The Supreme Court's Gun Ruling This Week - Not A Debate

[Rosalind]

I am not sure what to think, honestly. Disclaimer: DH and I keep several guns in the house, both for personal protection and for hunting. DH was in the Army and used to be a sharpshooter--he's out of practice now. I used to have a CCW permit when I lived in the backwoods of PA, I now live in a much safer area, so didn't bother to get the Mass. permit. Yes, you can carry a weapon in liberal Massachusetts and the requirements are not unreasonable, they are common sense: take a safety and handling course (NRA courses are acceptable), have an actual reason for wanting to carry one (risky profession, routinely handling lots of cash, etc.), fill out some paperwork.

I think our culture, when it comes to conflict resolution and the rule of law in general is pretty screwed up. I know it has nothing to do with video game violence or single mothers or the scapegoat du jour. But I think that Americans have--justifiably, in many cases--no faith in the rule of law. That is, we believe that if someone wrongs us somehow, justice will not be done. Sometimes we feel the punishments given out by the legal system aren't appropriate to the crime, sometimes that the legal system is biased and won't prosecute appropriately.

And there is truly no American tradition of nonviolent conflict resolution, the way there is in Switzerland; intellectual argument and debate, diplomacy skills, "come let us reason together" is not valued in America. At all. You ask Swiss people how they would resolve a conflict about something that could easily provoke a gangland-style shooting in the US, and they look puzzled for a minute, then say that obviously they would talk about the situation together to reach some agreement, because to do otherwise would be animalistic and barbaric. So I think we have this culture that is already biased towards non-resolution of conflicts, both by the lack of rule of law and a value system that doesn't value any other means of conflict resolution, and then you add weapons to that, you're not going to get a nonviolent result.

So I can see how the idea of gun control is attractive to some people. But I think that it's wrong to see cultural change as such an impossibility--I think that a much MUCH better option, which would respect the rights of individuals to protect themselves and lower violence, would be to change our culture and fix our justice system. We need to figure out how to make our laws and society more just, so that citizens respect the rule of law, and we need to change our culture to integrate nonviolent means of conflict resolution. Unfortunately, doing that is not just hard work, but way, WAY too long-term a project for most politicians to contemplate. It doesn't make a good sound bite or provoke any passionate reactions from people that they would care about it a whole lot, either.

 

[PurpleChicken]

I have WHAT in my yard? :

Wow, I guess I don't belong here, and I'll probably get chewed on but I will still add my 2 cents because I teach college. I've been held up, I've been shot at in the line of my job, I can carried concealed, and I can handle a shotgun.

I CAN carry concealed, but I don't. Everyone who says that everyone has the right to own a gun is correct, BUT, it should NOT be an easy thing to do. College students, full of raging adolescent hormones and often drinking to excess for the first times in their lives are the last people on the planet that should be armed. They get really wound up and they blow up at teachers over grades, they blow up at each other over girlfriends and sporting events. The next day they are chagrined and embarrassed. Embarrassed beats the hell out of dead or imprisoned for murder.

Banning weapons or allowing weapons isn't really the issue. Look at Canada: more weapons per household than we have here, but FAR fewer homicides. WHY? Because weapons are for hunting NOT for protection.

I believe the 2nd amendment was written to allow the citizenry to overthrow the government and repel invaders as the first post here said. Generally speaking, handguns aren't what is used in those activities. (Don't jump all over me, I said generally, I know I carried one too.)

It's not just our laws about guns that need to be changed, it is our whole way of dealing with them. Criminals DON"T care, that would be part of them being criminal, but there is a whole category of middle men who supply them, who are NOT considered criminal. The NRA treats it like a macho cold dead hand thing instead of as a tool. A weapon is a tool. We keep alcohol from people who we allow to go to war with weapons, we prevent people from driving more often than we prevent them from having a gun. If you believe the 2nd amendment is about owning a weapon to hunt, protect yourself (I have a problem with this but I'll go with it,) or repel invaders, then you should not have a problem with extended waiting periods. If we're being invaded we can suspend them, if you are planning a revolution plan ahead. Waiting periods should only inconvenience some and can stop others who are not people who should be armed.....

Common sense is simply not common.

That was well written and well thought out. I doubt anyone would jump all over you
for your views, especially since they sound quite reasonable. No where did you say
guns should be taken out of the hands of people qualified to carry them or the right
to bear arms removed.

My own opinion on this matter is still evolving as I hope everyone's is also.

Everyone here has responded with good, nonemotional posts. That is what I
wanted this thread to be. Thank you.​

 

[kinnip]

At the end of the day, there are too many people on both sides of the lobby, along with a few one note politicians, whose careers depend on the continuing nature of this debate. Every election cycle it's going to erupt again and every time there will be a token vote regarding the semantics, and every time nothing significant will change. As they say in the construction industry, "Ya cain't work yerself out of a job, man."
Beyond that, it always pleases me to see a bunch of freedom-minded folks talking freedom.

