Gun Sales Halted By FBI Computer Glitch 509
Anonymous Coward writes: "The Associated Press
reports that all gun sales in the U.S. have been stopped
[temporarily]. This because of a glitch in the FBI's computers. Hey -- why didn't we think of this before? What a way
to reduce crime and stop the bloodshed!" Perhaps one day the entire world will be as safe as Washington, D.C. and other officially disarmed zones.
Re:Gun Registration? (Score:2)
Um, forgive my naivety, but - if a criminal sneaks up behind you and robs you at gunpoint - how is your concealed weapon going to help you then?
It won't, but the good chance that the next person who walks by also has a gun might do the trick.
Re:Use your gun instead your vote ? (Score:2)
http://www.jpfo.org/athens.htm
http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm
Have a look for yourself.
LK
Re:Geez: YOU NEED TO FEED A MILLION PEOPLE. (Wrong (Score:2)
How safe would you feel knowing that your missiles won't stop a tiny bullet? How long would such an occupation last? Are you 'macho' enough to be a member of the occupation force?
An excellent point. The last time the US military went up against an armed population that wanted them to leave, the military lost.
Ultimatly, the problem was that the gun could be anywhere at any time. Tanks, missiles, and airpower are useless against that unless the goal is scorched earth.
Re:Quite frankly... (Score:2)
It must be the gun control!
--
Python
What? (Score:2)
Dude...
*EVERY* Gun in Canada now has to be registered. There is also a yearly FEE for each gun to be registered.
The cops now have the right to bust in to your house WITHOUT A WARRANT solely on the smallest suspicion that you have UNREGISTERED weapons in the house.
And the project has gone hundreds of millions of dollars over budget already.
And you said it already. Criminals can get guns anyway.
Re:Bingo. The reason DC etc. aren't safe is that.. (Score:2)
The law in DC simply makes it easier to confiscate weapons. Less weapons = less crime.
Spyky
Re:A thought on extreme libertarinism.. (Score:2)
The Romans at Cannae...
... The British at Isandhlwana...
... The French in Indochina...
... The Americans in Vietnam...
... The Russians in Afghanistan...
... and again in Chechnya...
I'll wait while you go look up the history required to realize that guerilla movements originating from an armed citizenry have this annoying habit of wrecking even the best-trained and equipped armies.
Re:Bingo. The reason DC etc. aren't safe is that.. (Score:2)
Possession of an unregistered firearm is a crime. Possession of a concealed weapon without dispensation is a crime.. If you are pulled over for anything, the cops can and will gleefully take it from you and charge you if the weapon is discovered.
Why does DC have so much crime? I'm guessing people go slowly insane from the massive buildup of politicians..
Re:Oh golly (Score:2)
(WalMart [walmart.com] + IGA [igainc.com] (in midwest) = Meijer [meijer.com])
Someone bought a 22 cal. in Meijer and went out into the parking lot an committed suicide. The family members sued Meijer for selling a firearm to someone so 'distressed'. I'm not sure how the case ended, but as a result of this case, Meijer now only carries Blackpowder guns and Air (pellet & BB) guns. This is very unfortunate!
Perhaps the MP3 community (I was Napster banned for 1 remix of a Metallica song) should look to the firearms industry for knowledge. The firearms industry has been fighting stupid lawsuits for years.
Like MP3 companies, the firearms companies are being sued so that they accept the responsiblity of individuals who do stupid things with their products. I don't think trading MP3's is stupid, but I agree that an individual should be held responsible when using a product in an illegal manner.
If one conclusion can be made by looking at the firearm industry is that the MP3 companies are going to endure years of litigation until the recording industry can find someone else to blame or another way to make money.
--
Re:You should be able to get background check FIRS (Score:2)
I have such a permit, they take a picture of you and the state police do a background check. I spent more time picking out a gun that in transferring ownership.
Waiting periods are a joke, for people like me who have at least 1 gun already the "cooling off" period arguement doesn't hold water. If I were to suddenly become unstable and decide to kill people I wouldn't need to go out any buy anything new.
Another proposal that I liked was the blaze orange driver's license. If you're ever convited of a crime that caused you to be prohibited from owning a firearm your driver's license would glow blaze orange when exposed to UV light. That proposal was killed because the bleeding hearts felt that it would be an unconstitutional violation of the rights of felons.
One last piece of trivia, the brady bill didn't contain any provisions which would have prevented James Brady from getting shot.
LK
It's not so much guns... (Score:2)
Chapter 16 [virginia.edu] of de Tocqueville's Democracy in America [virginia.edu], a book analysing the state of American society, published in 1831, is entitled, "Causes which Mitigate the Tyranny of the Majority in the United States". The first cause is, "ABSENCE OF CENTRALIZED ADMINISTRATION. The national majority does not pretend to do everything--Is obliged to employ the town and county magistrates to execute its sovereign will." The passage is so excellent I'm tempted to reproduce more of it here, but you've got the link...
Anyway, I think that the present problem threatens more than gun rights, and out to be seen in context. A large Federal bureaucracy, IMHO, is unnecessary save to enforce laws which pass beyond the proper scope of the Federal Government. And in that connection, the threat to freedom is clear... the Brady Law, the CDA and the Clipper Chip initiative are all obviously beyond the Ennumerated Powers of the Federal Government, and ought not, IMO, to be seen as wholly seperate issues.
Re:As if the Brady Law Matters... (Score:2)
1. Mistaken identity, many of them have a name identical to a felon. Initially denied, but later approved. How many Joe Smiths there are in California?
or
2. Unpaid parking tickets. A bench warrant for unpaid parking tickets is enough to flag you on a background check. Obviously not prime examples of citizenship, but not the "dangerous, violent criminials" that president clinton has made them out to be.
LK
Re:Bingo. The reason DC etc. aren't safe is that.. (Score:2)
More importantly, however, people who don't use guns will still find other ways of being violent. That kid might slash his wrists, ingest something toxic or jump off of a tall object; for every case of a person who shoots their spouse, there's another 10-20 cases where someone else chose to beat, stab or run over their spouse. The real problem is that a 12 year old kid is suicidal or that a 30-year marriage will end in homicide. If it's reached that point, people will find some way of being violent. Guns are popular because they're efficient but it's not as if there aren't a million other means available to someone who's decided to harm someone.
The real tragedy is that everyone spends so much time talking about inanimate objects while so attention is given to the actual problems that make people violent.
__
Re:Men with balls would have amended by now (Score:2)
So the lion share of gun crime is being conducted by, and perpetrated against criminals. Hardly a terrible swath of violence aimed at innocents. Furthermore, millions of crimes are prevented every year by lawful gun owners in the USA.
--
Python
Re:Stopping gun sales? Right ... (Score:2)
LK
That's not the point. (Score:2)
As for when the last time we hat a totalitarian government to defend ourselves against... that's not the point at all. The point is, if we don't have the right to keep arms, then when we DO have a totalitarian government to defend against, we will be powerless to defend.
Remember, government is supposed to be of, by, and for the people. When government crosses that line, and starts acting as a way to rule the people, the people have a right to stand up to it.
Re:Bingo. The reason DC etc. aren't safe is that.. (Score:2)
I think of it as a kind of 'this is who I am'. Your
Did I just refer to
Re:YAAABC - yet another argument against backgroun (Score:4)
The other tricks that have been used in anti-gun states and localities are:
1. Require the purchaser to have taken a gun safety course that is only offered by the state government. Then make sure that the gun safety courses are rarely scheduled and are made as inconvenient as possible.
2. Accept the paperwork from the purchaser and drop it in the nearest trash can. If the purchaser objects, tell her to fuck off and hire a lawyer if she doesn't like it. A variation on this theme is to always be "out of stock" on the necessary forms.
Re:guns (Score:2)
Re:Gun Registration? (Score:2)
Indeed, the framers intended for the citizenry to be the last, best check against a tyrannical government. Their other writings reflect this fact irrefutably. There have been Supreme Court cases decided on the "original intent" of the framers of our Constitution.
These old, dead, slave-owning white guys knew what they were about. The fact that they were "angry white males" (you're damned right they were angry - they just won their independence from a tyranny), and "slave owners" (the social and economic thought of the day was that these things were necessary to the maintenance of a working farm - whether or not that is or was true is quite irrelevant) is simply a moot point.
The Constitution is not about "political correctness". There is no guarantee therein that you should be able to live your life without being offended by someone else's words. In fact, the First Amendment guarantees you and me and everyone else the RIGHT to speak our minds (but gives us no guarantee that anyone will listen).
