic points:

1) Enforcement of current laws is lacking and should be brought up to speed.

2) A bullet is a bullet no matter where it comes from -- although purists would argue that there is a significant difference between a .22 caliber and .45 caliber slug.

3) Criminals will always be outside the law -- and there will be a black market for weapons.

I disagree that you have a "God-given Constitutional right" to own a weapon, though. It would be interesting to hear why you think you have one.

Note: I have another post on the topic in this blog.

The entire idea of our Constitution is that the rights contained within are our right as humans on Earth. They are not handed down by man or government and, therefore, can not be taken away by man or government. We the People have created the government as our servant not our keeper.

And many governments have learned, to their chagrin, that even if you take away weapons, the very same folks who, as law-abiding citizens WOULDN'T have posed a threat, now will (you threaten them with Despotism, after all), and will find ways to create even more destructive weapons from commonly available materials. And, Oh, BTW, it doesn't work to take all the posted information from the internet to keep them from learning it. WE figured out when I was a teenager (and I AM old enough that was before even DARPANET existed, so the internet wasn't even a nascent gleam at that point) how to make our own shoulder-fired rocket-launchers, and even near-silent napalm grenade launchers, WITH our own homegrown napalm grenades (thank you very much). No, I didn't, and won't, post the how-to's. My point is that if you REALLY want ticked off trouble-makers on Government's tail, the way to get them there is to push law-abiding citizens too far.

I said before, and I'll say again. The nitwits who tried to equate those who wore side-arms, or even carried long guns, to the "neighborhood meetings" in ObamaCare, with someone trying to make a point about RKBA missed the message entirely. The message was, "Don't EVEN THINK about treading on US'. You work FOR us, even if YOU are too stupid or arrogant to know it. And when all else fails, we can stop you from working. Legally, or otherwise. Step on our rights, take away our safety from YOU, and YOUR safety will never, EVER be guaranteed again.

End of rant. Sscraape! That's the sound of me shoving my soap-box back under the gun-smithing bench.

"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices." (William James)

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution)

I have followed this debate (or discussion) in several forums lately.

Thee seems to be a divide between the gun owners, or those who advocate unfettered gun ownership, and those who would restrict gun ownership, some even to the point of outlawing it entirely. Those who advocate unfettered gun ownership generally consider themselves champions of individual liberty and personal rights. Those who advocate strict controls on gun ownership tend to consider themselves champions of personal and public safety. Neither side has a very high opinion of the intent or mental capability of the other side. As a result, the arguments presented seem to be fairly emotional, based loosely on some aspect of the argument, or quote by a friendly advocate or a nemesis. Thus, my quote from William James.

Most of the arguments point back to the Second Amendment. Most gun ownership advocates point to this as the basis for the right to own guns. Any attempt to restrict ownership is seen as an assault on the Second Amendment. But what about the first part of the amendment -- the part about the "well regulated militia"? So, does this mean that only individuals qualified for military service should be allowed to own weapons? If Congress, or State legislatures control (well regulate) militias, can't they determine what type of weapons you can own? Or could you argue that if you want to own a gun, you must be part of the Armed Forces -- Active duty, Reserves or National Guard? How about this for a catch new slogan: "If you can't serve, you can't carry. If you won't serve, you don't deserve to carry."?

On the other hand, look at the argument, "If it is criminal to own a gun, then only criminals will own guns." There are two ways to look at this. On the one hand, making it criminal will make gun owners criminal. On the other hand, criminals will always find a way to get guns. Both are related by several folks in this blog. If it would make gun owners criminal, do we want to repeal it for that reason alone? You could also argue that "If it is criminal to rob a bank, then only criminals will rob banks." "If it is criminal to murder people, then only criminals will be murderers." And, yes, it is true that criminals will aways find a way to get guns. And all of these guns started life as a legally manufactured and sold piece of equipment. Some where along the lines, it was stolen or somehow otherwise transferred to "illegal" ownership or status. I think the point made elsewhere about enforcing existing laws has a great deal of merit.

Finally, what is the purpose of a gun? It only exists to launch a bullet. That's it. What you use it for, target shooting, hunting, warfare or criminal action is a matter of individual choice. However, unlike most other tools (knives and cars and trucks for example), it's only effect is destructive. Sometimes, that may be a good thing. Usually it is not.

Anyway, that's my ramble on the subject. For background, I grew up in a small town in the South. I was educated at a small military college in the South. I served 26 years in the US Army. I do not own a gun. I will not own a gun. I do not want to own a gun.

So, in answer to the original question -- Should Security Supplant Some Legal Purchases? I say, "Yes."

In the recent SCOTUS ruling (Wikipedia linked here) DC v Heller, the "well regulated militia" portion was deemed to be irrelevant to the overall right to own a gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

From the article's sidebar: "The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's 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. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed."

What I find so annoying about the whole gun control issue is that anyone can take a college chemistry course, or download an article off the internet, and get all the information needed to make an explosive much more deadly than an 'assault' weapon using materials readily available from a grocery store or home supply center. So what's the point?

It seems to me that a number of the terrorist incidents/attempts in recent years have involved bombs made with ordinary stuff - fertilizer for example. Propane. I believe that was involved in the recent improvised explosive contraption in Times Square.

The bottom line, a law to restrict 'suspects' from buying weapons would not be effective unless it also stopped them from buying a very long list of consumer goods that can be used for that purpose. Box cutters, fgs.

People have been killing each other for as long as there have been people. We have evolved from sticks and stones to more sophisticated means.

