Gun control discussions in the wake of the Newtown, CT deaths

[exzel]

I'm going to have to call you on this: it's a copout. You said something that was demonstrably untrue, then, when called on it, refused to own up to it. To me, when someone uses that response ("Hey, it's just my opinion,") that is the same thing as saying, "You are actually right, but because I don't want to stop believing what I've been believing, I'm going to stuff this demonstrably untrue statement into a box called 'Opinions I Don't Have to Justify' so that I can still have this handy belief for the next time a relevant discussion comes up."

Okay, here it goes:

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” - Patrick Henry

It is my belief:

Republicans view government as a limited entity. In that the government should be restricted within the bounds of the Constitution. And anything outside of the Constitution is reserved to the people and their states.

Democrats view government as an all-encompassing entity. In that the Government should solve almost all our problems. That the Constitution is a living document, who’s meaning is to be based on the interpretation of the persons in power at the moment. And to that end they want to make it into something that it never was and never should have been.

Democrats increasingly seem to want to break free from the essential constraints that were placed upon the government by the founding fathers in the Constitution. They continually strive to accomplish this by reinterpreting the Constitution in a radically different way then it has been interpreted for over 200 years, and bypass the Constitution altogether and impose their perspective upon our nation and its people. They believe the Constitution is allowed to be changed by morally relativistic views of some, and accomplished through the power of a few liberal Supreme Court Justices.

Therefore I believe the Republican party is more keen on defending our constitutional rights than do the Democrats. But as I stated: “Just my opinion. Doesn't mean I am necessarily correct.” (especially in this day and age )

“Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority.” “It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.” - Daniel Webster

[exzel]

Also a common thread was the ease with which the shooters were able to gain access to guns and ammunition that rapidly killed and/or wounded a large number of victims. No one's right to own a gun is being taken away--just the type of gun and ammunition--and at the risk of my sounding a bit callous, I have very little sympathy with those who are arguing against having restrictions placed on those. Where do we draw the line at how much firepower the average citizen should have to defend themselves? Until fairly recently there had been stricter restrictions so it's not something new. Let's say that there's a demand in the future for even more lethal weapons--just because people want them does that give them the right to have them? At what point does the escalation continue or do we finally say no--you have what you need to defend yourself by still being allowed to own a less powerful weapon. And if something more isn't done about background checks, those who shouldn't have them at all may continue to fall between the cracks and legally have access to weapons. Yes, something needs to be done about mental health issues but that is not going to solve the issue of having access to guns and ammunition that can kill large numbers of people in a very short period of time.

Personally I don’t like the idea of assault weapons in the hands of any old Tom, Dick or Harry. But just because that is my personal belief, doesn’t mean we should change current laws when valid arguments are made in support of them. As in:

Most would agree that criminals can acquire semi-automatics as well as illegal automatic weapons, regardless of the law. Why then should law-abiding citizens settle to protect themselves with firearms that are not equally as potent for purpose of defense and survival? Criminals already do not comply with the current gun laws, so does not logic contend that they would not adhere to any more restrictive or new laws?

Should people not have the right to arm themselves as they see appropriate to defend themselves from valid kinds of potential threats?

Many gun regulations are already in place, and are not achieving their intended purpose of limiting and decreasing crime and violence. Many of the laws and regulations have simply proven to become a hassle for those that are legally allowed to own firearms.

And criminals will always circumvent any legislation or regulations in acquiring firearms. Imposing further restrictions is simply limiting respectful, law-abiding citizens from being able to properly arm themselves for their own protection.

(And I also support background checks for gun purchases to help insure current laws are followed.)

[Moderator]

Criminals can and probably do get missiles (albeit not fully functional when returned, the LA buyback program has netted rocket launchers) if they try hard enough but we don't make those legal. The point is to make it harder to get access to them.

[Todash]

Okay, here it goes:

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." - Patrick Henry

It is my belief:

Republicans view government as a limited entity. In that the government should be restricted within the bounds of the Constitution. And anything outside of the Constitution is reserved to the people and their states.