It is unfortunate that the Second Amendment, which so clearly states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"", was not worded in such a way that it is clear even to those who would deprive us of that right (first) today. Had I the ability to travel back in time, I would have pushed for clarification of that clause.
It is more unfortunate, however, that people in modern America have chosen, blindly, to give away their rights and liberties to obtain a measure of temporary safety. Mr. Franklin has a wonderful quote to this effect, and my reply to him is in my
It is a fact that governments around the world have killed 170 million of their own citizens in the twentieth century. This spans from Germany to the USSR to Cambodia. Had the U.S. not been fortunate enough to have a string of major victories while island-hopping in the Pacific Ocean during World War II, how long do you think it would have taken for there to be an overwhelming outcry for our government to "solve the Japanese problem"? Those already interred would have been utterly defenseless, and those not yet confined may have at least had a chance to escape, certainly aided by right-minded Other-Than-Japanese American citizens.
America is not immune from a tyrannical government. Hitler was the duly-elected legal Chancellor of Germany, remember.
--Corey
Re:An outsider's view (Score:2)
Swiss law on war materials [admin.ch] regulates "weapons capable of firing in bursts". Individual cantons have their own restrictions.
Many Swiss army reservists are authorized to keep their issued assault rifle at home. Such soldiers have completed their initial training, undergo (at least) annual training, and are subject to military discipline with regard to military weapons. When their term in the reserves expires, the weapons are turned in.
Victim disarmament (Score:2)
-russ
I support the right to arm bears! (Score:3)
-russ
Re:A good time for introspection (Score:3)
I had to laugh when I read this. Funny you should pick out an example which has cause to make many Libertarians much more angry than gun control. It was under FDR's threat of court-packing that the Supreme Court essentially decided to make the Commerce Clause so expansive that the 10th Amendment didn't overturn a single Federal law (including the Brady Act) for the next 60 years. Closing the banks (like just about every part of the New Deal) was unconstitutional, and a vicious blow against freedom. Besides, IMHO, that it didn't work.
FDR's administration can be summed up by quoting him: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the suggested legislation."
Suffice it to say, I'm not persuaded. :-) I would sooner we suspend all gun laws, while we give ourselves a chance to discuss the matter. But I appreciate the note of openness; tolerance for people with different views is hugely important. I'm all for calm dialogue.
It's called direct democracy, and there's no better form of government.
Again, I could scarcely disagree more. That the majority of people hold a view does not make it right. If a democracy chooses not to respect the rights of the minority, I don't think there are many worse forms of government. A constitutionally limited goverment for me, thank you.
Re:ONE DAMN WORD: CANADA (Score:2)
People *do* own guns, and even with our new gun registration laws.. many many people can still go out and buy guns.
And how often in Canada do people get shot in a holdup? Aside from the odd armored truck heist.. never..
Re:An outsider's view (Score:2)
Not necessarily; it's a natural right (IMHO), not a natural desire. The obvious difference is, a significant portion of Americans want to bear arms, which makes it an issue of liberty.
Switzerland is arguably the most democratic state on Earth, its laws being the clear expression, for the better or for the worse, of the will of the people
Quite true, from my understanding of their government. The US were founded by people who dreaded such a system... "Tyranny of the Majority" was the phrase of the time. And that, in a sense, is the source of the incessant argument: the sense of "I don't give a damn what most people want, I have rights!"
This conflict sits deep below many of America's hot-button issues: Libertarianism vs. Majoritarianism. So deep that most people aren't really cognizant of it. But, stuffing my opinion in a nutshell, that's why Americans don't simply do something about this, one way or the other.
But is it prudent to let people from way back in the XVIIIth century, be they the Founding Fathers of the nation, make decisions on such contemporary problems as modern criminality?
Unquestionably, no. But that's not how many of us see the matter. I, for instance, see the US Constitution as a far finer expression of my own views on government than anything with which we'd be likely to replace it.
Re:jesus h. christ (Score:2)
Well, I'm 27 and I live (and grew up in) Vermont, which has among the most libertarian gun policy in the US. You don't even need to get a permit to carry a concealed handgun here. Our crime rates are quite low, although I do not have any statistics to cite.
As a membor of a minority which is not well represented in the police, and actively excluded from the military, I am not about to support handing those two forces a monopoly on gun ownership. If I am attacked on the street by a bigoted thug I would prefer to be able to defend myself rather then rely solely on a police force which may be hostle to me.
Furthermore, the phrase "The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed" is pretty hard to misinterpret, and I think it is much more dangerous to go tinkering around with the Bill Of Rights then it is to have a few guns around.
Re:guns (Score:2)
By the way, the incident occurred in California, in the late nineteen eighties, and yes, for a short while, the politicians and brilliant people like you proposed outlawing four wheel drive vehicles similar to the model the wacko drove.
Boy, this is gonna put a hamper . . . (Score:3)
Re:Gun Registration? (Score:2)
And when was the last time we had a totalitarian government we had to defend ourselves from in either Canada or the US?
---
It doesn't happen out of the blue. It happens in steps [eff.org].
The USA and Canada are young - don't think it can't happen here.
And no, I'm not a right-wing gun nut or anything. I've read plenty of history on how complacency leads to bad things, though...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
Re:Gun Registration? (Score:2)
As soon as the commies take over Patrick Swayze's home town, they look up the local gun registration records, and use them to track down all of the gun owners. They get a chuckle out of how easy it was, thanks to the U.S.'s own bureacracy. I don't know if it actually would be that easy, but it's food for thought.
Re:please excuse my lack of knowledge (Score:2)
Re:Victim disarmament (Score:2)
Uh-huh. Maybe it was due to global warming, or perhaps the planets were aligned in a bad way. Now why do I get the sneaking suspicion that if crime had instead gone down, the knee-jerks who took away you guns would be patting themselves on the back over it? Regardless, your statement shows your lack of understanding of the issue. Even if few people owned guns, John Q. Criminal was aware that he might get a bullet in the face the next time he tried to rob somebody. Now that your government has disarmed its law-abiding citizens, the criminals no longer have to worry about it, and they're loving it.
Hello, if someone robs me, I don't give a shit whether it was with a gun or an ice pick. But hey, I'm sure those extra 20% that are now getting robbed are just tickled pink. I can only guess how they must feel so warm and fuzzy inside as they're handing all their money over to a thug.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Re:A short list of "civilized countries" (Score:2)
Funny you should say that. Go to the library and read the history of the revolt in the Warsaw Ghetto.
You might also try expanding your vocabulary to include words other than "fuck".
Re:Gun Control Laws != Constitutional (Score:2)
The Supreme court ruled that since a shotgun was not currently used in active duty by the US Military (incorrect) that the shotgun was not protected by the Constitution.
Most unfortunately Mr. Miller or his lawyer never showed up at the Supreme Court to defend the case. It was decided entirely upon the merit of the prosecutions arguments and the previous legal decisions.
What has the anti-gun people terrified is that the Supreme court clearly ruled that any weapon in current use by the military was protected by the Constitution for use and ownership by the common law abiding citizen. This includes pitols, rifles, and machine guns.
chris
Actually, NRA is usually dead on with its numbers (Score:4)
That's because it is essentially a training and research organization for all issues related to guns - starting with safety. It's the government-recognized regulatory organization for the shooting sports in the US. It trains the people who train the army and the police. Nearly every expert in technical issues related to guns is associated with it.
It got its start as a safety and training organization after the US got into a war and discovered that the draftees no longer knew enough about shooting to make decent (or safe) soldiers. It's focus was training - first safety, then accuracy. And it grew from there.
They are THE experts, and are jealous of that status. So they make a point of giving out information that is as correct as they can manage - to the point of NOT saying things that are very likely correct but not proven beyond controversy (much to the disgust of many of their members and EX members, who have founded other organizations to bring these points to light.)
Lobbying (through their separate ILA organization) is a relatively new thing for them. It started primarily in reaction to the anti-gun movement - which was getting to the point that they realized they were at risk of having nothing left to be experts about. And for a long time the lobbying arm was essentially lobbying for the country-club set, selling out many other sorts of gun-sport enthusiasts (such as the machinegun fans, the gun design hackers, and to some extent those who were mostly concerned with self-defense.) NRA-ILA is agruably STILL the most milksop of the pro-gun lobbying groups.
The anti-gun organizations, on the other hand, have quite a track record of publishing bogus numbers. Sometimes they have SOME basis in fact. Other times they seem made up from whole cloth.
