Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
can someone explain (Re: gun legislation)
Why do I keep seeing people (on the news, FB, etc) who are freaking out about the 2nd Amendment? Why are people under the impression that the government wants to come take their guns and leave them unable to protect themselves?
As far as I've learned, these are the things being proposed by Joe Biden's committee:
1. Assault weapons ban
2. Ban on large ammunition clips
3. Gun registry
4. Universal background checks
I don't think I understand where the widespread panic is coming from. Is there something being proposed that is actually going to take away the rights of the 2nd Amendment, or is it simply as I see it, placing reasonable restrictions in the interest of public safety?
I understand people wanting to protect their rights, and I fully support the right own a gun. But it seems like believing these reforms are necessary is now equivalent to wanting to do away with our constitutional rights. Anyone care to explain to me why that is?
Re: can someone explain (Re: gun legislation)
Stop trying to make sense of it. That's your first mistake.
The NRA.
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/1/anti-gun-representatives-introduce-first-wave-of-bills-in-us-house.aspx
Opening paragraph:
The new Congress has begun, and so has the fight for our right to keep and bear arms. Based on bills introduced on the first day of the 113th Congress, we clearly face the most serious threat to our fundamental Second Amendment rights in the last twenty years, and law-abiding gun owners need to act now to ward off an unprecedented onslaught on our rights.
It then goes on to cite 7 specific measures proposed:
- -H.R.
138 would ban transfer or possession of standard capacity magazines,
targeting those that hold more than 10 rounds.
- -H.R.
141 would impose federal regulation of gun shows. This legislation
would require background checks on all gun sales at guns shows, and
impose addition federal regulations on these traditional local events.
- -H.R.
142 would ban Internet or mail order ammunition purchases, require a
federal license for all ammunition sellers and mandate reporting of
?bulk? ammo purchases. The record keeping and licensing requirements
included here will place a serious burden on buyers and sellers and
vastly increase the cost of ammunition?which is why the previous federal
recordkeeping requirements were repealed in the 1980s.
McCarthy also introduced H.R. 137, which according to press reports would create a national database of people ?prohibited? from buying a firearm. Since the National Instant Criminal Background Check System is already supposed to be just such a database, the purpose of the legislation is currently unclear.Anti-gun Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) has reintroduced his legislation to ban all private firearm transfers. In the 113th Congress it is now H.R. 21. This bill would make it illegal, for example, to give a firearm as a gift, even to a close family member, without involving a federally licensed dealer.
Reps. Bobby Rush (D- Ill.) and Rush Holt (D-N.J.) have each introduced gun registration bills, H.R. 34 and H.R. 117 respectively. Federal law has prohibited the establishment of a firearms owner registration system for decades. These bills would override these longstanding protections of gun owners? privacy.
Not one of those proposals actually remotely suggests the removal of the right to bear arms. Just focuses on how you can acquire those arms (like *gasp* requiring background checks from sales at gun shows. Like that isn't flat out common sense that we check anyone who wants a gun? FFS.). The only bill on there that should be moderately controversial is the last one about owner registration which, again, is not a limit to anything actually granted in the 2nd amendment, privacy concerns themselves aside.
But LOL at the government imposing regulations on the "traditional and local events" of gun shows that, you know... see the purchasing and exchange of deadly weapons. S'not like we'd want to make sure those pretty toys aren't ending up in the wrong hands or anything.
The NRA would be better off sticking to their line that "well gosh darn, these haven't worked before, why try them now" instead of this bullsh!t rhetoric, honestly. Though I'm still not sure how 'the 1994 assault ban wasn't effective' is an argument against further legislation and not, instead, argument for better legislation.
edit: I can't count.
They also incorrectly think that regulation = infringement of constitutional right. Regulation does not equate infringement. We regulate plenty of other constitutional rights (free speech for example). Proponents of the second amendment need to realize they aren't exempt from regulation. The second amendment does not warrant greater protection than the other constituional amendments. It's not that special.
