I'm probably a wierdo. (Gun control in here too.)

[Hermie]

From what I've heard, most gun owners are conservatives. I'm a liberal and an environmentalist, planning to become a Wildlife Biologist. And yet.. I've fallen in love with a machine that throws projectiles at fast speeds and puts holes in things. :P

I keep hearing about how Obama might take your guns away and all that, but I really think some people are just paranoid. Gun ownership is a protected right. I REALLY doubt Obama is going to do anything to take away people's guns.

The only thing I can see is making automatic weapons illegal. I see no reason why people need automatic weapons. They're pretty pointless for hunting... But they do look cool. (Of course, wants and needs are two different things.) I'm all for someone having an automatic weapon with a special permit and a certificate from a saftey course.

Most of the guns used in crimes are illegally obtained, anyway...

My question is... What is people's big problem with gun control? You can still get your gun, but it just takes a while. I'm not going to mind a 2 week waiting period. It'll just make finally getting it that much more enjoyable. I'm not seeing what the fuss is all about. Someone care to explain? And please, keep a level, mature head.

[JWC]

From what I've heard, most gun owners are conservatives.

I'm more of a "classical liberal," which isn't really the same thing as today's liberal (or many of today's conservatives, for that matter).  In a nutshell: I believe that society should be organized in a manner which respects the rights to life, liberty, and property, and that any government should be held to the same standard as individuals in respecting those rights.  I believe the government should be as small as possible, and stay out of the way as much as possible; I do not support the idea of the "nanny state."  I believe the U.S. should be following the Constitution, and I think our federal government has long been overstepping its bounds, there.  I believe in laissez-faire economics and sound (not fiat) monetary policy; the government should be "hands off."  (Again, I think we have long been disrupting the free market with things like fiat money and such.)  Like most of the founders, I harbor a profound suspicion of government and its tendency to bloat, mutate, and expand.  I think the Constitution was designed to limit government and protect us from this, and that we have often failed to be vigilant and live up to our part of the bargain.  On foreign policy, I favor free trade and communication while avoiding alliances and wars not related to self-defense.  Like George Washington, I favor avoiding "foreign entanglements."  Like Thomas Jefferson, I favor "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."  Like John Quincy Adams, I believe that our nation acts properly when it "goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy."

I'm a liberal and an environmentalist, planning to become a Wildlife Biologist.

Wildlife biologist, huh?  Pretty cool.

The only thing I can see is making automatic weapons illegal.

As a general rule, they already are considered illegal.  See here for details.  (As a tangential point, the right to bear arms isn't mainly about hunting or sporting purposes.)

Most of the guns used in crimes are illegally obtained, anyway...

Yep.  

My question is... What is people's big problem with gun control?

[*]They tend to set precedents, representing an actual erosion of freedom or a threat for further erosion and constitutional guarantees.
[*]They tend to go too far (e.g. the ridiculous definition of an "assault weapon" for example, including all sorts of semi-automatic rifles).
[*]They don't work.
[/list]
Also, see here.

[dave2288]

i completely agree with jwc...i think he covered all of the main points...

[tat2dman]

Can me say NON-productive!

[Hermie]

Good info, and thanks. I can see what the fuss is about. A $200 tax is really dumb. Mobs in the time HAD money to afford the SMGs. All it did was make them harder to get for the general public...

Special courses and licenses would be much better to determine if a shooter is planning on blowing someone away with it than a blind $200 tax.

Maybe I should write to Congress and suggest a revision of the laws...

[Gene_SC]

For sure our government has over stepped it's bounds. We are losing our rights bit by bit. Elected officials are corrupt and are sponsored by corporations. In a since corporation dictate our economy.

[JWC]

Special courses and licenses would be much better to determine if a shooter is planning on blowing someone away with it than a blind $200 tax.  Maybe I should write to Congress and suggest a revision of the laws...

Keep in mind points 15, 16, 18, and 20 from this article.  Also, consider whether it's advisable (not to mention practical and realistic) for a law to be written with the intent of determining what someone is thinking.

[Hermie]

Hmm... The NRA brings up some good points, but what irritates me is the lack of comprimise. They see things as black and white.

I'm all for a total tear-down and rebuild of this government, and probably would have started a movement if McCain was in (Another 4 years of Bush's policies? HELL NO.), but since Obama was elected, I'll see if he keeps his promise of change. If not.. I'll start a movement anyway. I'm tired of the way this government is working... After all, people should not fear their government, but a government should fear its people.

