DreamLyrics™ Play-by-Post Forums Front of House Our Community Review Film TV Firearms

Well ... while there is a lot of 'violence' in both ... I don't think the two are the same.

So what is your proposal ... to have 'law enforcement' 'strip search' every home in the US looking for 'illegal' fire arms??

Neal - Problem with your proposal is it is illegal. The Federal government only has control over interstate commerce. They cannot do anything about gun sales or manufacture if it occurs wholly within a state. Not to mention the Supreme Court would never allow it. They've already ruled the 2nd Amendment covers handguns.

Now, for manufacture it might have some effect as it would be very hard for a gun manufacturer to have 100% of all of its parts be provided in a single state, but sales are State by State and controlled by the State laws. At best it could impact interstate sales.

Federal Government here has limited powers, on purpose. Each individual State has a lot of control over what happens within its borders. The name of the country is a little more than just a name. In many ways it is a collection of individual Sovereign States who have granted the Federal government powers to act in their name in specific instances but who maintain, and guard, their sovereignty much of the time.

Zeim,

Legal or not today, Nem's proposal is good law. States rights are a huge problem. 50 extra governments, 50 different tax structures, 50 different social laws. It's a big reason why this country is ripping apart at the seams. Legal doesn't mean good or right. Laws are made to be broken and changed. This democracy is in shambles and it'll be difficult to convince me otherwise. The UK has proven to be much more sensible about guns and a lot of things than the US.

I don't know Zeim. The 'US government' has passed laws that supersede state laws. Federal Income Tax comes to mind <g> Now whether they could get enough support from the states for some sort of 'National Gun Laws' ... I am not hopeful <shrug>

Nep- Yes, we've always disagreed on that. I see State Law as one of the BEST parts of the US structure. No "Tyranny of the Majority", or at least a bit less, this way. For example, if I like guns I can move to a State with very few gun laws. If I hate guns I can move to a state with very strict gun laws. You can't do that if the whole country had homogenous laws. Then is becomes the majority imposing its will on the minority. That's great when you agree with the majority. Not so great when you are in the minority camp. And of course today's Majority can be tomorrow's minority so be careful what you wish for.

As a member of a minority group with a long history of abuse (including sanctioned murder) by the majority I am particularly sensitive to anything that would allow trampling on minority rights and opinions.

Without State Laws we'd never have seen LGBTQ rights advance. We'd never have seen Marijuana becoming legalized. These movements started at the State level and progressed from there. In fact Marijuana is still listed as a Schedule 1 Drug Federally (i.e. a highly addictive drug with no recognized medical use, even though there have clearly been shown to be medical uses for it.) If you had to wait for a National majority to pass anything we would not have any of those advances yet.

And of course there is realism. Beyond the fact the Supreme Court has ruled multiple times you can't do what Neal and you are suggesting with handguns, you would never be able to confiscate hundreds of millions of guns from their owners. In fact if you tried you would likely see an actual insurrection.

MikeD - Yes, they have. But this particular proposed one is Unconstitutional and when the Feds try that the law is typically negated by the court. Just as they negated gun laws in Washington D.C. as too restrictive. Additionally, we see States passing their own Marijuana laws in direct defiance of Federal law.

We will always disagree.
You call it tyranny of the majority but it's tyranny when the minority denies the majority. That is not Democracy, but we've discussed that before. The US is not a true democracy. The tyranny you note was an autocratic nationalistic movement (Nazi's) and it's a longer discussion we will not get into here.

Back to the discussion at hand. The constitution allows for itself to be amended. A new amendment is needed to make gun ownership illegal like it is in the UK but assault weapon bans and strict rules around gun ownership and use can be applied by congress and is well within the criteria of "well regulated militia" clause of the 2nd amendment. Starting with an assault weapon ban, strict licensing regulations, firearm tracking, etc. are where it can start. And as for the guns out there possession of an unregistered weapon would become a crime. Going forward, new weapons would

As for marijuana, it will be legal before the midterm elections. It's the one issue that has bipartisan support and which the majority of the public overwhelmingly supports.

Yeah Zeim. There has always been a conflict between state and national level 'laws'. It is one of the things that makes this such a great country ... as you point out. I can go live where the 'laws' are more in line with what I want.

Nep, I think you are taking too narrow a view. If you think 'majority rules' are so great ... take a look at feudal Japan or the southern US when slavery was being ... 'debated'. Actually ... those were really 'power rules' ... which reminds me of the old saw "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"

As to 'illegalizing' personal ownership of guns ... a couple of points.

1.) It goes against the 'gun ownership' items in almost all the early 'policy' and 'lawmaking' in the US. The founders got it!!! If you illegalize personal ownership ... then only the bad guys have guns. Not the world I wanna live in!!