Example: "X number of childeren killed by guns per day/year". Sometimes when the number is worked out against crime stats you find they're counting people up to age 25 as "children". This includes the members of teenage drug gangs, and most other murderers. (Murder is a young man's crime, and most murderers kill members of their own race, class, and age group.) Other times you wonder where the numbers come from, because they exceed the total number of gun deaths. For more reasonable definitions of "children" (like under-12) you'll have a hard time finding a year where the numbers get out of the low single-digits in states like California (with a high crime rate and pushing a fifth of the entire US population.)
Re:ONE DAMN WORD: CANADA (Score:2)
REALLY not very often. Like.. hardly ever..
Re:Less crime? Depends on the study. (Score:2)
The point of my post wasn't to dispute the validity of the study but to point out that these types of studies are inherently less valid because looking at a sample of data one way will give different conclusions then if one were to aproach the problem from a different way.
The other point that I was trying to make is that their is evidence against as well as for.
Suppose for an instant that the study was about access to information. Lets say the study said that access to information about computer networks was dangerous because when that type of information is known more people will try to circumvent it. You might question that type of study as well.
I question this type of study because of my personel experiance. I'm sure that many people have had different experiances then I have. It just worries me when otherwise rational people argue for restricting peoples rights.
Re:Gun Registration? (Score:2)
Oh, and thank you for showing your superiority over us with generalizations and mistruths.
They could never keep track of them anyway (Score:4)
Under the current system, the NFRTR return "No record found" if a registration inquiry is made for one of these guns, which is considered proof of illegal possession, and grounds for prosecution. Dealers and private owners who submitted legal paperwork have gone to jail because the BATF denied knowledge of them.
In other words, any legal gun owner has a 50-50 chance of facing a costly legal case, and possible jail time, because the NFRTR records have been in shambles all along. This is confirmed by the 1995 Congressional of Thomas A. Busey, then Chief of the National Firearms Act Branch of the BATF (see below) "...when I first came in a year ago, our error rate was between 49 and 50 percent"
The BATF has stonewalled and denied for years, but have been forced to admit detail after painful detail (only to deny them all again the following year) A Google search for "Gary Schaible" [google.com] (no quotes) will turn up dozens of documents and links to further information. (Special Agent Schaible was a BATF spokesman whose testimony to courts and Congress has been full of inaccuracies and outright purjury.)
Anyone who owns legal guns, or believes that registration can ever work should read "Institutional Perjury" [www.mega.nu], an article by Col (ret.) James H. Jeffries, III USMC, Reserve (a retired DOJ lawyer, practicing firearms law in Greensboro, N.C) outlining some of the BATF abuses. (This includes the Busey quote above, but does not cover the famous "Gestapo tactics" incidents [www.mega.nu])
Reform from within hasn't worked either. Here's as affadavit by Eric Martin Larson of the GAO [gunowners.com] (Government Accounting Office) regarding systematic errors in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR) and his efforts to have them corrected. This is just one of his many reports and letters to Congress, but after his initial failure, his later reports are painstaking line by line and word by word responses to BATF tetimony and documents, and are very diffficult to read without the originals in front of you
---------------------------------------------
"...quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est."
[roughly: "...swords don't kill people; people kill people."]
-- (Lucius Annaeus) Seneca "the Younger" (ca. 4 BC-65 AD),
_____________
Re:Gun Control Laws != Constitutional (Score:2)
Re:Bingo. The reason DC etc. aren't safe is that.. (Score:2)
The United States does not exist in a vacuum, after all.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
Re:Bingo. The reason DC etc. aren't safe is that.. (Score:2)
I understand absolutely why there's this attachment to an armed population in the US. But I also understand that armies are different now and that it has consequences.
Go back 200 years and military technology wasn't that hot. Net result, you could get your hands on the materials necessary to equip a useful pricte army. Now? Forget it. The US military is awesomely powerful and is _not_ going to be held up by the level of arms available to the population if they decide to rise up against them.
The other side is that an armed population increases the amount of violent crime. Non-gun related, the UK has _higher_ crime than the US. But rates of gun violence and murder are _way_ lower.
If you think the perceived protection against the state is worth the huge cost to your society of gun violence, it's your country. Not mine. And your decision, as a US citizen, whether you consider that to be a balanced cost-benefit equation. But it isn't a price I'd pay were I in your shoes.
Re:MMDDoS? (Score:2)
It seems like an arbitrary figure arrived at purely so the media will repeat the alliterative Million Mom March, over and over again. After all, how do you count the number of people at a march... before you've had the march?
This propaganda technique was employed by both Hitler and the Soviet Union, it's called the big lie. (In other words, if you say the same big lie, over and over again, you get a significant percentage of the population believing it.)
Is there a neutral party doing the count?
Re:It's all in the culture. (Score:2)
A similar argument could be made against privacy. If you really ARE law-abiding, why do you need encryption? Why are you afraid of law enforcement officers routinely checking your home? What have you got to hide?
IMHO, your very first question shows a misunderstanding of the roots of American culture. In a free society, one need not justify one's actions, when they do not infringe directly on the rights of others. It is enough that a free man may want a gun.
Re:You should be able to get background check FIRS (Score:2)
When the State of Maryland does background checks on gun purchases, the dealer is required to put the make, model and serial number of the firearm on the form before sending it to the State Police. Why do they need this information if they are only doing a background check?
Re:Quite frankly... (Score:2)
gay men and women are not allowed in the us military - so obviously if they're "out" then they can be stripped of their right to bear arms, yes? and women in the military aren't allowed in combat, so their right to guns is questionable.
blah, blah, blah.
thankfully i moved to ireland. not only are guns severely restricted, but even the police are (mostly) unarmed. friends and co-workers are astonished on a regular basis about school and office shootings in the states - i patiently explain that the gun nuts who have congress's ear are just that: nuts.
Re:Gun Registration? (Score:2)
Great way to think... (Score:2)
So let's make a law for everything, right? That'll fix things.
People don't like being treated like infants.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
Re:please excuse my lack of knowledge (Score:2)
Re:Gun Control Laws != Constitutional (Score:2)
I am also Canadian, and if I'm not mistaken, the crimerate in Canada is about 1/10 of that in the US. While I agree that gun control can help stop crime, this has little to do with the differece in gun related deaths between the countries. We also must remember that Canada has not had a strong gun control system, and the one currently being implemented is still not as effective as it could be. A better comparison might be to a European country with a strict policy such as Britain.
This might affect more than guns (Score:2)
If a significant part of the FBI's criminal ID database is down, it could affect a lot more than gun sales. I imagine a few criminal investigations are going to be held up pending results from the FBI.
If this is the case, shame on AP for turning it into yet another gun story. This could significantly affect law enforcement agencies across the entire country.
Gun Registration? (Score:5)
A good reason for not registering guns, is to protect the people who have them in times of civil war. During times of civil war or civil unrest gun owners have the ability to protect themselves from totalitarian governments. They have the resources needed to fight for our freedom. Now, if the governments know who has all the guns, then they can just go out to all the gun owners and collect them.
Doing a background check before selling a gun seems like a good idea to me. Wouldn't want to be handing guns to known criminals. (although I'm sure criminals could get guns anyway) With the FBI doing a background check on every gun purchase, then guns don't need to be registered to know where they are. The FBI will have massive lists of everyone who has ever bought a gun. If the government ever wants to, they can march around and take those guns away with little or no resistance.
The right to bare arms is all about protecting yourself from the government. I don't see how you can do this if the government knows how well you are armed.
Bingo. The reason DC etc. aren't safe is that... (Score:4)
Sure, the phrase is trite, but it's damned true. No municipal ban on handguns has ever stopped Joe Crackhead down the street from packing heat, and no law ever will. Laws banning firearms in a pre-armed society like the United States simply mean that only the segments of the society that we can least trust with them will have them. Law-abiding citizens then are unable to protect themselves, and law and order proceeds to break down.
Criminals need to be disarmed, not law-abiding private citizens. Existing laws, if enforced, would take care of the first part; most gun-control measures under consideration would affect part 2 with very little effect on part 1.
It's all in the culture. (Score:3)
-
Re:Quite frankly... (Score:2)
Miller was a prohibition bootlegger and after he won the case against the state where the State Supreme Court declared that his shotgun was legal because of the second amendment, he went back into the boonies and disappered, never to be found again.
When the Government appealed to the Supreme Court Miller could not be found and his lawyer did not have the money or ability to defend the case at the Supreme Court, so the case went to the SupremeCourt with only the evidence of the State, and the previous decisions.