At the risk of sounding like a loony but merely stating a truth, Germany's gun laws prior to World War II started with gun registration, background checks, limits on type of ammunition and weapons, etc. At the time it happened nobody foresaw what the future held any better than any of us could have foreseen what happened at Sandy Hook.
Mind you, the NRA is an interest group. They are always going to seek out the most liberal (by definition not politics) gun laws or restrictions not unlike NOW is going to seek laws the think are most favorable to women and the Banking lobby is going to argue for bank rules favorable to the banks and the ACLU is going to argue for the broadest interpretation of free speech laws. I think the right thing is probably something in the middle.
Most responsible gun owners are in favor of reasonable restrictions. The definition of reasonable runs the gamut depending on experience and worldview and not all gun laws will really enact much to help any of the situations they are being drafted to address. That is why it is so important not to be emotionally reactionary on this issue and to be able to have reasonable debate.
People are going way too extreme on both sides of the debate
We already have laws that require background checks on guns sold at gun shows. There are exceptions, but they are few and far between. As a practical matter I don't think they are really an issue because when is the last time you heard of a shooting at a gun show? It stands to reason if a ton of weapons and gun nuts equals mass shootings we would have seen one at a gun show. We also have background checks on internet sales. You go through the same process at a gun show or over the internet that you do at Guns R Us down the street. The advantage of the shows or the internet is a wider variety of merchandise. While that doesn't necessarily appeal to some of us, some people don't know why there are 400 shades of pink lipstick either.
I have no issue with the reporting provisions but I think they are dumb. How are you going to deal with the issue of someone getting 21 of their first cousins to buy ammo for them an allow them to give it to you to stockpile? I don't think you are required by federal law (although in some states you are) to have a gun permit to buy ammunition.
Limiting the number of bullets in a clip is another "eh" at best provision. I've seen shooting demonstrations where competition level shooters can fire 9 rounds from a traditional handgun, including reloading the weapon, in 3 seconds. If you practice enough, the amount of ammunition in a clip is only a convenience rather than a necessity.
The gift provision is a HUGE pita. I do a lot of will work and one of the most common bequests from men is passing their guns to their children and I suspect this may always have been somewhat true. If you have a gun your great grandpa shot in WWI and want to hold it for sentimental reasons, you would probably not be able to pass it down because you would not have a paper trail of origination, chain of ownership, etc because those things did not exist. Same holds true over owning a historic weapon (gun technology is pretty old!) and passing it down. Most gun dealers are not going to want the liability this could bring them for no gain.
Please stop channeling your inner-Joe-the-Plumber.
You know which country purportedly owns the fewest firearms per capita in the world? Tunisia.
You know who just had a successful popular uprising 2 years ago? Tunisia.
You know who is 3rd on the ownership list? Yemen.
You know who couldn't do *** against their dictator? The Yemeni population. **
A well-armed U.S. would never be able to do anything against a modern-era Hitler (even if that were a conceivable possibility here and now) if modern-era-Hitler has the military and its vast resources on his side.
If "guns don't kill people, people kill people", then why are guns the only thing that could possibly stop oppressive leaders?
It's also worth noting that most of Hitler's atrocities were committed outside of Germany, where 1930s German legislation is an irrelevant point.
**edit to fix my history: confusing my countries- the Yemeni revolt was marginally successful in that the president stepped down, transferred power to his chosen successor, and still retains power as the head of the party.
But notice what not one of your inconvenienced objections about the facility to buy/carry/shoot deadly weapons actually complains about?
The loss of your 2nd Amendment Rights.
There ya go, OP.
How do you know that for certain? Shouldn't we try harder to make it work instead of just saying "more regulations won't work?" I agree reasonable debate is important and it's been going on for years. Gun control advocates are becoming a stronger voice and yes, it is an emotional reaction. You'd have to be a robot to not have an emotional reaction to killings of this nature. Since when is emotion a dirty word anyway? It's humanity and it's compassion.
