Should govt. have the right to keep extremists from having guns?

[Thunder]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/13/critics-deride-designed-weapons-terrorists-hands/

The NRA and others seem to think the 2nd Amendment rights of terrorists should be protected.

I don't think we should simply ban someone from having a gun due to their political beliefs, but if you belong to the KKK, Neo-Nazis, Black Panthers, Hamas, militia group, or other extreme ideology groups, your sanity is already in question in my view, and you should undergo a psychological test to make sure you are mentally fit to own a firearm.

[Alt+F4]

This reminds me of an Onion story: "ACLU supports neo-Nazi's right to blow up ACLU headquarters."

The terrorists don't need guns, they get the job done with airplanes.

[gnome]

I don't think anyone should be subject to a change in their rights according to how they identify or what organization they belong to. Certainly, being a member of an extremist group is going to make me wonder if they're safe with a gun... but I'd rather take that risk than set a precedent of the government judging my associations.

Any restrictions should be based on the subject's OWN history and nobody else's.

[Thunder]

I don't think anyone should be subject to a change in their rights according to how they identify or what organization they belong to. Certainly, being a member of an extremist group is going to make me wonder if they're safe with a gun... but I'd rather take that risk than set a precedent of the government judging my associations.

Any restrictions should be based on the subject's OWN history and nobody else's.

Well, we need to find a way to do more background checks for folks who join organizations that tend to be extremist....yet still respect 2nd Amendment rights.

Honestly, I think all Americans who want to own a gun should undergo a psychological evaluation, but I don't know if that fits into the current 2nd Amendment. Or at the very least, be licensed. If you need a license to drive a car, you should have to have a license to own a gun. IMHO.

[Alt+F4]

Or at the very least, be licensed. If you need a license to drive a car, you should have to have a license to own a gun. IMHO.

Good point. The gun nuts (...I mean the 2nd Amendment supporters) don't seem to have a problem driver's licensing even though cars aren't mentioned in the Constitution.

I'd also throw in no gun license for those persons convicted of a felony or anyone under 18.

[Thunder]

I'd also throw in no gun license for those persons convicted of a felony or anyone under 18.

i thought felons couldn't get guns.

[Alt+F4]

i thought felons couldn't get guns.

You're right, they can't legally. I meant buying guns online.

[Thunder]

You're right, they can't legally. I meant buying guns online.

no one can buy guns online....except for licensed gun dealers.

though, it may be legal to buy them online, as long as it is shipped within your home state. im not sure about this one.

[Region Rat]

When did belonging to a group become a crime? I was under the impression that US citizens had the right to assemble.

It frightens me that there are those that would give the government the permission to deem some groups 'undesirable', and treat them differently than others. If I, as an individual, have not committed any crime, the government has no business taking away my constitutional rights, any of them, no matter what organization I belong to.

It is already against federal law for convicted felons to own guns. A group cannot be a convicted felon.

[DC]

When did belonging to a group become a crime? I was under the impression that US citizens had the right to assemble.

It frightens me that there are those that would give the government the permission to deem some groups 'undesirable', and treat them differently than others. If I, as an individual, have not committed any crime, the government has no business taking away my constitutional rights, any of them, no matter what organization I belong to.

It is already against federal law for convicted felons to own guns. A group cannot be a convicted felon.

But he listed Hamas, isnt Hamas regarded a terrorist group?
can you be an official member and still own a gun?

[Thunder]

If I, as an individual, have not committed any crime, the government has no business taking away my constitutional rights, any of them, no matter what organization I belong to. .

so you have no problem at all with neo-nazis and kkk members owning semi-auto M-16s?

i too believe you should not be punished if you have not committed a crime. but at the same time, being a neo-nazi is different then being a boy scout.

[Undesired Walrus]

so you have no problem at all with neo-nazis and kkk members owning semi-auto M-16s?

i too believe you should not be punished if you have not committed a crime. but at the same time, being a neo-nazi is different then being a boy scout.

Then you are contradicting yourself.

[Thunder]

Then you are contradicting yourself.

no i am not

[Region Rat]

so you have no problem at all with neo-nazis and kkk members owning semi-auto M-16s?

No. Why does a "semi-auto M-16" concern you?
When was the last armed uprising by the KKK or a neo-nazi group?


i too believe you should not be punished if you have not committed a crime. but at the same time, being a neo-nazi is different then being a boy scout.If a member of neither group has committed a felony, how are they different?

[dudalb]

WHo decides who is an extremist or not? There are people out there who would list anybody who disagrees with their politics as an extremist.And some of them are in elected office.
If you are convicted felon or have a history of mental problems leading to violence then I have no problems with forbidding you to own firearms.
But to forbid somebody a right everbody else has just because of their political opinions, however obnoxious, strikes me as being not just a slippery slope, but falling off a cliff.
On the other hand, it would be nice to see some gun dealers exercise a little caution and be a little more careful to whom they sell to, like a liquor store owner shoudl exerecise caution as to who he sells too. Wishful Thinking I know....

[corplinx]

I am pretty sure that most KKK members in rural states have been using firearms for hunting and sport since the KKK was formed.

Why is it an issue now? The Dems need some sort of easy-win gun control law passed to appease the anti-gun supporters. QED

[Cleon]

The idea that the government should decide who gets to own guns or not based on their political views is extremely repugnant to me.

Beyond repugnant.

[Thunder]

The idea that the government should decide who gets to own guns or not based on their political views is extremely repugnant to me.

Beyond repugnant.

belonging to a group that advocates violence or extremism is different then just having opposing views on taxes and health care.

never mind the fact that neo-nazis and klansmen are known for their history of violence and terrorism.

[Region Rat]

belonging to a group that advocates violence or extremism is different then just having opposing views on taxes and health care.

It is no different so long as actions are not taken that break the law.

never mind the fact that neo-nazis and klansmen are known for their history of violence and terrorism.

All of them?

[fuelair]

no one can buy guns online....except for licensed gun dealers.

though, it may be legal to buy them online, as long as it is shipped within your home state. im not sure about this one.
Has to be delivered to and to you by a licensed gun dealer (if you win one from the magazines, they all specify you must include the name of the gun dealer to send it to):):).

[Bob Klase]

Good point. The gun nuts (...I mean the 2nd Amendment supporters) don't seem to have a problem driver's licensing even though cars aren't mentioned in the Constitution.

I think you answered your own (implied) question. Unlike the right to keep and bear Arms, there is no specific right to keep and drive cars on public roads in the constitution.

And (at least in most states, I'm not sure about all) you don't require a drivers license to drive on private property.

[Undesired Walrus]

belonging to a group that advocates violence or extremism is different then just having opposing views on taxes and health care.

never mind the fact that neo-nazis and klansmen are known for their history of violence and terrorism.

That's true, but we should be making decisions on them because of their actions today, not the traditions of their past. The KKK don't call for the lynching of black folk these days. That doesn't mean that they don't in private (I'm sure that they do), but we must go by the evidence, not what we strongly suspect. The moment a news reporter goes undercover and finds them conspiring to bomb a black church, then they are investigated.

Christians, Jews and Muslims have a history of unbelievable bloodshed, and we don't treat them (all) like criminals today.

[fuelair]

That's true, but we should be making decisions on them because of their actions today, not the traditions of their past. The KKK don't call for the lynching of black folk these days. That doesn't mean that they don't in private (I'm sure that they do), but we must go by the evidence, not what we strongly suspect. The moment a news reporter goes undercover and finds them conspiring to bomb a black church, then they are investigated.

Christians, Jews and Muslims have a history of unbelievable bloodshed, and we don't treat them (all) like criminals today.
Unfortunately, I am pretty sure a "news" reporter today getting a story like that would wait until after the bombing to put the story out so he/she could get a lot of mileage (and maybe a Pulitzer) out of it. And refuse to identify their source or give up their notes (to protect freedom of the press, of course). I miss real reporters.

[leftysergeant]

When did belonging to a group become a crime? I was under the impression that US citizens had the right to assemble.

Read the whole thing. We have the right "peaseably to assemble." An armed mob is kind of outside those parameters.

The constitution also gives to the states the responsibility to regulate the militia. Private militias are illegal. Depriving members of the right to keep arms is within the scope of normal discipline of the militia. You simply can't have an unregulated private militia in competiton with the disciplined official one. Never has worked out well.

[Bob Klase]

Unfortunately, I am pretty sure a "news" reporter today getting a story like that would wait until after the bombing to put the story out so he/she could get a lot of mileage (and maybe a Pulitzer) out of it.


No doubt that some one. Thirty years ago some would have too.

And refuse to identify their source or give up their notes (to protect freedom of the press, of course). I miss real reporters.


They don't have to protect their source unless they agreed to ahead of time. I hardly think that a reporter who's undercover is going to make promises or agreements with those sources- that would sort of defeat the purpose of being undercover.

[Region Rat]

Read the whole thing. We have the right "peaseably to assemble." An armed mob is kind of outside those parameters.

The constitution also gives to the states the responsibility to regulate the militia. Private militias are illegal. Depriving members of the right to keep arms is within the scope of normal discipline of the militia. You simply can't have an unregulated private militia in competiton with the disciplined official one. Never has worked out well.

Nobody has said anything about an armed mob. The discussion is about proactively restricting the rights of so-called undesirable groups. These groups can peaceably assemble and say whatever the heck they want to say, and it can still be considered peaceable, even if what they say within their group may not be to your liking. Individuals in said group can even own guns and it can still be considered peaceable. Now, if these groups start to take action and turn into a gun wielding mob, then that's against the law. There are already laws to deal with that.

[Thunder]

the govt. can prevent someone from buying and driving a car. why can't the govt. prevent someone from buying a gun?

[corplinx]

the govt. can prevent someone from buying and driving a car. why can't the govt. prevent someone from buying a gun?

They already prevent people from buying guns. You do understand american gun laws don't you?

[Texas]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/13/critics-deride-designed-weapons-terrorists-hands/

The NRA and others seem to think the 2nd Amendment rights of terrorists should be protected.

I don't think we should simply ban someone from having a gun due to their political beliefs, but if you belong to the KKK, Neo-Nazis, Black Panthers, Hamas, militia group, or other extreme ideology groups, your sanity is already in question in my view, and you should undergo a psychological test to make sure you are mentally fit to own a firearm.

You are a nice little totalitarian aren't you?

[quixotecoyote]

Only if your world is totally about guns.

