So who will it be for everyone this time?

[jstark47]

Thing is, it won't fix the problem. Finding a creative and new way to ban guns is grasping at straws. At the end of the day, they do nothing to reverse the sieges under way. By constantly proposing these cockamamie laws, elected officials APPEAR to be trying to fix things. "But I passed gun control laws, I am "doing something" about crime and trying to clean up our streets".

Fact of the matter is, appearing to fix the problem and actually fixing the problem are two very different things. Unfortunately, common citizens are oblivious and naive enough to think "Hmm, more gun laws = good. That sheriff is good. I will re-elect that guy".

You're right. It won't fix anything. I don't agree with their tactics and reasoning, but I do understand and empathize with neighborhood activists in places like Philly. After so many gun murders - and it's not just adults dying - it becomes clear that the status quo is unacceptable. It's not elected officials that initiate this (although they pick up on it), it's people at the community level in Philly.

So what is the answer?

I don't know. Society is sick in so many ways, and government cannot fix it.

[edit] Here's the deal. I could live with a total ban on possession of firearms in a place like Camden, NJ. Things are that bad there now, such a draconian measure would be justified. And I don't live in that city, although it's very near by - the measure wouldn't affect me personally.

At the same time, I have no problem with you (Shorts) owning as many firearms of whatever type you wish, and using them for any sporting purpose you like. You're clearly an extremely responsible owner / user, I could easily live next door to you and not feel threatened in any way by your firearms.

So how do we reconcile all this? Are the constitutional rights of US citizens to become relative to where they live? That opens up a Pandora's box, for sure....

[JC Viper]

I find it interesting that during the American Revolution the colonial army had to rely on guns owned by the townsfolk which were owned for other purposes.

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it." -- Abraham Lincoln, 4 April 1861

The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.
-- Alexis de Tocqueville

"Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber." - Plato

"A little revolution now and then is a good thing; the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

"The minority, the ruling class at present, has the schools and press, usually the Church as well, under its thumb. This enables it to organize and sway the emotions of the masses, and make its tool of them. "
-Albert Einstein

Wise men don't need advice. Fools won't take it.
- Benjamin Franklin

The people are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson

We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back
to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.
- C.S. Lewis

(Below: oh good lord...)
A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing.
- Alexander Hamilton

And I have more in my little collection. This should get you thinking since Election Day for the US is almost here. With these quotes it seems that we'll be repeating history over and over again with not much hope in real change.

[Nalian]

Yes, I'm aware that MA is one of the hardest states to try and own a firearm and obtain a concealed carry permit - but plenty of people are able to without a lot of hassle on their end. This is decided on a town-by-town basis here, for the most part, whether or not you're allowed to concealed carry. The article is mistaken, though, in that if you have a CC permit, you can concealed carry almost anywhere (government and school buildings are not allowed - which is fairly standard, as things go).

Regardless of that - Women having the right to choose, and my marriage being legal in all 50 states - is way more important to me than my right to keep/own/bear firearms. I have no fear that I wouldn't be able to obtain a firearm if I really wanted one regardless of legality.

As of right now, I can be denied the right to see my wife in a hospital in states surrounding my own if a nurse decides to be a dogs should anything happen to her. That isn't right.

I really don't believe the 2nd amendment is going anywhere despite folks believing it is. I do see plenty of eroding on the pro-choice front, the privacy front, and I'm finally seeing a positive surge on the civil rights front. My vote will be going to Obama to hopefully continue that, even though he is too afraid of the Christian right to outright stand for gay marriage.

[Shorts]

I don't know. Society is sick in so many ways, and government cannot fix it.

I think so. There is so much personal responsibility that has been sluffed off that there is no motivation to make things right. A change starts on a personal level. The tone of society directly resembles the individuals. And sadly enough, individuals are not making wise, productive, choices. Often 'wise, productive' choices are not easy, and people want the easy road.

Here's the deal. I could live with a total ban on possession of firearms in a place like Camden, NJ. Things are that bad there now, such a draconian measure would be justified.

I understand your perspective. I wouldn't want to see it happen though.
I think people would be slaughtered. On an extreme level it'd be like asking US troops in Afghanistan to turn in their guns because there is a new gun ban that will be tried to reduce the violence. Sadly, if a ban were enacted, it would be really rough living, especially for those who do own firearms and are one of the good guys. A ban just told him to surrender or become a criminal. And tonight could be the night that gang down the road breaks into his house, shoots him, rapes his wife, then beats her to death.


I mentioned Chicago earlier, and they are a glaring example of what happens when you ban guns in an area ripe with crime.

The criminals are by definition already in violation of a law. It makes no mind now if they are in violation of another if they're in possession of a firearm. Obviously they have no regard for what is written - still committed an act that was prohibited. A gun ban will not change that. Honestly, hang 'em high for the crimes they've already committed rather than generating another tag line for their rap sheet. You want to take care of crime? Then take care of the criminals.

Easier said than done. Sure. Which is exactly why scapegoat legislation looks appealing...ie, gun bans.

So how do we reconcile all this? Are the constitutional rights of US citizens to become relative to where they live? That opens up a Pandora's box, for sure....

Yes it does. State preemption laws come into play here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_the_field


DC tried it (DC vs Heller) and got spanked

Seattle tried it and got spanked

PA is trying it and is currently getting spanked

A suburb in Missouri is trying it and it will get spanked.