You know which country purportedly owns the fewest firearms per capita in the world? Tunisia.
You know who just had a successful popular uprising 2 years ago? Tunisia.
You know who is 3rd on the ownership list? Yemen.
You know who couldn't do *** against their dictator? The Yemeni population.
This is a great stat, Lexi!
Okay, so I really am going to need to see some sources on this Hitler took the guns stuff.
From what I understand, guns were banned altogether in Germany after WWI. From that time going forward, the gun ban was lifted, and under Hitler restrictions were lessened and gun ownership was legal for most people (Jews, however, were restricted from gun ownership).
LOL at us not having a mass shooting at a gun show. The problem with gun shows is that there are not background checks required for all of their gun purchases, so this is one of the ways criminals can get their hands on guns. From what I understand, licensed dealers must do background checks, while private sellers do not. This varies by state. Many online purchases of guns and ammunition are done with no background check, regulation on this varies by state. But WHY would we ever have a shooting at a gun show? Who would want to shoot up the place that they go to buy their guns? That's just a strange observation to make.
Maybe you need to look at the actual facts about the percentages of gun sales that are done with no background checks in this country.
I can't really say I care if the gift provision is a PITA. Transferring ownership of a gun should require a background check and registration. It's a PITA to have to register my car and renew my license, yet I manage to do it without crying. If I gift my car to my sister (which I am doing), she still needs to go to the dmv and deal with the transfer of ownership and registration. It's such a PITA though, maybe we shouldn't make her do it.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-13/guns-dont-kill-people-gun-culture-does#p1
Just an interesting article I stumbled across. A lot of what we've already talked about on this board, but something new- the affect that our gun laws have on Mexico:
Meanwhile, Mexico provides a case study of what happens when more guns meet weak institutions. In the four years following the lapse of America?s assault weapons ban in 2004, 60,000 illegal firearms seized in Mexico were traced back to the U.S. Luke Chicoine, an economist at the University of Notre Dame, estimates that the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban led to at least 2,684 additional homicides in Mexico. Similarly, a study from New York University researchers found that homicides spiked in Mexican border towns after 2004, particularly those most involved in narcotics trafficking. The spike was far less dramatic in towns that bordered California, which had a state-level assault weapon ban that remained in place after the U.S. ban lapsed. A survey of court cases reported in their paper found that 3 percent of trafficked guns came from California, vs. 29 percent from Arizona and 50 percent from Texas.
'Course, we aren't under any obligation to take the well-being of neighboring countries into consideration when b!tching about not being able to purchase 30-round magazines and dealing with those pesky regulations when we want to buy and sell guns.I think part (all?) of the panic comes from those on the far right that really believe that President Obama is a Socialist/Muslim/terrorist/etc. They, particularly with Fox News feeding them the supporting "evidence", really believe that their freedom is in jeopardy and that Obama's agenda is different than it actually is.
I've literally just sat here for about 8 minutes trying to end the sentence:
"I'm kind of thinking that trying to pull off a mass shooting at a gun show would be like ..."
and I can't think of anything. I just can't. Wearing a meat dress to a PETA conference? Rocking up to a Harley Convention on a Vespa?
I've got nothing. Do people seriously wonder why gun shows have never been the target of a mass shooting, given that guns are obviously available there?
Although I do think that holding gun owners responsible for the actions of their guns, similar to the actions of their pets (and children, to some degree!) would be a step in the right direction to ensuring that more people store their firearms properly and report firearm theft immediately and accurately.
Chronically hilarious - you'll split your stitches!
I wrote a book! Bucket list CHECK!
http://notesfortheirtherapist.blogspot.co.uk
I'm not sure about intention of the Joe the Plumber reference but I hope it wasn't a personal shot. I'd like to think we could have healthy debate without it.