2.) If you could manage to implement your 'plan', then ... only bad guys have guns ... so it would much easier for them to do pretty much what ever they want in pursuit of their illegal activities against 'the common man'.

And ... finally ... nep ... Are you suggesting that bands of 'enforcers' should roam the country side breaking down doors to search for firearms?? Hmmmm ... maybe you should move to one of those nations that =STRICTLY= limits personal freedoms <weg>

Two points, Nep. Assault weapons have always been banned and are now. You cannot legally obtain a fully automatic weapon. Just because something looks like a military weapon doesn't make it one. Second, I am not talking about just Nazi's. The tyranny of the majority that led to the government sanctioned murder, rape, and pillage I am talking about goes back well over 1000 years. The Nazi's were just the latest ones, and the worst. You have Russian Pogroms, the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusaders, King Edwards Edict in England, and more. All of those occurred because the majority got to decide without any check-and-balance from the minority.

Lastly, the Constitution indeed can be amended, but it takes a Super Majority to do so, specifically to prevent the Tyranny of Majority. It takes a 2/3 Vote of either a Constitutional Convention or by 2/3 of the States to amend. That is in place to ensure a true Democracy (where 50%+1 get to decide) does NOT happen.

Well, I honestly think America is a great place. Not without its problems, but where is?

A lot of those problems come from wanting personal liberty at any cost and despite the problems it causes, it's better to be wrestling with too much personal liberty than not enough. Or to put it another way, if you asked me where I'd rather live, USA or Afghanistan, I'd say USA. Obviously. Right now hundreds of thousands of Afghanis would probably agree with me.

America has plenty of problems but you can air them in public and are bold enough do so. Can the same be said for China, Russia... actually, most places in the world? I don't think so.

Imo the biggest lie politicians have told the American people is that America is no longer great. They want to convince voters that the country is broken so they can sell themselves as the fix.

I don't think America needs saviours, all it needs from its politicians are capable, diligent administrators and parties with regularly reviewed manifestos.

Yeah. Could not agree more. Especially this, the biggest danger to this country comes from those who want to stifle free speech because they don't like what others are saying.

"I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It." - Voltaire

There is a dangerous movement on college campuses (not only here) to create 'safe spaces' for students and stifle free speech that may be controversial. That is not the purpose of a University. It is to expose students to those views they may not like so they can critically examine all opinions.

"A Ship in Harbor Is Safe, But that Is Not What Ships Are Built For." - Admiral Grace Hopper

You can say the same thing about a mind. A mind protected behind walls of intolerance is safe in a cocoon of ignorance. But that is not what minds are made for.

I blame social media. I've said for a decade now that social media is poison and what is happening in this country with the hardening of divisions is fed by the social media bubbles and echo chambers people encase themselves in. It leads to cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias and is a root cause of what is happening.

Social media CAN be used for good things, like bringing people together and celebrating accomplishments, but like most technology it can also be used for bad ends and it has been.

Zeim,
You are incorrect about assault weapons. They are legal. California had banned assault weapons but the ban was overturned by the courts and reinstated as litigation continues Appeals Court Blocks Ruling That Overturned California’s Assault Weapons Ban. This was the only ban in place. You can still buy an AR15 at your local arms show.

I disagree with your conclusions based entirely on your own arguments against the majority. The examples that you provide are in fact argue against your premise. It wasn't the "majority" it was evil governments. What "majority" voted for the czar? What majority voted for the King Ferdinand and Queen Isabela? It is autocratic rule that created the Inquisition and Progroms.

MikeD, I disagree with both your points
1) Gun ownership conceived by our founding fathers called for a "regulated" militia and the weapon of the day was the musket not Uzzi's and AR15's
2) Japan, Germany, Australia and the UK are examples where strict gun controls work.

Nem, I like what you said, " all it needs from its politicians are capable, diligent administrators and parties with regularly reviewed manifestos" but sadly, I think America is a place where the politicians are concerned only with their own personal power and wealth.

Nep ... so

1.) where is this 'militia' you speak of and who is 'regulating' them??

2.) If you like the 'laws' in those countries ... and dislike how things are done in the US ... pick one of those countries and move there <shrug>

Nep - An AR-15 is not really an assault weapon. An assault weapon really is a fully automatic weapon, which has ALWAYS been illegal. The term "Assault Weapon" has been redefined for political purposes to include silly things like semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines (which handguns have too). It is a red herring used for political purposes. If you have to pull the trigger to fire every bullet, good luck using that to "Assault" an enemy in combat. Assault weapons should be defined as combat weapons, but they're not so I guess so be it.