Unfortunately nobody with any military knowledge became involved in the procedings. The US discovered in World War I that sawed off shotguns were excellent trench warfare weapons and used them quite heavily.
ESR's gun nut page is a great place to start reading on the web.
Chris
Re:Gun Registration? (Score:2)
Lets not forget about the 6 million Gypsies and gays and communists and catholics. And a few million soldiers on all sides.
Don't try and make it look like you won the war. You simply finished it.
I'm sorry, I was under the impression that people did not want America to be the "policeman of the world"? Was there a vote to change this, because now whenever we get involved overseas we are criticized for throwing our weight around and being arrogant bullies. So which is it, should we use military force to defend our view of the world or not?
And there's a big difference between "ending it" and "winning it". The war was already on its way to an end before America was involved -- an end where China would have been part of Japan and the French would have bigger problems than going on strike every month...
Re:Gun Registration? (Score:2)
A government doesn't kill people to control them. that's called "being the lord of nothing". So yes, we could drop antrax and a-bombs and wipe out all the citizens, and you will be in complete control of a radioactive desert. Congratulations.
You don't win a war without controlling the land. You can't control the land without controlling the people who live on that land. If you move everyone out, you control a land with no production value. if you kill everyone you own a land without production value.
Why is this so hard to understand?
We grossly overpowered Vietnam, yet lost! We had a-bombs and chemical weapons and a lot bigger guns, but lost. No because our army wasn't bigger or better, but because it was IMPOSSIBLE to control a land where any person might be an innocent civilian or an armed enemy. Yes, if we had just killed everyone we would have "won", but left a wasteland.
If the British had gone from door to door and killed every person in America, the revolution would have ended, but there would have been no value left in the land because no one would be left to make products and generate taxes. That was not a "victory condition" for the British, but they were left with the same situation we had in Vietnam -- is it an armed rebel or a loyal revenue-generating farmer?...
Re:Geez: YOU NEED TO FEED A MILLION PEOPLE. (Wrong (Score:2)
It doesn't matter how well-armed the occupying force (and by occupying force it might mean the standing army simply enforcing laws in its own country) is, it will ALWAYS lose to a civilian population with weapons.
It has nothing to do with "Amerika" or "Red Dawn", this is a simple principle understood since the ealiest military planners of 5000 BC in China and the middle east began writing about military science.
If soldiers (say, white and black americans) are really well armed but are trying to kill terrorists/revolutionaries that look exactly like civilians (because they are!) they will lose because they don't know if that's "Farmer Bob" or "Bob Who's Gonna Shoot Ya", and you can't be on alert 24 hours a day. Ask anyone stationed in Vietnam well behind the front lines how safe it was to be in a US military base in "well-controlled" territory (that is, when terrorists weren't suicide-bombing the place and prostitutes weren't shredding penises with razor blades in their vaginas and restaurants weren't deliberately poisoning food, etc). it's hard to control a country if people really don't want you there, and killing them all (believe it or not!) is rarely an acceptable victory condition to a military...
Re:Gun Registration? (Score:2)
The framers had recently gone through several changes of Government (we didn't jump from British colonists to USA, we had several state governments for EACH state and multiple federal governments before the USA & Constitution & Bill of Rights).
Those were a rough few decades, having little to do with the quality of documents that established each government. The framers knew it was just as likely the USA & Constitution would be replaced again as succeed (although obviously they hoped it would work out, which is why so many comprimises went into the creation -- and it satisfied no one perfectly but everyone well enough that it DID succeed).
Lets not say the French Revolution was without purpose just because of the years of the Terror or the many asinine governments they went through to find their way...
Re:Gun Registration? (Score:2)
This seems an utter red herring in terms of gun control debate.
Red herring? How so? You know the US had a Civil War, right? That's about how it happens (although it was a lot more formal than most revolutions/overthrows, successful or not).
Would you at least think about world and US history before making illogical statements on the basis of US government and the constitutional framing process?
Does anyone really thing the framers were sitting around thinking, "Oh, we've got free speech, let's make sure everyone has the right to go hunting and then we'll get to speedy jury trial later on". It's the second amendent for goodness sake! The states would not have ratified the constitution if they believed they would have no means of armed resistance against the new federal government.
Even the Surpeme Court recognizes this is the motivation behind the second amendment, the only argument is whether the "well-regulated militia" with the ability to fight against the federal government is a standing state army (such as the National Guard) or is the adult citizenry at large (the context of "militia" at the time of writing)...
Re:Gun Registration? (Score:2)
whatever)? Any common sense ever applied to the thinking of gun fanatics? That may have been the case in the
1700's but not anymore. Few thousand gallons of mustard gas (or any other modern battle gas or virus
developed for biological warfare) should do ok if your govenment really wanted to oppress you.
I dunno, rusty AK-47s seemed to do okay against Mustard Gas and nuclear weapons in Vietnam.
Maybe it's not very useful to annihilate the population you're trying to control?...
Re:Bingo. The reason DC etc. aren't safe is that.. (Score:2)
Must be terrifying to get out of bed in the morning!
What ever else you cannot deny that your average american gunowner has a tendancy towards trigger happiness.
Well, sure you can. The vast, vast vast majority of legal gun owners in the US never shoot another human being in their life.
It's the same misconception people have about police in the US -- it's generally thought that they must shoot criminals every few weeks or so. But the truth is the vast majority of police never even draw their gun in defense, and a statistally small portion of that number ever fire a single bullet at a criminal in their entire career. That's why (unfortunately) so many screw-ups occur with cops shooting -- it's so rare to pull a gun no matter how much you train for that moment. It just happens very rarely.
So no, the average american noncriminal gunowner (whether civilian or police) is certainly not trigger-happy in any way.
It's those criminals who do like to shoot a lot more frequently that tend to throw the statistics for the overall population...
Re:guns (Score:2)
I will continue to assume that the target-practice is to make one a better shot, when the time comes to shoot a person.
---
Is it a good deduction, then, that someone who pitches in a softball team is simply improving his/her ability to throw grenades at people?
Or one who plays Quake is learning to take potshots at intruding marauders?
Or one who buys a nice fast car so that they may outrun the police on a given day?
Or one who is involved in track & field is learning to chuck spears at innocent people and leap over their bloody corpses?
Sounds like one hell of a slippery slope your on. I haven't fired a gun in years, but most of the people I've known were either into sport shooting (cardboard targets, for fun) or kept a dust-laden gun around in the unlikely event that someone might break into their home and possibly try to kill them.
You can argue about the fun or lack thereof in sport shooting, or even the sanity of keeping a pistol around for personal protection. But it's a bit overboard to assume these people are just in it so they can shoot someone.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
Re:Bingo. The reason DC etc. aren't safe is that.. (Score:3)
(For the background, I'm European, so I don't much care about whether US citizens are allowed to bear guns. I'm glad we have strict gun control on our side of the Atlantic though, and it is an undeniable fact that we also have lower criminality rate (though the causal link can be questioned, I agree). This being said,)
Sorry, your arguments don't hold water. The division of society into "outlaws" and "law-abiding citizens", although intellectually seducing, is worthless. What about the disoriented twelve-year old how suddenly feels an urge to commit suicide, but first destroying every(thing|one) around him: in which category does he fall? What about the elderly man who, after having led a quiet and peaceful life, suddenly decides to suppress his wife?
Granted, gun control will do nothing to protect you against the "international terrorist" kind. However I don't think guns will be of much help there either. Against the "ordinary criminal" criminal kind I described above, it is quite efficient. Naturally, the dichotomy I am trying to assume here ("international terrorist" vs. "ordinary criminal") is just as dubious as the one you suggest ("outlaw" vs. "law-abiding citizen"), but the point is that the matter is not simple and clear-cut.
But you make a very valuable point: the United States is pre-armed. Which means that trying to introduce gun control is going to be mightily difficult.
jesus h. christ (Score:3)
Re:FBI Computer glitch and gun sales (Score:2)
They try to pass bills against guns so they you can fight against them and think you are rebelling against the system.
---
Well said. Instead, we should post to Slashdot about how blind everyone is. Revolution through a web form. If only we could be the rebel that you are...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
Re:Right! (Score:2)
Re:Book on guns: "More Guns, Less Crime" (Score:3)
I'd rather be hit in the head with a skillet than a bullet.
BTW - This shut down *was* deliberately engineered (Score:5)
The FBI explicitly noted that their proposals would shut down gun sales nationally if any one of the 8-15 "key" record systems did not return a response. This was a "feature", not a bug.
