question about "the left wing"

[Miss_Bungle1991]

I came to guns very late compared to a lot of owners. I didn't grow up with them at all. I never wanted one. I feared them. Until I got dragged to a range. That was a life changing day. Once you shoot a gun it will forever change your perception of them. They demand respect.

The only time I ever shot anything stronger than a BB gun was one time in the mid 90s. I went out to the woods with a few people. One of the guys was a Vietnam vet and had a LOT of guns. We did target practice with 9mm's, shotguns, and a couple of M-16's. There was no danger of anything happening since the people that we were with owned the property so no one was going to get hit by a stray bullet or anything like that. These guys were all trained marksmen, so they knew exactly what they were doing. I shot off one of each gun and it didn't make me want anything more to do with guns. I tried it, didn't care for it and I never fired a gun since that day.

They just aren't for me.

[amZo]

Personally, I cannot reconcile 11,078 firearm related deaths in one year alone (National Center for Health Statistics, 2010) with the notion that greater gun control in the US is unnecessary. So it's not about hating guns, it's just that I cannot believe increased control and regulation would not help this situation.

I know there are many, many gun owners and enthusiasts who are completely responsible with their firearms. I know that US gun deaths are very likely a reflection of much deeper issues such as cultural violence, generational hopelessness, income/opportunity inequality, and so on. Still, I just cannot fathom how regulation would do anything but help with the dismal number reported above.   

I believe, most gun deaths are criminals killing fellow criminals, primarily in the drug trade. I honestly don't want to weaken my constitutional rights to defend myself to keep people who are a detriment to society anyway.

Stay classy America! 

First off, disclosure: I'm both a liberal and a Canadian.

In all seriousness, here is my prefered firearms regime:

-no private ownership
-the option to rent firearms from the government for limited terms (several days) for the specific purpose of in-season hunting.
-rental requires specific hunting training and license
-no lethal ammunition--only tranquilizer darts would be legal
-strict criminalization of all other use and possession

I honestly fail to see a flaw in the scheme: hunting stays legal and available, while gun violence is reduced

Sounds like a real utopia, but I think I'll pass.

But I'm not sure Canada is a good example, Do you not feel that you're beneficiaries of U.S. power?   

[MadeleineG]

But I'm not sure Canada is a good example, Do you not feel that you're beneficiaries of U.S. power?   

We are and I see no reason that would change were the US to change it's gun policies.

[Hikari]

To the OP's question, here is the way I see it as a socialist:

The Second amendment doesn't mention firearms at all, it mentions arms, which could be anything from slings to rocket launchers. This means that any weapons at all not allowed is a limit on the second amendment, and since this is a limited right, I don't see anything unconstitutional about these limits. Assault weapon bans, or even outright bans on guns should technically be constitutional by the letter of the law at the very least, so long as some arms are still legal.

That being said, I disagree with firearm bans basically always, not because of the constitution but because I generally feel that freedom is best served by things that are regulated and available. I wouldn't be opposed to universal background checks, mandatory safety training or even licenses in order to use a gun (you need one for a car, and it isn't even designed to kill anyone). I don't see the issue as something particular to firearms, I believe basically there should be few limits on what is allowed provided the regulations are tight enough.

The biggest thing that confuses me about the issue though, is why is it so important? What makes a gun special versus any other weapon? Don't misunderstand, I do have a m1911 and I generally feel people have a right to self defense, and since I am technically in VA (Rather than DC or MD) I can use a concealed carry permit and other such things, and I don't oppose them. The thing is owning a gun hasn't changed my life in any appreciable way, I still don't walk around with a gun everywhere, even if there were an outright ban how would it even effect me, and don't say I couldn't rebel against the government, because that isn't going to happen gun or not, I am not the sort to engage in a violent struggle, especially one I would be destined to lose. Perhaps this is some sort of cultural difference between the right and the left, but I can't imagine life being all that different with or without private ownership of firearms.

[amZo]

One thing that's often incorrectly sited. Our citizenry is far more armed than our government. Our military isn't used against U.S. citizens. I'm curious why that happens in so many other countries.

[kariann330]

First off, disclosure: I'm both a liberal and a Canadian.

In all seriousness, here is my prefered firearms regime:

-no private ownership
-the option to rent firearms from the government for limited terms (several days) for the specific purpose of in-season hunting.
-rental requires specific hunting training and license
-no lethal ammunition--only tranquilizer darts would be legal
-strict criminalization of all other use and possession

I honestly fail to see a flaw in the scheme: hunting stays legal and available, while gun violence is reduced

You do realize any kind of a poisoned dart, large enough to kill a deer before it runs more then the 20 yards as when i use a slug would taint the meat and render it useless right?

Also....Molan Labe!!!!

[MadeleineG]

You do realize any kind of a poisoned dart, large enough to kill a deer before it runs more then the 20 yards as when i use a slug would taint the meat and render it useless right?