[Texas]

Read the whole thing. We have the right "peaseably to assemble." An armed mob is kind of outside those parameters.

The constitution also gives to the states the responsibility to regulate the militia. Private militias are illegal. Depriving members of the right to keep arms is within the scope of normal discipline of the militia. You simply can't have an unregulated private militia in competiton with the disciplined official one. Never has worked out well. Yes and a lot of states have unorganised Militias in their state constitutions. There are hundreds of militia groups in the country that operate openly and no one state or federal bothers them. Having said that, the militia argument for who can own guns has been settled.

[Thunder]

You are a nice little totalitarian aren't you?

didn't your mamma teach you not to call people names?

[Texas]

belonging to a group that advocates violence or extremism is different then just having opposing views on taxes and health care.

never mind the fact that neo-nazis and klansmen are known for their history of violence and terrorism.

According to the Obama DHS tax protesters ARE considered extremist groups.

[BTMO]

no one can buy guns online....except for licensed gun dealers.

though, it may be legal to buy them online, as long as it is shipped within your home state. im not sure about this one.

Just for fun, and to throw a foreign perspective into the mix....

In New Zealand, it is perfectly legal to purchase firearms online. And they can be delivered to your house.

There is a police form that has to be completed, but this involves a police officer merely sighting your licence (and verifying you have one) - not approving the sale.

This isn't a straightforward thing though. We have several different classes of firearms here. Handguns and "military style semi automatics (which doesn't include a number of *genuine* military semi automatics, oddly enought...) have much tighter rules regarding sale, use and storage.

[gnome]

belonging to a group that advocates violence or extremism is different then just having opposing views on taxes and health care.

never mind the fact that neo-nazis and klansmen are known for their history of violence and terrorism.

I agree that there is a difference, but I don't trust the government with the power to judge that difference in a binding manner. It's far too broad a power--individual conduct alone, thank you.

[Thunder]

According to the Obama DHS tax protesters ARE considered extremist groups.

some tax protestors are indeed extremists. and dangerous.

i don't think people like Alex Jones should be allowed to own a firearm.

[boloboffin]

Going after extremists with massive amounts of firepower worked so well in Waco.

[Thunder]

Going after extremists with massive amounts of firepower worked so well in Waco.

we got em' all...didn't we?

[Cobalt]

No, the government should not. For one, your OP assumes anyone in a group is a full on frothing at the mouth lunatic.

Let's look at PETA, a group with a fair share of ******* crazy people. But not ALL of them are ******* crazy, and I'd wager a good number of them don't know about the ******* insanity that happens elsewhere in PETA.

It's possible to be a normal, functioning member of society and still be, say, a racist. My uncle will proudly tell you he hates black people, yet worked in the police system for years, and was an officer of the court. He was, at the least, smart enough to not let it get in the way of being a decent member of society.

He also owns guns. I'm not too worried about him up and suddenly deciding all the black folk must die.

[Thunder]

No, the government should not. For one, your OP assumes anyone in a group is a full on frothing at the mouth lunatic.

Let's look at PETA, a group with a fair share of ******* crazy people. But not ALL of them are ******* crazy, and I'd wager a good number of them don't know about the ******* insanity that happens elsewhere in PETA.

It's possible to be a normal, functioning member of society and still be, say, a racist. My uncle will proudly tell you he hates black people, yet worked in the police system for years, and was an officer of the court. He was, at the least, smart enough to not let it get in the way of being a decent member of society.

He also owns guns. I'm not too worried about him up and suddenly deciding all the black folk must die.

i believe that membership in certain groups warrants a follow-up psychological evaluation, to see if you are mentally fit to own a firearm.

if i had my way, every prospective gun owner would undergo firearm safety training and a pysch. eval. before they could own a gun.

imagine how many murders we could have prevented with a simple psych. eval. before folks could buy a firearm???

i don't want crazy people owning guns. sue me.

[Texas]

i believe that membership in certain groups warrants a follow-up psychological evaluation, to see if you are mentally fit to own a firearm.

if i had my way, every prospective gun owner would undergo firearm safety training and a pysch. eval. before they could own a gun.

imagine how many murders we could have prevented with a simple psych. eval. before folks could buy a firearm???

i don't want crazy people owning guns. sue me.

Your point of view is very dangerous.

[Thunder]

Your mentality is very dangerous.

keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people is not only smart...but it is sane.

personal attacks are unnecessary.

[Bob Klase]

the govt. can prevent someone from buying and driving a car. why can't the govt. prevent someone from buying a gun?


How can the government prevent someone from buying a car any more than it can prevent someone from buying a gun?

And can the government prevent them from driving a car? Or can it just prevent them from driving the car on public roads?

[Bob Klase]

Originally Posted by boloboffin
Going after extremists with massive amounts of firepower worked so well in Waco.

we got em' all...didn't we?

No, actually we let most of the kids get away. Were you in favor of gunning them down too, or are you satisfied that we killed some of them?

[Texas]

keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people is not only smart...but it is sane.

personal attacks are unnecessary.

I edited that since yes it would have been a personal attack.

[Thunder]

No, actually we let most of the kids get away. Were you in favor of gunning them down too, or are you satisfied that we killed some of them?

wait...we didn't kill all of them??

:confused:

[Texas]

didn't your mamma teach you not to call people names?It is an apt description of your mindset. There is only one political philosophy that calls for Psych evaluations for out of favor individuals or groups ant that is totalitarianism. You fit that description with the OP.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Others do. (Also, the report you refer to was made under a different administration, and some tax protesters are no doubt extremists.. even though that's horribly defined.)

Anyway.

The issue with calling someone an extremist is that it's meaningless as you haven't defined extreme in relation to what. If you mean an ideology that is inflexible and prone to violence that might be better, but even that is inprecise. (For example, you probably want an ideology with an leader (god figure) with a strict core of dogma that reinforces the first and discourages all external ideas. Follow that up with seeing the world as black v white (good v evil as the people as good cheacters) and any means neccesary..
...

You're only getting there, you then need to provide evidence that this propensity to violence is so great that it passes a clear and present danger test. (i.e sufficient danger to deny rights)
...

And if you think that is an insane lot of work and job for the FBI and police force... then congratulations, you've figured out why we don't do stop gun rights based on what group you are in and watch such groups (i.e the "extremists") domestically.

(As for guns, I don't mind having a license to use. But eh.)

[KoihimeNakamura]

wait...we didn't kill all of them??

:confused:

Well, yes, killing innocents is generally held to be murder...

[corplinx]

We used to deny people basic rights such as voting or gun ownership, only after being proven guilty of a felony.

This weird totalitarian/minority report complex that some people have where we need to deny basic constitutional rights based on what we think people might do is scary.

[leftysergeant]

It is no different so long as actions are not taken that break the law.



All of them?

Yup. It's called xonspiracy. You bel;ong to a group known for committing horrendous murders and do not speak out against those murders, you are an accessory thereto and have no business owning a firearm.

And they have not risen up in arms to overthrow the government....
YET.

They are planning on it, if they can convince enough useful idots to do a body block on a tank for them.

[leftysergeant]

Nobody has said anything about an armed mob. The discussion is about proactively restricting the rights of so-called undesirable groups. These groups can peaceably assemble and say whatever the heck they want to say, and it can still be considered peaceable, even if what they say within their group may not be to your liking.

Planning and agitating for a race war is not peaceable assembly, nor is their stated goal lawful. They are participating in a criminal conspiracy. No guns for KuKluxKrap.

[Cobalt]

Yup. It's called xonspiracy. You bel;ong to a group known for committing horrendous murders and do not speak out against those murders, you are an accessory thereto and have no business owning a firearm. Since you mention the Klan in a previous post, let's just run with that premise...

When was the last time the Klan was responsible, or claimed responsibility for a murder?



And they have not risen up in arms to overthrow the government....
YET. Wait, what? Who?


They are planning on it, if they can convince enough useful idots to do a body block on a tank for them.
Uh....huh.

[boloboffin]

No, we did not "get" all of the Branch Davidians. Several left on their own, some others left due to negotiations, some escaped the fire. These are the ones we got. The rest died a horrible death due to the FBI playing into their apocalyptic worldview.

The Branch Davidians were committing crimes. The execution of the search warrant was a colossal screw-up on the part of the government.

Do you know what you call American citizens who are extremists but are committing no crimes? American citizens. You don't like what they're preaching? Then don't join their church. Phelps is a great example of this. They make it a habit not to break any laws in their protests. As hateful as they are, the only civil and legal response is to ignore them or counterprotest them.

The same is true of extremists who are building up an arsenal. If they aren't committing any crimes (i.e., holding people there against their will, converting weaponry into illegal weaponry), then what they do is their business. Who cares what they do if they keep to themselves, break no laws, and don't force their beliefs on anyone?

[Cleon]

belonging to a group that advocates violence or extremism is different then just having opposing views on taxes and health care.

never mind the fact that neo-nazis and klansmen are known for their history of violence and terrorism.

First of all, on the violence question: You will not find a Klan group anywhere that openly advocates or encourages its members to commit violent acts. Doing so is called "incitement," and it's illegal.

So that's a non-issue, right there.

That leaves us with "extremism." Who defines extremism? Is there an objective measure of who's "extremist?" We're left with a situation where the government decides who's allowed to have guns based on what the government thinks of their political views.

That is not acceptable. In any way.

[Upchurch]

Should govt. have the right to keep extremists from having guns?

:notm

[mortimer]

I'm still waiting for parky to explain how the government can prevent an individual from buying and driving a car.

[dudalb]

I am waiting for Parky to explain exactly who should determine who is an extremist.
He ..and lefty...seem to see political extremism only one end of the political spectrum.

[Holler Hoojer]

I have no problem rounding up all the KKK guys and putting them on a desert island, but I can't blame them for the gun deaths around here (Pittsburgh). To the best of my recollection, the KKK has never been involved in a shooting death here. We have lots of deaths, but they're largely due to groups already on the no-own list: felons and drug folks.

We did recently have three police officers gunned down by a right-wing conspiracy nut, but, for the life of me, I can't see how you identify CTers without completely chucking the Constitution. I don't think they have membership badges.

I personally think many fundies are looney. Should we give them psych scans? Where does it stop?

[Upchurch]

I am waiting for Parky to explain exactly who should determine who is an extremist.
I originally gave an unconditional :notm answer to the OP. However, if one were to define include "convicted felon who wouldn't be allowed to legally own a firearm anyway" to the definition of "extremist", I could be otherwise persuaded.