But since you point this out, let's look at the unspoken side of your argument. Why do people kill each other?

In some cases, it is for self protection, as you indicate in your comment, Capt Moosie.

In some cases, it may be a result of rage/anger/mental instability.

In either case, it is easier to do more damage with a firearm than it is with a kitchen knife. So, why make it easier to do more damage? Why not have laws that restrict and control gun ownership?

To be honest, I am more afraid of people who openly state their intent to not comply with the laws of the state, and who use incendiary terms like "liberal ass kisser" than I am of common criminals.

So, let's take our fears and act upon them. Arm the entire population! Why should only the criminals have guns? Give everybody in the US above the age of 18 a firearm and a small amount of ammunition. Maybe we can get a civic boost out of this. If you register to vote, you get a gun. If you vote, you get your ammo replenished. Or maybe if you complete a firearms course you get your ammo replenished. Of course, we would have to do the same thing for everyone applying for citizenship, too. Should we arm Green card holders? I think so. But what about tourists? You don't want visitors to this country to be at risk, do you? How do we go about arming them? Or do we only allow armed tourists?

Wouldn't these ideas level the playing field?

But then, what weapons should law enforcement have? Do we need to make sure they have more firepower than the rest of us? Or do we assume that that would set up a means whereby the state could rob us of our freedoms? But don't we want to make sure they have more firepower than the "bad guys," whoever bad guys happen to be?

Wait a minute, the state has tanks, artillery and Bradley Fighting Vehicles. How do we counter those as private citizens?

Cripes, I am lost here. Maybe one of you advocates for unrestricted gun ownership can show me what we are supposed to do.

Indeed it is the skill and motivation - not the tool.

A gun in the hands of a sane person is no more lethal than an appliance chord, chopstick, credit card, fry-pan, kitchen knife, rolling pin, iron, broken bottle in the hands of a skilled person or a nut case.

"Motivation" is the distinction America seems to fail to address.

It is odd that the 'threat' of removing guns is 'motivation' to 'take up arms' when killing is so easily achieved by any on the list above and a dozen other 'quiet' and 'excusable' means.

It speaks of some unfathomable sociological fantasy of "unfulfilled hero".

"It speaks of some unfathomable sociological fantasy of "unfulfilled hero"."

It always amazes me how people who do not live in America, and don't know America's people (I was born here, and have lived in small towns, big cities, and everything in between, from the West Coast, in California and Oregon, to the East Coast, in Virginia, Florida, Georgia, and Mississippi [I know, that isn't on the East or West Coast, its on the South Coast], and I STILL don't know all about my own people, so don't let your ignorance slow YOU down!) can tell us, who do live here, what our motivations are.

Gun ownership, to protect our rights, stems, not from some "hero" fantasy. Those of us who are former military, and a lot who aren't, know full well that a hero with a gun can still be just as dead as one without.

No, the motivation has to do with being able to "reach out and touch someone" who is wielding unjust power in unjust ways, and has plenty of bodyguards to protect him in close. And the motivation to touch him probably escapes a lot of the rest of the world because they either don't know their own history, or they personally have never seen what it is like to be even partially self-deterministic in your behavior, to live in places where if you don't take care of yourself, absolutely NO ONE will be there in time to matter to you. I've lived in places, not of MY choice, where it was necessary at one point or another to be prepared to defend oneself against animals of both the 4-legged AND the 2-legged variety.

I won't get into a "nurture vs nature" discussion here, but I suppose it could be argued that when one has freedom to discipline oneself, one also, by definition, has freedom to be undisciplined, and that may be what gives rise in some or our rural, and many of our urban, areas, to the lawlessness that requires that kind of preparation.

So be it. I won't give up my freedom to be self-disciplining, in favor of not requiring preparation to defend against those not so inclined. If THEY are the price of MY freedom, I'll take my freedom. And if it requires guns to keep that freedom, then those who are undisciplined should watch their steps. And that includes those who are in power, and still undisciplined.

Utopia has not, and never will, exist. Freedom requires watchfulness. And the means to preserve both the freedom and the right to self-determination.

I think you are misreading the Second Amendment. A "well regulated militia" means the military (government armed forces, police, etc) is regulated by the citizens because the citizens own guns. It keeps the powers-that-be in check. It keeps a military coup from taking the Republic or a tyrannical federal government from usurping the People's Rights. It has nothing to do with the Armed Forces other than means to keep the military regulated to insure a free State.

There is a great deal of debate about what the exact meaning of the Second Amendment is. The debate centers around the first clause of the amendment , "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state." Is it a requirement, or simply an explanatory or introductory phrase? If you read the arguments, it will seem to be hair-splitting. Current jurists (like SCOTUS) lean toward the interpretation that it is a preface and, therefore, not a requirement. Thus, the ruling that military service is not a requirement for possessing a firearm.

Then there is the debate about what constitutes a militia and what it's purpose is. Is it to defend the state against threats, or to defend the people against encroachments from the state?

When the Constitution was framed, there was a general distrust of standing armies. The British Army was the enforcer of all the things colonists didn't like, so it is natural to distrust the use of a standing army in light of the situation in the late eighteenth century. The idea was that citizens formed and controlled the military establishment, so they needed to own appropriate weaponry. This idea continued among jurists as the main meaning of the Second Amendment into the early nineteenth century, and is reflected in comments like lighthasmass makes. In fact, up through WWI, we tended to raise armies in response to national crises. These were the citizen-soldiers who answered the call to arms, then returned to their civilian occupations after the conflict. Note that these militias were called up to defend the state against an external or internal threat. They were not formed in order to enable personal self-protection.

