![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
invisionary posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
the_2ndGuns. I'd like to talk about guns. It's part of the namesake of this community, isn't it?
I'm pretty decently to the left on a lot of things, but private ownership of firearms is one where I take a fairly conservative stance.
So, who among you thinks the legally insane should have guns? What about violent felons? Maybe some of the more hardcore libertarians, but I'm not among them. When some batshit psychopath blows someone's head off with a sawed-off 12 ga. people get this stupid idea that it's deer hunters in upstate NY who do this, and it's not. There are people that rightfully shouldn't have guns - kids too young to safely operate them, people fresh out of the loony bin, violent felons, idiots who have previously demonstrated wanton and careless disrespect with guns (someone actually using their shotgun at a wedding), and people who have no issue with beating their wives, children, animals, etc. None of these people would ever form a well-regulated militia.
If you're not in one of those categories, congratulations, I support your right to legally obtain and operate the firearm of your choice, from a .22 bolt-action rifle to any gun that a single person can carry and operate (even if it might be done by two people in the field). I have to draw the line at bombers and nukes though. I support your right to own as many of them as you wish, with as much ammo as you want, contingent on your ability to keep it secure. I support your right to carry weapons on your person, concealed or openly carried, and in your vehicle (but unloaded, just in case you hit a bump and the gun malfunctions). And I support your right to safely enjoy them. These are rights you and I have as legal residents of the United States.
Now anytime anyone says those dreaded words "gun control", do you think of the UK? Or of BATF agents kicking down your door searching your home with dogs looking for your weapons? I don't. I think of people in the middle of large cities being grateful that someone's willing to do something about getting the Saturday Night Specials off the streets.
I'd like to mention a problem here in Albany, NY. Because of the current gun laws, illegal possession of a firearm will get your ass sent up the river. So, in order to get around this, the locals have taken to the concept of a "community gun". Basically, it's a handgun, usually some cheap POS that's as likely to jam as fire, with some rounds, where a good number of people know about where it is (usually an abandoned house or some other out of the way hiding spot), that anyone who feels the need to keep the peace in the neighborhood can go and get it and return it. Screw getting assault weapons off the street, people don't kill each other with AKs in the city, nobody can afford them. They do it with guns like this. This is a side effect I think of institutional racism in police forces, but that's another rant entirely. Long story short, people are going to do this when they don't feel like they can trust the police. Wait a second here - full circle? How many gun owners don't trust the government? I'm sure that's more than a few of us.
So, the issue here is the government is responsible for protecting both a fundamental American right, as well as providing for the general safety and welfare of the public. It seems like they fail at both. What we need is the promotion of responsible gun ownership, with government recognition of the people who responsibly keep and bear arms. This is where gun control comes in - I would like to see a universal system where gun owners are licensed and registered.
Now, I'm sure I've got y'alls blood boiling already. Simmer down, have a homebrew or other tasty beverage. How many of you live in states where the police make final determination as to who can get a carry permit, and don't generally hand them out at all? That system needs to end. Part of universal licensing is to eliminate that system. If you aren't one of those categories of people I talked about earlier, you have a protected right to get a gun and the cops can shut up about it.
Second, how many of you have seen some idiot at the range or somewhere else being STUPID with their guns, things that five minutes of time with a qualified instructor who would be just about ready to beat the crap out of them for? We make drivers go through written and practical exams to demonstrate they know the rules of the road and can operate a vehicle on a basic level before we let the drive unsupervised on public roads. I don't think it's unreasonable to require a prospective gun owner demonstrate that they have enough knowledge of the various types of guns and know how to be safe with them before they're allowed to own one. I also want the kind of idiot that rounds off the hammer on a TEC-9 so it will cook off its mag to have to wear a sign saying I'm Stupid, and that license revoked. No, ya can't stop him from ever using a gun again, no more than a suspended drivers license actually stops a person from driving, but you can drag his ass in court for it and take the guns from him you can find.
(Oh, and to Joe Six-pack who gets trashed and then plinks the cans in the backyard, F you. You give the haters reason to hate us.)
To address the problem of community guns, I would like to see a full amnesty given to anyone who turns in a gun to law enforcement (for having the gun, not for anything they might have done with it). In fact, post a bounty on the things - $100 for no more than showing ID at the local cop shop would go a long way to getting these guns gone. If the gun is safe to operate, sell it back to a registered dealer who can find it a nice home, or destroy it if you must. If the gun is registered to someone, give them a call first to find out what happened. This is a good reason to actually register your guns - if someone finds it, or steals it, you can get the thing back. It's also a good reason for new owners to register the sales, so that they get the same protection.