[Beerina]

I don't think anyone should be subject to a change in their rights according to how they identify or what organization they belong to. Certainly, being a member of an extremist group is going to make me wonder if they're safe with a gun... but I'd rather take that risk than set a precedent of the government judging my associations.

Any restrictions should be based on the subject's OWN history and nobody else's.

There's the problem right there. It's a one-two punch down a slippery slope.


Step 1: Get everyone to agree that belonging to an "extremist" group is bad and they should not have guns. Give horrible examples of extremists.

Step 2: (Largely hidden) Note that government now has the power to define what an extremist group is.



No, thanks. I'll put up with "extremist" groups having guns if it makes it a little tougher in the future for dictatorship to come as the result of a series of a thousand tiny steps.


And, as mentioned, the three "extremist" problems in the US the past 20 years, 9/11, the first WTC bombing, and Oklahoma City, had nothing to do with guns. And OKC was partially related to government threats to take guns away, if you want to push the issue.

[mortimer]

And, as mentioned, the three "extremist" problems in the US the past 20 years, 9/11, the first WTC bombing, and Oklahoma City, had nothing to do with guns. And OKC was partially related to government threats to take guns away, if you want to push the issue.
Not to mention McVeigh might not have been taken into custody shortly after the bombing had he not been carrying a gun.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Planning and agitating for a race war is not peaceable assembly, nor is their stated goal lawful. They are participating in a criminal conspiracy. No guns for KuKluxKrap.

But they have yet to commit a crime, and as such they are innocent until found guilty.

[Kestrel]

And, as mentioned, the three "extremist" problems in the US the past 20 years, 9/11, the first WTC bombing, and Oklahoma City, had nothing to do with guns. And OKC was partially related to government threats to take guns away, if you want to push the issue.

At least part of the funding for the Oklahoma City bomb came from selling stolen gun parts.

[Whiplash]

Good point. The gun nuts (...I mean the 2nd Amendment supporters) don't seem to have a problem driver's licensing even though cars aren't mentioned in the Constitution.

I'd also throw in no gun license for those persons convicted of a felony or anyone under 18.

I may not understand what you mean here, but I don't understand this analogy.

The constitution does not explicitly guarantee a right for any citizen to own a car. If it did, then maybe questioning the licensing process would be equivalent.

[Bob Klase]

At least part of the funding for the Oklahoma City bomb came from selling stolen gun parts.

So we should consider making it illegal to steal guns and/or selling stolen goods?

[stilicho]

But he listed Hamas, isnt Hamas regarded a terrorist group?
can you be an official member and still own a gun?

See? I don't always disagree with you. But I'm not an American either and I still don't understand their gun fetish.

But, yes, Hamas supporters in the US should be well armed according to their constitution. Also, you can be a Hamas sympathiser and not exactly a member. But you still get handed a gun permit.

Sensible people would say this is not a good thing but what do we know?

By the way, DC, I thought you were from Switzerland. Don't they hand out firearms to everyone regardless of political inclination there?

[stilicho]

But they have yet to commit a crime, and as such they are innocent until found guilty.

Can't Americans commit just a little bit of crime and still arm themselves?

[stilicho]

And OKC was partially related to government threats to take guns away, if you want to push the issue.

Of course. The biggest threat to domestic stability in the US is that there simply aren't enough handguns on the street.

[Darth Rotor]

Should govt. have the right to keep extremists from having guns?
No, unless you want a Minority Report model of society.

Consider this one vote against.

DR

[Region Rat]

Of course. The biggest threat to domestic stability in the US is that there simply aren't enough handguns on the street.

The problem, as I see it, is that the cats already out of the bag. Guns are manufactured legally around the world, and the bad guys already have a good supply of illegally obtained weapons. We have relatively open borders that are easy to smuggle items in and out of the country. Now, you can say how terrible that is, and how you wish it were not so, and I would agree with you. But the reality of the world is that guns are available and out there and we need to deal with it.

In a free society, we also have to accept that people are free to break whatever laws they want to, if they are willing to take the risk of getting caught and paying the price. There is no mechanism for the government to protect me if my neighbor chooses to walk across the street with a ball bat and brain me and take my new Plasma. I, however, have a legal right to protect myself and my property, and I take that right very seriously. If my neighbor busted through my door, he would meet up with Mr. Mossberg 12 gauge or Mr. Glock 23, depending on the time and place. I also have the legally licensed right to carry a legally purchased handgun, to protect me and mine from those illegal handguns that we will not in a million years get rid of.

Of course, there is a solution. If we want to allow a totalitarian regime to do house to house and person to person searches and siezures, and close our borders tighter than a drum, and prevent free travel by the citizens who might try to break the law, maybe you have a chance. Do you want that?

[Hittman]

Honestly, I think all Americans who want to own a gun should undergo a psychological evaluation, but I don't know if that fits into the current 2nd Amendment. Or at the very least, be licensed. If you need a license to drive a car, you should have to have a license to own a gun. IMHO.

Your HO is wrong.

You don't need a license to print a newspaper or start a web site, beucase the first amendment gives you the right to do it. Any requirement for a permit or a licence would be an infringement on that right.

The second amendment says you have the right to own firearms. As soon as you bring in licensing it ceases to be a right, and becomes a privilege.

WHo decides who is an extremist or not? There are people out there who would list anybody who disagrees with their politics as an extremist.And some of them are in elected office.

Recently a state issued guidelines that included anyone with a Ron Paul bumper sticker as a likely extremist. I've seen some idiots claim the Tea Party movement was nothing more than racists upset with Obama getting elected. It's a short step from that kind of nonsense to claiming they're in league with the KKK, and should be disarmed.

belonging to a group that advocates violence or extremism is different then just having opposing views on taxes and health care.

Not according to some people. And if the Tea Party ever gets traction you can be certain that many government weasels will try to paint them all as dangerous wild-eyed loons.

The constitution also gives to the states the responsibility to regulate the militia.
Wrong. "Well Regulated" in the vernacular of the day refers to having skills and ability. A well-regulated watch, for instance, keeps good time.

some tax protestors are indeed extremists. and dangerous.

And there we have it, folks.

[mortimer]

I guess Parky has abandoned his own thread.

[KoihimeNakamura]

I .. what? I'm sorry, I see no problem with owning a gun.... although I can see the appeal for a psych test, I am not sure that is a good idea.

[TriskettheKid]

You don't need a license to print a newspaper or start a web site, beucase the first amendment gives you the right to do it. Any requirement for a permit or a licence would be an infringement on that right.

The second amendment says you have the right to own firearms. As soon as you bring in licensing it ceases to be a right, and becomes a privilege.

Not necessarily.

Tell me:

Are my First Amendment rights being infringed because I need a license to start broadcasting a TV signal? How about over the radio?



Wrong. "Well Regulated" in the vernacular of the day refers to having skills and ability. A well-regulated watch, for instance, keeps good time.

Does it?

I seem to recall Alexander Hamilton thinking quite differently.

In fact, opening up my book of the Federalist Papers, I see that he talks about this very issue in Paper 29. Doesn't seem like he's saying what you're saying.

[Kestrel]

I seem to recall Alexander Hamilton thinking quite differently.

In fact, opening up my book of the Federalist Papers, I see that he talks about this very issue in Paper 29. Doesn't seem like he's saying what you're saying.

Are you thinking of this quote?

if a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.

Two hundred some years ago the English language had multiple meanings for some words, just like it does today.

[TriskettheKid]

Are you thinking of this quote?



Two hundred some years ago the English language had multiple meanings for some words, just like it does today.

I understand that.

I'm talking about the "discourse" section of Paper 29, where he defends "militias:"

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."

"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

That's the part I'm talking about.

[Kestrel]

The problem, as I see it, is that the cats already out of the bag. Guns are manufactured legally around the world, and the bad guys already have a good supply of illegally obtained weapons. We have relatively open borders that are easy to smuggle items in and out of the country. Now, you can say how terrible that is, and how you wish it were not so, and I would agree with you. But the reality of the world is that guns are available and out there and we need to deal with it.

American criminals for the most part use American made guns. They don't need to smuggle them into the country because it's downright simple to just divert them from the legitimate market.

[linusrichard]

the govt. can prevent someone from buying and driving a car. why can't the govt. prevent someone from buying a gun?

Apart from the obvious problems with this statement, the fact that the Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms and not the right to keep and drive cars is a big part of the answer.

[Region Rat]

American criminals for the most part use American made guns. They don't need to smuggle them into the country because it's downright simple to just divert them from the legitimate market.

That may be so, but it does not change my point. Guns are out there. If you stopped US production, they would still get in. It would become another largely smuggled product over our open borders.

And a slight nit-pick and not really to the point I was making: I would venture a guess that quite a few of the guns used by criminals are not American made. Glock probably being the most prevelant (Austria), but I can't do a proper search here at work because I'm blocked from anything firearm related. Not saying they are smuggled, they don't need to be, but just saying.

[dudalb]

This thread is a reminder of why I have an equal dislike of both left and right wing ideologues: They both want to restrict individual rights when they think it is for "The good" of society. As someone once put it, the Right want to put TV Cameras in your house to prevent "immoral" behavior, and the Left wants to keep you from owning guns because Gun ownership is "immoral".

[Kestrel]

This thread is a reminder of why I have an equal dislike of both left and right wing ideologues: They both want to restrict individual rights when they think it is for "The good" of society. As someone once put it, the Right want to put TV Cameras in your house to prevent "immoral" behavior, and the Left wants to keep you from owning guns because Gun ownership is "immoral".

What I find in debates on this issue is that many participants are so accustomed to the standard rhetoric that they no longer pay attention to what is actually being said.

[Praktik]

This thread is a reminder of why I have an equal dislike of both left and right wing ideologues: They both want to restrict individual rights when they think it is for "The good" of society. As someone once put it, the Right want to put TV Cameras in your house to prevent "immoral" behavior, and the Left wants to keep you from owning guns because Gun ownership is "immoral".

Well, paint me a lefty ideologue then - but I think part of it is I come from a country where we don't have a "right to bear arms" enshrined in our constitution, as such, its not really an issue that I see as fundamental to individual rights as say, freedom of speech or freedom from discrimination or property rights.

So my initial reaction to the OP was something likely to be derided here: "Should the government have the right to stop extremists from owning guns?" Well, I think the government should have the right to stop nearly anybody from owning guns..;) (barring farmers and strict controls on recreational shooting)

To me this is difference of opinion is rooted in culture and raisin's. I bet if I grew up in Tennessee I'd think different.