California's law was mostly political theatre, banning something mostly for how it looked not how it functioned. And of course since the number of people harmed by handguns is exponentially greater than the number of people harmed by rifles, again it was mostly political pandering. If they wanted to have a real impact on gun control they'd ban handguns. I have little problem with that idea, btw, but I am a realist and it would never pass the Supreme Court so I don't waste time fantasizing.

As for your comment to MikeD, Militia was defined at the time of the signing as every able bodied man, so ALL male citizens were considered as part of a militia. It was not like today's National/State Guard where a "Militia" is some sort of official organization. In times of conflict every man grabbed his gun from the mantle in his home and rushed out to fight.

And the weapons allowed were purposely intended to be exactly what the military was using, so if you want to use that argument the people should be allowed to own machine guns and tanks. The point of the Amendment was ensuring the people had the same weapons as the military and could fight an oppressive government. It was not about hunting.

Remember the context. The founders, having just finished a revolution, were concerned with ensuring the people could fight a tyrannical government, meaning they had to have equal weapons. The States were still very hesitant about forming a National Government and wanted to make sure they and their people could defend themselves against the Federal government. In fact the whole reason for the Bill of Rights was that many of the States refused to sign the Constitution without it. We've moved beyond that idea today by limiting people to semi-automatic weapons only.

And finally, your point about majority is playing with words. In those places at those times people who "counted" were in power and only those people could make decisions. Peasants in Russia and Spain and during the middle ages had no power, regardless that they outnumbered the Lords and Royals. They counted for nothing in national decision making. The majority of those who did have power were tyrannical and oppressive to a minority they disliked because the minority voices in government had no power to intervene.

Our government, in the US, has always worked best when power is split between the parties. When one party controls both Houses of Congress and the Presidency, that has usually been a very bad thing. Regardless of whether it is Republicans or Democrats. You don't want to to give the power to ram thru every wish list item to either ideologically opposed group. Checks and Balances are always best.

You missed the =real= problem with laws that ban hand guns ... that would mean that only the 'bad guys' will have guns!! Not something that =I= want to see :-/

And keep in mind that those 'laws' originated when the available 'weapons' were muskets and hand guns that could only fire once before 'reloading'.

Yes. Although the argument that when the law was passed guns were single shot muzzle loaders misses the point. The point was to ensure civilians had access to the same weapons as the military. Nothing it in limits the type of weapons civilians should have. We've already decided, as a country, that civilians having military grade weapons was not a good idea once weapons became much more powerful so that aspect is no longer in effect.

Civilians do NOT have access to military grade weapons. So called "Assault" weapons are called that for political reasons. No soldier in his right mind would take one into battle. The concept of a semi-automatic weapon with a detachable clip applies to every handgun other than a revolver and every rifle that is not bolt action. AR-15's were singled out for political reasons.

Your point about only criminals being armed if you ban handguns is perfectly valid, MikeD.

I'd also stay away from the "if you don't like the way it is here then go somewhere else". Things change and evolve over time. What is illegal today is legal tomorrow. People work to effect change to things they think are important. All of that is fine. But there has to be some reality involved.

Wishing that we could get rid of all guns is just that, a wish. Citizen's right to own guns is established law, and enshrined in the Constitution. It is not like passing a new law to increase gas mileage in cars. After the Bill of rights, the Constitution has been amended only 17 times in almost 250 years, and two of those cancelled each other out (Prohibition). It takes 3/4 votes of State Legislatures or a Constitutional Convention to do and is purposefully extremely hard to accomplish.

I don't disagree. Now of only we could keep automatic weapons out of the hands of all civilians <sigh>



Yeah ... it is a simple 'name' and 'vision' that 'they' can use <shrug>



The problem is ... =who= gets to decide that? It seems to me that mostly it is 'politicians' with and agenda <sigh> They don't really care about the 'guns' in this case ... but rather how much 'political capital' they can gain from their (alleged) support of the issue.

Until 'they' can 'guarantee' that only military and law enforcement will have guns, what we have ... as flawed as it is ... is better than going for 'only outlaws can have guns'.

Zeim, I've said this to numerous people about numerous things but I'll stick with "assault weapons". No matter what the "official" definition is, the AR15 is, by almost everyone that is not versed in such things, an assault weapon. It shoots many rounds, very fast and is a weapon of war. It is military grade with "technical" modifications to make it a marketable item of death. No civilian should own one.

We will disagree on this, absolutely, forever. We do not see things through the same lens at all.

<Sigh> It is NOT a weapon of war. It just looks like one. Just because a group of anti-gun propagandists call it military grade doesn't make it so.

Lets examine the facts, which show what you just wrote is simply untrue.

