Prometheus 6

Former President Carter is either incredibly stupid or incredibly disingenuous, in one sentence he writes that we should ban assault weapons, in the next he says "The N.R.A. would be justified in its efforts if there was a real threat to our constitutional right to bear arms. But that is not the case."

How does banning an amorphous class of weapons that are widely held not count as a "threat to the constitutional right to bear arms"?

Make no mistake, there is no substantive difference that separates an "assault weapon" from a garden variety semi-automatic rifle apart from one looking 'scary' or 'macho'. The only way to effectively ban 'assault weapons' would be to ban all semi-auto rifles.

I'm curious, do the people who think the second amendment right to keep and bear arms truly believe that the underlying technology, i.e., musketts versus semi-auto, actually matters? Why don't they apply the same standard to the First Amendment, i.e., freedom of speech only means actual speech, writing with a quill or printing on a mechanical press. My guess is that they understand that the intention was to provide a check on government power. My point is that the Second Amendment was crafted for the exact same purpose.

Get about 17% of their total weaponry from guns purchased by straw buyers in the USA. The larger figure bandied about several weeks ago by officials, only referred to the percentage of traceable weapons, not the percentage of the total weapons confiscated, nor to fully automatic machine guns, grenades, RPG's or strictly military hardware. The international arms market is large and diverse and assault rifles are much cheaper there than in the US legal market ( not that money is much of an issue to drug cartels).

17 % is enough to justify better border and port inspections and ATF inspections of large volume gun dealers, but approaching this as being driven by US gun laws is wedging in a gun control agenda for partisan purposes. If the interest is in reducing violence in Mexico via American reform, our drug laws might be the area that offers the greatest potential impact.

Make no mistake, there is no substantive difference that separates an "assault weapon" from a garden variety semi-automatic rifle apart from one looking 'scary' or 'macho'.

I am not a weapons technician, but I disagree. I cannot tell you the specific differences but I can tell you how to find out what they are (my job involves developing algorithms to solve problems).

Get yourself a bunch of guys who fight and kill for a living...Rangers, Green Berets, SEALs, XE mercenaries...you might actually want to start with the XE guys. Ask them what their favorite working weapons are, and why. That "why" list will be a pretty definitive list of the traits we're talking about. You say these are just cosmetic changes...they will not. They will tell you they make the weapon easier to use, better to handle and aim, such like that.

Best to take this poll at a gun show while holding an assault weapon.

I'm curious, do the people who think the second amendment right to keep and bear arms truly believe that the underlying technology, i.e., musketts versus semi-auto, actually matters?

Yes. That's the reasoning that let us ban fully automatic weapons, and the nation hasn't collapsed.

Why don't they apply the same standard to the First Amendment, i.e., freedom of speech only means actual speech, writing with a quill or printing on a mechanical press.

Because if you can do a drive-by with a printing press, to tell you the truth, I want to see it. And if you can kill someone with a quill, you're too bad to fuck with.

17 % is enough to justify better border and port inspections and ATF inspections of large volume gun dealers, but approaching this as being driven by US gun laws is wedging in a gun control agenda for partisan purposes.

Not driven...enabled. It's obviously driven by the same thing the gun industry is...profit.

Where'd you get the 17% figure?

Talk to police snipers, too. And your local S.W.A.T. team. You'll get the same list, but they're easier to find.

I read "17 %" somewhere online so I had to Google it. Turns out, my 17 % is as wrong as saying "Most". Factcheck.org estimates 36 % but that too is a partial guess as we don't seem to know what Mexico actually does.  So I will change my assumption to "Not Most". Both extreme figures are taken from some numbers in ATF testimony to Congress.

http://www.factcheck.org/politics/counting_mexicos_guns.html

I'm not stuck on any percent figure because Mexico's drug lord problem isn't my concern. And it's not going to end until Kentucky, Tennesee, Oregon and California take over their weed market.

My problem is we got people selling killing machines to people who are going to use them. And we got asshole judges like the one in Arizona that dismissed charges against a guy they had cold for knowingly selling to straw purchasers. Had the guns in question (recovered from Mexico and traced). Had the very straw men themselves. And this wasn't like Bloomberg going down to Virginia, this was the Arizona AG.

Judge threw it out; said they had the prove the guns the straw purchasers bought ultimately wound up in ineligible hands. That judge is irrational. And typical. You can't even HAVE law under those conditions.

Slight correction: The idiot Arizona judge said that the state had to prove that the straw purchasers were not legally able to purchase guns although the state had proved that the straw purchasers only intent was to illegally resell the guns to folks in Mexico.  

I truely believe that there are some who really see the 2nd Amendment as a mistake and if they could would remove it from the Constitution all together. And I think what undergirds this whole national conversation about guns is the wish to see a COMPLETE gun ban. Realist was right. The 2nd Amendment is the people's check against the government, just like the 1st is. Without them, the people are powerless to stop anything the government wishes to impose on the people.

The 2nd Amendment is the people's check against the government, just like the 1st is.

What happened to voting and civic engagement? And how can any government maintain its ability to function as a government if it doesn't retain a monopoly on the use of deadly force?

Without them, the people are powerless to stop anything the government wishes to impose on the people.

What has the government ever tried to impose on the people that justifies this fear?

And I think what undergirds this whole national conversation about guns is the wish to see a COMPLETE gun ban.

By now, that's possible...but it's because gun nuts have been such dicks about rational regulation.

The Hidden History of the Second Amendment

I thought it was time to inject America's racial history into this thread.

What happened to voting and civic engagement? And how can any government maintain its ability to function as a government if it doesn't retain a monopoly on the use of deadly force? 

It would be nice if more of our people (and Americans as a whole) were more civically engaged and more vigilant about the right to vote. Many good people have died for it. But that is simply not the case. And I'm glad the government don't have a monopoly on the use of deadly force. After what Blacks have been through in this nation they don't need it.

ptcruiser, So do you really think that the 2nd Amendment was included souly to appease the South's need to protect themselves from slave revolts, hence, it should not be taken seriously?

What has the government ever tried to impose on the people that justifies this fear?

I'm sure you don't mean to minimize the Black experiance in America. As Frederick Douglas would would way, no one should be fully intrusted with the librities of another.

ptcruiser, So do you really think that the 2nd Amendment was included souly to appease the South's need to protect themselves from slave revolts, hence, it should not be taken seriously?

Well, I would hardly argue that a portion of the Constitution shouldn't be taken seriously. I am arguing that our interpretation of the raison d'etre for the Second Amendment needs to be closely reexamined. 

Well, how about the hidden history of gun control?

Actually, I'm pretty sure more recent events are at the heart of the devotion to the Second Amendment in the South.

"In much the same way, gun control has historically been a tool of racism, and associated with racist attitudes about black violence. Similarly, many gun control laws impinge on that most fundamental of rights: self-defense. Racism is so intimately tied to the history of gun control in America that we should regard gun control aimed at law-abiding people as a "suspect idea," and require that the courts use the same demanding standards when reviewing the constitutionality of a gun control law, that they would use with respect to a law that discriminated based on race."

Clayton Cramer makes an interesting argument and provides some interesting historical information as well. The problem, I think, is that the current calls for stricter gun control laws has little to do with the aim of preventing blacks from owning guns.