Ordinarily, any "hit" any of these computerized databases will refer your inquiry to a criminal records analyst (currently being hired and trained) and either slow your approval or trigger a formal delay (or denial). Only one condition will 'clear' a sale: All databases queried, all systems responding, no records found. The regulations are explicit: if any one system fails to respond, no retail sales will be 'cleared'.
The FBI determines which computer systems will be linked, and is encouraging various agencies to get the interface specs and consider participating. The official list includes at least:
- National Crime Information Center (NCIC, a compilation of networks and systems whose exact makeup is not readily available; includes wanted persons, missing persons, stolen property, stolen cars, stolen boats, fugitives, more. It reportedly can handle a million automated inquiries per day.)
- Interstate Identification Index (III, a linkage of individual states' records; one state police department reports it goes down almost daily)
- National Instant Check System Index (NICS)
- Department of Defense
- Immigration and Naturalization Service
- Veteran's Administration
- FBI State Records files
- State Department
Other computer-system operators that have been mentioned as part of the database network include: Internal Revenue Service; Drug Enforcement Agency; U.S. Border Patrol; U.S. Customs Dept.; a Protective Orders database (there have been vague references to such a thing, related to domestic violence laws, federal availability is unclear) and of course, not to forget, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms._____________
Ah. So the New World Order is upon us. (Score:4)
Re:Bingo. The reason DC etc. aren't safe is that.. (Score:2)
It has consequences, but not many (from the standpoint of controlling a population).
Sun Tzu's texts on how to fight with pikemen a few tousand years ago are essentially identical to current military troop strategy. Flanks, thrusts, numerical ratios, projecting power, etc.
While you can take over territory with tanks faster than you could with horse cavalry, sooner or later human soldiers with guns have to control the population, otherwise you won't get the taxes or industrial output of the conquered territory.
Dropping an a-bomb is good to stop the production of enemy tanks but does little to provide you with taxes in the future.
Laser-guided bombs cannot control territory, they can only stop industrial output or destroy communications and logistics.
Chemical weapons are good against troops but have the nasty side-effect of killing the civilians and fauna, which isn't good for business.
The russians had technology grossly inferior to the germnans in WW2, and the French were much closer to the Germans. But france was occupied and Russia was not because the French fought tank to tank and lost, leaving plenty behind for the Germans to add to their inventory. The russians burned their own cities and factories to the ground and retreated before the Germans (the same as they had done to the French under napolean just as successfully). Though they also fought with tanks, the Germansd lost for the same reason Napolean did - there was nothing to conquer but bare land. No people to control, no industry to run. Just land, which isn't very useful.
And their soldiers died of cold and starvation because there were no farms to loot, no citizens to press into logistical support.
Re:Bingo. The reason DC etc. aren't safe is that.. (Score:2)
Of course, if the guy standing BEHIND the guy with an Uzi had a gun, he might be able to shoot UZI guy before UZI man kills the rest of the patrons.
We seem to forget so quicly that many of the most famous gun-related crimes in the US have been *STOPPED* by a law-abiding citizen with a gun, minutes or hours before the police were able to deal with it...
Re:Bingo. The reason DC etc. aren't safe is that.. (Score:2)
Re:Book on guns: "More Guns, Less Crime" (Score:2)
I'd rather be shot than stabbed. You're much more likely to survive a shooting...
Re:Civil War (Score:2)
Maybe you should read up your history books about a little country named Vietnam where a well armed citizenry did a fine job of fighting of an invasion by the US Military ( and the french and Australians before that). In all fairness the US Military was so hobbled by the US Government they were fighting a lost cause from the beginning.
> If you study the history of Nazi Germany, it is very chilling and makes you feel incredibly helpless.
If you study the history of Nazi Germany you will see that one the primary acts of the Third Reich was to disarm the citizenry in 1936 (or thereabouts). Hitler knew that an unarmed populace would find it much harder to resist the overtures of the state and dictatorship. Hence the group "Jews for the preservation of firearms" which remembers while they were unable to resist when the Government came to take them away.
If you are going to site the "facts" maybe you should check them first.
Chris
Re:Gun Registration? (Score:2)
Look at it this way: there are two types of people who have guns. Criminals, and regular citizens. When criminals have guns, that makes crime easier. When criminals don't have guns, that makes crime harder. When citizens don't have guns, that makes crime easier. When citizens do, that makes crime harder. Because gun control reduces citizen gun ownership much more effectively than criminal gun ownership, it never results in a reduction in crime.
Tax breaks for trained citizens carrying concealed weapons. That will scare the pants off criminals. That, and an end to poverty in the country (by some means), and the amount of crime in the US will be negligible.
gun stats and info [guncite.com]
Re:please excuse my lack of knowledge (Score:4)
Re:Gun Registration? (Score:3)
In the not-so-ancient history department, Black Americans have had to use firearms to protect their families and communities from racist thugs such as the Ku Klux Klan. In many of these cases, the local government and police department either looked the other way or were active supporters of the Klan. This can happen to any racial, religious or ethnic group that is unpopular with the general populace. There are still people in this country that burn churches and synagogues, and would be happy to see all Blacks, Jews and other "undesirables" deported or exterminated. My local synagogue was painted with NAZI graffiti and another synagogue burned down under suspicious circumstances. That is one of the reasons that I am a gun owner and I encourage all Jews to purchase a firearm and learn how to use it safely and effectively.
Re:A thought on extreme libertarinism.. (Score:2)
A bunch of idiots with guns are not going to be able to overthrow the army of the greatest super power in the world.
---
Just a thought: consider that the 'greatest superpower in the world' is staffed by none other than the children, brothers, sisters, and friends of mainstream Americans. Do you really think that the entire military would rather shoot down their own families rather then defect?
Your assumption is that the military would stay as-is. In reality, you'll find that those tanks and fighter jets will be aiming elsewhere than where a tyrannical government intended. These people are humans after all...
---
If it doesn't, then it is pointless. But it is my opinion that this is the point that should be argued, not the points of discussions mentioned above (which seem to be the ones most focus on).
---
It's a tough thing to decide on. Traditionally, Americans have been very stubborn about our personal rights - even sacrificing a little safety for the sake of liberty. There are two philosophies on this: those who feel that the government should care for its people and tell them how to live their lives, and those who feel that liberty and freedom is worth losing a bit of security.
Want to take the 100% practical side? It's hard to say - as others have posted, crime-rates don't seem to correlate perfectly with gun ownership. Other factors are at play. Should people have 100% full reign? Probably not. People forfeit their rights when they endanger someone else. A line must be drawn, and it must be somewhere in between. I'd rather not go too far in either direction though...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
Re:please excuse my lack of knowledge (Score:2)
The comment which was made was done in the spirit of sarcasm. A great many people, including the vehemently pro-gun control Mike Royko, have observed that the cities in the U.S. which have the most gun control also have the most crime.
The NRA would like you to believe that gun control leads to crime. Their logic is that with a disarmed citizenry, criminals can commit their depradations without fear of armed reprisal from their victims.
Other organizations, such as Handgun Control, Inc., offer the view that strict gun control laws are passed as a reaction to the lawlessness which widespread gun ownership brings.
I tend to side more with the NRA than with HCI on this issue.
Re:Gun Control Laws != Constitutional (Score:2)
Until the second amendment is repealed, gun control laws should not continue to be passed. There is a reason that we have a constitution, and it is to protect those rights that America's founders believed to be important.
Perhaps the drafters of the Consitution were wrong, perhaps the right to keep and bear arms is a foolish, dangerous right; this is an issue we could argue about all day. Most people, however, would agree that overall, the Bill of Rights, and more generally the Constitution, is a very good thing. If we start ignoring those sections that become inconvenient to us, then we set a highly dangerous precedent. What if habeas corpus is the next to go? Or free speech/freedom of the press?
Many of the same arguments against the second amendment (that firearms technology was completely different in revolutionary times) could equally well apply to the first (technologies to convey "speech" have also grown by leaps and bounds).
The Constitution was written to be amended. Before any more of this unconstitutional silliness continues, we must acknowledge what we are doing.
MMDDoS? (Score:3)
Hmm, I wonder if the Million Mom March might have launched a distributed denial of service attack on the FBI computers? Seems simple enough...just get a million mothers to download the client....