And here we are in 2010, where weapons technology has developed far beyond anything imagined by the framers of the Constitution. We have a remnant of the idea of citizen control of the military by restricting by law the authority over the military to elected officials, Congress, the President and state Governors. As a result of WWII and all the conflicts in the second half of the twentieth century, we have a substantial standing military -- and I think most folks who support unfettered gun ownership are pretty comfortable with having a large military establishment.

So, things change. It isn't 1787 anymore, but how do we continue to fulfill the intent of the Constitution in light of the current time? Having no restrictions on anything is anarchy. Having too much is oppression. Where is the line? In this instance, where do we draw the line on gun ownership? My recommendation is to enforce the laws that we have on the books now -- restricting gun ownership from convicted felons and mentally unstable people and requiring stringent background checks, registration of all firearms and licensing of all gun owners. I would also support making it illegal to own certain types of weapons -- those which are suitable only for military purposes, like machine guns and automatic weapons.

"enforce the laws that we have on the books now -- restricting gun ownership from convicted felons and mentally unstable people"

Amen, and the laws ARE existing to do this.

"requiring stringent background checks, registration of all firearms and licensing of all gun owners".

Not in the existing laws, and an encroachment by a government I don't trust. And one I suspect MOST of us who've served in the military don't trust THAT much!

"I would also support making it illegal to own certain types of weapons -- those which are suitable only for military purposes, like machine guns and automatic weapons."

And this serves what purpose, while those are available on the black market? It was not too long ago, and in many places this is still the case, that even the duly constituted law-enforcement ranks were outgunned by the criminals who carried these. So, keep them out of the hands of law-abiding people WHY?

But, one out of your three points isn't a total wash-out. I expect that, if ALL gun owners in America were licensed, and all guns were registered, we would have already faced forcible disarmament. Shoot, they DID on Louisiana. Am I the only one who remembers LAW-ENFORCEMENT trying to disarm LAW-ABIDING people, when LAW_ENFORCEMENT acknowledged that it could neither enforce the law, nor protect LAW-ABIDING people?

Register the guns, and license the owners, and I'll become a NON-law-abiding person. But, my gun will STILL kill fewer innocents than Ted Kennedy's car did! And he was one of the most ferocious of those who wanted all us law-abiding people disarmed.

See what I mean? That's why we need to keep them. Just in case. Hopefully we'll never need them. But I have fire extinguishers in my house too. And I haven't ever needed them. And don't want to.

Well, we may simply have to agree to disagree on the issue, micahd02. It is hard to discuss an issue like this when your position is based largely on opinion and emotion rather than facts. Please don't take that as an insult or incitement. It was not intended to be. It is just that I can't argue with what you chose to believe.

You state that registration of guns would be an "encroachment by a government that I don't trust." How can I argue the fact? You don't trust the government. I do. I served 26 years in the US Army and US Army Reserve. What makes registering guns an encroachment? Do you consider registering automobiles an encroachment? How about other forms of personal property? All I know is that you believe that you shouldn't have to register your guns, but you should have to be able to show that you are responsible enough to own guns. I don't know why you believe this, but I accept the fact that you believe it.

You question why automatic weapons should be kept out of the hands of law-abiding people. Your inference seems to be that because they are available on the black market, law-abiding people should have them in order to defend themselves from people who would buy them on the black market. This is a proposition that I have been unable to satisfactorily resolve for myself. On the one hand, if a criminal suspects that I have an assault rifle in the house, and am prepared to use it, he may take action to counter it by either shooting first (as or before he breaks in) or bringing his own assault rifle -- and a couple of buddies with theirs. John Wayne, Clint Eastwood and Rambo not withstanding, the odds are not in your favor. On the other hand, if he knows that you are totally disarmed, then a .22 caliber zip gun is all he needs. Why make it easy for him? About the only argument I can think of is that the heavier the weaponry, the more likely it is that collateral damage will occur and other people could get hurt. You probably disagree, but I don't know why.

The only reference I could find to forcible disarmament in Louisiana was in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, when law and order had pretty well broken down. In trying to restore order, the NOPD started searching people coming into shelter (looking for weapons) and doing house to house searches for weapons. Is this what you are referring to? That effort was certainly not in normal circumstances, and it was thwarted by the courts in response to the NRA, among others. There was one reference to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina that touches on the issue at hand:

http://www.thenation.com/article/katrinas-hidden-race-war?page=0,0

This one is important in that the actions taken by armed civilians were mentioned in the NRA's law suit as exactly what was intended by the Second Amendment. Read the article and you will (hopefully) conclude that private gun ownership is not the solution in such an instance -- or that training in the proper use of deadly force is a necessary part of gun ownership, because it sure doesn't appear to be inherent to owning a gun. That is part of the registration and licensing process. But I am sure you can read the article and draw a different conclusion.

I also ran across these articles, too:

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2010/06/gunfire_death_rate_in_louisian.html

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/02/louisiana_gun_laws_among_weake.html

Long story short: We are looking at the same issue and drawing different concusions. Ave, Imperator, morituri te salutant and peace be with you.

