The gun issue confronts us with two competing visions of America. The Tucson tragedy puts those visions in stark, clarifying relief.
The gun lobby's vision is guns in every corner of American society. The National Rifle Association wants guns in more American homes. It wants more guns on the streets, in grocery stores, in restaurants, in coffee houses, in bars, in churches, at workplaces, at political events, and on college campuses. Guns everywhere, to deter criminals from attacking and to shoot back when they do.
Arizona is fast becoming the quintessential realization of this vision. Arizona has virtually no restrictions on guns (the Brady Center gives it 2 points out of a possible 100 in its state law ratings) and the state recently became the third state to allow people to carry concealed weapons in public places without a permit. The state also recently allowed concealed carriers to take their guns into bars.
Have weak gun laws made Arizonans safer? The state ranks 6th in the nation in gun deaths. FBI data indicates it ranks 13th in homicides per 100,000 population. Arizona criminals don't appear to be cowering in fear of armed, law-abiding citizens. Arizona also has become a favorite source of lethal weaponry for the Mexican drug cartels. Three Arizona gun dealers are among the top 12 American dealers in supplying Mexican crime guns.
Indeed, Arizona's gun laws are so non-existent that it was entirely legal for Jared Loughner to be carrying his Glock outside that Tucson Safeway up until the moment he pulled the trigger. He actually was one of the "law-abiding citizens" the NRA thinks is making us safer by carrying concealed weapons where we live, work and shop. If Loughner's community college, which expelled him because he was thought too dangerous to be in class, had reported his behavior to the Tucson police, Arizona law allowed them to do nothing to prevent him from carrying a concealed weapon.
All those Arizonans packing heat did not prevent the carnage in Tucson. There was, in fact, a law-abiding citizen with a gun on the scene at that Safeway. He told Ed Schultz he got to the shooter after someone else had grabbed the gun from the shooter's hands and he initially thought the hero was the shooter. In the NRA's America, where everyone has a gun, it is tough to tell the good guys from the bad.
Most Americans support a very different vision of America. It is a nation that allows responsible citizens to have guns in the home for self-defense, but imposes reasonable restrictions on guns to make it harder for dangerous people to be armed. In this America, a Jared Loughner would not be permitted to legally carry a gun to a Tucson Safeway. And he would not have available to him ammunition magazines that allowed him to fire over 30 shots from a semi-automatic without the need to reload, firepower that one law enforcement official has said "increased the lethality and body count of this attack."
Don't tell me the Second Amendment enforces the gun lobby's vision for America. The Supreme Court's recent rulings are entirely consistent with the alternative vision of reasonable restrictions. In its landmark opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller interpreting the Second Amendment to grant an individual right to have a gun in the home for self-defense, the High Court went out of its way to make clear that it was not recognizing a "right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Justice Scalia pointed to a host of gun restrictions that remain "presumptively lawful" even under the newly-recognized right, including bans on "dangerous and unusual weapons."
Loughner's 33-round ammunition magazine made his Glock pistol a very "dangerous and unusual" weapon. It is telling that Robert Levy, Chair of the libertarian CATO Institute and the mastermind behind the Heller case, this week told reporter Michael Isikoff that he thought a ban on high-capacity magazines would not violate the Second Amendment and makes sense from a policy standpoint.
There are pundits who say that now is not the time to address divisive issues and that we should move to the middle of the political spectrum in our policy debates. The punditry needs to understand, however, that support for reasonable restrictions on guns is in the middle of the political spectrum. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, gun control is not an issue that necessarily must divide those who own guns and those who do not.
If you don't believe me, ask Republican messaging maven Frank Luntz, who about a year ago did a far-reaching survey of gun owners, and particularly self-acknowledged NRA members, on their attitudes toward gun control. In an op-ed he wrote with Tom Barrett, Democratic Mayor of Milwaukee, Luntz reported, for example, that 86% of non-NRA gun owners, and 69% of NRA members, support extending Brady Law background checks to all sales at gun shows. Luntz said his poll "also found support among NRA members and other gun owners for numerous other policies to strengthen safety, security and law enforcement." He concluded that "the culture war over the right to bear arms isn't much of a war after all."
There is, in fact, a strong national consensus supporting specific additional gun restrictions that still allow law abiding and responsible adults to make the ultimate choice about owning a gun. This consensus has not been translated into public policy because too many of our elected officials are intimidated by the NRA -- a noisy, threatening lobby that does not even represent its own members on the question of reasonable regulation of guns.
Those who own guns and those who do not, to a surprising degree, have the same vision for America. Now that a much-admired Member of Congress lies seriously wounded, and the nation mourns yet another mass shooting and the fatal wounding of yet another child, is it too much to ask for a modicum of courage from Congress, and the President, to make that vision a reality?
For more information, see Dennis Henigan's Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy (Potomac Books 2009)
Niall O'Dowd: What Obama Should Have Said in Tucson but Lacked the Courage to
Iowa with a gun ownership rate of 42.8 has almost the same gun death rate of New Jersey with a gun ownership rate of only 12.3. Iowa's gun death rate is 5.25 to New Jersey's 5.15, according to VPC. New Jersey ranks the lowest in gun ownership out of all the states except Hawaii yet does not rank that top five in lowest gun deaths. Gun ownership has nothing to do with your belief that higher gun ownership results in higher gun death rates.
See I didn't use DC.
If need be have the constitution's second amendment amended or lifted.It's not a religious dogma.It was simply crafted in a period of muskets and black powder,it applies to exactly that.
Don't waste your energy debating how many angels can dance on a pin point.Organize against the madness !
Happy MLK day.
It's not unrelated. Arms that are protected are those in "common use" and should have utility for the militia. A firearm with highly restricted ammo capacity does not meet that test.
