NY Times posts an article, all the same arguments, if you can call them that. As most any logician would deride a statement like “x is irrelevant so we’ll just ignore it” without providing any reasoning as to why it’s irrelevant beyond “y doesn’t believe that”.
Title… “We Need to Talk About Guns”
Oh, let’s have a serious discussion on guns. Please, please. A real and honest and might I hope even “intelligent” discussion on guns.
“The question of the constitutional right to own guns is irrelevant here”
I quite disagree. But I would have at least been curious to know why you think so. Throwing out a declaration without any supporting fact or argument is poor journalism. And insulting to your readers.
“Times editorial board does not [believe in the Constitutional right for firearm ownership]”
First off, no surprise there. But the Supreme Court of the United States of America says the Times Editorial board is wrong. So I guess we can label them irrelevant.
“to carry guns, concealed or visible, into public areas, including schools and churches and libraries.”
Really, why, do bad guys never go to those places? No one has ever been murdered in a church or school, right? Seriously, I attend church. In fact, I even teach Sunday school at my church. If some crazy person who hated christians and religion came into the church and started killing people. I am pretty sure that those parents would prefer that their children were protected by both God and Colt.
“There is no defending the federal Tiahrt Amendments”
Why is that? It prevents abuse and prevents use of data for political as opposed to criminal action.
“which prohibit law enforcement from using gun trace data in a civil proceeding to revoke the license of a gun dealer who was caught breaking the law.”
Wait, you just said it was a civil proceeding. So no reason to need such records. If the gun dealer broke the law it should be prosecuted in a criminal court. Oh guess what, all that evidence can be used in a criminal court case.
Sir, you’re flaggelating out your bottom on this one – and you know it.
“The Tiahrt Amendments also require the Justice Department to destroy approved background checks within 24 hours”
It also prevents people like you from instituting door to door confiscations of everyone that has purchased a firearm. And it also prevents civil rights violations such as happened when NJ was keeping those records and denied an elderly woman the right to purchase a firearm because well she was old and had never bought one before.
“Just on Monday, a 43-year-old former student at Oikos University near the Oakland International Airport sprayed gunfire into a classroom, killing seven people.”
So what you’re saying is that your proposed gun laws don’t work, just because you say they’re not allowed doesn’t stop bad people from using them. Hmm…so what good are these laws again?
“And there is little doubt that Trayvon Martin would be alive today if Florida weren’t so lenient when it comes to gun regulation”
But it’s quite possible George Zimmerman would have been dead instead. Your point?
“freezing criminal investigations”
The law in no way freezes criminal investigations. Please stop lying and use a bit of integrity in your articles. The law merely says you can’t arrest and imprison a U.S. citizen without probably cause. They can continue investigating, and if they find probable cause, they can arrest and imprison George Zimmerman.
What you are really asking for is to abolish America’s “innocent until proven guilty”, and that is SERIOUSLY dangerous. We need that precedent. It is core to our legal system. Many African-Americans have suffered and been treated “guilty before innocent”. Without that presumption of innocence, probably every black man or woman who has had to defend their life against assault or rape by a white person would have faced murder charges, and many did. And that presumption of innocence is often the only thing standing between a innocent black man and prison.
If you want to abolish something that leads to far more murders, assaults, robberies and rapes. Then consider abolishing the policy of “parole”.
“There can be a middle ground on guns.”
Really? Cause your type seems to not think so. Your middle ground is basically no guns or maybe the allowance of a single unloaded disassembled & unusable gun in a home.
But let’s talk middle-ground. Are you ready to move to the middle sir, or are you just flaggelating out your bottom again.
How about travel laws? Situations in which people are legally transporting a firearm from one state to another, and the mere fact their car breaks down can make them a felon. In fact, if you have a favorite hunting rifle that you’ve used for decades, if the serial number has been worned down from use – you’re now a felon.
In New Jersey, the small hollow dimple on a .22 caliber bullet (you know the one that is mostly used for targets and shooting squirrels) will land you in prison.