[BTMO]

So my initial reaction to the OP was something likely to be derided here: "Should the government have the right to stop extremists from owning guns?" Well, I think the government should have the right to stop nearly anybody from owning guns..;) (barring farmers and strict controls on recreational shooting)

To me this is difference of opinion is rooted in culture and raisin's. I bet if I grew up in Tennessee I'd think different.

I didn't grow up in Tennessee, I grew up in Australia. I now live in New Zealand.

And I think you are talking from a position of ignorance and yes, even fear.

Guns, per se, don't cause people to run out and become screaming homicidal maniacs. They are simply tools that can be used or misused like any other.

Also, laws to manage guns (or gun owners) are notoriously poor tools to actually achieve this end - they typically focus on non-criminals, folks who will comply with the laws, no matter how stupid they are.

Here in New Zealand, for example, there are 4 broad categories of gun ownership available to most people.

These are:

Category A: allows ownership and use of "sporting" firearms such as bolt, pump, semiauto and single shot rifles and shotguns (see Cat E below). This is the basic licence - all other categories are endorsements on the basic A category licence. No registration requirements, and only the most rudimentary of storage and use restrictions.

Category B: Allows ownership and use of pistols, but only for use at approved pistol clubs.

Category C: Allows ownership, but NOT use of collectible firearms such as rocket launchers, machine guns, etc.

Category D: Dealer, ie - gun shops.

Category E: Military Style Semi Automatic (MSSA)- these are firearms that fire a centrefire round, and have one or more "military" features such as a pistol grip, or have a magazine capacity of > 7 rounds, or a rimfire firearm of > 15 rounds capacity.

However, Cat E has some interesting wrinkles. A magazine change changes a Cat A firearm to a Cat E firearm - and magazines are NOT regulated in NZ.

8 round magazine = Cat E, 7 round magazine = Cat A.

And a very large number of *actual* military semiautomatics don't count as MSSAs - as they don't have enough "military" style cosmetic features, or sufficient magazine capacity.

Cat B is *only* for pistol club members, and Cat E has very stringent requirements, including a demonstrable need to own, such as pest destruction, club membership and both categories require you to beef up security in your house - deadlocks on doors and windows, an approved firearms safe in the house, registration of the firearms and police permission and approval to buy or sell each individual gun. Cat E users can only use their guns subject to the conditions outlined in their endorsement. Eg, they might procured the firearm to shoot goats on their farm - they can't take it to a rifle range to sight it in...

Sounds very secure, right?

Well, here in NZ, the week before last, an unlicenced man held police at bay for > 48 hours shooting at them, half a suburb was closed off to homeowners (and some were trapped inside the cordon, and were shot at by the gunman) and he had a cache of up to 18 weapons... none of which were licenced or registered.

Of the 9 guns the police showed on tv here, 2 were outright illegal (sawn off shotguns), 1 would have been classed as a category A firearm, one was a category B firearm (ie, a pistol) and the rest were Category E firearms - military style semi automatics.

This means that a *very* large number of things went wrong to allow this person to obtain firearms - multiple times.

The guns should have been registered - they weren't.

The guns should have been secured in a police approved safe - they weren't.

Police permission was required for him to buy them - AND the person who sold them had to advise police they were sold, and to ensure registration was transferred - it didn't happen.

Hell - he needed a licence to buy ammunition!

Why all of this description?

Because the government gets to decide who is a "fit and proper" person to obtain guns in this country, and what guns they get - but it is meaningless. People who want to get guns simply go out to the back of pubs and buy what they like from gangs.

Also, you mentioned recreational use and farmers.

I don't farm - but I enjoy hunting and target shooting. I also belonged to a pistol club some years ago - but since I didn't want my house turned into a police approved fortress, decided against buying any pistols.

So I own a number of guns. They are all stored legally. They are all of the approved type. They are also significantly more accurate than run of the mill guns that gang types use, and one of them is damn sight more powerful than most gang members would ever consider using.

The bottom line - gun laws are normally enacted to make unthinking voters feel that "something has been done" about gun "problems".

ETA: And they usually do this in response to one crazy, who is normally known to the police and the mental health authorities, committing an atrocity. It happened in Australia (Pt Arthur), it happened in NZ (look up "Aromoana" if you aren't local...), and it happened in the UK (Dunblane).

My take? Any offence committed with a firearm during the commission of a crime adds a mandatory 20 years to the sentence.

Don't make ownership of guns a crime - make misuse of guns a crime - and punish it. Hard.

[Region Rat]

...,snip a bunch of interesting information ...

My take? Any offence committed with a firearm during the commission of a crime adds a mandatory 20 years to the sentence.

Don't make ownership of guns a crime - make misuse of guns a crime - and punish it. Hard.

Exactly right. At one time in Kentucky USA, any crime where a firearm was used had the sentence doubled. I did a quick look for a cite but must not be asking the right question. I remember a TV commercial with the tag line "Use a gun in a crime, double the time". I would make it very painful for misuse.

[BTMO]

Exactly right. At one time in Kentucky USA, any crime where a firearm was used had the sentence doubled. I did a quick look for a cite but must not be asking the right question. I remember a TV commercial with the tag line "Use a gun in a crime, double the time". I would make it very painful for misuse.

I can't figure out why legislators keep missing, what is to me, so obvious.

Guns are manufactured* items. They can't be "properly" regulated, because they are *easy* to build and last essentially for ever.

Why not make misuse of guns so unattractive to criminals that the equation becomes much more straightforward to crims?

"If I get caught, I do twice as long - no chance of talking my way out of it?"

I constantly shake my head at the way gun laws work. I saw an example in an Australian paper a few weeks back - a guy got off a charge of having an unregistered pistol because... he had ground off the serial number (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,25429660-2862,00.html).

Surely, on any sensible planet, that in itself was evidence the pistol he had was unregistered - no number = not present on the registry!

* there have also been numerous cases of people at this end of the world making guns, up to an including machine guns.

This included several "backyard" machine gun factories in Melbourne, Australia, and a guy in Auckland named Antonie Dixon who murdered a guy with a machine gun he made in his back shed.

How does registration and licencing prevent that??

[Praktik]

BTMO - I don't think I was speaking out of ignorance or fear. Im not afraid of guns.

I was speaking out of cultural difference - here gun rights are not really seen as part of the rights of man as they are in America. This is not a hard and fast rule, there are people who take gun rights very seriously here.

Even so, it is not ingrained in our culture to the degree it is down south - and since I don't own a gun, don't plan to own a gun, dont run a farm and don't target shoot - restrictions on gun ownership aren't seen by someone like me as an issue of equal importance to say, free speech.

And I wasn't trying to knock Tennessee! You should see my statement regarding Tennessee as trying to get at the way I was raised - I was admitting that growing up in a different culture would likely have me seeing this differently.

As it stands though, Im a product of my raisin's, and I don't see gun ownership as an important right on par with what we have ingrained in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

THat isn't to say it's not important, just not AS important and not held with the kind of sanctity and ritual it is regarded with down south.

No fear here man..;)

[BTMO]

BTMO - I don't think I was speaking out of ignorance or fear. Im not afraid of guns.

I was speaking out of cultural difference - here gun rights are not really seen as part of the rights of man as they are in America. This is not a hard and fast rule, there are people who take gun rights very seriously here.

Even so, it is not ingrained in our culture to the degree it is down south - and since I don't own a gun, don't plan to own a gun, dont run a farm and don't target shoot - restrictions on gun ownership aren't seen by someone like me as an issue of equal importance to say, free speech.

Ok - no fear. No worries.

However, I am afraid I must still take issue with something else you said - you don't shoot, etc, so you don't see gun rights as an important issue (to the degree of freedom of speech).

How about those of us who *do* shoot? We do see it as an issue, and dislike being used as political footballs.

Don't our rights count?

We often have significant amounts of money invested in firearms and associated gear. When atrocities happen, and kneejerk law is enacted (I am Australian, remember...) - people lose the right to own property they have legally owned, enjoyed and used safely for many years. They also lose the right to own items that might have been handed down to them from parents / grandparents / etc.

They have to go begging, cap in hand, to the govt to be allowed to retain something they had owned legally for years. In numerous cases, the answer is "no".

Example - a friend of mine in Australia owns a single shot .410 shotgun. It was his (now deceased) father's, and was something of a family heirloom. His dad had brought it over from the old country when immigrating to Australia.

It took my friend 6 months to get the police to release it to him when his father died (of a stroke) - because it was registered in the father's name, not the sons - even though they lived in the same house, and it was stored in the shared family gun safe.

Shortly after his father died, while the family was still grieving, the police demanded the gun be handed over to them.

Safety? Or bureaucratic stupidity?

This same person is a member of a pistol club, and in the same safe were a semi automatic pistol and a revolver, as well as a number of other firearms...

... all legally held. Ultimately he got lucky, and got the gun back.

To return to my own situation, I recently renewed my firearms licence here in NZ. The police officer that came to my house interviewed me and my partner separately - and asked her if she felt safe, do I have a job, do I drink excessively, who do I associate with, and a bunch of other rather personal questions.

Given that he was about to sign off on my continued gun ownership, you may feel that is relevant. I found it rather annoying - given that I have lived in NZ for 14 years, and have had a gun licence for ten of those years. I have ten years of spotless compliance with the law. You'd think that counts for something...

I take from your post that you are Canadian - Canada is seen by many as a ideal case study of what can go wrong with gun laws - nearly C$3B of your money was spent on a gun registration programme that has had pretty much zero impact on Canadian crime. The original cost was touted as being (IIRC) C$120M. That is quite an impressive cost overrun.

How much more effective might that money have been, if spent on actual policing?

[Praktik]

Oh ya, the opportunity cost of that program was horrendous, to say little of the absolute cost! THough I support the idea of gun control I don't support ALL gun control measures... ;)

And you're totally right - a big part of why I personally may not see this issue as all that important is precisely because of my disconnection from gun use and gun culture.

Someone with your personaly history and hobbies is definitely gonna feel this issue more - much like a black man may be more conscious of systemic racism, gay people feeling more strongly about gay rights, women feeling more strongly about women's rights... etc

Thing - is, even though I'm not black, gay or female I would rank the rights issues that center around race, sex and homosexuality above gun rights in terms of broader societal importance.