Democrats view government as an all-encompassing entity. In that the Government should solve almost all our problems. That the Constitution is a living document, who's meaning is to be based on the interpretation of the persons in power at the moment. And to that end they want to make it into something that it never was and never should have been.

Democrats increasingly seem to want to break free from the essential constraints that were placed upon the government by the founding fathers in the Constitution. They continually strive to accomplish this by reinterpreting the Constitution in a radically different way then it has been interpreted for over 200 years, and bypass the Constitution altogether and impose their perspective upon our nation and its people. They believe the Constitution is allowed to be changed by morally relativistic views of some, and accomplished through the power of a few liberal Supreme Court Justices.

Therefore I believe the Republican party is more keen on defending our constitutional rights than do the Democrats. But as I stated: "Just my opinion. Doesn't mean I am necessarily correct." (especially in this day and age )

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority." "It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." - Daniel Webster

In theory I get that that is the argument ... but I don't think Republicans or Democrats, either one, shrink the size of government as a matter of course. Republicans talk the talk, but they do not really walk the walk. What you have said doesn't really prove anything; it is the party rhetoric. I understand wanting small government, and I realize it must be very frustrating for the people who truly do want small government to have so little representation. What I don't understand is this: how do you reconcile the claim of small government with the reality that the mainstream Republican stance is to impose its views upon other people's personal lives as well as escalate overall government spending? My points below refer mainly to recent history, since politics changes over time.

Democrats:

• Tend to spend more on social programs
• Tend to want to scale taxes to income and reduce--or at least not escalate--military spending, which has the effect of improving the deficit situation
• Tend to want more restrictions on businesses (I can't imagine why; banks did so great self-policing)
• Tend to want more gun control
• Tend to want religion separated from government functions

Republicans:

• Tend to cut social programs
• Tend to cut taxes on the wealthy
• Tend to expand the military (and in consequence, spend a hell of a lot of money--the military takes about 57% of tax dollars, and the facts bear out what that does to the deficit ... I'm not sure where Republicans think all that magic money is going to come from, since they don't think the wealthy need to be taxed)
• Tend to want less gun control (the one area I can think of where Republicans actually do seem to want more liberties)
• Tend to want to impose their religion-based morals on others--and this is where the "civil liberties" argument REALLY falls apart. How can a party say that it stands for personal freedoms when they continually vote to force others to act in accordance with their morals, in what should be very private areas (the home, the altar, the doctor's office)?
• Tend to want to tie the government to Judeo-Christian tradition despite the clear directive from the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof") that religion and government are to remain separate.

Look, exzel, I hate to be the one to break this to you ... but if you really want small government, you are not a Republican. You're probably not a Democrat ... but definitely not a Republican.

[atomicinchworm]

Personally I don’t like the idea of assault weapons in the hands of any old Tom, Dick or Harry. But just because that is my personal belief, doesn’t mean we should change current laws when valid arguments are made in support of them. As in:

Most would agree that criminals can acquire semi-automatics as well as illegal automatic weapons, regardless of the law. Why then should law-abiding citizens settle to protect themselves with firearms that are not equally as potent for purpose of defense and survival? Criminals already do not comply with the current gun laws, so does not logic contend that they would not adhere to any more restrictive or new laws?

Should people not have the right to arm themselves as they see appropriate to defend themselves from valid kinds of potential threats?

Do you know who criminals kill? 75% of the time they kill other criminals.

Roughly 62% of homicides in the home occurred because of or despite the fact that the person already owned a gun.

Why do you need an assault rifle to defend your home? If someone isn't worried about the fact that you have ANY gun, you are probably already screwed.

I stand by my initial statement that a big scary looking dog is actually more effective in preventing any sort of break in, dogs are part of the risk assessment of people looking to break into your home. It is obvious you have a dog; it is not obvious you have a gun.

