Premier Rock Forum

To Americans it might seem just a normal part of life but if you could view it as an outsider. Imagine if I told you everyone in England were allowed to have their own working tank. It's pretty insane that a regular person can have a device designed to end peoples lives.

It's also, supposedly, unconstitutional. I dont remember it exactly but it's something along the lines of "A well-regulated militia being neccesary to the freedom of the people, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed". Right? But few people are in a militia and no one's being physically oppressed. Well, not many.

Ok, that's not gonna make anyone put down their guns, but it's worth noting.

Anywayz, crap or not crap?

If ever there was a red state / blue state litmus test, this is it.

People in cities associate guns only with violence. People (like me) who have lived in rural areas see guns as a tool like any other. The important thing is that -- given their frames of reference -- both of these perspectives are perfectly valid.

If you live in a city, you will not need to chase bears away from your strawberry patch. You probably will not go hunting every day after school. You probably will not shoot cans or clay pigeons for entertainment. It is unlikely that you will fill your freezer with animals you've killed and butchered yourself.

In my high school (Hellgate, class of '80) it was common to see kids in hunting clothes in class, and equally common for kids to bring their shotguns and rifles to school and leave them in their lockers, having already done their hunting in the morning. We even had a biathlon team (skiing-and-shooting mixed discipline). It was perfectly legal to wear a side-arm on the streets of Missoula. Guns were sold in hardware stores and at the camera desk of the Osco drugstore. Nobody got shot.

If you live in the woods, you are unlikely to be accosted by anyone while trying to get your car unlocked. It is unlikely you will even lock your car. If you live in the woods, you will never see anyone shoot in the air to celebrate a basketball series victory. You will not know anyone who has been shot intentionally or as a bystander to an intentional shooting. You will probably never have a gun pointed at you.

I have had a gun pointed at me in anger twice, both times in the city of Chicago. Once by a cop, but I don't really blame him. This, despite living in a hunting culture and being surrounded by guns and shooters my whole life outside the city.

In short, people in cities shouldn't own guns. People in the woods should be able to if they like.

This is why a monolithic policy regarding gun control will always be inappropriate for about half the people in the country. The possible solution of local regulation is obviously ineffective at keeping guns out of cities, since we don't have walled gates and inspectors around Baltimore.

So we are left with a dilemma: Do we take a useful and (literally) harmless tool away from those who would use it, despite them not being a threat to anyone, or do we continue to allow criminals to use them for crime?

I believe we cannot prevent the latter, and there is no benefit from the former.

Shooting people is already illegal. It doesn't become any more difficult if we make it super-double-extra illegal because the gun used to do it is illegal. In fact, the guns used in crimes are almost all already illegally-owned, and that wouldn't change if all guns were made illegal.

If legally-owned guns (the only ones we can do anything about) were involved in all the gun crime, then there would be a measure of logic to getting rid of them. But they aren't.

I don't buy the NRA line that people need guns to defend themselves -- I think they seldom do any protecting, and guns owned for this purpose are likely to shoot someone else. Guns owned for fun are much less dangerous than guns owned for defense, and those are the ones I have no problem with. After all, criminals carry their guns "for defense."

So, I don't think people in cities should own guns, but I don't believe there is anything we can do about it. I don't believe people in the woods should have their guns taken away from them, and anything short of that will make any other gun control meaningless.

And despite the continual parsing-and-interpreting, I believe the Second Ammendment does ensure that the individual civilians should be allowed to own weapons -- in case they need to form a militia to defend themselves. Or to overthrow the government. It's a crude form of a "check" to the power of a government that may become authoritarian, and the drastic implications of this were certainly understood by the framers. They had recently had to overthrow a government themselves, and wanted to make sure the new one wasn't entrenched by a toothless populace.

I am not one of these don't-tread-on-me militia guys, and I think they're as retarded as everybody else does, but that's what the thing means in its plain language.

This has the potential to degenerate into an abortion-style tit-for-tat thread, and I hope it doesn't come to that.

steve wrote:
In my high school (Hellgate, class of '80) it was common to see kids in hunting clothes in class, and equally common for kids to bring their shotguns and rifles to school and leave them in their lockers, having already done their hunting in the morning. We even had a biathlon team (skiing-and-shooting mixed discipline). It was perfectly legal to wear a side-arm on the streets of Missoula. Guns were sold in hardware stores and at the camera desk of the Osco drugstore. Nobody got shot.

Is any of this neccesary though? I mean, maybe it is, I dont know, but it doesnt seem it. Ok, maybe shotguns for bears. But do people need to hunt nowadays?

In short, people in cities shouldn't own guns. People in the woods should be able to if they like.

If you had to choose a law though. Which of these people would you prefer to dissapoint? I mean if you could stop gun violence and rural folk didnt get to hunt, would it not be a neccesary sacrifice?

So we are left with a dilemma: Do we take a useful and (literally) harmless tool away from those who would use it, despite them not being a threat to anyone, or do we continue to allow criminals to use them for crime?

Harmless? I guess I can see why you'd say that. But, while a car is relatively harmless, a motorway for someone without a car certainly isnt. The potential is always there to end human life.