Regarding Tunisia: the low gun numbers per capital probably has to do more with the grinding poverty under an oppressive government than desire to own them. They do allow guns and had a permitting system that seemed good in theory but was rife with corruption and favored the government in power. The uprising had to do with the 23 year president even losing favor among his own party and thus creating a weakness within. It was not bloodless and the people there suffered unthinkable conditions during the time his government was in power. Do we really want to have to suffer 30, 40 or 50 years under an oppressive government waiting for the perfect lineup of events that allow us to defeat it? Guns are not the only method of fighting an oppressive government or those who would try to establish one but they are probably the most effective.
The reason I'm underwhelmed by what has been proposed has nothing to do with crying over anything but rather that if we are going to do something this seems to be the least effective things we can do. Of the 8800ish gun homicides in 2011, around 7600ish are committed by handguns. Less than 400 were committed by what some people might consider an assault weapon. Why aren't we more worried about the 85+% of innocent people killed by handguns? Are their deaths somehow less tragic than the teacher at Sandy Hook?
During the election there was some cry from the left about black people being put back in chains despite there being zero legislation to do anything of the sort proposed by their opponents and slavery being 160 years past us history-wise. During many abortion debates there is all kinds of cry about losing women's rights when the topic of requiring 13 year olds to get parental permission before recieving a medical procedure. It's all very dramatic as politics tends to be.
In this instance though, something like the New York law just passed they are actually requiring that people who own certain firearms to disarm themselves and dispose of their weapons out of state. As an aside, I guess it's ok if the rest of country has these weapons? I guess it is considering that they don't have the gun crime problems that New York does and other areas that have ultra restrictive gun laws like Washington D.C. A few weeks ago on this board I pointed out that despite no guns being allowed that they have terrible gun crime and someone replied somewhat snarkily along the lines that it "couldn't have anything to do with guns coming over from bordering areas could it?'.That's probably true but if guns are so readily available in those places why aren't they having the same issues and on the same scale that DC is?
Regarding the gun show statistics, according to a recent statistic I read, licensed firearm dealers (the ones who have the most rigorous responsibilities) make up an estimated 78% of all sellers at gun shows. That means that around a quarter of sales made at gun shows are private owners which, depending on the state, have somewhat less rigorous requirements. However, you can sell your gun through craigslist, an ad in the newspaper, etc just as easily as you can sell it at a gun show with less stringent requirements than if you took it to the gun show. As a private seller in any case, you are limited to the number of guns you can sell per year which I believe is around 5. The purpose of bringing it to the show is for maximum exposure to buyers. It's the difference between putting a for sale sign on your car in a busy parking lot vs an ad in the newspaper.I've seen the statistic on unlicensed dealers at gun shows presented as high as 50% but there are unlicensed dealers at gun shows who do not sell guns but rather memorabilia/collector type stuff (Tshirts, holsters, bumperstickers) who have been included in those figures because technically they are selling something at the gun show. The National Institute of Justice (a govt entity of the DOJ) did a study in the mid-80s (a high volume period in gun shows) on the number of felons who bought their guns at gun shows and the number was so low that it was not even reported as a separate figure.
Making gun laws have stiffer penalties is also pointless IMO because we did the same thing with drug laws yet I don't think it has stopped the proliferation of meth, heroin, etc in our culture. I like the idea of the mental health certification although it would not have made one difference some things such as Columbine or Sandy Hook. Restricting assault weapons again wouldn't likely have made a difference in either because none of the weapons at columbine fall under the proposed legislation and the Sandy Hook shooter also had 2 weapons with him that also did not fall under the proposed legislation. Aside from that lawbreakers are going to break laws no matter how stiff you make the penalty especially when they are suicidal.
I'm not so opposed to the clip limits. I'm not opposed to a private national registry accessible by law enforcement. The non-transferability law is even not the end of the world because it is EASILY gotten around by creating a simple gun trust when the weapon is purchased and transferring ownership merely by changing the trustee of the trust.
