The Great ILX Gun Control Debate

Are you seriously publicly calling a complete stranger a racist and a homophobe?

ha ha

You are not a complete stranger to any of us anymore, and I don't need to make public judgements about you, friend. :)

All I know is that if I were a student at VT with a CCW but was not permitted to carry on campus, I would be coming forward raising absolute hell right about now.

Which would be simultaneously insensitive and hilariously delusional of you!

"If only you had let me stop the shooting! I'm a properly educated gun-owner!"

yeah, kenan, i'm not sure what you're talking about:

ok that is a very good point, racism and homophobia prevails. I guess I was trying to attack the type of racism and homophobia that Rog is most familiar with?

i was talking about the impulse to carry a gun... not racism and homophobia. but you are partially right: racism and homophobia are prevalent everywhere.

wow this is stressing me out. i'm going to go relax for a while. but please explain that comment.

I think that oftentimes gun advocates grossly overestimate their fellow man's ability to handle a gun without shooting off someone's face.

Conversely, I think that anti-gun crusaders grossly overestimate the number of murderers who go through legal channels to procure firearms.

In summation, there are merits in both positions and the best course of action lies somewhere in the middle; personally, I would rather the compromise leaned more towards the anti-gun side of things because I think the likelyhood of needing a gun in order to protect yourself from a situation like this is much less than the likelyhood that someone will accidentally shoot someone with your firearm.

As (strangely) the owner of the most guns on ILX, I find 'pro-gun' arguments are mostly bullshit. Guns do make it easier for people to commit crimes. The Second Amendment is not an absolute, nor is the "everybody gets mortars" reading incontrovertible. Expecting everyone to train regularly enough to safely carry a weapon is absurd - even cops aren't terribly safe with theirs. Large segments of the gun activists are reprehensible for a variety of reasons - paranoia, racism, etc..

From my perspective gun control as proposed in the US will never work. Anything short of a total confiscation, reactionary punishments for possesion and shutting down every last manufacturer of weapons with possible access to the US would have any measurable effect on gun violence. You will have to make guns 'not exist' or else there will be a perpetual black market selling to criminals. Rarely is that suggestion proposed, because it is extreme.

There are very good, reasonable arguments for private gun ownership - ceding all police power to the state is dangerous, home defense, gun violence is heavily related to class and if you attack underlying issues it becomes unnecessary, so on. Harper's ran a good article on the progressive case for guns a few months back.

They just get drowned out in the chorus of militia wannabes.

IN A TIME OF CHAOS...

ONE MAN...

HAD THE PROPER GUN EDUCATION...

TO RESTORE ORDER...

FWIW I largely agree with HI DERE and to some extent even Milo.

To take the high road and answer the insufferably sarcastic questions upthread: Gun safety classes. The younger the better.

Teach evolution. Teach safe sex. And teach gun safety.

Replace the obligatory 'Arbor Day' lesson plan if neccessary. Reading, writing, arithmetic and personal responsibility.

Seems simple enough to me.

As far as kenan's witch hunt - you really feel you know me well enough to call me a racist and a homophobe, huh?

And it is ME who gets barred from ILX?

Milo, your post is rational and well reasoned, but I disagree that the right to beraarms is not absolute. I'm also pretty sure you don't own the most guns on ILX!

erm, 'bear arms.' I don't want to be a victim of Hi Dere's grammar police brutality.

There are very good, reasonable arguments for private gun ownership - ceding all police power to the state is dangerous, home defense, gun violence is heavily related to class and if you attack underlying issues it becomes unnecessary, so on. Harper's ran a good article on the progressive case for guns a few months back.

They just get drowned out in the chorus of militia wannabes.

So then, you're saying... you'd be for guns, if not for all the nutters that have a vested interest in owning guns?

I'd be interested to know ILX gun inventories.xp.

the (morbid) joke at my high school was that columbine couldn't happen there because there would be too much return fire :-/ kind of an exaggeration as we weren't exactly one of those warzone urban schools or anything but also sort of disturbingly true because gun/gang activity was still a frequent enough occurence.

anyway i'm actually somewhat pro-gun, not pro-assault rifle or whatever but i think handguns shd be legal with reasonable regulations

best course of action lies somewhere in the middle

basically

you really feel you know me well enough to call me a racist and a homophobe, huh?
No, I do not, and that's fair.

But I know you well enough to cal you someone who needs to shut the fuck up.

btw, milo, I am serious about my question for you.

I would feel comfortable calling him a gun fetishist with a Rambo fantasy.

Well played, professor.

ivory tower, that's me.

Oh, I know THAT, partner.

Like so many of America's problems, I'm just glad we don't have it nearly as bad here, and we don't get to claim any superiority for it. We've got tons of gun control but I'm pretty sure that if we had as many guns in circulation as America does, no amount of laws would stop us shooting each other all the time.

Scotland had 3 gun deaths in 2005, but plenty of stabbings and bottlings to compensate. The small number of gun deaths is only because there are so few guns about, relatively. Any talk of gun control in the US has to propose some method of taking all the guns away, which would seem to be a practically impossible feat.