How about in Connecticut, where if you have a potentially violent convicted felon harassing you, you have to go through a lengthy ordeal to be able to even purchase a firearm for defense. What if a woman has a restraining order on a violent and aggressive ex-b/f. Should she have to wait for months before she is allowed the means to keep herself safe?
We won’t even get into how mere modern ergonomic features like adjustable stocks (which allow large men and small women to use the same firearm) are demonized as traits of assault weapons. Sure, these new rifles use plastic. It’s been invented for decades, and it’s lighter and stronger than wood. You guys demonize such features when in reality they are simply equivalent to an ergonomic mouse.
“The problem is obvious – the National Rifle Association, which simply could not exist if Americans came together to agree on reasonable gun regulation.”
And there you said, your right, given your definition of reasonable (no guns for any Americans), the NRA wouldn’t exist.
But tens of millions of Americans actively disagree with you. And that’s why the NRA is the largest grass roots civil rights organization in America.
I know how you like to lie to your readers and say the NRA is some big gun lobby controlled by the gun manufacturers, but that is oh so far from the truth. Perhaps you should attend an NRA Annual Meeting (one is coming up in St. Louis very soon).
What you will discover is that the NRA is like an ant colony. It’s driven and functions through the hundreds of thousands of ordinary peope who volunteer their time.
So let me tell you what would happen if the NRA just went “poof”, and disappeared. The following year would be a new entity as the millions of Americans who believe in their civil and Constitutional rights would rally. Oh, but it’d probably be more bombastic, less compromising, and more aggressive than the NRA. The beauty of the NRA is that it actually understands politics. It understands that sometimes you befriend a B candidate who will be elected rather than an A candidate who holds your ideals more strongly.
In fact, a lot of the internal tensions within the NRA and it’s membership, is a press from the members to push harder. But keep banging your gong, because more and more Americans are realizing how foolish you are.
Just this year I took a co-worker and friend out to the range. They had a blast. I always love introducing new shooters. But you might think I go around houning my co-workers and dragging them out by their heels to the range. Not so….in fact it’s almost the other way around. It’s my co-workers who keep asking me to go, and I have to struggle and find free time in my busy schedule to take them. Oh, well that just a guy thing you say….nope.
The truth is, that almost all of the co-workers who have asked me to take them to the range are “female”. That’s right… you see more and more women are living alone. And woman today are much more independent. Nor are they stupid. They realize they need to be able to protect themselves.
Let’s look at your proposal:
1) Compare those states with strong gun control laws vs states with weak gun control laws. There is much more violent gun crime in those with strong laws than weak. Your laws are failing.
2) Assumption, that gun laws make a difference in crime is silly. We could pass ever law your heart desires. Even ban the manufacturing of firearms for civilians. Do you think that would make a real difference in crime?
I mean, we’ve banned the sale and manufacture of cannibis, heroine, and cocaine. And that completely resolved the drug problem 30 years ago right. The drug war ended quickly. And our streets are clean! NOT!!!!!
3) Compromise – you speak it, but I have yet to see one from your side ever compromise. I have to see you come out and say, “Yeah, a lot of gun laws are poorly written and lead to innocent people being incriminated.”
The mere fact that I live on the PA/MD line can put me in jeopardy. If I take a wrong turn I can find myself a mile or two over the border into Maryland. Suddenly, I’m now a felon.
Dealing with reciprocity is a nightmare, some states reciprocate, others do not. Elsewhere I need an out-state-license to reciprocate with other states. Try to put this in perspective.
Imagine if your driver’s license only let you drive in NY. Let’s say Massachussets reciprocated but Connecticut did not. Nor did Pennsylvania. But Maryland recognized Pennsylvania. Say you’re trying to get from Boston to NYC and then to DC. You’d need your New York driver’s license, and out-of-state Connecticut driver’s license and then an out-of-state Maryland license (which would cover you in PA).
But wait, New Jersey doesn’t allow you to drive a car at all if you’re from out of state. So you must drive all the way around New Jersey.
Does THAT sound like “common sense” legislation?
So let’s talk compromise. Let’s eliminate silly laws that can get people arrested on technicalities.