Also....Molan Labe!!!!

tranquilizer, not poison

you'd have to kill the animal manually with a blade

As for "Molon Labe," getting the guns in circulation out of circulation is certainly the difficulty. I tend to think that, in light of the difficulties of registration schemes, the preferable direction is to ban production of ammunition and criminalize the possession of reserve stocks. Leave people guns, but deprive them of utility.

[kariann330]

tranquilizer, not poison

you'd have to kill the animal manually with a blade

As for "Molon Labe," getting the guns in circulation out of circulation is certainly the difficulty. I tend to think that, in light of the difficulties of registration schemes, the preferable direction is to ban production of ammunition and criminalize the possession of reserve stocks. Leave people guns, but deprive them of utility.

And may i ask how you would deal with the county sheriffs and state legislators who have already announced publicly that they will refuse to enforce any such federal law and charge anyone attempting to enforce any such law with a second degree felony?
Yes you can shut down nationwide manufacturers, but what about the hand loaders in those counties and states?

[skin]

Ok if that's the case then your 1st amendment freedom of speech should NOT be carried over to the internet because it didn't exist when that amendment was created...but it does as long as the sites server is in the US, such as Susan's. Saying one amendment is outdated by current technology, while another isn't is just about the most asinine thing i have ever herd, no offense.

That comparison doesn't work at all.  The argument isn't that laws from the past shouldn't apply to new technology but that it's intent and usefulness should be analyzed as times change.  There are not many people that think the second amendment shouldn't exist. However, just as the freedom of speech is limited, so should the right to bear arms.  The intent of that amendment ratified in 1791 is absolutely obsolete and to not not adapt the way of thinking from 222 years ago would be asinine.  The writers of that amendment and the ones from the 1689 law it was based on certainly could not envision what the arms of today would be capable of.

[MadeleineG]

And may i ask how you would deal with the county sheriffs and state legislators who have already announced publicly that they will refuse to enforce any such federal law and charge anyone attempting to enforce any such law with a second degree felony?
Yes you can shut down nationwide manufacturers, but what about the hand loaders in those counties and states?

Firing the sheriffs for dereliction of duty would seem a natural first step. They're hired to bring the law to life, not to interpret it.

[amZo]

That comparison doesn't work at all.  The argument isn't that laws from the past shouldn't apply to new technology but that it's intent and usefulness should be analyzed as times change.  There are not many people that think the second amendment shouldn't exist. However, just as the freedom of speech is limited, so should the right to bear arms.  The intent of that amendment ratified in 1791 is absolutely obsolete and to not not adapt the way of thinking from 222 years ago would be asinine.  The writers of that amendment and the ones from the 1689 law it was based on certainly could not envision what the arms of today would be capable of.

Oh, I think they could just fine, you think they didn't know technology would advance? They made no conditions on the second amendment.

The arms citizens were allowed to own and bare in those times were the most advanced available at the time. They didn't restrict them to pea shooters and sling shots.

You think you can make the public safer by making safer guns? How? Watch the video in my first post if you haven't. I listen to intelligent people (especially women  ) who have actually observed the absurdity of gun restrictions first hand.

Gun technology is primitive these days, they're here to stay. You can never get them away from bad people, it's time to accept that? The question is, do you take them from people who aren't bad and who plan to abide by gun laws? Doing so makes us less safe IMO. Most people understand this.

[amZo]

Firing the sheriffs for dereliction of duty would seem a natural first step. They're hired to bring the law to life, not to interpret it.

... and fire Obama for failure to enforce the numerous laws passed by those we elected (congress) to craft them? 

[Hikari]

... and fire Obama for failure to enforce the numerous laws passed by those we elected (congress) to craft them? 

That is a bit of a selective attack on the president, I mean, has there been an administration that has ever enforced all the laws congress crafted? Regardless of where people want to throw the blame, congress mandated immigration controls back in the Regan administration that were unenforced, there was the legal mandate for an entry-exit visa system from the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, but Clinton, Bush, and Obama hadn't done anything with it. You could pick almost any issue, and there are tons of congressional mandates that were never acted on.

My point is, the executive branch gets to do what it wants basically outside of the law but local sheriffs don't; that isn't a commentary on what is right, merely an observation on what is. States and localities don't get to violate federal law unless there is lots money to be made (Marijuana taxes anyone?).

[Hideyoshi]

Liberal gun owner here.

I don't hate guns, but i do dislike many of their owners.  Paranoid vigilantes standing their ground and doomsayers rushing out to buy the very type of gun whose barrel was still smoking after killing 26 people aren't the type of people I feel would be safe owning guns.

[amZo]

That is a bit of a selective attack on the president, I mean, has there been an administration that has ever enforced all the laws congress crafted? Regardless of where people want to throw the blame, congress mandated immigration controls back in the Regan administration that were unenforced, there was the legal mandate for an entry-exit visa system from the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, but Clinton, Bush, and Obama hadn't done anything with it. You could pick almost any issue, and there are tons of congressional mandates that were never acted on.