And while I dont think a responsible gun owner such as yourself should have to go to a black market for guns or feel villified - I don't see why your hobbies shouldn't be tightly controlled and the type of gun you use controlled as well. The assault weapons ban for example in the 90s - I still have trouble understanding why automatic weapons are needed for hunting or target shooting

[BTMO]

And while I dont think a responsible gun owner such as yourself should have to go to a black market for guns or feel villified - I don't see why your hobbies shouldn't be tightly controlled and the type of gun you use controlled as well. The assault weapons ban for example in the 90s - I still have trouble understanding why automatic weapons are needed for hunting or target shooting

You've never tried to eradicate a mob of goats, a ... flock? of rabbits, or competed in one of the "action" shooting matches...

:D

Seriously - they are just tools. They have uses. Legitimate, civilian sporting uses. Not everyone agrees that they should - but not everyone jumps out of aeroplanes or dives to the bottom of the sea, either.

Incidentally - I have a deer rifle that I love carrying around in the mountains. I do so ... when I can. Weather is the main problem at the moment.

It is synthetic and stainless steel, with a rather large telescopic scope on it.

IF gun control escalates in NZ, which realistically isn't very likely, it is pretty much the last type of gun that will be banned.

When a friend of my son's saw it for the first time, he said something like "OMG - you have a *sniper* rifle" (and before you start up on kids and guns, both of my children are adults and have long left home).

I blame video games and television for most of the lack of understanding of guns and hunting today, coupled with politicians out to make a name for themselves ...

[Kestrel]

I didn't grow up in Tennessee, I grew up in Australia. I now live in New Zealand.

Because the government gets to decide who is a "fit and proper" person to obtain guns in this country, and what guns they get - but it is meaningless. People who want to get guns simply go out to the back of pubs and buy what they like from gangs.

If you can just walk in back of any pub and buy a gun, why don't the cops arrest the gang members selling them?

[Tin Foil Timothy]

This reminds me of an Onion story: "ACLU supports neo-Nazi's right to blow up ACLU headquarters."

The terrorists don't need guns, they get the job done with airplanes.

White phosphorus is very udeful to them too.

[BTMO]

If you can just walk in back of any pub and buy a gun, why don't the cops arrest the gang members selling them?

You know, a lot of people here ask the same sort of questions...

[Sword_Of_Truth]

This topic almost came up when someone mentioned a truther found with a .50 caliber rifle over in the 9/11 forum. I'm just gonna copy & paste what I said there (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4729670&postcount=58):


Anyone who would claims that's his reason for owning such a weapon is clearly an idiot. It would be like owning a formula 1 race car and claiming it's for daily commuting and grocery shopping trips.

But that doesn't mean that law-abiding citizens can't own one or more .50 calibre rifles as part of a legitimate hobby, in fact plenty of law abiding citizens do.

The idea of a twoofer, or someone with a similar state of paranoia and anger against the world having one of these weapons doesn't really bother me as much as them having more practical weapons would.

First, these weapons are like Stradivarius violins. It takes someone with a great deal of training and experience to use one effectively. Training that you can't get just anywhere.

Second, after our hypothetical NWO busting freedom fighter urban terrorist has spent nearly ten thousand dollars on a weapon and another ten thousand on practice ammo to become proficient with it, compare that to what Timothy McVeigh spent on a rental truck and a few hundred pounds of fertilizer.

The We Are Changer with a .50 calibre rifle doesn't worry me. It's the We Are Changer who realizes he's a miserable waste of skin and will never be the superhero in real life that he is in "Call of Duty 4" (on the lowest difficulty level) and that there are cheaper, easier and more cowardly ways for him to punish the world for his perpetual virginity that's the real threat.



Not only is there the Timothy McVeigh thing, there's also 9/11 itself. The biggest act of violence by loony extremists in US history and it didn't involve guns. Instead it was all just box cutters and flying lessons (they stole the planes from someone else). No guns.

[BTMO]

This topic almost came up when someone mentioned a truther found with a .50 caliber rifle over in the 9/11 forum. I'm just gonna copy & paste what I said there

<snip>

Not only is there the Timothy McVeigh thing, there's also 9/11 itself. The biggest act of violence by loony extremists in US history and it didn't involve guns. Instead it was all just box cutters and flying lessons (they stole the planes from someone else). No guns.

Quite right.

Just a data point - one of the local gun shops here in NZ has a 50BMG calibre rifle for sale...

I assume the truthers were bleating that a single shot 50BMG could bring down an airliner, or some such nonsense?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I assume the truthers were bleating that a single shot 50BMG could bring down an airliner, or some such nonsense?

No... one of them who was arrested for varying and numerous weapons violations had one.

If anything, a .50 caliber rifle is probably the safest weapon for one of these nuts to own. It just takes too damn much time and money for them to get to the point where they can hit someone esle with it... and the gun is so long that it's nearly physically impossible to shoot themselves with it. ;)

[Kestrel]

You know, a lot of people here ask the same sort of questions...

But since you can't actually go out the back of any old pub in New Zealand and buy a gun, it's rather pointless.

[BTMO]

Nearly....

(ETA: this was in response to Sword of Truth's post - I was a little too slow)

[BTMO]

But since you can't actually go out the back of any old pub in New Zealand and buy a gun, it's rather pointless.

Well, *I* buy mine legally...


... but yes, apparently, if you have the connections, that is exactly what you can do.

[stilicho]

If my neighbor busted through my door, he would meet up with Mr. Mossberg 12 gauge or Mr. Glock 23, depending on the time and place.

You know, that would still happen without allowing extremists to arm themselves.

Of course, there is a solution. If we want to allow a totalitarian regime to do house to house and person to person searches and siezures, and close our borders tighter than a drum, and prevent free travel by the citizens who might try to break the law, maybe you have a chance. Do you want that?

I don't want to yelp "straw man" since that's the last resort of the coward. Not that anyone on JREF would ever squeal such a term. ;) But I'll bite on this tender tidbit.

Disqualifying identifiable extremists from possessing firearms would not seem to be solely the marque of a totalitarian regime. Neither would house to house searches: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-02-13-missing-girl_N.htm. And isn't there a lot of effort put into sealing your borders?: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003450846_tunnel28.html.

It's not like law enforcement has turned your country into a police state or Nazi Germany.

All parky appears to be suggesting is to enact a law and properly enforce it.

[Region Rat]

You know, that would still happen without allowing extremists to arm themselves.

Well, we had wandered a bit away from the point of the OP when I said that; it had more to do with the fact that if someone wanted to break a law, any law, they are free to do it if they are willing to suffer the consequences of their actions. The cops can't go around collecting every baseball bat- used in my example- just in case somebody might try to clock me in the head one day.


I don't want to yelp "straw man" since that's the last resort of the coward. Not that anyone on JREF would ever squeal such a term. ;) But I'll bite on this tender tidbit.

Disqualifying identifiable extremists from possessing firearms would not seem to be solely the marque of a totalitarian regime. Neither would house to house searches: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-02-13-missing-girl_N.htm. And isn't there a lot of effort put into sealing your borders?: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003450846_tunnel28.html.

It's not like law enforcement has turned your country into a police state or Nazi Germany.

All parky appears to be suggesting is to enact a law and properly enforce it.

I would disagree about the strawman. Probably closer to slippery slope. :o

I got extreme on purpose, but I'm not sure you got my point in the context of where the thread went. I was discussing that guns are out there and you've got to deal with the reality of that fact. The only way to get rid of them totally would be to put the big smack-down on the citizenry. This didn't have much, if anything, to do with the OP at that point, and I apologize for the digression. I was responding to your (percieved) sarcastic comment:

Originally Posted by stilicho http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4726310#post4726310)
Of course. The biggest threat to domestic stability in the US is that there simply aren't enough handguns on the street.

That really had little to do with so-called extremist groups, and more to the generally armed citizens, so I reacted to that.

[Bob Klase]

Disqualifying identifiable extremists from possessing firearms would not seem to be solely the marque of a totalitarian regime.


You have 3 claims in that paragraph. You gave links for the second and third. Is there something to back up that first one?

And the link to the second doesn't really support the claim:

Disqualifying identifiable extremists from possessing firearms would not seem to be solely the marque of a totalitarian regime. Neither would house to house searches: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-02-13-missing-girl_N.htm.


The fact that someone (ie- a reporter) refers to it as a "house to house" search doesn't mean they actually went into each house and searched the house. That might be done in a totalitarian regime.

In Florida they would have to have a warrant, permission from the owner, or a legal reason to search that particular house (probable cause- and in most causes probable cause would still just allow them to get a warrant, not search the house without a warrant). That would allow them to search that particular house.

Just calling two different things by the same name doesn't make them the same.

[Kestrel]

I got extreme on purpose, but I'm not sure you got my point in the context of where the thread went. I was discussing that guns are out there and you've got to deal with the reality of that fact. The only way to get rid of them totally would be to put the big smack-down on the citizenry.

Since this thread is collecting logical fallacies, I feel obligated to point out this statement is basically a false dilemma. Like most social goals, you don't have to achieve perfection (i.e. get rid of guns completely) to benefit society.

[stilicho]

You have 3 claims in that paragraph. You gave links for the second and third. Is there something to back up that first one?

And the link to the second doesn't really support the claim:

The fact that someone (ie- a reporter) refers to it as a "house to house" search doesn't mean they actually went into each house and searched the house. That might be done in a totalitarian regime.

In Florida they would have to have a warrant, permission from the owner, or a legal reason to search that particular house (probable cause- and in most causes probable cause would still just allow them to get a warrant, not search the house without a warrant). That would allow them to search that particular house.

Just calling two different things by the same name doesn't make them the same.

That's the problem with this "link-as-proof" stuff that's prevalent on JREF. I don't think anyone's made the case that parky's proposed law would necessarily lead to totalitarianism, house-to-house searches, or more travel restrictions on law-abiding citizens. Certainly no more than passport requirements, or post-911 airport security, or any other laws do.

So the onus isn't really on me to provide proof that law enactment and enforcement doesn't lead to a totalitarian regime. I don't think Region Rat really meant to say it does but it sure came out that way.

If the intent of the law was to prevent acts of terrorism then obviously it would fail since firearms are a poor tool for the commission of those acts. But if it was to prevent identifiably violent extremists from the same rights as ordinary citizens then it would likely succeed, and without literal house-to-house searches or the imposition of a police state.