It is a military grade weapon - The military grade version of that weapon has a completely different name, the M-16, specifically to differentiate a military grade weapon from a non-military grade weapon. No military in the world uses the AR-15. It is not suitable for a combat role since it is not fully automatic.

It shoots a lot of bullets really fast - It shoots NO faster than a handgun. One bullet at a time each time you pull the trigger. Put a group of soldiers with AR-15s up against a group of soldiers with M-16s and the AR-15 group would be wiped out pretty quickly.

Since I have fired rifles, I am coming at this from a position of knowledge. I've also seen fully automatic weapons fired by military personnel at demonstrations on army bases and they are in a completely different universe from an AR-15.

The "Assault Gun" ban concept is a red herring used for politics. The AR-15 was singled out because of its popularity and looks, not because of it's capabilities. If the anti-gun crowd really wants to make an impact, figure out a way to ban handguns and don't waste time banning something that is involved in relatively few gun deaths in the grand scheme of things.

ABC News: "While semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 are a major flashpoint in the gun control debate and are often the focus of attention following mass shootings, there are only about 20 million assault rifles in the United States, a fraction of the estimated 400 million guns in the country. Instead, according to ABC News contributor and former FBI agent Brad Garrett, handguns account for the most gun murders in the U.S.

Handguns were used in 62% of the nation’s gun murders in 2019, FBI data shows. Data from 2020 has not yet been published.

According to a 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, handguns were the most common type of gun possessed by federal and state prisoners. About 18% of the prisoners said they possessed a handgun, and 2% or less possessed a rifle or shotgun.

And despite public perception, more mass shootings (where four or more victims are killed) are carried out with handguns as opposed to long guns, according to Garrett."

I will echo Zeim's position.

The AR 15 is NOT an Assault Weapon.

I am going to simplify this a little-

In the late 40s, Armalite created a semiautomatic (1 trigger pull required for each round)weapon for the military called the AR 15 (armalite=AR designation). It was deemed to be inadequate for their needs and so Armalite sold the patents to Colt in 1959 and they would develop the M16 (model 16). It was a fully automatic weapon. The AR15, to this day, is built to fire .223 (22 caliber round). The M16 also fires a 22 caliber round but the designation for the M16 is actually a 5.56mm Nato round. Same size , but the M16 round(5.56mm Nato) is designed to fire with a higher gas compression(faster velocity and heavier hitting power).

The M16 can fire both rounds (civilian .223 or military 5.56 Nato) because it is built to handle the higher compression in the chamber and barrel. The AR15 can only fire the .223 round. If the 5.56mm round is fired in an AR15, the risk of damage to the weapon and injury to the user will grow with each shot fired as the higher levels of gas decompression will damage the internal components.

The M16 and M16A1 saw extensive action in VietNam and has seen extensive modification. The AR15 is essentially same weapon as was developed in the 50s. The exterior cosmetics have certainly changed but the weapon itself has not.
My creds?

USAF 47th Comm Group/ Space Command/ 85 to 89, stationed Cheyenne Mountain, NORAD (peace time service)

trained to fire= .38 caliber revolver/ 9mm semiautomatic handgun/ AR15 semiautomatic rifle/ m16A2 automatic rifle/ M60 7.62mm fully automatic belt fed chain gun(granted this was a limited class and never had to recertify)

I will not comment on my persoanl feelings about the politics of this debate- mostly because i don't give a rat's ass what anyone else thinks about it.

Thanks for the details PP. Very interesting and informative!!

FWIW, almost all of my 'gun usage' was when I was at Culver Military Academy when I way a =LOT= younger <g>

PP- Yes, thanks. I do care what others think because what other people think will often result in laws and rules I have to live with. I want people to have factual information.

The biggest problem is, whether it is MS-NBC, FOX News, ABC, NBC, CBS, The NY Times, Wall Street Journal, or any of the radical internet "news" outlets, we haven't had objective news reporting since the turn of the century. Probably since the death of Walter Cronkite. Everything, absolutely everything, you read now is partisan, agenda driven, opinion pieces dressed up as "news".

The safest position to take (until you can do your own independent research) is that what you are reading/hearing is simply propaganda and worse than false. It contains just enough truth to sound correct but carefully filters out any facts that do not fit into the agenda of the source.

wowzers ...

... the first post was a humorous comment on the nature of guns in movies, and you know it is pretty much correct and would fit perfectly into "The Last Action Hero" world.

And then the thread devolved into this?

There is a movie word that describes this.

Koyaanisqatsi

Gun debates - very emotive subject in America. Not one we ever really have over here - thank goodness!

Thanks for keeping it civil though guys.

Zeim ... you forgot to mention 'designed to create an emotional response' :-/ And I think that is at least as much about people's natural bias ... what they like, what they don't like, what they know, and the like.