We all know criminals prefer unarmed targets. An armed society is not necessarily a polite society, but the knowledge that someone down the street is trained and capable of keeping the peace will keep the peace on the street. I want legislation that promotes our right - not restricts it in ways that only make it more difficult for us to legitimately police our communities.
So, let's hear your thoughts.
Edit: To be more rules compliant, I have cleaned up my language a bit.
I'm pretty decently to the left on a lot of things, but private ownership of firearms is one where I take a fairly conservative stance.
So, who among you thinks the legally insane should have guns? What about violent felons? Maybe some of the more hardcore libertarians, but I'm not among them. When some batshit psychopath blows someone's head off with a sawed-off 12 ga. people get this stupid idea that it's deer hunters in upstate NY who do this, and it's not. There are people that rightfully shouldn't have guns - kids too young to safely operate them, people fresh out of the loony bin, violent felons, idiots who have previously demonstrated wanton and careless disrespect with guns (someone actually using their shotgun at a wedding), and people who have no issue with beating their wives, children, animals, etc. None of these people would ever form a well-regulated militia.
If you're not in one of those categories, congratulations, I support your right to legally obtain and operate the firearm of your choice, from a .22 bolt-action rifle to any gun that a single person can carry and operate (even if it might be done by two people in the field). I have to draw the line at bombers and nukes though. I support your right to own as many of them as you wish, with as much ammo as you want, contingent on your ability to keep it secure. I support your right to carry weapons on your person, concealed or openly carried, and in your vehicle (but unloaded, just in case you hit a bump and the gun malfunctions). And I support your right to safely enjoy them. These are rights you and I have as legal residents of the United States.
Now anytime anyone says those dreaded words "gun control", do you think of the UK? Or of BATF agents kicking down your door searching your home with dogs looking for your weapons? I don't. I think of people in the middle of large cities being grateful that someone's willing to do something about getting the Saturday Night Specials off the streets.
I'd like to mention a problem here in Albany, NY. Because of the current gun laws, illegal possession of a firearm will get your ass sent up the river. So, in order to get around this, the locals have taken to the concept of a "community gun". Basically, it's a handgun, usually some cheap POS that's as likely to jam as fire, with some rounds, where a good number of people know about where it is (usually an abandoned house or some other out of the way hiding spot), that anyone who feels the need to keep the peace in the neighborhood can go and get it and return it. Screw getting assault weapons off the street, people don't kill each other with AKs in the city, nobody can afford them. They do it with guns like this. This is a side effect I think of institutional racism in police forces, but that's another rant entirely. Long story short, people are going to do this when they don't feel like they can trust the police. Wait a second here - full circle? How many gun owners don't trust the government? I'm sure that's more than a few of us.
So, the issue here is the government is responsible for protecting both a fundamental American right, as well as providing for the general safety and welfare of the public. It seems like they fail at both. What we need is the promotion of responsible gun ownership, with government recognition of the people who responsibly keep and bear arms. This is where gun control comes in - I would like to see a universal system where gun owners are licensed and registered.
Now, I'm sure I've got y'alls blood boiling already. Simmer down, have a homebrew or other tasty beverage. How many of you live in states where the police make final determination as to who can get a carry permit, and don't generally hand them out at all? That system needs to end. Part of universal licensing is to eliminate that system. If you aren't one of those categories of people I talked about earlier, you have a protected right to get a gun and the cops can shut up about it.
Second, how many of you have seen some idiot at the range or somewhere else being STUPID with their guns, things that five minutes of time with a qualified instructor who would be just about ready to beat the crap out of them for? We make drivers go through written and practical exams to demonstrate they know the rules of the road and can operate a vehicle on a basic level before we let the drive unsupervised on public roads. I don't think it's unreasonable to require a prospective gun owner demonstrate that they have enough knowledge of the various types of guns and know how to be safe with them before they're allowed to own one. I also want the kind of idiot that rounds off the hammer on a TEC-9 so it will cook off its mag to have to wear a sign saying I'm Stupid, and that license revoked. No, ya can't stop him from ever using a gun again, no more than a suspended drivers license actually stops a person from driving, but you can drag his ass in court for it and take the guns from him you can find.
(Oh, and to Joe Six-pack who gets trashed and then plinks the cans in the backyard, F you. You give the haters reason to hate us.)