As you've all suggested, though, as a law in your country it has just about 0.000% chance of being put into place simply because of the constitution. Nothing to do with guns on the street now or prospective intrusion into private property. In most other countries in the world it would be a slam-dunk, though.

[Bob Klase]

That's the problem with this "link-as-proof" stuff that's prevalent on JREF.

I've seen very little "link-as-proof" stuff here. I do see a lot of "show me some evidence" stuff. Unless someone sees no difference between 'evidence' and 'proof' then whatever evidence is provided has to be evaluated. One could provide dozens of links to sites claiming the earth is flat. That would only constitute evidence that there are people who claim stupid things.

[Region Rat]

That's the problem with this "link-as-proof" stuff that's prevalent on JREF. I don't think anyone's made the case that parky's proposed law would necessarily lead to totalitarianism, house-to-house searches, or more travel restrictions on law-abiding citizens. Certainly no more than passport requirements, or post-911 airport security, or any other laws do.

So the onus isn't really on me to provide proof that law enactment and enforcement doesn't lead to a totalitarian regime. I don't think Region Rat really meant to say it does but it sure came out that way.

<Sigh>.

Boy, context in a long thread sure is everything. Even after I explain that the door to door totalitarianism comment was based on a sarcastic comment by you, and not by Parky's OP, I get this. Go back and read what I actually wrote and what comments I was responding to.

However, since the OP was not about general gun ownership, and I was a part of the digression away from the intent of the OP, I will do my part and not continue down this path, other than to admit that I went to extremes I would have been better off avoiding. If you want to discuss in yet another gun ownership thread, I'll chime in there.

If the intent of the law was to prevent acts of terrorism then obviously it would fail since firearms are a poor tool for the commission of those acts. But if it was to prevent identifiably violent extremists from the same rights as ordinary citizens then it would likely succeed, and without literal house-to-house searches or the imposition of a police state.

As you've all suggested, though, as a law in your country it has just about 0.000% chance of being put into place simply because of the constitution. Nothing to do with guns on the street now or prospective intrusion into private property. In most other countries in the world it would be a slam-dunk, though.

Very confusing mish-mash of separate statements made into one wrong position statement seemingly attributed to others. I'm going to break it up so I can try to make my responses a little clearer. If I have split parts out of context, please correct me.

If the intent of the law was to prevent acts of terrorism then obviously it would fail since firearms are a poor tool for the commission of those acts.

The law would be wrong because it would be based on assuming individuals would take some illegal actions in the future, and removing constitutional rights preemptively.

If such a law were in place, it very well may fail in preventing terrorism, but whether it fails or not is beside the constitutional point.

But if it was to prevent identifiably violent extremists from the same rights as ordinary citizens then it would likely succeed, and without literal house-to-house searches or the imposition of a police state.

A little confusing, but here goes. By identifiably violent, I assume you mean individuals convicted of a violent crime. In that case, they are not allowed to legally purchase firearms under current law. If you mean individuals with no felony record, who you think are violent, or individuals you think may be violent in the future, or individuals who are members of a group you are uncomfortable with, see my comments above.

The way I'm reading it, you say the law would succeed if certain individuals were not granted the rights of 'ordinary' citizens. Again, if the citizens are convicted felons, they cannot get firearms legally. If they are not convicted felons, then they are ordinary citizens. Why remove their rights?

I'm not sure where I saw anyone (including me) previously making any connections between denying firearms to members of extremist groups and house to house searches.

As you've all suggested, though, as a law in your country it has just about 0.000% chance of being put into place simply because of the constitution.

As well it should be. And I wouldn't say just simply because of the constitution, I would say BECAUSE of the constitution, but whatever.

Nothing to do with guns on the street now or prospective intrusion into private property.

Correct. The response to the OP has nothing to do with that. You brought the diversion up and I bit. I apologize for that. (I think I did above too)

In most other countries in the world it would be a slam-dunk, though.

Probably. That's why I'm glad I live in the US.

[Steel Rat]

Everyone seems hung up on guns. I guess that's understandable, but the 2nd Amendment says "arms". This can include anything that can be used as a weapon, I would think. so yeah, a car could be an "arm" if intentionally used to mow people down.

So what about swords? Bows and arrows? Polearms? You can kill a lot of people with those if you know how to use them. Just concentrating on guns excludes many classes of weapons and items which can be effectively used as weapons (like airplanes).

[skeptical]

You don't need a license to print a newspaper or start a web site, beucase the first amendment gives you the right to do it. Any requirement for a permit or a licence would be an infringement on that right.

Sorry, this is completely wrong. There is no such thing as an unrestricted right. Never has been and never will be. There are lots of reasonable restrictions on rights. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. You can't call up the president and tell him your going to kill his daughters. You can't intentionally publish lies about a private person having a loathsome sexual disease. I could to on like this for days. There are tons of restrictions just on the right of free speech alone. I'll throw in you can't sacrifice babies as a restriction on religion just for good measure.


The second amendment says you have the right to own firearms. As soon as you bring in licensing it ceases to be a right, and becomes a privilege.

No. Rights come with restrictions, period. What keeps them from becoming privileges is that they cannot be completely taken away arbitrarily. By your logic I can say anything I want about anyone anywhere at any time or I have no free speech. I could do anything to anyone I want as long as it is part of my religion or I have no freedom of religion. A moments reflection about this will reveal that is completely unworkable.


Recently a state issued guidelines that included anyone with a Ron Paul bumper sticker as a likely extremist. I've seen some idiots claim the Tea Party movement was nothing more than racists upset with Obama getting elected. It's a short step from that kind of nonsense to claiming they're in league with the KKK, and should be disarmed.

Not according to some people. And if the Tea Party ever gets traction you can be certain that many government weasels will try to paint them all as dangerous wild-eyed loons.

True enough, although to be fair some of them are wild-eyed loons. :)


Wrong. "Well Regulated" in the vernacular of the day refers to having skills and ability. A well-regulated watch, for instance, keeps good time.

I think the sticking point was the word "militia" and what that meant. But since its been decided I think the question is moot.

[billydkid]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/13/critics-deride-designed-weapons-terrorists-hands/

The NRA and others seem to think the 2nd Amendment rights of terrorists should be protected.

I don't think we should simply ban someone from having a gun due to their political beliefs, but if you belong to the KKK, Neo-Nazis, Black Panthers, Hamas, militia group, or other extreme ideology groups, your sanity is already in question in my view, and you should undergo a psychological test to make sure you are mentally fit to own a firearm.
Wow. Real honest OP. The NRA and advocates of the 2nd Amendment want terrorists to have guns. You must have gone to the Dick Cheney school of honest argument. No one, not anyone advocates allowing members of criminal organizations to own guns. The unfortunate truth is that criminal organizations do not need any sort of legal sanction in order obtain their weapons. Only law abiding people do.

[stilicho]

they are not allowed to legally purchase firearms under current law[/B]. If you mean individuals with no felony record, who you think are violent, or individuals you think may be violent in the future, or individuals who are members of a group you are uncomfortable with, see my comments above.

That's what I thought too. So really the OP proposal is already in place.

I didn't really like the diversions either but the OP appears to be redundant unless we're creating a new definition of extremist. Was that ever defined?

It sounds like we're otherwise in firm agreement.

[BTMO]

But since you can't actually go out the back of any old pub in New Zealand and buy a gun, it's rather pointless.

Just another couple of points - I didn't actually say "any" pub... but that is somewhat irrelevant.

And from today's paper, discussing the recent incident we had here in NZ:

Illegal gun story (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2431087/Paranoia-drove-Napier-gunman-Molenaar)

The relevant bit of the link above is "Three of the weapons had been stolen in burglaries in Feilding, Napier and Taihape between 2003 and 2008 and police would continue to investigate the origins of the others"

The guy at the centre of this was illegally buying guns (apparently) for years.

[Region Rat]

That's what I thought too. So really the OP proposal is already in place.

I didn't really like the diversions either but the OP appears to be redundant unless we're creating a new definition of extremist. Was that ever defined?

It sounds like we're otherwise in firm agreement.


I think the big thing is the definition of extremist. The way I read the OP, the suggestion was that a member of a government defined extremist group would be denied the right to purchase a firearm, even if he was an otherwise law abiding citizen.

<bad example alert> If I, as an individual who has never been arrested, investigated or suspected in any crime, decided that I really didn't like blacks and papists, and joined the KKK so I could rant and rave with like minded fellows, I would be denied the right to purchase a firearm just for associating with government defined extremist group. Even if I have never been violent and never planned on being violent. </bad example alert>

Although the group may be distasteful to a majority of the citizens, the government should not be able to remove rights without evidence of wrongdoing.

If the government is convinced that a group it defines as extremist is a threat, enough to remove civil rights from its members, it should investigate, provide evidence to the proper court, obtain warrants, and arrest and prosecute the members- all of them. If they gain felony convictions, then the right to purchase firearms is removed. If they can't do that, then they are just plain out of luck. Otherwise, it should be the same rules as with any other individual- no conviction equals ordinary citizen.

[stilicho]

I think the big thing is the definition of extremist. The way I read the OP, the suggestion was that a member of a government defined extremist group would be denied the right to purchase a firearm, even if he was an otherwise law abiding citizen.

It's the biggest thing, really. I looked back and I couldn't discern exactly what was meant by "extremist". Since I am not familiar with the legalities, I assume that it's perfectly legal right now to create a social club called "Hamas For Victory In America" right now, freedom to assemble and all that.

I don't know at what point they get called "extremists" but at least until recently the LTTE has enjoyed material and political recognition in Canada: (Eg: http://www.apgml.org/frameworks/docs/7/LTTE%20Fundraising%20&%20Money%20Transfer_Oct07-Jayasekara.pdf )

I suppose my argument is that the LTTE should be considered "extremist" and lose some of the privileges of living in Canada.

Can a member of the LTTE currently apply for and receive a weapons permit in the US? That's one of the literal examples I'd like to pursue so we can narrow down our definition of what an extremist is or isn't.

[Region Rat]

It's the biggest thing, really. I looked back and I couldn't discern exactly what was meant by "extremist". Since I am not familiar with the legalities, I assume that it's perfectly legal right now to create a social club called "Hamas For Victory In America" right now, freedom to assemble and all that.

I don't know at what point they get called "extremists" but at least until recently the LTTE has enjoyed material and political recognition in Canada: (Eg: http://www.apgml.org/frameworks/docs/7/LTTE%20Fundraising%20&%20Money%20Transfer_Oct07-Jayasekara.pdf )

I suppose my argument is that the LTTE should be considered "extremist" and lose some of the privileges of living in Canada.