Shooting people is already illegal. It doesn't become any more difficult if we make it super-double-extra illegal because the gun used to do it is illegal. In fact, the guns used in crimes are almost all already illegally-owned, and that wouldn't change if all guns were made illegal.

If legally-owned guns (the only ones we can do anything about) were involved in all the gun crime, then there would be a measure of logic to getting rid of them. But they aren't.

Well guns being illegal would stop the guns being manufactured in or imported to your country. Ok there's already a shitload out there but eventually, maybe even as much as 50 years down the road, you could be where England is right now. In that there are a few guns, but if someone tries to mug me, or breaks into my house, I'm worried they're gonna beat the living shit out of me, but I'm not worried they're gonna kill me. (ok, they could stab me, but it takes a lot more willpower than pulling a trigger)

So, I don't think people in cities should own guns, but I don't believe there is anything we can do about it. I don't believe people in the woods should have their guns taken away from them, and anything short of that will make any other gun control meaningless.

I think, in the long run/bigger picture, the people in the woods should just have to deal with it. Or have shotguns only. Farmers can have shotguns in England, but you wont find criminals tucking them down their jeans.

And despite the continual parsing-and-interpreting, I believe the Second Ammendment does ensure that the individual civilians should be allowed to own weapons -- in case they need to form a militia to defend themselves. Or to overthrow the government. It's a crude form of a "check" to the power of a government that may become authoritarian, and the drastic implications of this were certainly understood by the framers. They had recently had to overthrow a government themselves, and wanted to make sure the new one wasn't entrenched by a toothless populace.

Any other month I'd dismiss this as "never gonna happen" but damn, the man "making political satirists obsolete since 2000" got in again. You poor fuckers.

This has the potential to degenerate into an abortion-style tit-for-tat thread, and I hope it doesn't come to that.

Yeah, seriously. I only really know the Americans point of view from Micheal Moore and Charlton Heston, and I dont really agree with either of them. I'd like to read some serious opinions.

Just as you look at the English and think "Why dont they brush their teeth?" we look at you and think "Why do they sell guns in supermarkets?"

the 2nd amendment is not crap. the constitution is pretty well put together.

i think the federal assault weapons ban was a good idea. of course president bush just allowed it to lapse.

i think the federally mandated five-day waiting period that was instituted as part of the 'brady bill' was also a good idea. it lapsed a few years back. al gore, when running for prez, backed a three-day waiting period, which also seemed fine. a general buffer isn't going to cramp anyone's firearms style in a meaningful way.

but, for the most part, i think guns should be regulated by state and local governments. as steve points out, needs vary wildly across the country, and as such the federal government isn't really in the best position to make too many rules regarding gun control.

Rotten Tanx wrote:[
Is any of this neccesary though? I mean, maybe it is, I dont know, but it doesnt seem it. Ok, maybe shotguns for bears. But do people need to hunt nowadays?

Law should not only allow that which is necessary. They should only prohibit that which it is essential to prohibit. To that end, shooting people is illegal, and I support those laws.

I mean if you could stop gun violence and rural folk didnt get to hunt, would it not be a neccesary sacrifice?

It is all too easy for those who are giving up nothing to suggest that others give it up. Witness the moralism on abortion, drug use, loud music, etc. I think that if we take something away from somebody, it should be because he is causing harm with it, not because someone else is doing harm with something else.

And I have already said I don't think it will change anything in the cities. People who now illegally use guns in crime will continue to do so.

But, while a car is relatively harmless, a motorway for someone without a car certainly isnt. The potential is always there to end human life.

Exactly. We don't ban cars because they are useful to the people who don't mis-use them. We punish those who mis-use them, and that is fine with me. And stay out of the road. What are you, crazy?

Well guns being illegal would stop the guns being manufactured in or imported to your country. Ok there's already a shitload out there but eventually, maybe even as much as 50 years down the road, you could be where England is right now.

You live on a little island. We would be flooded with guns through an international criminal network that has seen no problem bringing us drugs and people, and would love to have another commodity to trade.

tmidgett wrote:i think the federal assault weapons ban was a good idea. of course president bush just allowed it to lapse.

Here I have to disagree with the otherwise-and-usually impeccable The Midge, whose name came up in our game of Celebrity last night.

The assault weapons ban was a ban on certain specific semi-automatic weapons. Fully-automatic rifles (machine-guns or rapid-fire automatic weapons like the Gatling) have been federally illegal since 1968, and generaly locally illegal since the '30s.

The criteria used to determine whether a weapon would be allowed (this is the stupid part) were: Brand name, model number, magazine capacity and certain cosmetic details.

This law created numerous absurdities. A hunting rifle (otherwise like any other) would be illegal if it had a plastic stock. The same weapon would be legal with a wooden stock, and the plastic stock itself was legal to buy and install, as it didn't change the function of the weapon. A manufacturer could literally change the model number of a specifically-prohibited weapon and make it legal. Or use a different brand name. Or have the weapon manufactured by a third-party company. Or paint it a different color. Functionally- and apparently-identical weapons were either illegal or legal, depending on whether they were listed on a schedule or not. Certain Olympic-competition weapons became illegal, despit them never having been used in a crime on record. Forty-shot magazines became illegal, but a double-ended twenty-shot magazine didn't. Or something like that -- I forgot the numbers.