My point is, the executive branch gets to do what it wants basically outside of the law but local sheriffs don't; that isn't a commentary on what is right, merely an observation on what is. States and localities don't get to violate federal law unless there is lots money to be made (Marijuana taxes anyone?).

Eeh-gad........ almost spit up my cereal! 

Executive orders are reserved for extra-ordinary situations, usually when parts of laws appear to be unconstitutional.

Using them to give waivers to prized constituent groups so that laws don't apply to them is clearly abuse of power. We just had three well respected constitutional law professors testify before congress all saying Obama is abusing his power, he's violating his oath of office. Impeachment they say is the proper remedy if it continues. Jonathan Turley was one of these professors and he's a liberal and Obama supporter.

[amZo]

Liberal gun owner here.

I don't hate guns, but i do dislike many of their owners.  Paranoid vigilantes standing their ground and doomsayers rushing out to buy the very type of gun whose barrel was still smoking after killing 26 people aren't the type of people I feel would be safe owning guns.

I think this happened because opportunistic politicians and media activists immediately began irrationally deaminizing the AR15 before the smoke cleared.

Paranoid vigilantes I can agree with... 

[TerriT]

I think this happened because opportunistic politicians and media activists immediately began irrationally deaminizing the AR15 before the smoke cleared.

Paranoid vigilantes I can agree with... 

True that. Talk about banning anything only drives up demand based on future scarcity. 5 years in a row gun sales have increased because of this.

[skin]

Eeh-gad........ almost spit up my cereal! 

Executive orders are reserved for extra-ordinary situations, usually when parts of laws appear to be unconstitutional.

Using them to give waivers to prized constituent groups so that laws don't apply to them is clearly abuse of power. We just had three well respected constitutional law professors testify before congress all saying Obama is abusing his power, he's violating his oath of office. Impeachment they say is the proper remedy if it continues. Jonathan Turley was one of these professors and he's a liberal and Obama supporter.

It was grossly misreported that impeachment was the topic of discussion.  Jonathan Turley wrote an article about his frustration over the obsession of the concept of impeachment instead of focusing on real issues.  Here is part of it:

During the hearing, not only did I discount impeachment as an option, but a Democratic member specifically asked the panel about the references to impeachment. No one could remember how it came up but it was clear that no one thought it was a substantial issue — or significant part of the hearing.

It is certainly true that House members have raised impeachment issues previously (just as some Democrats raised impeachment during the Bush Administration).  However, it actually came up little in the hearing which was 99 percent focused on the separation of powers and the rise of an uber-presidency under Bush and Obama.

As far as executive orders, they may be intended for extra-ordinary situations, but that hasn't been true since the 1800s.  In fact, Obama issued the least amount of executive orders in a President's first term since Benjamin Harrison.  And while Bush's first term was a little higher than Obama's, his second term was incredibly low at 118. 

[amZo]

It was grossly misreported that impeachment was the topic of discussion.  Jonathan Turley wrote an article about his frustration over the obsession of the concept of impeachment instead of focusing on real issues.  Here is part of it:

As far as executive orders, they may be intended for extra-ordinary situations, but that hasn't been true since the 1800s.  In fact, Obama issued the least amount of executive orders in a President's first term since Benjamin Harrison.  And while Bush's first term was a little higher than Obama's, his second term was incredibly low at 118.

I watched the hearing. Professor Turley said Obama is abusing his powers and it threatens our democracy. I didn't say the professors called for impeachment. They said it's the remedy if this continues.

I don't know or care how many executive orders any president issues. I specifically stated doing so for political reasons is abuse of power. Passing terrible laws knowing you'll have to exempt your favored constituents is something any fair minded person understands unequivocally is wrong and abusive. They doesn't wait to see which party or leader is doing it or how it affects them.

[Hikari]

I watched the hearing. Professor Turley said Obama is abusing his powers and it threatens our democracy. I didn't say the professors called for impeachment. They said it's the remedy if this continues.

I don't know or care how many executive orders any president issues. I specifically stated doing so for political reasons is abuse of power. Passing terrible laws knowing you'll have to exempt your favored constituents is something any fair minded person understands unequivocally is wrong and abusive. They doesn't wait to see which party or leader is doing it or how it affects them.

The problem is why even mention Obama? All presidents issue executive orders or ignore/change laws on the enforcement end for their own gains and political power, I mean this is just how things work in this country. I am not a fan of the president he is incredibly right wing versus my ideology but, it is hard to single him out for something every administration does. Heck, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, FDR packed the courts, Nixon spied on his rivals, and so on. If you think it is wrong and abusive that is fine, but it has nothing to do with Obama specifically, just like Bush and all the others and I would suspect all those that come after will also abuse their power in this manner.

Regardless despite the rhetoric, it isn't like guns are going anywhere, they make people money, and they have their own lobby. Private ownership of firearms is about as secure as anything is in this day and age, and if even widely supported background checks wouldn't pass after Newtown, CT then what exactly would spurn people into action? I would think that likely nothing would.