[Todash]

I don't have a huge problem with whether or not the lawmakers restrict either concealed or non-concealed weapons, except that if you dare to exercise your lawful right to wear a gun in plain site (no permits needed in the USA outside of so called "gun free zones") then law enforcement will make you wish you never thought of doing such a thing. In my life, I've only seen someone do this once, and it looked so odd it turned my head. Someone was walking out of a Costco with a pistol holstered in plain site wearing a concert t-shirt.

The bottom line is, this is the law of our land. At the risk of sounding a bit callous, a few people's inability to raise their kids properly does not justify congress to start eliminating rights and generating laws that have absolutely nothing to do with kids going postal apart from what tool he decided to use. If that kid walked into that school with a crowbar with the exact same intentions, what would be the probability of a different outcome? One thing is certain, we wouldn't be debating the second amendment right now.

What would we be talking about? I bet we'd be discussing this kid's history of diagnosed mental issues and what psychotrophic drugs his doctors have been pumping into him for who knows how many years, and how this appears to be a common thread between these incidents. Funny how we hear absolutely *nothing* in the news about what drugs this kid had been directed to take.. only that the police could find no evidence of drugs in his system, which implies if he was taking something, he stopped taking them.

Pretty damn hard to kill 22 people with a crowbar unless they're all strapped down first.

[exzel]

Sounds like material for a new thread. However, on this one re gun control laws, have you done much research into the opinions from the law enforcement side of this? I haven't done what I would say is a lot but so far the ones I have read are all in favor of tightening up the laws and adding restrictions to the types of guns and ammunition that are available as a way of promoting the general safety of the public at large and law enforcement officers who are exposed to this much more often than the average citizen.

I started my research Ms. Mod . I had a veteran police officer (and family member) over for the football game on Sunday afternoon, and we had a lengthy discussion on the gun issue. He is not some rogue cop, but about as straight-arrow as anyone can be. Now I realize that his viewpoints might not be representative of law enforcement in general, but I thought I would relay some of what he contends.

Police officers already approach most situations with the thought that a gun might be involved. And unlike the movies, they don’t rush into dangerous situations. They cannot be everywhere all the time, and you are often the first line of defense for yourself and others. Criminals are more heavily armed and dangerous then ever, and violent crime in more common than ever before. And for that reason, being an armed law-abiding and trained citizen can be a necessity for your own safety. In addition unlike the movies, criminals don’t always become immediately immobilized with a few hits, so strict limiting of the amount of bullets a gun can hold can be ineffective as a deterrent against criminals intent on doing harm.

He is also a staunch advocate for background checks on all gun purchases.

He advised me to get anything additional in the avenue of firearms I might want now (as a law-abiding and responsible individual), as he foresees much stricter gun control laws in the near future. But he also strongly suggests getting trained correctly, ideally from a police officer, for the type of firearm you own - if you wish to own a firearm. He also suggest my wife and I get License to Carry Firearms permits now before it also becomes too restrictive.

Just one viewpoint from law enforcement on the matter.

[Moderator]

The argument that I was seeing in the pieces I'd found was exactly that criminals are becoming more heavily armed and that they are getting those weapons legally. It was making being in the field much more dangerous for law enforcement personnel.

[atomicinchworm]

I'll believe that Republicans are for small government when they stop forcing Christian ideology on people, when they stop caring about other people's religious ideologies, when they stop worrying about what's going on in my uterus, and when they stop caring about about what two adults are doing in the privacy of their own bedroom.

Which would require an absolute overhaul of their party leaders.

[exzel]

Look, exzel, I hate to be the one to break this to you ... but if you really want small government, you are not a Republican. You're probably not a Democrat ... but definitely not a Republican.

LOL… I'm most definitely not a Democrat. And I’ve been disappointed with the Republicans for some time now. It almost seems to me as of late the Republicans of today are the Democrats of yesterday, and the Democrats of today are the Socialists of yesterday. The lesser of two evils (with controlling power) perhaps. But for the reasons I've given, I’ll stick to my contentions that “It just seems to me one party is more keen on defending our constitutional rights than the other”… thank you very much.