To address the problem of community guns, I would like to see a full amnesty given to anyone who turns in a gun to law enforcement (for having the gun, not for anything they might have done with it). In fact, post a bounty on the things - $100 for no more than showing ID at the local cop shop would go a long way to getting these guns gone. If the gun is safe to operate, sell it back to a registered dealer who can find it a nice home, or destroy it if you must. If the gun is registered to someone, give them a call first to find out what happened. This is a good reason to actually register your guns - if someone finds it, or steals it, you can get the thing back. It's also a good reason for new owners to register the sales, so that they get the same protection.
We all know criminals prefer unarmed targets. An armed society is not necessarily a polite society, but the knowledge that someone down the street is trained and capable of keeping the peace will keep the peace on the street. I want legislation that promotes our right - not restricts it in ways that only make it more difficult for us to legitimately police our communities.
So, let's hear your thoughts.
Edit: To be more rules compliant, I have cleaned up my language a bit.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-16 02:33 am (UTC)If somebody only drives around on eir own property, e does not need a driver's license, at least in most states. If somebody's only keeping a gun at home to defend eir home, e should not need a license, either. (I feel much more strongly about that than about driving a car, too, because there's no right to drive a car, but I do think there's a right to protect one's home.)
On the other hand, if someone wants to carry a gun around in public, e should have a license - but it should be shall-issue rather than may-issue. (On the other hand, Vermont doesn't require licenses, and to the best of my knowledge their crime rate is comparable to neighboring states, so I could be convinced that no one should need a license for this either.)
My issue with needing to have competency checked in order simply to own a gun is that I shouldn't need to be comfortable with rifles to own a handgun, or revolvers to own a semi-automatic, but having to get a license for every type of firearm would rapidly become very onerous, especially in states that do their best to make firearm ownership difficult. If I am an adult, am not a felon, have never had a judge declare me a threat to myself or others (i.e. if I voluntarily seek psychiatric treatment that should never be an issue, even if that means a voluntary stay in ), and I see a firearm of a type I don't own for sale, I should be able to buy it if I can afford it. On the other hand, if I should decide that I want to carry a gun for my protection (either openly or concealed), the government has an interest in making sure I am competent with that gun, which is why I'm okay with needing a carry license.
I also tend to think that the machine gun registry should be reopened, such that the process of purchasing one is generally the same, but new ones can be manufactured, so that it doesn't become an issue of "there are only n machine guns in existence, so any time one is destroyed or damaged the others become accordingly more valuable, such that no one who has one will sell it for anything less than an exorbitant amount". I also think that the restrictions on suppressors are counterproductive, but I think it'd be easier (politically speaking) to reopen the registry than to stop restricting suppressors.
(Bombs are easy to regulate - bombs are "destructive devices", and already restricted in different ways than rifles and handguns. On the other hand I see nothing wrong with somebody owning a tank. Tanks fire destructive devices, so naturally you can't pick up the ammunition for your tank's gun at Wal-Mart, but I don't have any problem with anybody owning the vehicle itself. Ditto somebody owning a fighter or bomber airplane, actually.)
no subject
Date: 2010-03-16 02:58 am (UTC)I don't think of having to qualify on a given type of firearm to be onerous - you can go to almost any range and rent a gun in any given category, and demonstrate to an instructor that you can use it. Ten minutes and a few bucks (most of it in ammo) and you're on your way. It's far more cumbersome to get a CDL or taxicab license.
The problem with restrictions on accessories such as flash suppressors and silencers is that a competent gunsmith can manufacture them completely off the radar. Same goes with things such as subsonic ammo - odds are good that they're handloads. If someone has a nefarious use in mind for them they're not going to bother going to a shop and picking them up off the shelf.
FWIW, there are a number of people who own P-51's (with the weapons systems removed), and even a few MiG-29's in private ownership. The armaments are highly illegal for private ownership and sale, but the planes themselves I'm sure are a lot of fun, and horrendously expensive to operate and maintain.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-16 04:21 am (UTC)Totally agreed on accessories, especially since one can construct an adequate single-use suppressor relatively cheaply (just not, y'know, legally). Especially for indoor ranges (not that I ever want to shoot in one again), it'd be nice for suppressors to be available. I can see their use when hunting, too. But oooooo scary silencer, bad guys use silencers, oooooo, whereas opening the machine gun registry to new machine guns doesn't make it necessarily any easier to get one, just brings the price down into "affordable by people who aren't ridiculously wealthy" territory. (Of course, shoelaces can be machine guns, and I am aware of a query sent to the ATF about whether hamsters might also be machine guns...)