Keep up your inventive schemes, though. Fun to watch.
"After all, there isn't much difference between an empty gun and a club. "
Yes, indeedie, so perhaps you understand why those charming ideas of taxing ammo to death are also unConstitutional.
out there who still believes the founding fathers did not intend for the people to have access to firearms then I suggest a further examination of knowledge and history might prove useful.
Your exactly right. The overwhelming majority of Americans believe the 2nd is an individual right. not what you think is misinterpreted. Your gun control side is in the minority. The majority believe the court is right in Heller and McDonald.
So, if the 2A is not needed to protect gun ownership for hunters, sport shooters or citizens defending themselves, then what is it needed for?
The answer is made clear by having a discussion with any teabagger or conservative in america, as they have stated and displayed on their signs.
The purpose of the 2A is to insure the people can have guns in the event they need to overthrow a tyrannical government.
This is consistent with old laws still on the books that create something called an unofficial citizens militia.
Just one problem:
It is against the law to overthrow the government or plot or incite to do so. There is no constitutional right to insurrection.
In fact, the constitution itself, which is not a criminal law document, mentions only one real crime against the state , and that is treason.
So, if the USC establishes and prohibits the crime of treason, how can the 2A exist to promote the crime of treason, as described and claimed by gun owners, ex-military types, teabaggers, reactionaries, Birchers, and other assorted like minded?
How can the 2A exist in a way contrary to the constitution?
The Colorado Coalfield war was between US civilians against the CO. National Guard and Company henchman. Although, many shoot and killed some in the CO. Guard none of them were prosecuted because the Fed. did not want to creat more problems, even though, the action of the strikers was an insurrection.
Clearly it is delusional to think today the military can be overthrown by the people, with such disparity in weapons power.
Your example would be like saying the people who rioted in LA in the wake of the Rodney King riots against the NG (or in Detroit or Newark) were fighting government sanctioned oppression and attempting to overthrow a corrupt system and therefor should not be prosecuted.
They were.
Your premise that the people will win is the flaw here.
The way you try to thread the needle is frightening.
Geronimo? 4 milliion NRA members? The Geneva conventions?
Give me a break.
All the convoluted twists and turns to defend this obsolete amendement would be humorous if they were not revelation of something deeper and scarier.
Is there no one or nothing good and decent a gun owner won't abuse, pollute or prostitue in their march towards lawlessness and destruction of the American way of life?
Still waiting on the answer of why states with high rates of gun ownership have high rates of gun fatalities.
Don't be afraid. Just try to answer.
False premise. The 2A is an enumerated right.
It isn't in contradiction to the constitution. Are you saying that the gov't could never abuse its powers?
Ok. The states with the highest levels of javelin catchers have the highest rates of javelin injuries and the states with the lowest levels of javelin catchers have the lowest levels of javelin injuries.
I mean, big deal, I would expect nothing less.
BUT: Weren't we told and sold the idea that an armed citizenry is a safe citizenty? Shouldn't the states with highest levels of gun ownership have the lowest levels of gun fatalities?
If you are quoting "Talk Shows" it would be nice to know that your "Source" isn't Joy Behar or Olbermann. I'd like to see the actual study instead of some third hand facts from someone quoting someone that read a few sentences from a teleprompter.
Go do some research on this well known, common sense conclusion that is not in question and stop clowning around with requests for Links? Citation? etc.
Gun owners by far try to deny reality more than any othyer issue oriented group by endless requests to cite or link what THYEY know is true.
The fact that there are more gun fatalities in states with more guns is self evident, but I provided more reading for you anyway.
Now, answer the question like a real gun owner: straight up and with no equivocation.
Why is it in states with highest levels of gun ownership there aren't FEWER gun fatalites as guns make for a safer society?
And don't play the "crime rate" card either. I'm not speaking of crime; I'm speaking of gun fatalities; there is a difference.
Why is it that when the stars don't align for you guys, you go from zero-to-DC in 2 seconds flat?
So, for THOSE states (AK, VT, ND, NV) with high rates of gun ownership, why are gun fatalities so high?
It is a legit question because of the repeated claim that high rates of gun ownership result in a safer society.
Can you guys EVER answer a straight question without trying to tap dance?
Is this you or not? What did I not understand?
DC is not a state in any way. Who is the governor? The legislature? Who is DC congressman?
THAT is why not including DC in state stats is legit and including it is not.
Still dodging the original question, though.
"You can however hunt people with a 30 round magazine." No...That is against the law.
A person willing to "hunt people" (commit murder) obviously has little interest in how many rounds the law says his magazine can hold.
It is also likely that he would have little interest in what guns are banned, where, and why.
What sense does it to penalize the 80+ million people who own guns responsibly, and have hurt no one, in a bogus attempt to try and control a handful of people that will not be controlled by any law you can put in place?
What law do you propose that would have certainly and effectively prevented the shooting in Az?
You think what you said is not a gun ban? You got to be from another planet. I don't understand you double speak.
You can be restricted to hunt with a five round clip because hunting is not a Constitutional right. There is no limit in magazine capacity when I hunt feral pigs. Besides hunting innocent humans is against the law. There is not even a single shot gun allowed to do such a thing. What was done was illegal.
Your limitation would on the other hand limit my ability to defend my home from a home invasion which often involves mutliple assailants. If I couldn't get them all because of your limits to just ten can my family sue you and and gun group? If they can then I'm all for what you want.
Please compare similar countries like USA and European countries:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html
The demographics are listed in the statistics anyway.The death rate is per 100.000.
Fine, as long as you can GUARANTEE that criminals will not be carrying guns, knives, or assaulting innocents in gangs.
That's fine. As soon as you can get criminals to stop doing it, let us know.