I'll comment on the hinge-pin of my argument, and I served in the US Naval Security Group, where I dare say I was exposed to more, and more sensitive information, on a daily basis, than most military folks ever are. I can't (because of clearances) and won't (because of oaths taken) elaborate, but from much of that, and my work on "Black Projects" as a contractor for 18 1/2 years, I developed a distrust of those who run "government" or "The Bureaucracy", however any of us might define them. I DON'T distrust, nor dislike "Government". How could I, without being an anarchist (I'm far from that). But I have seen too many who would sell out too much for too little, in places where they had access to the "too much" and virtually NO effective monitoring because they "were good people, I knew them in the <name your service here>". And on that basis, due process for background checks and all the rest be hanged, they were given access to sensitive information, with its concomitantly great resale value.

In other venues, I've seen too many bored young soldiers or sailors (maybe Airmen, too, but I have no first-hand knowledge there) or marines, on a mid-watch on a comm console, give away information due to total boredom and lack of focus, or, alternately, dig into another individual's work or private data, and, finding it "juicy", spread it all over the nets.

If they will do that, then, in later years, given power to perform OTHER extra-legal "miracles" to satisfy their own wants, they will do so. And I've seen too many Junior officers (shoot, Field Grade, also) break every rule in sight, as long as no one can prove it.

Do I trust people with power over me? Not any more than I trust me, with uncontrolled power over others.

And yes, I was referring before to NOLA, after Katrina. There was NO basis for those confiscations from law-abiding citizens who HAD NOT come into the shelters, but were, horror of horrors, just trying to protect what was left of their own belongings. And I knew some personally who were resident in the area, and were among those terribly misguided miscreants who had to go to court to force an out-of-control government to do what was right, in order to undo what it had done wrong. And, BTW, it still hasn't made right some of that wrong, in spite of the court's decisions.

To further the argument, see the somewhat tongue-in-cheek posts in 15 and 26 of this thread. I work for the Department of Defense, and WE are among the bozos I don't, and won't ever, trust. And I hope YOUR trust never backfires on you!

Thanks, micahd02. I understand your stance a bit better now. I can't say I agree with you yet, but I do understand the basis for your mistrust of government and why you believe what you do.

It's a little funny -- the original premise of the blog was an article about whether or not suspected terrorists should be allowed to purchase firearms/explosives without more extensive background checks. Somehow, we digressed into a much more general debate. But it has been good.

Now, back to the original question: should suspected terrorists be allowed to buy firearms/explosives? The bills submitted (now both in committee) in the House and Senate would amend the criminal code to allow disapproval of permit applications for firearms/explosives for people known to be involved with or supporting terrorism? There are provisions in the bill that allow for challenges to disapproval. Full details of both bills are at:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-1317

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2159

Now, Federal law already prohibits the sale of firearms to or possession of firearms by non-US Citizens (except legal resident aliens). So, are additional requirements/laws necessary? The supporters of the bill say, "yes," because there are people in the Terrorist Screening Database that are US Citizens and under suspicion of aiding terrorists or wanting to engage in terrorist activities. Opponents of the bill say that current law is sufficient and that passage of one of these bills (they are identical as near as I can see) will adversely affect all other legitimate gun purchases.

I would have to identify myself as a supporter of the bill.

Against. Innocent until proven guilty. See post 40. And, yeop, the Press, which doesn't like looking too closely at anything that happens in an administration they like, has posted viable articles talking about people who can't fly because they share a like name with someone on a no-fly list. And, if Guest (poster for number 40) is right, that's all it takes to declare me, or you, or any other citizen, unworthy to access this constitutional right.

BTW, do you know what, in Great Britain, constitutes carrying an illegal knife? According to a Bobby I spoke to about it, while visiting there, it's any knife which he or she determines does not fit with what he or she thinks you are preparing to do. Thus, a one inch penknife (his example, literal) is illegal to carry while walking down the street, because (in his estimation) you don't need it to open letters. But if you are carrying fishing gear, the 10 Filleting knife (again, his example) which you are carrying is perfectly acceptable. And in the event he (or she) thinks you shouldn't have it, you can surrender it, and walk on, or you can suffer arrest, and being held until such time as he, or his superiors, or the judge, or someone else, but NOT a "solicitor" (Britishese for a lawyer. Even they don't like them, so they cover them up with a fake name. Joking, sorry. Dont' get mad, please, if you are British.) decides that your case should be heard. No apparent right to speedy trial, no right to Habeus Corpus, no right to access to a lawyer. In short, no WRITTEN, CODIFIED, CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. The law is what the law says is the law. Today. Maybe tomorrow, too.

And that seems to be where these bills are heading. And, yep, its back to that issue of trust.

<Current Government Rep>"I'm from the government. I mean you no harm. I won't let these laws hurt you. Trust me"

<me> "Oh, OK, I guess that will be OK"

<Two years later, or more, or less, who's counting? New Government Rep> "That was yesterday, I found a new problem, and a new way to fix it, and, well, I guess this is an Elephant fight. And you know how that goes. When elephants fight, the ants get hurt. Welcome to Ant land, little man."

Can't happen? What about RICO, being applied under Janet Reno's watch, to people who spoke out against the government's heavy-handedness at Ruby Ridge and Waco?

That wasn't what RICO was for. But bet that it will be used for a lot of other things it wasn't made for.

To the man who has only a hammer, everything looks like a nail. To the man who has many hammers, bolts are made to be driven in, not turned, and the only difference is which hammer to use, not whether the bolt is destroyed by misapplication of force.

I've spent a fair bit of time in America and a fair bit of time along side Americans in other countries. It's interesting how by the next post you agree. Often came down to that in other places.

Where a child of 9 months age can be held to be in the "suspecteds" due to his name matching in a list !!!!!