"The reason I'm underwhelmed by what has been proposed has nothing to do with crying over anything but rather that if we are going to do something this seems to be the least effective things we can do. Of the 8800ish gun homicides in 2011, around 7600ish are committed by handguns. Less than 400 were committed by what some people might consider an assault weapon. Why aren't we more worried about the 85+% of innocent people killed by handguns? Are their deaths somehow less tragic than the teacher at Sandy Hook?"
I think I alot of gun control advocates (what some are calling "extreme") would definitely support a hand gun ban. But we're trying for a ban on assault weapons because that's all we think can get passed, I think, unfortunately (in my opinion).
I really wish there were as much effort in finding solutions as there is about complaining about these incredibly reasonable proposals. So you think they're going to be ineffective? Ok, what can you propose to make them more effective? Why can't we look at these proposed solutions and try to make them work?
Not a personal shot; he (Samuel Wurzelbacher) ran for Congress in November in northern Ohio and had the most utterly bizarre campaign video ever in which he touts the alarmist Hitler line that lacks any explanation or, in fact foundation in actual historical context:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOLl_PLNTeY
Unsurprisingly, he lost by a landslide.
There have been many proposals over the years but they don't make everyone feel as good emotionally as saying something is "banned" so they largely go ignored or pronounced preposterous. The NRA has worked very hard to develop a gun safety education program and because it has the name NRA attached people won't even look at it. Do we really think it doesn't hurt their cause for people to be needlessly injured by guns and that they wouldn't want to avoid it? We allow Planned Parenthood to provide educational programs and operate out of some schools even though they are a private interest group with partisan leanings with the caveat that they keep their politics out of the service that they provide. I'm pretty sure the NRA could do that as well.
Again some things make sense like the mental competency certs, limiting size of magazines, etc. I'm not 100% behind anything else right now because frankly I have not heard enough about anything different than what is proposed being debated because the minute someone disagrees with what is being proposed in most venues they are shot down and labeled a gun nut with no good ideas. The strict liability laws for handguns is interesting and might be effective provided there is some sort of criteria for negligence on behalf of the gun owner ie if you can provide evidence that your weapon was reasonably secured and was later obtained and used by another party in a crime through no fault of your own (burglary, etc) that you are not liable.
Also I'd like to see things that don't seem like to be such a direct connection but probably are be explored more such as the legalization of certain drugs and a complete revamp of our mental health system. I have a good friend who has a violent schizophrenic son who if the opportunity were to present itself at the right time to do something like Sandy Hook I could easily see him acting on it. She has begged, pleaded, threatened etc for help but there is almost zero help available. He has disability and medicaid however really he needs to be confined somehow and there are pretty much no resources for that until he commits a major crime. He's had several self harming incidents and violent episodes against her but nothing severe enough that anyone will do anything about. She has been told by several mental health professionals who have provided him services that it is not a matter of if he will do something but when. That usually comes with an apology that there is nothing they can do and no resources they can think of available to her. When that time comes whether he can get a gun or not, he will act. It may be driving a car through a street festival or setting a building on fire (which he has already done once). These are the type of people who commit atrocities like Aurora and Sandy Hook and what we are doing is not going to stop them.
I just can't feel better about doing something rather than nothing when something does nothing or very little to help the situation.
So gun owners get "emotional" about regulations and restrictions that chip away at their 2nd amendment rights,
I guess it is a lot like the pro-abortion group getting so "emotional" anytime someone tries to enact a regulation that they perceive might restrict their access to abortion.
I think that this is one of the biggest failings of any argument - the topic is guns. What in the world does abortion have to do with the gun debate? Because people get emotional over abortion issues the issue become directly comparable to any other issue with which people express or feel a similar level of emotion?
So... gun legislation is like... gay rights and Justin Beiber?
I don't get it. Why not just address the issue at hand - guns - and leave everything else out of it?
Furthermore, I'm genuinely curious - if you feel that regulations and restrictions chip away at your 2nd amendment rights, what alternative solutions are you proposing to address the issue of gun crime, specifically the type of mass shootings that have made international headlines recently, other than regulations and restrictions?