(nb, tounge firmly in cheek here)
The Second Amendment Sisters [sas-aim.org]
so how many people were killed? (Score:2)
On an unrelated issue, anyone know what's up with the DOS attacks on /.? Are they over with? Wired [wired.com] has had a few stories on it that I've covered on geekpress [geekpress.com]. (There's been lots of news about Slashdot [geekpress.com] lately, including a profile of Malda and Bates [geekpress.com].)
-- Diana Hsieh
Re:fear of your own government (Score:2)
YYou should not fear your government. You should fear the corporations, whose power is far greater than your government, and who lack the restraint both of morals and of public opinion.
This post is one I've wanted to make on /. for a while and will probably make again...
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding between US and non-US /.-ers, and this post is mainly to US readers so that you understand some of the puzzled and angry responses you get to posts expressing dislike of government and the restrictions it places on freedom.
As an Australian, speaking of my impression about 'ordinary' Australians (responses, additions and criticism welcome), it is not our government we fear. We fear corporations, and we fear the free market.
At the moment our economy is in a boom cycle (probably at the tail end, judging from our falling dollar), but never have people been less happy with the economy.
Discussion of the free market by non-economists revolves around the negative impact of globalisation on job security and by extension, on happiness and social cohesion. (Remember as a small economy we have less to gain than the US).
In this, we see our government as our protector. When large companies go bankrupt owing their workers large sums, the government steps in and guarantees them money (or they do when the prime Minister's brother was on the board... :) ). When Telstra [telstra.com] - the major telecommunications company - announces 10000 jobs to be cut, the government promises that the impact will be minimal and rural workers won't be hit.
Our present government, which is conservative, has had to appear to back off some economic policies in order to exploit this view of market-and-corporations-as-ultimate-enemy.
This is a point of view many posts seem dismissive of, seeming to think it is trivial and silly, thus denying themselves a chance of engaging with and convincing their opponent. Perhaps it is trivial and silly. Perhaps it is not.
Don't dismiss it. Refute it if you think it is wrong. There are a lot of people who hold it in varying degrees and you are not going to be able to argue some of your points of view without accepting that. Just step back a couple of paces in your arguments and argue from there.
Re:Bingo. The reason DC etc. aren't safe is that.. (Score:2)
France was defeated mostly as the command structure was a mess and society was rapidly falling apart. They had the numerical superiority but didn't have the will to do anything about it. Net result, German troops pushed through. Of course, that's an over simplification, but it gives you the idea.
The defeat in Russia is partly for the reasons you've said but not entirely. Yes, they _did_ practice scorched earth - though more by dismantling and rebuilding east of the Urals - but that wasn't the only thing that won them the war.
Leningrad and Moscow were held in siege for _ages_ and survived. No scorched earth was possible with either. How? Well, they resorted to tactics others wouldn't. Prison regiments, for example. Convicts were sent out as cannon fodder to probe enemy defences. If they returned without being fairly severely injured, they were sent straight back out or shot. Net result, they could get a good idea of German defences - and demoralise them - at little or no cost to their proper troops. You also had locals living in conditions that would have made most cities surrender.
Now, look at the numbers. They didn't use convicts as they were running out, they used them because they could. German commanders were reported on several occasions as saying that the Russian resources seemed practically inexhaustible. No matter how much of anything they took out - resources or men - they were replenished. Which the Germans couldn't do.
Then, the Germans weren't reallly equipped for the war that developed. The campaign started too late, while the winter was nasty. So, they were freezing. We're talking weather so cold that soup could freeze between your bowl and your mouth. They weren't used to this and didn't have the winter equipment so were basically sitting ducks. Cold like we can't imagine, with almost no working guns or vehicles. But the Russian troops were used to this and equipped accordingly . They were observed regularly lyingin ambush in the snow, simply waiting for the right time and knowing the Germans could do nothing.
Then, look at the supply lines. Most stuff had to use trains as the roads weren't good enough, but Russian railways used a different gague to German so they had to build the trainlines out behind them - which is slow and expensive. Then, they got so long that the trains literally had to be left behind. The only way they could make it all run at an acceptable speed was to dump the carriages at the railheads and return, or the time it took to unload them became a problem.
Now, look at the length of the frontier. Simply too long for the number of troops they had to handle it. I remember doing the maths way back and discovering that each company had to handle several miles by itself - a bad idea.
They had to stay behind their own lines, too. The Russians managed a very effective partisan campaign, taking out resources in land the Germans already held. This, predictably, creates a big drain.
Germany won its previous battles by Blitzkrieg - lightning war, literally. Send the tanks across fast, secure the frontiers. Very successful against a relatively small land mass such as Poland or northern France. But it was all they could do. Their armed forces had been established too fast in the 1930s to give them a broad spectrum of abilities, so they'd gone for a Blitzkrieg army. This meant, for example, that their tanks weren't actually that powerful - mostly just fast.
Now, apply this to Russia and it falls apart. You charge at them, they run back just as fast, safe in the knowledge that they can run back for a very long way and, the further in they go, the harder it gets for you to follow them. Also safe in the knowledge that, as a dictatorship, they can get away with things we couldn't have done as the population don't really matter. We have an army which was ill-equipped, insufficiently trained and overextended in the Russian campaign. That army, under that command and at that time, simply couldn't have won in Russia. Whatever your view of their relative technological states, they weren't good enough for that campaign, while the Russian forces were.
Now, look at the modern US. Sure, laser guided bombs and chemical weapons have their limitations - but they're very good at spreading fear. Tanks aren't ideal at population control but they do tend to scare off buses and trucks carrying troops as both drivers know who will win given half a chance.
I'm not saying that the US military could certainly win a civil war against a well organised nationwide private army. It'd inevitably become guerilla war, and Vietnam and Afghanistan have both shown the problems inherent there. But an armed population on the current model isn't really much of a defence, Sun Tzu or not.
We said this would happen. (Score:3)
We were called kooks and gun nuts and that they didn't want to prohibit firearms ownership or sales, they just wanted background checks. The useful idiots just got in line to support the false promise of lower crime rates.
Now am I the only one that thinks that it's not an accident that this happens the same week-end as the "million mom march". One last point, there is a clause that allows FFL dealers to sell firearms when the system is offline, however most of them are small businessmen who are afraid of the BATF kicking in their doors for a surprise inspection if they do. That's another reason why no guns are being sold.
LK
Re:Gun Registration? (Score:3)
Do you really think a few people with guns would make much of a difference? I agree it was a good idea when the Constitution was written, but it doesn't really apply in a democratic superpower.
If you actually look at the state of freedom in the US, you'll see that it's disappearing slowly, but (mostly) with the full consent (or simple apathy) of the majority. Oppression in countries like the US takes forms more subtle than those that can be fought with guns.
--
Technology Triumphs Over Outdated Constitution!! (Score:3)
Well, that is an excellent idea. The Feds can also introduce a virus to shut down DNS servers. That way, no one will be able to download any speech condemning DMCA or showing the source of DeCSS. We can shut down the 1st Amendment without actually passing any laws! We could also 'accidently' have the IRS start doing 'innocent' tax audits of all defense attourneys. That way, they would be too busy to actually write motions to dismiss evidence obtained from illegal searches. We can shut down the 4th too! And we can...
You get my point.
I recognize that a number of people believe that the right to keep and bear arms is not simply unwise, but even morally reprehensible. But if we begin disregarding the Constitution for the public good, simply because 'Those Nasty Gun Companies Have Too Much Power!' They would use the NRA to prevent you from actually amending the constitution to correct this problem legally. But if we use that as an argument to subvert the Bill of Rights, then we open a whole can of worms.
People argue that a majority of people want gun control. They argue that to deny that majority what they want is undemocratic. I will use a counter example to show that the rule of the majority is not necessarily a good thing, when it comes to preserving life and liberty. In the 1950's, Joe McCarthy could conceivably gotten a majority of Americans to believe that it was necessary to jail anyone who espoused support for the Communist Party. Who now would argue that that would be blatantly unconsititutional?
Let's not use technology to take away a constitutionally protected right, no matter what we think about the right itself. If you dissagree, we have a method for amending the constitution. If you can't convince 2 thirds of the people that you are right enough to change it, then you probably aren't right enough to change it.
Now lets all go and arm bears!!
You should be able to get background check FIRST! (Score:5)
Go to [local city/county agency] and apply for a background check. They do the check and give you a certificate with your name, SSN, maybe even your photo (so other ID by you is not needed when you use the certificate later), or whatever on it that says you're a clean, upstanding citizen.