We need more from security first, like securing the boarders then we can discuss further restricting our liberties...

-----

Little Johnnie strikes again........

The kids filed back into class Monday morning. They were very excited. Their weekend assignment was to sell something, then give a talk on productive salesmanship.

Little Sally led off: "I sold girl scout cookies and I made $30," she said proudly, "My sales approach was to appeal to the customer's civil spirit and I credit that approach for my obvious success."

"Very good," said the teacher.

Little Jenny was next: "I sold magazines," she said, "I made $45 and I explained to everyone that magazines would keep them up on current events."

"Very good, Jenny," said the teacher..

Eventually, it was Little Johnny's turn. The teacher held her breath ... Little Johnny walked to the front of the classroom and dumped a box full of cash on the teacher's desk. "$2,467," he said.

"$2,467!" cried the teacher, "What in the world were you selling?"

"Toothbrushes," said Little Johnny.

"Toothbrushes!" echoed the teacher, "How could you possibly sell enough tooth brushes to make that much money?"

"I found the busiest corner in town," said Little Johnny, "I set up a Dip & Chip stand and gave everybody who walked by a free sample." They all said the same thing, "Hey, this tastes like dog ****!" Then I would say,"It is dog ****. Wanna buy a toothbrush?"

"I used the governmental approach of giving you something ****ty for free, and then making you pay to get the ****ty taste out of your mouth."

They have yet to come to a conclusion in what defines terrorism to be able to define who is terrorist. So the law would place everyone in that category. We all have the potential. To have the potential or being suspect is not the same as doing the deed. It is a contradiction of our forefathers ideals when they wrote the fifth amendment.I see law as right wing means to get around the second amendment.

The media and presumably local law enforcement here in Northern CA are pretty free in the way they toss around what they call a "terrorist threat". It seems to fit just about any threat to do great bodily harm made by one person to another. Certainly such threats are out of bounds; but just suspicion arising out of a harmless but noisy altercation especially with all the cameras around us could be ruinous to an individual who gets singled out for attention by law enforcement.

Kind of creepy. Seems like our Bill of Rights is dying a death of a thousand cuts at the hands of an over pampered and hysterical populace.

Better not do something stupid like buying two same size cast iron pipecaps at the same store.

Ed Weldon

We are an odd people, we go to war to obtain peace and we protect freedom by eroding it.

Long ago, the FBI estimated that about 1 (or maybe 2 or 3) privately owned guns in 100,000 were used in crime.

Hopefully that puts the idea that the way to safety is to reduce privately owned guns in context. It will only serve to reduce safety.

In the early 1970's (I think), Orlando Florida had a problem with women being attacked and raped. The police chief arranged for 5000 women to be given training in the use of handguns (and of course carry them).

Not only did the rapes cease, but most other forms of crime decreased. For the next few years at least Orlando was the only medium sized city in the US to have decreased crime.

I forget the name of the town, but in the US a town passed a local ordinance requiring all households to have at least 1 firearm in working order. Not only did crime reduce (it had previously been well above the national average), but 20 years later, the town had prospered (grown to about 4x the previous population) with the crime rate well below the national average and that of comparable towns (now a small city).

Seems that at least a proportion of the 99,000 guns out of 100,000 not used for crime deter crime.

When the bureaucrats get loose reducing peoples rights, some odd things happen and the results are often contrary to what is intended.

In Britain, crime involving firearms has risen as laws against private firearm ownership have become more strict. In fact there is a definite relationship between the reduction in private firearm ownership and the rise of firearm use for crime. The bureaucratic response has been more of what hasn't worked before.

In Belgium, apparently the house wife's weapon of choice for protection used to be a sub machine gun. The country doesn't seem to suffer from home invasions and doesn't seem to have an abnormal crime rate.

While local factors affect the result, in countries with stable government crime seems to be inversely related to firearm ownership.

Good answer! You know, the anti-gunners just hate hearing stuff like this, since they want to believe exactly the opposite.

I hate hearing stuff like this because it reflects a lack of thought or mental discipline.

When you bring forth arguments like this, without reference, without knowing specifics, you are simply doing what William James referred to: "A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."

It took me about 10 minutes to find the reports and authors that sceptic was referring to. In the sources, I was able to find the names of the towns and time periods in which this occurred. All of the things that sceptic asserts were verified in studies or articles.

On the other hand, there are some significant academic disagreements about interpretation of the data. Other sources looked at the same information and drew entirely opposite conclusions. Questions were asked, like how to attribute the reduction in rapes to arming women. Were the other factors? Did the studies rely on per capita reduction in crime or a raw number? (If a raw number, then changes in population have to be considered. If the population grew significantly, then you could expect an increase in the raw number of crimes.) what about other violent crimes in the same period? (In Orlando, one source reported a 22% increase in homicides during the same period rapes were reduced.)

There are also studies that suggest that having guns decreases crime. For the same period, in the same areas, there are studies stating that gun ownership had no influence -- largely because criminals (if they thought a home owner might be armed) would simply wait until they were sure no one was home. So, the studies do support each other in that regard. Gun owners, when at home, can successfully defend their property. When not at home, there is no deterrent.

Note: I am purposely NOT including links or references. Find your own information and draw your own conclusions. Please be open to alternate points of view.

So, I am going to bow out of this discussion. Each side has sufficiently expressed their opinion. To those of you who have clearly expressed your point of view and provided cogent argument, I thank you. I have modified my own opinion slightly as a result. To those of you who feel very strongly one way or the other, I recommend you do some research and see what the "other side" has to say.