Chronically hilarious - you'll split your stitches!
I wrote a book! Bucket list CHECK!
http://notesfortheirtherapist.blogspot.co.uk
I'm not so sure we can say these regulations will do nothing. We don't know for certain and we must try --we owe it to ourselves as a nation to try, in my opinion. Your friend's situation sounds terrifying. Are the mental health professionals certain they've exhausted every resource available to them to address the issues? I think the extra regulations might help in curbing people with violent tendancies to not be able to get their hands on a deadly weapon. Honestly, though, if I were this child's mother, and I knew for certain that it was a matter of when and not if, (I'll probably get flamed for this), and if I've exhausted every medical and therapist option, etc., I would probably set my son up to commit a crime (shoplifting something worth 10,000.00 or something) to get him confined in a prison. I know that sounds terrible but as a mother, if my child committed mass murder I could not live with myself if I knew there was anything I could have done to prevent it.
Cripes what a horrible situation as a parent to be in. I don't know what I would do either... I think some parents would look to the kid going into military school as an option, but that could really just make it much worse. Move to Tibet, shave their heads and join a monastery?
What do you do if you feel your own child poses a danger to the public but there is nothing in place to deal with this? This cannot be an issue specific to the states.
Chronically hilarious - you'll split your stitches!
I wrote a book! Bucket list CHECK!
http://notesfortheirtherapist.blogspot.co.uk
exactly. Some of the reaction might be emotional and possibly overdramatic and I was merely trying to address the original question of why people would be on facebook saying that they were losing their 2nd amendment rights.
Saturday, actually.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/19/us/north-carolina-gun-show-shooting/index.html
And also
http://www.newsandsentinel.com/page/content.detail/id/569437/Man-accidentally-shot-in-ankle-at-local-gun-show.html?nav=5061
http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/jun/02/gun-show-accidental-shooting/
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2012/jan/29/police-vendor-shoots-himself-in-the-hand-at-gun/
http://sandhills.news14.com/content/top_stories/662537/man-wounded-after-shooting-himself-at-charlotte-gun-show
http://djournal.com/view/full_story/20484294/article-Two-suffer-non-life-threatening-injuries-in-accident-at-gun-show-in-Tupelo?instance=home_news_1st_left
http://www.examiner.com/article/gun-dealer-faces-criminal-charge-after-weapon-accidentally-fires-at-gun-show?cid=PROD-redesign-right-next
That's what I found with a five minute search. There are probably more.
Also, this is the loophole we're talking about:
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/oct/23/wisconsin-shooting-brings-call-new-law-guns/
MILWAUKEE ? Two Wisconsin lawmakers are pushing legislation to tighten the enforcement of gun rules in domestic violence cases, prompted by a fatal shooting rampage at a suburban Milwaukee spa.Radcliffe Haughton, 45, bought a handgun just two days after his beleaguered wife obtained a restraining order against him. He used that weapon to kill her and two other women Sunday at the salon where she worked, before fatally shooting himself.Sen. Lena Taylor said the shooting highlights the need for better enforcement of laws that require restraining order recipients to surrender their weapons."Across Wisconsin there are inconsistent standards, or sometimes none at all, for the collection of weapons owned by domestic abusers," the Milwaukee Democrat said Monday as she and Rep. Penny Bernard Schaber pushed for the bill.Radcliffe Haughton's wife, Zina, secured the four-year restraining order against him on Thursday, at which point he was ordered to hand over all of his firearms to a county sheriff. It's unclear whether he turned in any weapons.Around 11 a.m. Sunday, Radcliffe Haughton opened fire at the Azana Day Spa in Brookfield.He had bought the .40-caliber semiautomatic handgun he used in the attack from a private owner on Saturday, according to police in Brown Deer, the Milwaukee suburb where Haughton lived. The seller did nothing illegal; private individuals are not required to conduct background checks or enforce a 48-hour waiting period as licensed gun dealers are under state law.