Can a member of the LTTE currently apply for and receive a weapons permit in the US? That's one of the literal examples I'd like to pursue so we can narrow down our definition of what an extremist is or isn't.

In the US, at this point in time, there is no question on the NICS (National Instant Check System) regarding membership in any group.

Here is some info on NICS if you are interested.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=82
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics.htm

The FBI has a list of categories of people prohibited from purchasing firearms----->http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=1997_register&docid=fr27jn97-16

Here is the gist:


Section 922(g) of the GCA prohibits certain persons from shipping or transporting any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, or receiving any firearm which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or possessing any firearm in or affecting commerce. These prohibitions apply to any person who--
(1) Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) Is a fugitive from justice;
(3) Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
(4) Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
(5) Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
(6) Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;
(8) Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner; or
(9) Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
Section 922(n) of the GCA makes it unlawful for any person who is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship or transport any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, or receive any firearm which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.The OP would add membership in government defined 'extremist' groups to the list of excluded persons. From the link in the OP:


The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009 would authorize Attorney General Eric Holder to deny the sale or transfer of firearms to known or suspected terrorists -- a list that could extend beyond groups such as radical Islamists and other groups connected to international terror organizations.

Critics say the names of suspected terrorists could be drawn from existing government watch lists that cover such broad categories as animal rights extremists, Christian identity extremists, black separatists, anti-abortion extremists, anti-immigration extremists and anti-technology extremists.

"It doesn't say anything about trials and due process," said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America. "This is one of the most outrageous pieces of legislation to come along in some time. It's basically saying, 'I suspect you, so your rights are toast.'"

Terrorist watch lists came under fire last month after a Department of Homeland Security report warned that right wing extremist groups may be expanding their membership in the midst of current economic upheaval. While the report stated that such groups were not believed to be planning any terrorist attacks, it went on to state they might do so in the name of issues like abortion, immigration and gun control.To me, this is scary stuff.

[stilicho]

The OP would add membership in government defined 'extremist' groups to the list of excluded persons. From the link in the OP:

To me, this is scary stuff.

So if I were an American citizen and joined the LTTE, I would not be denied an FAC (or whatever you call it there)? I was looking through that list and I can't see specific references to the LTTE. I know one of the pages has literally scores of links so it might be there.

Regardless of the OP, can I be an American citizen, join the LTTE and still qualify as it is?

Also, the scarier thing if Soviet Russia was any indication, is that psychiatrists can simply diagnose mental imbalance and--whoosh!--you're out anyhow. But my argument has always been you have to have an authoritarian regime in place to begin with and the US has failed to become that. You round everyone up after you pursue the authoritarian option and not before. In Canada, Trudeau enacted the War Measures Act before rounding up people and sending the military into the streets. Not after.

[Region Rat]

So if I were an American citizen and joined the LTTE, I would not be denied an FAC (or whatever you call it there)? I was looking through that list and I can't see specific references to the LTTE. I know one of the pages has literally scores of links so it might be there.

Regardless of the OP, can I be an American citizen, join the LTTE and still qualify as it is?



It would seem so.

[stilicho]

It would seem so.

Our gun controls don't appear to be discernibly different. Can you find it?

(Source: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/F-11.6/bo-ga:s_5-gb:s_5//en#anchorbo-ga:s_5-gb:s_5 )


Eligibility to Hold Licences


General Rules


Public safety (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fr/ShowDoc/cs/F-11.6/bo-ga:s_5::bo-ga:s_17//fr?page=3&isPrinting=false#codese:5)
5. (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fr/ShowDoc/cs/F-11.6/bo-ga:s_5::bo-ga:s_17//fr?page=3&isPrinting=false#codese:5) (1) A person is not eligible to hold a licence if it is desirable, in the interests of the safety of that or any other person, that the person not possess a firearm, a cross-bow, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, ammunition or prohibited ammunition.

Criteria (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fr/ShowDoc/cs/F-11.6/bo-ga:s_5::bo-ga:s_17//fr?page=3&isPrinting=false#codese:5-ss:_2_)
(2) In determining whether a person is eligible to hold a licence under subsection (1), a chief firearms officer or, on a reference under section 74, a provincial court judge shall have regard to whether the person, within the previous five years,
(a) has been convicted or discharged under section 730 of the Criminal Code of

(i) an offence in the commission of which violence against another person was used, threatened or attempted,

(ii) an offence under this Act or Part III of the Criminal Code,

(iii) an offence under section 264 of the Criminal Code (criminal harassment), or

(iv) an offence relating to the contravention of subsection 5(1) or (2), 6(1) or (2) or 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act;


(b) has been treated for a mental illness, whether in a hospital, mental institute, psychiatric clinic or otherwise and whether or not the person was confined to such a hospital, institute or clinic, that was associated with violence or threatened or attempted violence on the part of the person against any person; or

(c) has a history of behaviour that includes violence or threatened or attempted violence on the part of the person against any person.

[Kestrel]

Just another couple of points - I didn't actually say "any" pub... but that is somewhat irrelevant.

And from today's paper, discussing the recent incident we had here in NZ:

Illegal gun story (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2431087/Paranoia-drove-Napier-gunman-Molenaar)

The relevant bit of the link above is "Three of the weapons had been stolen in burglaries in Feilding, Napier and Taihape between 2003 and 2008 and police would continue to investigate the origins of the others"

The guy at the centre of this was illegally buying guns (apparently) for years.

I don't doubt that there is a black market for firearms in New Zealand.

A more interesting question is how easy is it for New Zealand criminals to obtain firearms compared to criminals in the United States.

It appears that New Zealand criminals don't often use firearms, at least when compared to the United States.

According to the United Nations Survey of Crime Trends (http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/CTS10%20homicide.pdf), the 2006 firearms murder rate in New Zealand was .22 per 100,000. That same year, the rate in the United States was 3.36 per 100,000.

The lower rate of firearms use is not just for murder. The 2004 ICVS (http://rechten.uvt.nl/icvs/pdffiles/ICVS2004_05.pdf) shows that firearms are used in 6% of all New Zealand robberies. In the Unites States it's 14%. Rates of firearms use in sex offenses and assaults are also lower in New Zealand, see table 22a in the link.

The low rate of criminal firearms use doesn't support your contention that firearms are easy for New Zealand criminals to obtain.

[BTMO]

I don't doubt that there is a black market for firearms in New Zealand.

A more interesting question is how easy is it for New Zealand criminals to obtain firearms compared to criminals in the United States.

It appears that New Zealand criminals don't often use firearms, at least when compared to the United States.

According to the United Nations Survey of Crime Trends (http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/CTS10%20homicide.pdf), the 2006 firearms murder rate in New Zealand was .22 per 100,000. That same year, the rate in the United States was 3.36 per 100,000.

The lower rate of firearms use is not just for murder. The 2004 ICVS (http://rechten.uvt.nl/icvs/pdffiles/ICVS2004_05.pdf) shows that firearms are used in 6% of all New Zealand robberies. In the Unites States it's 14%. Rates of firearms use in sex offenses and assaults are also lower in New Zealand, see table 22a in the link.

The low rate of criminal firearms use doesn't support your contention that firearms are easy for New Zealand criminals to obtain.

I don't think you can draw that conclusion.

NZ doesn't have a big history of firearms misuse - though it *seems* to be rising. It may just mean that firearms crime is being played up in the media more today.

However, pretty much every time a drug bust occurs in NZ, there is also a report of firearms being seized at the same time.

While crims aren't neccessarily using them, they definitely have them, and (apparently) have no real difficulty obtaining them.

[ProdigalGuru]

Guns laws are a social construct to make you feel safe. Criminals do not follow laws, so gun laws do not disarm them.

Gun laws are political tools. They allow politicians to look tough on crime without having to show results.

The second amendment is hollow. It's purpose was to allow for an armed revolution should the government overstep it's authority. It is, nevertheless, illegal to own a rocket launcher, a tank, or any other arm that could effectively stave off the U.S. Military.

Gun laws still require gun registration (if not licensing) in most cases. Since this includes your home address (now GPS enhanced, thanks to the Census), the police or military knows exactly where to find them if they want to take them, or in the case of a large armed group, where to direct the smart bomb.

Any nation that has given up their gun rights has already been irrevocably subjugated by a political force. I cite Communist China, Post-WWII Japan, and the British Commonwealth nations.

I have just been classified this year by the DHS as an extremist because I am Pro-Life, Pro States' Rights, opposed to Gay Marriage, and former military.

They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold, lifeless hand.

God Bless America, the land of the free, and the home of the brave.

[Kestrel]

Guns laws are a social construct to make you feel safe. Criminals do not follow laws, so gun laws do not disarm them.

Gun laws are political tools. They allow politicians to look tough on crime without having to show results.

The second amendment is hollow. It's purpose was to allow for an armed revolution should the government overstep it's authority. It is, nevertheless, illegal to own a rocket launcher, a tank, or any other arm that could effectively stave off the U.S. Military.

Gun laws still require gun registration (if not licensing) in most cases. Since this includes your home address (now GPS enhanced, thanks to the Census), the police or military knows exactly where to find them if they want to take them, or in the case of a large armed group, where to direct the smart bomb.

Any nation that has given up their gun rights has already been irrevocably subjugated by a political force. I cite Communist China, Post-WWII Japan, and the British Commonwealth nations.

I have just been classified this year by the DHS as an extremist because I am Pro-Life, Pro States' Rights, opposed to Gay Marriage, and former military.

They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold, lifeless hand.

God Bless America, the land of the free, and the home of the brave.

You forgot to mention fluoridation and purity of essence.

[stilicho]

You forgot to mention fluoridation and purity of essence.

I have to say that I prefer it when we keep on topic and not make this a(nother) gun control thread. I don't think it actually is one and apart from making a sarcastic comment, I think we're actually getting somewhere.

I was just comparing them and it doesn't actually appear that the gun laws are that different between Canada and the US.

Adding "no extremists" to them would seem to be a little silly.

[Kestrel]

I don't think you can draw that conclusion.

NZ doesn't have a big history of firearms misuse - though it *seems* to be rising. It may just mean that firearms crime is being played up in the media more today.

However, pretty much every time a drug bust occurs in NZ, there is also a report of firearms being seized at the same time.

While crims aren't neccessarily using them, they definitely have them, and (apparently) have no real difficulty obtaining them.