It's good for 48 hours or so. Show it to buy 1 or many guns. The seller verfies the cert and your ID (visually only, no logging of info). Or don't use the cert at all and let it expire.
This way, background checks get performed. But no one has to collect information from you to write down or relay to local agencies about how many and what type of guns you bought, if any.
This achieves the purpose of backgrounds checks, thus "stopping criminals" as much as the current system does, right? I'll say it again because this is what the left keeps harping. My plan as described above WILL DO THE BACKGROUND CHECKS AND STOP CRIMINALS FROM BUYING GUNS JUST AS MUCH AS THE CURRENT SYSTEM (which democrats support) DOES!
Will politicians on the left accept this? No. Background checks aren't what they really want. That's just a ruse to dupe the public into supporting the mandates. What they really want to know is exactly who owns what, right down to the serial number so that when the bans come later (like they have so many times before), they can show up at your door and demand [banned make/model of the day].
Did you really think only criminals were being targeted?
Re:Quite frankly... (Score:5)
The overall intent of the Second Amendment is clear: that the citizenry is meant to possess the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and of the community. This view is fairly universally shared by everyone in the gun control debate, save for those few who claim it only protects sporting purposes. (I cannot grant any credibility to these claims; in all my scholarship on the Bill of Rights, I have never found any hint from any of the Founding Fathers which suggests that any portion of the Bill of Rights is meant to ensure continued sporting activity.)
The real interesting portion comes in how you interpret that original intent. The more militant members of the pro-Second Amendment community (such as the poster I'm originally responding to) claim that all gun control is illegal; the more militant members of the anti-Second Amendment community (such as Sarah Brady) maintain that guns are inherently regulable.
Neither opinion is, in the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, worth a bucket of steaming excrement.
The pro-2A crowd fails to notice US v Miller (I think that's the proper cite), where a man convicted of possessing a sawed-off shotgun appealed to the Supreme Court on grounds that it unlawfully violated his rights. The Supreme Court said that it was unable to see how the possession of a sawed-off weapon contributed to the "well-regulated militia" and therefore received no Second Amendment protection.
Sarah Brady and HCI take US v Miller as proof that all weapons are subject to regulation. This is incorrect; a reading of US v Miller indicates that only those weapons which serve no useful purpose to a well-regulated militia can be arbitrarily regulated. In a strict interpretation of the Court's decision, Miller is actually a vindication of the Second Amendment in that the Court comes very close to outright stating that weapons with military applications (such as fully automatic assault rifles, etc.) possess Second Amendment protection.
So. According to Miller, weapons are regulable if they possess no utility to a militia. It's not as clear a victory for the anti-2A crowd as they make it out to be, and it's not a defeat for the pro-2A crowd, either.
That's the most recent Supreme Court cite which addresses the original poster's "all gun control laws are unconstitutional" argument. Now to take the flip side:
The anti-2A crowd likes to forward the idea that the Second Amendment is a collective right; that is to say, that the use of "the people" refers to the State or Nation as a collective whole and not the people individually. This fails both legal and historical tests.
Legally, to interpret the Second Amendment's use of "the people" in a collective sense would force the Supreme Court to interpret every other instance of "the people" in the Constitution similarly. The Court has refused to do this on multiple occasions, and as recently as a few years ago has referred in passing to the Second Amendment as a right which belongs to individuals.
On the historical side, George Mason (I believe) famously stated "Who, then, is the militia? Now it is the whole of the people." That by itself is a fairly clear statement from the Founding Fathers; considering that no-one at the convention spoke after Mason to condemn that assertion, we may assume it enjoyed widespread popularity.
Moreover, national and state militias composed of citizen-soldiers were known to the Founding Fathers. They were referred to as either "elite corps" or "select corps", depending on which authority they were chartered under (ref: Tennessee Law Review. If the intent was to guarantee the national and state rights to assemble armies and National Guard units, the Amendment would have read "Well-regulated select and elite corps being necessary to the security of a free state..."
So the anti-2A argument that the Second Amendment only protects the Army and National Guard units is obviously, blatantly incorrect.
There is still a great deal of litigation going on in an attempt to clarify exactly what the Second Amendment means. For recent Court decisions, I'd suggest you look at Lopez v US, in which the Court found that Congress had overstepped its Constitutional authority by restricting the possession of firearms near schools. This wasn't a Second Amendment case, per se, but it was a clear indication from the Court that it thought Congress had significantly overstepped its mandate.
Also, check out Emerson v US, coming out of Texas, where the Lautenberg Amendment (which strips people of their Second Amendment rights if they have any misdemeanor domestic-abuse conviction or restraining order filed against them) was overturned. In Emerson, a Federal judge found that misdemeanor convictions and restraining orders were insufficient process of law to strip someone of rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Re:please excuse my lack of knowledge (Score:3)
And who was the militia? All the people who had guns and were ready to use them to prevent the lawful gov't from exceeding in it's domain.
BTW, well-regulated then meant well-trained and well equipped. And without a standing army or police force, it was up to the militia to protect the community.
Now let's also remember the Bill of Rights is more properly understood as a list of limitations on government power. Check the preamble and the 9th and 10th amendments. So "shall not be infringed" is a pretty potent clause.
So I understand the 2nd to mean I should be able to keep and use all the good quality weapons I think are necessary to secure freedom, it's important for me to know how to use them well and be able to get them when I decide I need them, and most importantly:
No agent of the federal gov't should interfere with me with respect to the above.
A later amendment (the 13th I think) goes on to extend my privileges and immunities (rights and the freedom from having rights interfered with) to protection from the individual states. Some Southern states had to adopt the Bill of Rights in order to be re-instated into the Union after the War Between the States.
Oh, yeah, one more thing:
The consitution doesn't say you should be allowed to buy SR-71 at Walmart
This is a straw dog. When the 2nd amendment was adopted, individuals most certainly possessed the heavy weaponry of the day - cannon, grenades, rocket launchers, and of course, warships. Especially warships. Just who do you think Letters of Marque were issued to, anyway?
Re:You're baseing your reasoning on the exception (Score:3)
Do you (or your parents if you're young) have life insurance? When was the last time you died? While life insurance may be useful at some point in one's life, it is in fact detrimental the rest of the time, as you must pay for it.
--
Re:Gun Registration? (Score:5)
That's the way it should be but in America we have all these people that grew up in large urban war zones and they think if they could just get guns away from people it would solve all of their problems. Rather then face the social issues which cause crime governments try to cure the problem by treating the symptoms and don't even do a very good job of that.
I grew up in a rural area and knew how to shoot a gun or a bow, better then many people before I was twelve. No one ever had to worry about me accidentally shooting someone or myself because I was taught firearm safety from the moment I was old enough to recognize what a gun was. I was never allowed to use a gun unless supervised until I was mature enough to be trusted with a gun.
Everyone that knows history knows that the reason that we have the right to bear arms in the US is because the British tried to deny the colonists that right and this made the American revolution that much harder. That right was given to the people of the united states, as a last resort, in case our government ever became tyranical.
Fear the government that fears your guns. It's a true enough statement, what would a just government have to fear from content citizens. Fear the government that fears your computer. Information and weaponry are two of the things that the government doesn't want you to have.
Sorry if I offended anyone but I feel strongly that if people don't want guns then they should refrain from buying them. Don't ask the government to take away my rights because you don't like guns.
Book on guns: "More Guns, Less Crime" (Score:3)
I recommend the book, even if you plan to debunk the politically-incorrect conclusion; it's well researched, and has one of the broader ranges of statistics ever collected.
The author is John Lott, and he's written also about the ways in which pro-gun-control people have tried to discredit him. A fascinating study in propaganda.
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see (Score:4)
The NVA, yes. Which, speaking of re-writing history, you might want to check out a tad, before running your mouth. The Viet Cong, the "real" guerillas in the south were much more spottily armed, many times with less than AK-47's. They did a fair amount of damage - and massive amounts to morale - with Punji sticks (sharpened bamboo with the tips smeared with feces), and other technologial wonders. Mines were especially effective - and those are very easy to make.
'm sorry but I live in Europe, and all those crazy Americans so in love with their guns are gun-nuts to me. A gun sole purpose is to kill - plain and simple. You can't use it to repair your car or to cook. Professing the widespread availability of killing-devices is completely insane.
Europe.. Europe. Oh, right, that's the place where my Grandfather went to save your non-gun-owning asses from those gun-toting Germans, right? Are you from the half who's ass we kicked or the half who's ass we saved?