This is an example of the worst sort of law : A law that accomplishes nothing at great expense and confusion, but provides cover for politicians who wish to appear active in the effort. It is a bad law; toothless and a diversion for the very issue it purports to address. It created silly prosecutions and confiscations of harmless weapons, while doing nothing to hinder criminals. It should be exposed as the sham and showbusiness it was -- especialy by those who wish to curb gun violence. They should never have been placated by something so transparently fake.

Here is my problem with the 2nd amendment and related issues. The initial purpose of it was to protect against a tyrannical government. I support this sentiment whole heartedly.

Unfortunately, in the last hundred years, technology has made it so that a militia of individuals will small arms cannot be truly effective against a formal army. There is no responsible way to have the potential for a citizens army that could match a federal army. Without that sort of parity, the 2nd Amendment is effectively null. Sure guerrilla combat could and would be used, but it would not be the deterrent from the kind of over zealous government the amendment was intended to protect against.

The one solution I could see to this is to beef up the national guard. Give each state a couple of stealth fighters, 1/2 of the nuclear key sets, some tanks. Just enough to keep things a little more balanced.

TH: Muth
Black Badger Squad Leader
Michigan Militia

I don't own any guns but many of my friends do. Some are shooters, some collectors, some do hunt, some are cops, and some have had creepy dudes try to break in one too many times. They are all responsible gun owners that have respect for thier weapons capabilities. To have guns outlawed because of thier potnential for abuse is the same argument that has us up to our necks in a failing drug war.
Solutions to social responsibility are not met through removing the right to be responsible for ones self.

The truth is that no gun-control law works because "bad" people who want guns can always get them. Either they'll buy them in the underworld or they'll simply steal them from good folks like you and me.

But shouldn't there be some limits on gun ownership?

No. Such limits don't reduce crime. They either render innocent people defenseless, give the police more power than they should have, or they are simply stupid, unenforceable laws.

Another thing that doesn't make sense..... that someone with a criminal record shouldn't be able to acquire a gun.

If a convicted criminal pays his debt to society, he should have the same rights that every other citizen has — the right of free speech, the right to an attorney, the right to vote, the right to practice his religion, the right of habeas corpus, the right to keep and bear arms.

If he doesn't have the full protection of the Bill of Rights . . .

• He will be vulnerable to any zealous prosecutor who wants to railroad him in order to pad a conviction record.

• He won’t be able to speak freely to others.

• He might not be able to attend church.

• He will be helpless to defend himself from thugs who will have no trouble acquiring guns in the underworld.

As for the assault ban reference, Steve brought up a valuable point. Very few people can define what an assault weapon is. And yes, there ARE innocent people who have good reason to own assault weapons. During most riots, the police are outnumbered and intentionally stay clear of gangs that are looting and vandalizing. Suppose your life savings are invested in a store the gangs are about to loot. And suppose you have little or no insurance because your store is in a dangerous section of town. How will you defend the store against the looters? With a knife? With a handgun against a dozen attackers? Or with an assault weapon?

Most people imagine the perfect law that allows just the right people to own just the right types of guns, while prohibiting other citizens from owning inappropriate firearms.

But remember people, you're only imagining such a law; it will never be a reality. Once the issue is turned over to the politicians, it will be decided by whoever has the most political influence — and that will never be you or I.

Like most laws, every gun law quickly turns into a tool to reward the friends of the politically powerful and to harm their enemies. But it doesn't make America safer.

The only valid policy is to have no laws regulating the ownership of guns, but to hold every citizen responsible for whatever harm he initiates against others — with or without a gun.

People should never be prosecuted for what they own, for what they think, for what they eat, drink, or smoke, or for what they believe. They should be prosecuted only for the physical harm they do to others.

And people who do harm others should be prosecuted — whether or not a gun is involved, and whether or not there is hate in one's heart or liquor on one's breath.

And now my post is slowly but surely gravitating towards an ideological free-for-all, so I'll stop short of running amock with my own personal convictions....

Jordan, i think we agree, but I'm kinda creeped out by the "I need to protect myself during a riot" argument.

Riots are so rare that we can ignore them, and I'd let the mob rob my store rather than shoot at people. I think even their lives are worth more than my day's receipts (which are not likely to be much, as there's a riot going on, and shopping traffic will certainly be light).

What I don't like is the creation of an artificial category, "assault weapons," which has a definition formed of trivial or cosmetic details -- basically whether or not it looks like something Steven Seagal would have to kick out of someone's hands -- and then pretending that category is somehow different and more dangerous than functionally-identical weapons that were not prohibited.

I think suppressing private ownership of firearms is a tenable position to take on principle, and I don't believe I necessarily have a moral right to shoot someone who wants to rob me. I also think that having a gun for defense is an invitation to shoot someone in defense, and I would rather see people run away than shoot at each other.

I agree with you about felons. I think they should be ensured the same rights as the rest of us. Particularly, I think they should be allowed to vote, and in some places they aren't.