Interesting studies done, when the statistician is not driven by political agendas. Here are some links to Dr. John Lott's studies, and interviews with Dr. Lott on his studies.

Blog Discussing his work, with anecdotal (some first hand) accounts corroborating.

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/

Interview with Dr. Lott. Done with Univ. Chicago, where he does some of his work. (Note, Illinois must hate this, since they have some of the most restrictive gun laws!)

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

Dr. Lott's website.

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/IBDGunConFailure.html

Another site with more of his work.

http://www.johnlott.org/

Washington Post Online (one of the most liberal papers in America) debate and discussion with Dr. Lott

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/04/20/DI2007042001760.html

I'm a fan of Dr. Lott's work, and believe our Supreme Court has made the first decision with which I can wholeheartedly agree in decades. This one seems to be heading in the right direction. While other countries may abhor our gun laws, none of the European countries with restrictive gun laws allow their citizens to take their own safety as much into their own hands, nor offer near as much safety as America does. And those in Oz, NZ, and other large "free range" countries, which, like America, have a great deal of relatively sparsely populated space, could benefit from the immediacy of protection that comes from having a gun handy, cause you know when the bad guys come for a fight, their going to come packing. And the protection agencies can only be REactive, and that can, and does, take too long to help the victim.

I prefer to be able to deal with them with utmost dispatch. And as Dr. Lott points out and many have suggested here, that ability to deal with dispatch deters the bad guys up front. It MAY shift the problem to another victim, but the bad guy I kill will never victimize anyone else. (And no, I have NOT killed, nor ever even had to shoot anyone. The ability is enough, apparently!)

When the big "gun buy back" occurred in Australia, I sold them my semi automatic 0.22 rifle and used the money to part pay for a 0.22 semi automatic pistol.

I know a few people who did similarly, either pistol or another rifle or shotgun, sometimes both.

The pollies of course trumpeted the buy back as a success, yet it did little to reduce gun ownership, just shifted the models.

Interesting, but sales of 8" PVC pipe and pipe caps rose. More pipe caps were sold in a month than are normally sold in over a year (at least in North Queensland).

It has been estimated that less than 1 in 20 of the privately owned firearms were handed in.

The SSAA did some research which showed, 2 years later, that the reduction in firearm violence supposedly achieved was less than the trend had been over the last 10 years, ie this type of violence had been falling, and the rate of fall was in fact reduced by the buy back. I don't think the raw figures showed a statistically significant trend either way, in other words it had virtually no effect - except to lighten the communities pocket substantially.

Unfortunately, we left the impression with our Asian neighbours that the population had been largely disarmed.

Interesting (and irrelevant) side issue - I read the legislation, and belt fed machine guns were in a category (I think category R) which also included (but not explicitly) hat pins! I wonder if the little old ladies knew they were carrying a dangerous, prohibited weapon!

Albeit anecdotal here's my take on local effects of guns and the mentality it brings. I live in a county in California which has no incorporated towns (only one in the state) and no stop lights. Total population of less than 15,000. This county has the highest per capita issuance of concealed carry permits in the state. 1000 times more than L.A. county. We are very rural and may have one deputy on patrol at any given time. This means law-enforcement response may be hours. The 2008 crime statistics show 11 felony arrests per 100,000 population, while in LA county it is 1736 per 100k. BTW LA county has the least issuance of concealed carry permits in the state. Guns, ultimately, are the great equalizer. It allows a 100# person to defend themselves from a 200# bully. The idea that a large concentration of guns breads crime is a load of BS.... I'm not going to beat a dead horse here.....

As for the OP there is a reason in our Republic that we are innocent until proven guilty. Killing the Constitution bit-by-bit... sad...

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure." T. Jefferson

Thank you for that eloquent speech. I enjoyed reading it. It's also refreshing to know that California still has some right-thinkers (I grew up there, and my wife and I generally consider California "a good place to be FROM", now that we live in Virginia).

I never saw the entire statement from T. Jefferson (yep, I know which T. Jefferson that is, too), and seeing the entire text gives it MUCH more meaning. Is that truly the quote? Man, that guy was neither PC nor soft-spoken. He really laid it out, whether people wanted to hear it or not.

And I fear we are too soft, in too much of our country, to take it seriously any longer. We just don't care enough to take the personal risk, in order to save what SHOULD be priceless to us.

I can only hope I'm wrong. I'm not entirely sure November is going to provide us any help. But I'm praying daily it will.

You're welcome. The Constitution of the Republic of California is structured the same as the USA Constitution and, like the federal version, requires the constant vigilance of the citizens to insure those rights are maintained. I agree, by and far the country's population has become soft and complacent. My cynicism has grown to the point that I have no faith out legislative representatives. They seem to be bought and sold by the time they are in any position to be effective.

Jefferson really has some prescient quotes with regards to the current decay of the Republic. He was a visionary for sure.

There is a strong "right-minded" enclave of folks in the State of Jefferson (far Nor Cal and Southern Oregon) who are vigilant with regards to the Constitution and the attempts by the powers-that-be to destroy them. I think we are at a tipping point for the attempted social-engineering of the World's populace and it is time for the people to step up and assert their Freedom or be consumed by the bureaucrats.

As I've noted before, History teachers notwithstanding, the Civil War wasn't REALLY about slavery. Rather it was about State's Rights. And its probably time we had another Civil War, to reinvigorate, and reinstate, State's Rights.