Not to mention, totally unconstitutional and all kinds of WRONG.

I'm still pretty pro-gun even with my antipathy to gun activism, Kenan. In my experience, the only real nutters are the people who fetishize guns as a source of power over others.

Why would it be wrong to have no guns (constitution aside)?

Any talk of gun control in the US has to propose some method of taking all the guns away, which would seem to be a practically impossible feat.

initially, maybe, YES, stet otm. But goddamnit, when shit like this happens, if you take NO steps to take a few guns out of circulation, you're a little... immoral.

I'm interested in the answer to stet's question.

I'm also thinking that kenan needs to stop romanticizing gun control as a panacea.

Oh, I LOOOOOOOVE this:

(constitution aside)

I would genuinely be interested to see someone outside of the US who has Roger's attitude to gun rights/ownership. I really don't want to believe that this "right" to guns as self defense ahead of everything else is purely an American thing.

Aus/European/Britishers, anyone pro gun?

dan, i am doing no such thing.

likelyhood

Likelihood. Sorry Dan.

kenan - What guns do we take 'out of circulation?' The ones in the 'bad' neighborhoods? And how do we do that, exactly?

So is the constitution the only good reason to have guns? I mean even to the point where we'd have to invent them if they weren't invented, to fulfil this constitutional role?

Of course not. Why do you seem to only argue in abstractions?

Let's not let this become a 'if it weren't for guns, you'd be goose-stepping right now' kind of debate. Because it can very easily become that kind of debate.

Why would it be wrong to have no guns (constitution aside)?

That's a very tough question, because it assumes a state that shows no favoritism toward any particular group (ethnicity, class, etc..).

One of the examples featured in the aforementioned Harper's article (sadly only available if you're a subscriber) was the funeral of a black lynched in the '50s. Another group of racists came to
Firearms were present throughout most of the Civil Rights struggle - they were a necessity to protect people against both the police and private actors.

Many of the gun control laws we have were designed to favor privileged whites over others - licensing in the South, prohibtions against carrying in California (used by Reagan against the Black Panthers).

It's a popular myth on the pro-gun side that you need guns to be able to fight off the Fascist Black Helicopters or damned UN Invaders, etc.. Clearly that's absurd - small arms are no more going to beat back a fascist federal govt. than ice cream cones.

But arms in the hands of individuals - Civil Rights workers/defenders, unionizers, women at risk from men - do empower those people a great deal.

of a black man lynched in the '50s for talking back to his employer, that is.

Likelihood. Sorry Dan.

No, I deserved that.

BTW, this is the full text of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution:

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.

There is a heavy implication in this sentence construction that people need the right to bear arms in case the need to act as part of an organized militia. There is absolutely nothing there about personal safety or personal self-defense; rather, this Amendment concerns itself with the private citizen's contribution to the safety and defense of the country at large. I think that's a completely seperate issue.

ok, I just went searching through posts on the last thread that contradicted my claiming gun control as anything other than the solution

came up blank

dan has me cold

ok, still didn't complete that thought, sorry. Trying again - the example was about the funeral of a black man in Virginia in the '50s who had been lynched. At the funeral home a group of racists came to take his body for defilement - and were met by the man's friends and relatives holding their family shotguns. His body was not taken.

ps Dan's take is one reason I try to consider gun control/lack of on purely pragmatic grounds. My reading is that the amendment gives the state the right to heavily regulate firearms far more than we've ever seen, short of an absolute prohibition. That's not a very useful guideline, IMO.

That's a good answer, but is it essentially saying that violence is a key solution for underclasses of whatever stripe? Also: I doubt his body would have been taken if they'd all been holding big machetes either xp

Hi Dere - thankfully, the Supreme Court does not agree with you, sir.

That's a good answer, but is it essentially saying that violence is a key solution for underclasses of whatever stripe?

The threat of violence? The potential for it, maybe? Or at least the potential for the underclass to stand up for itself against the Pinkertons or the Klan or Fred Phelps?

It sounds extreme, but I can't say we've progressed beyond the need.

'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

Always seemed pretty clear to me

You never answered the question, "Whose guns, kenan?"

I think that Milo's point is that visible self-protection for underclasses is a very important tool in self-defense. I don't disagree with that stance but I don't think that was what was in mind when the 2nd Amendment was written, which is why I have a problem with it being used to justify carrying guns for self-preservation. In a lot of ways, it's like the Deuteronomy of the Bill of Rights.

(haha I couldn't have asked for a better xpost; you don't get to chop off the first half of that sentence if you want to use the text to make a coherent and honest point, Roger)

http://hematite.com/dragon/StateRights.html

One of the arguments often heard from the gun control people is that the Second Amendment to the Constitution really refers to some sort of "collective" right, not an individual right. If this were true, one would think that the Second Amendment would have been better written to explain that. And if that were true, one would think that the individual states would have expressed a "collective" right in their own constitutions. Yet, 43 out of 50 states have their own version of the Second Amendment and none of them, zero, zip, zilch, nada, mention any form of "collective" right.