You're missing the entire point of the Second Amendment. Its to keep the government in line. (not invoking Godwin, as I'm not calling anyone a Nazi) - That's why Hitler's first acts were to disarm (especially Jews) the citizenry.
Unlike Europe, we don't put our leaders on a god platform. Most of us anyway. We got our freedom not via royal decree, but by fighting for it, against an opressive, tyrannical government. (Actually, we're taxed more now than then, and the government has far more restrictions).
Well now they do - so the situation CHANGED. And the 2nd amendment is obsolete.
Typical Eurotrash thinking. "I don't understand it, it must me worthless". It wasn't so worthless in 1914-15 and then AGAIN in the 40's, when England was running ads in papers over here, BEGGING for those guns for their defence.
So, its OK to ask/demand that we supply guns when its convient to you - but call us barbarians when you don't.
The right to bear arms was to achieve a goal - it is not a basic human right like free speech.
Again, you misunderstand. Go read some. The "Bill of Rights" is essentially what any _legitimate_ government cannot do. That was the point behind it. It can't censor, remove the ability to resist, imprison without trial... And if you remove those - then according to the thinkers of those who wrote and signed the Consititution - you no longer have a legitimate government.
Well I think hunting is nut too, I mean which mentally sane human could enjoy killing - even animals ?
Somebody damn well better - its impossible for EVERYBODY to be a vegetarian (especially with the animals unchecked)
Are you a vegetarian? If not. SOMEBODY had to kill your fish/chicken/beef/goat/lamb/whatever.
Oh, so if its a low paying job, that's OK? (Never let it be said that most Europeans are enlightened, class-free people)
Disclaimer: I hunt. If you weren't so insulting about something you know nothing about (and so incorrect as to the math behind it) - I'd be willing to explain why.
Again I live in Europe. I'm anti-gun like 99,9% if my fellow citizens. I've never been afraid of getting shot in the streets - the chances of me dying from a gunshot is so close to 0 it is negligeable. I bet you can't says as much...
Which twice now, we've had to wade our troops over there and fight for - and spend a shitload tax money - mine included - keeping armed troops over there so the USSR wouldn't decide that gee, those pesky European countries are making too good an escape haven.. or have things that we want.
Armed Troops. Gee, Golly. Us Crazy Americans.
They think we're barbarians, and we're STILL helping them.
As for the defense of our free stats, we have armies and nukes, and that's enough, thank you.
Oh, well, in that case, mind paying us for your defenses for the last 50 years? Or is that idea obsolete as well?
Addison
For those of you wondering (Score:5)
The Brady Bill five day waiting period has apparently been replaced with a computer-based background check. Coincidentally, I bought my second firearm in 6 years last month and was a little surprised by the new procedure. I provided the store with quite a bit of personal info, including driver's license data and, IIRC, my social security number. They made a phone call, passed the information along, and had the result within a few minutes.
Please understand too that the United States is just that -- a collection of states. Each of these states has its own laws pertaining to firearms. Different states have different attitudes towards guns and there is no guarantee that what is legal in one state is legal in another.
I'm afraid the popular worldview of the United States leans towards a free-for-all Wild West where you can buy handguns out of vending machines. It's not like that. We all want to make sure that guns don't get into the wrong hands, there's just disagreement about whose hands are "wrong" and how we accomplish this. The aforementioned instant background check was actually championed by the NRA as an alternative to the five day waiting period (which had no background check at all).
Also, the same restrictions do not apply when guns are transferred from one person to another without dealer involvement. The Clinton administration considers this a loophole because it allows private individuals to buy and sell guns without much in the way of federal regulation. FWIW, my state has some strong laws against making firearms accessible to minors and known felons. I imagine most other states are similar.
The timing for this could not be worse. Given the weekend's planned demonstrations and the Clinton administration's professed desire to pass additional gun legislation, this will get a lot of media attention. I imagine a lot of people will have a hard time believing this is just a computer glitch. I tend to believe it, but I also remember that this same administration was caught "accidently" accessing secret FBI files on political opponents. Ask me in a week if I still believe it.
I'm not a lawyer and not nearly as up on firearms laws as I used to be, so corrections/clarifications would be most appreciated.
interesting posts. (Score:3)
in the proper hands, they do good -- what they are designed to do -- coerce a person to your point of view ("No, I won't let you kill my family. In fact, I kill you before I let that happen.")
in the wrong hands, they are trouble. "I said, "Give me yo wallet, Muthuh Fuckuh". Or, as can be seen in Los Angeles, they make great evidence when the police plant them in and around a parollee's home.
Guns sometimes kill people. Sometimes in a good way, sometimes in a bad way. The question is not whether or not they should be legal -- only a person with a very poor understanding of the world around us would advocate outlawing handguns -- the real question is : "What steps can be taken to increase the percentage of "Good" outcomes vs. "Bad" outcomes?
Because when you start thinking in absolutes, you are using simple solutions to solve a complex problem. And we know where that path leads. Utter failure and grotesque unanticipated consequences.
Unfortunately, the only solution I can see is stiff sentences and long probation periods for handgun offenders. That's all the technology we have right now.
Maybe in the future we can make smart weapons. For example, everyone could have a subcutaneous chip in their neck that could be queried by the weapon. "Does this person have a propensity to crime? A history of violence? Is the target armed? Do they have a propensity to violence? What is the probability that I am being used to commit a crime? What is the probability that I am protecting a good person?" If the proper equations are triggered, the weapon fires.
But human rights and the global situation, not to mention the technology, would have to progress significantly before I'd let anyone put a chip in my neck.
Re:Quite frankly... (Score:3)
Registration of firearms in no way infringes anyone's ownership of a firearm as long as anyone could register a firearm.
The problem is that no other right enumerated in the Constitution requires registration in order for its exercise. The courts have ruled that it is forbidden to require registration to run a newspaper; it's forbidden to require registration to run a church; it's forbidden to require registration to keep the Army from quartering soldiers in your home.
To phrase things in Net terms, registration is an "opt-out" system. It's the Government saying "we're going to deny you this right, unless you specifically inform us that you intend to exercise it".
The Federal courts have historically been extremely harsh when the government has tried these things. If the courts let the government require registration for the exercise of the Second Amendment, then there is no lawful reason to prevent the government from requiring registration for the exercise of the First Amendment.
There are laws on the books requiring permits for large assemblies of crowds. These laws have been upheld only so long as they impose no significant inconvenience and they exercise no prior restraint. That is to say, the permits have to be issued extremely quickly, and the government is not permitted to deny permits to any organization. This is not the case with firearms registration. When I purchased my
That counts in my book as a significant inconvenience and an unlawful Government control over a Constitutionally-protected activity. It isn't at all in the same ballpark as permits for large assemblies.
There was a case recently in which the Court decided that the right to assembly didn't include the right to anonymously assemble (thus requiring large Klan gatherings to be hoodless), and I'm still trying to decide how I feel about that.
So what is meant by a well-regulated militia? It may refer to groups organized by states or communities and drilled for the common defense of the people.
If you'd read my previous post, you'd have noticed the references to "select and elite corps".
Exactly what the "well-regulated militia" means is still being hammered out in court. Check out Emerson v US, coming out of Texas.
Also, the Supreme Court has frequently curtailed "rights" given by the Constitution to "the people". Free speech, rights to a jury trial, rights of a defendant to confront their accusers, unfair seizures, etc.
Not in recent years. Lopez v US put significant restraints on Congress' power to pass law, for instance. Free speech has consistently been upheld by the Supreme Court; the right to a jury trial has never been abrogated, to the best of my knowledge; the right to cross-examine has been sacrosanct. The seizure provisions of the IRS and drug code may be morally repugnant, but I am unable to provide Supreme Court citations which affirm their Constitutionality. I strongly suspect that if they ever go to the Supreme Court, that the Supreme Court will strongly and viciously cut them down on Constitutional grounds. If I were the United States Solicitor General, I'd live in quaking fear of the grilling I'd get from Scalia or Thomas on those issues.
If you're going to rake the Court over the coals for being asleep at the switch, then you're going to have to provide me citations. On the whole they do extremely good work; the problem is that Congress churns out laws by the thousands and the Court can only give in-depth review to a few dozen cases per year.
A couple of things... (Score:3)
Personally I'm of a mind that everyone should be armed and that we should bring back the dueling code. However, guns make dueling both too deadly (Often both parties die) and too easy. Therefore in addition to a gun for insuring that anyone getting out of hand is rapidly dealt with, we should also all carry whatever swords suit us, in case we get challenged to a duel. I think society would be a much more polite place.