 

[1acrefarm]

I have seen a few references to different technology back in the time of our forefathers. Our forefathers were far from the stone ages but moved to an area where the natives were basically in the stone ages. They had pretty good experience with progressing technology. I doubt out forefathers were naive enough to think firearms technology would remain stagnant for eternity. I think if George Washington could come back to life and handle any of the modern firearms he would say to heck with black powder this is more like it.

I also think the modern handguns are much safer than the handguns our forefathers had. If you think a cartridge takes competent hands look into black powder. Black powder back in the day could be very tempermental. They did not have the great alloys to make safer barrels like we have now. Gun safetys did not exist. Once you loaded those single shot muskets the only way you could unload them was to fire them. If you were in the middle of a home invasion you could be shot before you loaded that musket. Modern firearm technology is much safer.

 

[ed.52361]

If they outlaw gun only outaws will have guns.

 

[keystonepaul]

I own a couple of handguns, a bunch of shotguns and rifles for hunting. Will probably never join the NRA- there as fanatacal as the anti gun nuts Sorry NRA members, there's more important things in life than whether I can keep and bear any and all varieties of automatic weapons man can dream up and make and desire. In fact if the NRA would step out against such "unnecessary" though "gaurenteed" types of weapons they're views could then be taken more seriously by folks on the fence with gun ownership issues aiding thier cause.

Someone mentioned needing a gun in the "backwoods" of PA, just how close were those "backwoods" to NJ (sorry NJ) or Philly (sorry philly) or Pittsburgh or Erie (Sorry Pittsburgh and Erie, well at least Erie- I'm a seahawks fan) ??? While I agree I feel safer with my guns in the house (secured safely) but have never felt like I've needed to have them for my safety.

Someone also mentioned how things would have been different at Va Tech if guns had been allowed on campus. Yep there'da been smaller scale shootings long before th bigger one. Holy Moly these are folks (and I was one) that can't handle a Saturday night out responsibly and we'll put a Saturday night special in thier hands, let them learn to handle Saturday Nights- and keep it at that. Armed security across campuses needs to increase for sure, that's where the increase in guns should come. I haven't seen any media coverage of folks demanding/advocating for this increase, but have seen a bunch of card carrying NRA members talking about the need for students to be able to arm themselves pointing out Va Tech as the shining example of this need. A better, thoughtful avenue for the NRA to go in- in fact contribute to in some way would be spearheading the increase in armed security across college campuses while validating the ludicrousy of advocating for college aid kids in a group setting to be armed- but the NRA seems to be more concerned with keeping thier gun rights safe than people safe, though they'll tell you different. Save the postage on my membership app if you please. Respectfully, Keystonepaul

 

[Zookeeper9000]

Rosalind you have a good point, it would be nice if the American government could come to agreements by debate and talks but lets face it to resolve an issue with conversations and debate then both parties have to be honorable. I don't know about anyone else but I am still searching for honorable in our governement system, personally I haven't found. This is my opinion nobody has to share it but I hope they respect my right to have it.

As far as the guns go I have 7 brothers they are all crack shots but us 6 girls never learned. I am going to learn at the gun club they start a new class this fall. I raised 3 girls and 1 boy, my boy is 16 and has a brand new 410 new england shotgun has had it since birth. It has never left the box he has no desire to learn to shoot it and is talking about selling it. I sure wish they would of learned as young kids to shoot, now they will have to make that decission for themselves. This is a decission that should be a personal choice for everyone.

 

[farmgirlie1031]

Ok, I don't wanna start a debate but my view as a former college student esp. since I worked security was I should have been armed. The reason, They sent me on calls about alarms going off and I was going into potential life-threating events unarmed against someone who may have been armed. I was also a Criminal Justice Student. I got lucky it was just a professor who forgot the security code but what if it had been a true robbery and this was an area our radios did not work in so I had no communication with dispatch until I got back out of the cave. I also understand the other view about drunk college students though. We do have guns here for hunting and protecting our livestock.

 

[Oblio13]

Quote:
I am a retired Marine officer, and a current federal law enforcement officer. I am armed with an issued pistol at work, and carry a personal weapon when I'm not at work. I live in NH, but work out of Boston.

To maintain my Massachusetts concealed carry license, every year I must: Fill out the renewal application, pay a $100 fee, have my police chief provide a statement, get fingerprinted, drive to the state capitol and pay a $20 fee to get a copy of my (blank) criminal record and etc. Even though Massachusetts has had all that stuff on file for years, sometimes it takes them months to send my renewal, so I usually send it in about three months before it expires. In effect, it costs me $120 and two days of my life every 9 months. Massachusetts makes it as difficult and expensive as possible in order to discourage people. And yet their crime rate is much higher than NH or VT, states that share borders with Massachusetts but don't require citizens to jump through flaming hoops in order to be legal.

 

[1acrefarm]

Wow Oblio that does sound like quite a hassle. Edited to ask. If a Leo has to jump so many hoops and spend so much How hard is it for Joe Citizen?