On the issue of the "State of Jefferson", I never heard it called that, but I figured that's where you are. I grew up in areas from San Jose north and East, bounded by Tahoe on the East, and Northern Oregon on the North, and I knew that all the nutwits and nitjobs running Sacramento and LA were NOT all that California had to offer. Likewise, the same bunch in places like Salem and Roseburg were NOT all Oregon had to offer. I grew up in rural parts of both states, and THOSE folks, at least, seemed to have there heads screwed on straight. (Except that bunch in what was once a city called "Rajneeshpuram", anyway. That bunch needed someone to clean their house out for them, and their heads while they were at it.)

http://www.jeffersonstate.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Jefferson

As for the Civil War it seems the Feds are pressing that way again with their unconstitutional power grab and some states have decided to remember the 10th Amendment....

You guys who live out in your rural places with all the advantages and freedoms they provide are lucky (old saying I go by: "You make your own luck") and have every right to try and preserve and defend what you have.

But you need to be realistic about the real world. And that real world is rapidly turning urban with the attendant population densities and a whole lot of characteristics that are different from your way of life. The idea that what works for you will also work elseware is naive. On the other hand the things (and we're talking governmental laws, policies and behavior) that are needed by the urban world can really screw up your way of life to no good end if laid on by a broad indiscriminate brush.

Yelling and screaming about socialism and a fascist administration taking away our freedoms will actually weaken your ability to carefully tailor legislation that serves the needs and situation of both you and the urban majority (and like it or not, they are a majority or getting there fast). And this especially applies to "arms".

You guys who enjoy the thrill of unloading the magazine of a semiautomatic rifle into the hillside behind your rural property or who simply feel a legitimate need to have personal protection available out in a remote place where the sheriff on duty is an hour away should not lose that right under any circumstances.

But at the same time the city folks in places like Salinas need to deal with the gang bangers who are quite literally urban terrorists only somewhat emasculated by the difficulty in obtaining the explosives that are used so freely in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is currently a story circulating in the local media about a Latino family being the victims of some 20 drive by shooting attacks that the police are unable to deal with. (so far no one injured)

Note here the "equal protection" clause in our Constitution. Broad brush laws born of political imperatives rather than common sense give the same rights to these thugs as to you. Well written laws and well funded (ugly phrase suggesting new taxes) law enforcement can put a stop to that at the same time as they preserve the rights of law abiding citizens to own guns without unnecessary restrictions.

It takes a lot of effort to craft laws within that framework that will satisfy both of the above needs. And you will not get from here to there by supporting a government of polarized forces who spend all there energy screaming at each other, preserving their party's extremities and feathering their own nests to the tune of 6 and 7 figure endowments. We need a government that works, so you minority folks, especially, out there can be heard and respected.

I realize the State of Jefferson will never happen in our lifetimes unless some unthinkable catastrophe befalls the USA. I don't think you want that; much as you would like the "Ledge" in Sacramento to go away. But there is nothing wrong with your situation not being taken as representative of a reality well worth preserving. But you're going to have to work at it.

Ed Weldon

As much as any protection, the US Constitution protects from the tyranny of the majority. And as for the "real world" the structure of the government was meant to operate from the bottom up. If the law-abiding folks of Salinas (which is an extreme example, not a "real world" one) where armed they would take care of the hoodlums themselves. Since they apparently are not armed they have passed their imperative to representatives (sheriff, local PD, city/county reps) and if they fail they should be removed as representatives by those they are supposed to represent and replaced.

I'm guessing most the weapons used by these "gang bangers" are illegally acquired.

I don't feel I need any legislation "tailored" to me, I need my representatives to uphold the oath they swore... to the Constitution. If they did that, I could go on happily living my life.

I don't support the elephants or the asses. Same coin, different sides.

I have guns but I don't take pleasure in using them. I do enjoy my longbow though.

Cheers.

Lighthasmass -- I have no issue with what you say save one point. In your rural area an incident such as those in Salinas could well be met with return fire with little likely harm save to the attackers. In an urban setting however, the criminals are essentially using the neighbors of those attacked as human shields. Return fire is impractical as not only would it endanger the residents in that close urban setting; but also it would subject the fixed target family to easy investigation and arrest for breaking established laws while the attackers fitted out as a deadly and mobile light cavalry would be able to escape easily.

To suggest that urban residents arm and fortify themselves and engage in gun battles with lawbreakers and for the government to sanction or legalize such activity is ridiculous. We already have gun battles between well armed members of opposing gangs in several California cities under current law and levels of law enforcement. In an era of the "no new tax religion" and fiscal austerity we are literally dismantling law enforcement by laying off police officers as well as weakening other areas of law enforcement. Calls for existing laws on guns to be enforced more completely while actively strangling the budgets that support law enforcement fairly begs credibility. On top of that the paranoia of many gun owners over possible confiscation makes it near impossible to keep any accounting of guns that would help keep them out of the hands of people who are not legal owners.

With respect to the issue of self defense and other legitimate functions of potentially deadly weapons what works well in a lightly populated area with a single dominant culture may not be suitable for an urban area populated by multiple cultural groups, some in competition with each other and some with hard to overcome cultural shortcomings.

You may be content with the idea that your representatives "uphold the oath they swore... to the Constitution." and let it go at that. But you'd best be a party to the solutions because we've got real problems in this country and they are only going to be solved through attention to all the details and a realization that politics is still the art of compromise.

Ed Weldon

If the folks in Salinas were armed I don't think there would be much of a gun fight. I expect the "good guys" outnumber the "bad guys" by 1000:1 or more. The bad guys would leave or assimilate. I still have faith in my fellow human and their capacity to make good choices, they only need to feel empowered to take responsibility for those decisions.