Some selections (43) to choose from:

ALABAMA "That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."
Ala. Const. Art. I, Sect. 26

ALASKA "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. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State."
Alaska Const. Art. I, Sect. 19 [second sentence added Nov. 1994]

ARIZONA "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men."
Ariz. Const. Art. 2, Sect. 26

ARKANSAS "The citizens of this state shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense."
Ark. Const. Art. II, Sect. 5

COLORADO "The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons."
Colo. Const. Art. II, Sect. 13

CONNECTICUT "Every citizens has the right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."
Conn. Const. Art. I, Sect. 15

DELAWARE "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use."
Del. Const. Art. I, Sect. 20

FLORIDA "The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law."
Fla. Const. Art. I, Sect. 8

GEORGIA "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have the power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne."
Ga. Const. Art. I, Sect. I, para. VIII

HAWAII "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."
Haw. Const. art I, Sect. 15

IDAHO "The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person, nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony."
Idaho Const. Art. I, Sect. 11

ILLINOIS "Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Ill. Const. Art. I, Sect. 22

INDIANA "The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State."
Ind. Const. Art. I, Sect. 32

KANSAS "The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power."
Kansas Bill Of Rights, Sect. 4

KENTUCKY "All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: .... Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state, subject to the power of the general assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons."
Ky. Bill Of Rights, Sect. 1, para. 7

LOUISIANA "The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person."
La. Const. Art. I, Sect. 11

MAINE "Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned."
Me. Const. Art. I, S16

MASSACHUSETTS "The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it."
Mass. Decl. Of Rights, pt. I, art. XVII

MICHIGAN "Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state."
Mich. Const. Art. I, Sect. 6

MISSISSIPPI "The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons."
Miss. Const. Art. 3, Sect. 12

MISSOURI "That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons."
Mo. Const. Art. I, Sect. 23

MONTANA "The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons."
Mont. Const. Art. II, Sect. 12

NEBRASKA "All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are ... the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof."
Neb. Const. Art. I, Sect. 1

NEVADA "Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes."
Nev. Const. Art. 1, Sect. II, para. 1

NEW HAMPSHIRE "All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property, and the state."
N. H. Const. part 1, art. 2-a.

NEW MEXICO "No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms."
N. M. Const. Art. II, Sect. 6

NORTH CAROLINA "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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the carrying of concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice."
N. C. Const. Art. I, Sect. 30

NORTH DAKOTA "All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are ... to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed."
N. D. Const. Art. I, Sect. 1

OHIO "The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power."
Ohio Const. Art. I, Sect. 4

OKLAHOMA "The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons."
Okla. Const. Art. 2, Sect. 26

OREGON "The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power."
Or. Const. Art. I, Sect. 27

PENNSYLVANIA "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."
Pa. Const. Art. I, Sect. 21

RHODE ISLAND "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
R. I. Const. Art. I, Sect. 22

SOUTH CAROLINA "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. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner nor in time of war but in the manner prescribed by law."
S. C. Const. Art. I, Sect. 20

SOUTH DAKOTA "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied."
S. D. Const. Art. VI, Sect. 24

TENNESSEE "That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime."
Tenn. Const. Art. I, Sect. 26

TEXAS "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime."
Tex. Const. Art. I, Sect. 23

UTAH "The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the State, as well as for the other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the legislature from defining the lawful use of arms."
Utah Const. Art. I, Sect. 6

VERMONT "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State - and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to the civil power."
Vt. Const. Ch. I, art. 16

VIRGINIA "That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
Va. Const. art I, Sect. 13

WASHINGTON "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men."
Wash. Const. Art. I, Sect. 24

WEST VIRGINIA "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use."
W. Va. Const. Art. III, Sect. 22

WYOMING "The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied."
Wyo. Const. Art. I, Sect. 24

Seven (7) states do not have a constitutional provision on arms: California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, and Wisconsin. [Source: U. Dayton Law Rev. v.15, pp. 84-89 (1989)]

You seem to be taking it as gospel though, Manalishi, instead of a philosophy like any other -- and just as likely to be flawed.

It sounds extreme, but I can't say we've progressed beyond the need.

What need. Talk in specific terms about the need. Talk about what you would do to those people.

I don't disagree with that stance but I don't think that was what was in mind when the 2nd Amendment was written,

I agree 100%. The rest of the Constitution was written for propertied white males - I sincerely doubt that they intended to throw a bone to the underclass with this one.

xpost But it isn't flawed. The language seems pretty definite to me. It IS gospel. From my cold dead hands etc etc...

Wow

Today is the 11-year mark of Sandy Hook and still nothing has changed. We just released this video @DemocracyMoms with our partners called Thoughts & Prayers. We hope you follow us there and donate to the cause to help us get this on the air. #gunreform https://t.co/DY98A3nvEB pic.twitter.com/ftbg0Soj96

— Mothers4Democracy/MothersAgainstGregAbbott (@MomsAGAbbott) December 14, 2023