[Shorts]

I'm not asking you to make 2A the reason for your vote. I respect why you're voting the way you are. That link I had was merely the most recent example I had and happened to be in Mass where you are.

The article is mistaken, though, in that if you have a CC permit, you can concealed carry almost anywhere (government and school buildings are not allowed - which is fairly standard, as things go).

The issue is not with CCW. The issue is the il/legality of a person carrying in their own home. Meaning, if you don't have a permit, and many firearms owners don't, you can be arrested for carrying your range pistol in a holster while you are watching tv. Tons of firearms owners in IDPA or IPSC carry, practice draw strokes, clearing rounds and reloads in their home. This law would make these guys criminals. So, requiring a ccw to carry in your own home is huge problem.

Under the program, residents voluntarily approve searches of their homes with the understanding that no charges will be filed if guns are found. So far, three people have taken advantage of the opportunity.

This right here is already extremely out of line. This is the same search and seizure procedures the cops in DC were doing. They were knocking on doors asking to come in then confiscating firearms. That is illegal.


As for the red tape that must be navigated in order to acquire a CCW permit anyway - just a convoluted "pretty" way of taxing a right. If the process is made difficult enough (see Delaware), there are some that will not complete the process because it is too costly, time consuming or just not worth it to them. Essentially being regulated out of a legal right.


Of course you could tell me (if I was living in Mass) to "just move" if I couldn't live my life and make decisions without hassle. If I recall and I'm paraphrasing from memory here of a post a while back, you didn't approve of anyone telling you to "just move" (in that case, travel to CA to get married) in order to live how you wanted to live. I believe you said (again, paraphrasing) that it was the principle of the matter and you shouldn't have to to travel/move.


I think you and your motivations have more in common with gun owners pursuits than you care to admit. We are both after the freedoms to live how we see fit without the restrictions and hurdles of doing so.

[Nalian]

I am not denying that we're both talking about civil rights issues - don't get me wrong. I'm saying that for me, the 2nd amendment issue just isn't a factor in this election. The marriage and pro-choice civil rights are much more important, as I see them as directly under fire right now. I don't see that with the 2nd amendment rights.

I understand the slippery slope, etc. But realistically, if push comes to shove you're going to have a hard time pushing a court case against a gun owner having a holstered gun in their living room - vs the very easy-to-enforce "no we don't recognize your marriage" or "No we will not perform any kind of abortion" that the other laws have when they are in effect. I'm choosing those issues over the 2nd amendment in importance. I don't think the presidential race will have a lot of a deciding factor in 2nd amendment issues. I do think the presidential race will have a deciding factor in the marriage and abortion rights issues.

You can't always get everything you want at once, unfortunately.

[the_sandman_454]

Actually, the Second Amendment is under a much greater risk than you'd think, with people like Speaker of The House Nanci Pelosi and the Democratic majority, controlling Congress. Give them an extreme anti-gun President like Sen. Obama, and they will wreak havoc with new bans that only penalize law abiding citizens and do nothing to fight crime.

[Johnj]

Boston City Councilor Michael Flaherty appears to me to be soft on crime. By banning the legal ownership of firearms he leave his constituents helpless in the face of the criminal element there in Boston.

[Shorts]

Without 1 and 2 you're up a creek without a paddle.

Good luck


A 4 oppose same-sex marriage. All 4 support the recognition of the legalities, contracts and benefits. None support a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

[Nalian]

An uphill battle is no reason to abandon the fight.

I disagree on 2. I think that believing that we should keep and bear arms as a way of keeping ourselves 'safe' from our government or ready to oppose it should it go overboard is just unrealistic at this point. Technology has moved on too far, I think. If the government decided to

Besides, like I said above..realistically the government cannot hope to keep guns out of the hands of citizens. That's been more than proven over the years. Yet one simple law banning gay marriage will effect me forever.

While all 3 "oppose" same-sex marriage - 2 of them do so very actively, the other 2 it's lip service. Obama and Biden have both publically told people to vote against Proposition 8 in California which will take away folks right to marry.

I don't believe this is a states rights issue, this is just an outright civil liberties issue which the courts are slowly changing, just as they had to do with race issues 50 years ago. Sure, we'll have lots of people crying that the courts are legislating from the bench because they are not allowed to legislate hate and discrimination. I think eventually through either an Article IV push with enough people willing to move and sue will help in some places as well.

Johnj: it is not illegal to own guns in MA. You have to jump through a lot of hoops, but really they are not hard hoops. If I decided to own a gun today and go through all of the legal steps required to get one, it wouldn't be an issue. If I wanted one illegally, I could have it tomorrow. What they are doing in the home-to-home searches is going to neighborhoods that have daily gun violence and attempting to get people to give up their illegal weapons.

If taking the position that the 2nd amendment "is an individual right and not just a right of the militia" is anti-gun, sandman, then I have no idea what to tell you. Just because Obama favors regulation and not free-wheeling lets let anyone have anything does not make him out to kill the 2nd amendment. I realize that some people think it should not have any restrictions, but I don't agree with that.

I do not think gun control works as a legal measure. I do know that banning gay marriage and banning abortion works very very well as a legal measure, so I'll continue to push against those things.

I'm totally just repeating myself so I'm obviously out on this one, now.