The media focuses on what is interesting and exciting, not what is typical. You can't draw conclusions based solely on what you are seeing reported. (See Spotlight Fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/spotlight.html)). To see if firearms crimes are actually increasing, you need to dig into New Zealand crime statistics.

[Kestrel]

I have to say that I prefer it when we keep on topic and not make this a(nother) gun control thread. I don't think it actually is one and apart from making a sarcastic comment, I think we're actually getting somewhere.

I was just comparing them and it doesn't actually appear that the gun laws are that different between Canada and the US.

There is a critical difference between Canadian and US gun laws. In many US states, it's legal to sell a handgun to a private party without a background check, registration of the sale or any record keeping on the part of the seller. I don't believe this is true in Canada.

Adding "no extremists" to them would seem to be a little silly.

What hasn't been mentioned in this thread is why a "no extremists" rule would be different from most existing rules for denying gun purchases. The other reasons involve a determination by a court of law. Somewhere in the prohibited persons past, a court found this specific individual guilty, approved a guilty plea, found them mentally incompetent or issued an arrest warrant. If the ruling was made in error, courts have a process for reversing the ruling.

If we add "no extremists" to the list, who will determine that the group is an extremist group and that someone is actually a member? Our experience with the no fly list and it's lack of due process should concern all of us.

[BTMO]

The media focuses on what is interesting and exciting, not what is typical. You can't draw conclusions based solely on what you are seeing reported. (See Spotlight Fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/spotlight.html)). To see if firearms crimes are actually increasing, you need to dig into New Zealand crime statistics.

There seems to be a language gap of some sort here. I very carefully *didn't* say that firearms crime is increasing - merely that criminal ownership of guns is high.

No crime stat in the world will show that - apart from records of gun numbers seized by police - and as far as I know, they don't record that here in NZ, or at least release the information in a way I can find...

[Kestrel]

There seems to be a language gap of some sort here. I very carefully *didn't* say that firearms crime is increasing - merely that criminal ownership of guns is high.

No crime stat in the world will show that - apart from records of gun numbers seized by police - and as far as I know, they don't record that here in NZ, or at least release the information in a way I can find...

So the guys who do armed robbery in New Zealand with a knife also own guns but are too polite to use them?

[BTMO]

So the guys who do armed robbery in New Zealand with a knife also own guns but are too polite to use them?

No, the guys who do armed robbery use whatever is available to them.

The gangs and the drug dealers that I have mentioned before, however...

"Crime" covers far more ground than simply armed robbery.

[Architect]

I can't help but think that this thread is sadly unencumbered by many posters from a country which has a significant terrorist/extremist problem. I can imagine it now, us letting known members of the INLA continuing to buy shotguns at the height of the Troubles.....

[Architect]

Any nation that has given up their gun rights has already been irrevocably subjugated by a political force. I cite Communist China, Post-WWII Japan, and the British Commonwealth nations.


Presumably you have evidence that we're in any way less "free" than USAians? And if I mention socialised healthcare, are you guaranteed to have a major hissy fit?

:rolleyes:

[BTMO]

I can't help but think that this thread is sadly unencumbered by many posters from a country which has a significant terrorist/extremist problem. I can imagine it now, us letting known members of the INLA continuing to buy shotguns at the height of the Troubles.....


We don't have a lot of terrorists in New Zealand, and we recently had a guy go nuts during a drug bust - he was a bit of a loner - and had 18 unlicenced and unregistered (in the case of guns that require registration here) firearms.

All reports I have seen suggest they were obtained illegally.

How does "letting" someone by guns, or not, prevent such things from occuring?

[Architect]

We have this thing called the "telly" here in the UK, so we have heard about that incident you know. We also have "newspapers" and "the internet".

However that doesn't get around the fact that it is only prudent to make it difficult for those who have espoused extremist violence to get hold of firearms - if only on the basis that they are clearly a danger to the wider public. One would expect this to focus on both the procuring of legal weapons and also efforts to ensure that they have not illegally obtained firearms.

So what's your point? That we shouldn't do anything because it'll happen anyway?

[BTMO]

We have this thing called the "telly" here in the UK, so we have heard about that incident you know. We also have "newspapers" and "the internet".

However that doesn't get around the fact that it is only prudent to make it difficult for those who have espoused extremist violence to get hold of firearms - if only on the basis that they are clearly a danger to the wider public. One would expect this to focus on both the procuring of legal weapons and also efforts to ensure that they have not illegally obtained firearms.

So what's your point? That we shouldn't do anything because it'll happen anyway?

My point is that attempting to prevent firearms violence by making sale of firearms illegal is a waste of time.

My solution would be to punish more severly crimes committed with firearms (or any other weapons). By this I mean add significant (and non-concurrent) prison terms for such use.

Since you do have the telly in the UK, you probably know that Jan Molenaar, the Napier shooter, had 18 firearms, including a pistol, at least 5 military style semi automatic rifles, at least one sawn off shotgun, and a number of other firearms that haven't made it into the media yet.

ALL were obtained and held illegally.

That is a pretty poor showing for the gun laws in NZ, wouldn't you agree?

ETA: Why on earth do you (apparently) think that by advocating liberalising gun laws, I think that criminals should have unfettered and unpunished access to and use of weapons?

I think that people who pose no risk to society should be allowed to own and use (legally) any firearms they like - but this does not extend to criminal use.

I have a very firm "one strike and you are out" philosophy when it comes to antisocial behaviour.

[Architect]

My point is that attempting to prevent firearms violence by making sale of firearms illegal is a waste of time.


And this is based on what - the one NZ incident? Do you have any facts or statistics to abck this position up, ie. beyond NRA type propoganda? How do you address the typically low rates of gun crime in countries with low levels of gun ownership.

I have a very firm "one strike and you are out" philosophy when it comes to antisocial behaviour.

There's a hell of a difference between anti-social behaviour which leads to a breach of the peace and one which might leave someone dead. One strike rules don't really work for the latter, do they? And countries with the death penalty for murder - the ultimate "one strike" rule - don't seem to enjoy much of a deterent effect, do they?

And in any event what does this have to do with my comments about not letting violent extremists get hold of weapons legally?

[BTMO]

And this is based on what - the one NZ incident? Do you have any facts or statistics to abck this position up, ie. beyond NRA type propoganda? How do you address the typically low rates of gun crime in countries with low levels of gun ownership.



There's a hell of a difference between anti-social behaviour which leads to a breach of the peace and one which might leave someone dead. One strike rules don't really work for the latter, do they? And countries with the death penalty for murder - the ultimate "one strike" rule - don't seem to enjoy much of a deterent effect, do they?

And in any event what does this have to do with my comments about not letting violent extremists get hold of weapons legally?

What - you mean in addition to the bits you snipped out?

Incidentally, we don't have an NRA here - not in the American sense. There IS an NRA - but it is a full bore rifle shooting club. It isn't political at all.

Incidentally, what do you mean by "low levels of gun ownership"? Somewhere between 5 and 20% of the NZ population have legal access to guns - and it is one of the lowest gun crime countries in the world. Australia has significantly less gun ownership, significantly more restrictive gun law and ... pretty much the same rate of gun crime.

How about somewhere like say Jamaica or Mexico - very little legal gun ownership - but enormously high gun crime stats. Finland - very high gun ownership, quite low levels of gun crime.

The US? Depends where you live. Washington DC- very low levels of legal gun ownership, stunningly high levels of gun crime. Across the border in Vermont, high levels of gun ownership, low crime. And yes, there are areas with high crime rates and high gun ownership (eg Florida) and vice versa (can't think of one off hand - but I am sure it is the case).

By the way - I didn't say violent extremists should have access to guns. I simply said that attempting to stop selling guns to them is a waste of time - demonstrably so.

Focus on detection, crime prevention and incarceration.

Oh.. and I didn't say "death penalty", either... What is wrong with long prison terms?

[Holler Hoojer]

Parky76,

I apologize. I thought this was a bad idea, but yesterday's shooting at the Holocaust Museum has shaken my point of view a bit. I still think it impractical to set up a ban, but I admit you have a good point.

[GreyICE]

so you have no problem at all with neo-nazis and kkk members owning semi-auto M-16s?

i too believe you should not be punished if you have not committed a crime. but at the same time, being a neo-nazi is different then being a boy scout.
Parky, I usually don't get involved, but what in the name of all that is holy is a semi-auto M-16, besides a collection of words designed to evoke fear in my mind?

I mean do you even know what the term semi-automatic refers to?

[tyr_13]

American criminals for the most part use American made guns. They don't need to smuggle them into the country because it's downright simple to just divert them from the legitimate market.

American criminals for the most part use stolen guns, mostly concealable, mostly large caliber. They don't care if it is American made.

Some people lately have been accusing 'big American gun companies' of pushing American guns onto the Mexican drug gangs. The most popular guns with them are the AK-47 (Russian), SKS (Chinese), Glock 9mm (down under), and the one they are 'having trouble with' even though it is still very rarely used, the FN FiveseveN (that is FN Herschel).

Here in New York, one cannot own a handgun without a 'permit' (license) and it looks like soon even my Henry lever action .22 will be considered an 'assault weapon' because it holds more than ten rounds.

As for the OP. No, just no, for several reasons that others have already stated pretty damn well.

[BTMO]

Parky76,

I apologize. I thought this was a bad idea, but yesterday's shooting at the Holocaust Museum has shaken my point of view a bit. I still think it impractical to set up a ban, but I admit you have a good point.

Just curious - within the context of the OP - what identified group did the gunman belong to?

[Kestrel]

American criminals for the most part use stolen guns, mostly concealable, mostly large caliber. They don't care if it is American made.

Cite?

[tyr_13]

Cite?

www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf

[Kestrel]

www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf

This document doesn't really support your claim that most guns used by criminals are stolen. All is says is that stolen guns are available to criminals.

But it does support my claim that guns used by criminals come mostly from the US.

78% of the guns that were traced in 1994 came from the United States ...

[Holler Hoojer]

Just curious - within the context of the OP - what identified group did the gunman belong to?

"extreme ideology group"

[tyr_13]

This document doesn't really support your claim that most guns used by criminals are stolen. All is says is that stolen guns are available to criminals.

But it does support my claim that guns used by criminals come mostly from the US.

From the first page and page five. "Surveys of inmates show that they
prefer concealable, large caliber guns. Juvenile offenders appear to be more likely to possess guns than adults."