[JWC]

Hmm... The NRA brings up some good points, but what irritates me is the lack of comprimise. They see things as black and white.

What, in particular, are you referring to?  (Not saying you're wrong, necessarily -- just curious.)

...(Another 4 years of Bush's policies? HELL NO.), but since Obama was elected, I'll see if he keeps his promise of change.

Frankly, I'll be stunned if Obama's administration ushers in real change.  Obama's initial cabinet picks seem to be part of the Democratic old guard -- no real change, there.  I don't see Obama proposing any significant change is our economic policies: like Bush and McCain, he supports the bailout and nationalization policies our government has been pursuing.  I don't see him pulling us out of Afghanistan or Iraq, and he's said that nothing is off the table as far as Iran.  I expect more of the same kinds of policies that we've had for the last several decades:  more government, less freedom, et cetera.  Under McCain, I'd have expected continuing expansion of government, nationalization, et cetera.  Under Obama, I expect the same, just accelerated.  Different details, of course, but the same general trend.

After all, people should not fear their government, but a government should fear its people.

Yes, I agree.

[Hermie]

The feel I get from reading the NRA page is that they're pretty much saying "No laws barring ownership of guns, period."


Point 18:
"The problem with mandatory gun safety training is that it can so easily be used to interfere with someone's choice to own a firearm. "Safety" training can be used improperly to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms."

Just like that. They're SO paranoid that ANY law about guns are taking away thier rights. It's ridiculous.

[JWC]

The feel I get from reading the NRA page is that they're pretty much saying "No laws barring ownership of guns, period."

Well, I can't argue with a feeling, but the NRA doesn't say that.  They address that charge (i.e. that the NRA opposes all gun control law, including reasonable measures), here.  (Actually, that whole article is worth reading.)

Point 18:
"The problem with mandatory gun safety training is that it can so easily be used to interfere with someone's choice to own a firearm. "Safety" training can be used improperly to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms."

Just like that. They're SO paranoid that ANY law about guns are taking away thier rights. It's ridiculous.

I think you're reading more into it than the NRA is saying.  The quote, above, is true: such laws can be used to improperly infringe upon rights, and that's something that should be examined and considered when looking at gun laws.  I'd characterize it more as vigilance and awareness of how government and laws tend to expand (especially given the very active anti-gun lobby), rather than paranoia.

[WBZsDAD]

Obama promised to get the truck unstuck before he actually got to the swamp and saw the situation.

[moon]

JWC, I agree with everything you said except the part what you call yourself.  You don't sound very liberal to me.   You sound like a Libertarian.  


Even the threat of gun control is making a lot of people excited.  When you have a government run by a bunch of city boy lawyers, you get weird laws.  I don't know how they can push gun control when history has taught such harsh lessons about it.

[JWC]

JWC, I agree with everything you said except the part what you call yourself.  You don't sound very liberal to me.   You sound like a Libertarian.

No surprise, there. :)  The Wikipedia article on 'classical liberalism' says:

Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism, laissez-faire liberalism, market liberalism or, outside the United States, simply liberalism) is a doctrine stressing individual freedom and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to place fiscal constraints on government as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others. As such, it is the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism of the late 18th and 19th centuries. The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society, though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of some basic public goods with what constitutes public goods being seen as very limited. The qualification classical was applied retroactively to distinguish it from more recent, 20th-century conceptions of liberalism and its related movements, such as social liberalism, which promotes a more interventionist role for the state in economic matters.

Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Milton Friedman, are credited with influencing a revival of classical liberalism in the twentieth century after it fell out of favor beginning in the late nineteenth century and much of the twentieth century.  In relation to economic issues, this revival is sometimes referred to, mainly by its opponents, as "neoliberalism". The German "ordoliberalism" has a whole different meaning, since the likes of Alexander Rüstow and Wilhelm Röpke have advocated a more interventionist state, as opposed to laissez-faire liberals. Classical liberalism has many aspects in common with modern libertarianism, with the terms being used almost interchangeably by those who support limited government.

I've thought of myself as a classical liberal for a while.  However, I've been reading Rothbard, lately, and he makes an appealing and persuasive case that is probably pulling me more towards a "purer" libertarian philosophy with even less tolerance for statism.

[Hermie]

Interesting to know the NRA helped write some laws. But I just can't shake that feeling of paranoia they convey. Adding the words "so easlily" in Point 18 makes them sound paranoid. I don't see how teaching someone the proper safety procedures regarding firearms is going to infringe on anyone's rights. If anything, it'll make them more cautious shooters and reduce the number of accidents by novice shooters.