Hi Light:

I'm with you. Two observations. I was a volunteer for Viet Nam, because, politics aside, I thought it fair to do my share. But that doesn't make me love peace any less, though the "Peace Lovers" would like to state it so. The fact that I am WILLING to fight for something does not mean I WISH to fight for anything. I just will, if pushed.

Salinas should do themselves a favor, and feel "pushed".

And (changing to another subject here) "I need my representatives to uphold the oath they swore... to the Constitution"

That's all Arizona is asking, also. In fact, since their law only mirrors that of the US Government, on what grounds can they possibly be "sued" by that Government? Of course, I'm assuming that the law which is on the Federal books currently WAS a Constitutional law in the first place. If not, we have a much bigger issue than Arizona.

Finally, I'm with you on the Elephants and Jack-Asses issue. They've all gotten to the point where Party labels are just one more excuse to wallow at, and scarf from, the public trough. They don't even have the manners to eat at my table. So they require me to fill their trough for them.

At least the two pigs I'm helping raise will be ON the table come January. Maybe Congress needs just one party symbol. Hog, anyone?

Ed:

Well stated, and well observed. I've always, living in the shadow of Washington, DC, but IN Virginia (Thank God for that!) seen that those who want to take away all guns from all DC residents (another issue entirely, but, there again, I'm thankful for the Supreme's latest decisions on the subject.), seem to think that they have to apply there will to all who are within there reach (meaning us in Virginia. We have had way too many legislative and press battles with them on this to trust them at all). All that said, your understanding that this has to be a localized issue, taking into account, as that view does, that one-size-fits-all laws are usually one-size-fits-none, in reality, is a very refreshing viewpoint.

On the other hand, and the only place I think you miss a very important point, with your example of Salinas as a perfect fit, the police not only cannot protect a citizen from the bad guys UNTIL THE BAD GUYS DO BAD (that pesky innocent until proven guilty, or, I guess, caught in the act thing, again. Which I also would not be without, never mind how pesky), because the police are by definition Law Enforcement Officers, and cannot do anything on the assumption that laws are about to be broken. Throw in a Supreme Court Decision (I don't have a date or case name, but you could probably Google it) in which the Supreme Court, in hearing a Civil Case against a Municipal Law Enforcement Agency, which had failed to protect a young man from his killers (his family brought the case), the Supreme's stated that not only can Law Enforcement Agencies, as spread out as they are, EVEN WHEN IN CITY ENVIRONMENTS, NOT react to every event AS IT OCCURS, but, in the lights of the Supreme Court, and because of the definition of Law Enforcement, they are not required, not expected, to provide protection to any citizen or family, even though they ARE required to provide protection, in a general sense, to the generalized public, in public events (examples allowed, but not limited to, are Earthquake, Fire, Hurricane/Tornado, etc.).

So the result for the family in Salinas is "tough luck for YOU, but we can probably catch the bad actors and make them pay after the fact". Of course that won't do you any good if you are dead.

And this is why, though I live in the small to middling city of Burke, Virginia, and used to live in the County Seat and MUCH larger city of Fairfax, in Virginia, I am still comfortable owning guns. Several. And I can't empty a magazine into the hill out back. There isn't a hill out back. My townhouse is on 1/20th of an acre, in a community of 1750 homes, of which 2/3rds, or roughly 1200, are also townhomes. But we do have the ability to protect ourselves, and though I've lived here for 30 years, and both Fairfax County and City, and the District of Columbia, all of which either surround us, or are within 10 miles of us, have active and powerful gangs, involved in all the gang warfare that LA has, WE have seen little, if any, of that.

But before you ask, I practice on at least a monthly basis, shooting for self-defense. And among the friends with whom I practice, some of whom are there 99% of the times I shoot, are a Sherrif's Deputy, and two senior street officers of the police department in the neighboring county, 7 active duty Marine, Army, Navy, and Air Force weapons and military police specialists, 4 CIA Officers whose duties require them to travel armed, 1 DHS Airline Security specialist (he no longer rides the planes, but you've heard of them) an assortment of military SF types (some Navy Seals, a couple of former Army Delta ops, a couple of current Army SF) along with a handful of current and retired Secret Service and Treasury operators, and two current FBI agents. A good bunch to learn from. And though we don't all have that kind of assets among our friends, ANY range you wish to shoot at will provide instruction in firearms handling, for any of the common types of shooting, from hunting, to plinking, to self-defense.

I still believe, and always will, that an armed populace is a much more polite populace. One never knows, and one does not lightly undertake to find out, whether the person one is challenging to a life-or-death fight has brought a gun to your knife fight. Much better to mind you manners and make nice, always.

I don't know, but I suspect, that knowing they might face a raft of guns in the hands of a raft of angry, and trained, citizens, keeps them at a distance. At least for now.

I hear ya Ed about the the gunslingers and rattlesnakes but the gunslingers have no trouble arming themselves illegally.

The best deterrent is and armed citizenry...the farther we stray from that fundamental the more rampant the crime; go figure.

Back to the original question about "suspects" being allowed to buy guns, etc. ....... Has anyone suggested the use of a court ordered injunction issued on a case by case basis to prevent such purchases? Such an approach at least gets a judge involved rather than some enforcement or other government beaurocrat.

What are the pros and cons of injunctions for this purpose?

Ed Weldon

These injunctions are in use now...in places where public safety is appreciated.