Even though the tragedy in Aurora is still fresh on our hearts and minds, it is already clear that there is no political will to enact any significant change in the regulation of guns. Even a ban on assault rifles or high capacity magazines seems beyond Congress's ability.
We may go through the motions for a few more days of asking what regulations we need, but in the end we will be back where we started: living in a nation where the "liberties" of a tiny fringe of gun nuts outweigh the freedom of the rest of us to live in safer communities.
Let me hasten to say that I am not an absolutist -- either way -- on the gun question. I grew up hunting, and I still own a couple of guns (though I do not keep them in my house). I understand why some people bristle at the notion that no one should own a firearm.
On the other hand, I also understand that you do not need assault rifles, high capacity magazines, or armor-piercing bullets to hunt. Unless, of course, you're hunting people.
The reason we're in this situation of regulatory inaction is not the Second Amendment. Even after the 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, you don't have a constitutional right to any kind of gun you want. So the reason we're here is politics.
It has always confused me why the fringe of the gun-owning public who objects to even the most reasonable gun regulation has such political power. One reason, perhaps, is that they have so successfully equated gun ownership with "liberty." Any restriction on that ownership, even if it is mild, reasonable, and better for society as a whole, is decried as a government encroachment on our constitutional freedoms or natural liberty. This is what Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson, a Republican, meant the other day when he said efforts to ban high-capacity magazines or to keep guns out of the hands of "demented" individuals would "restrict our freedoms."
So let's talk about what freedom means.
One version of freedom is you get to do whatever you want, and government is (or should be) powerless to stop you. This simplistic version of libertarianism drives the gun-nut-fringe belief that any reasonable gun restriction is a violation of some kind of natural right. It is also behind many objections to the Affordable Care Act -- the reason why the broccoli example was so powerful was because of the fear of government making us do something.
Note how truly outrageous this version of liberty truly is. These rights -- whether to buy assault rifles or to refuse to pay for health insurance -- are seen as so powerful that they win out even when their exercise hurts others. People can buy assault weapons even though it means that society is less safe. People can refuse to buy health insurance even though the costs of their illnesses will be borne by those who do.
Eventually, this version of liberty drives us toward the law of the jungle. It's fine if you don't want to buy health insurance, but don't expect anyone to come to your aid when you're in a car accident or need a kidney. If the prevalence of assault rifles makes you feel less safe, carry one yourself. (Luke O'Dell, spokesman for the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, said the way to have avoided the Aurora shootings is for others in the theater to be carrying weapons as well.)
But here in America, we long ago decided that freedom was more robust than this simpleminded "liberty" espoused by the libertarian fringe. Sometimes, freedom requires a democratic, collective decision and cannot depend on individualistic action alone. When Franklin Roosevelt articulated the "four freedoms" -- freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear -- he knew that some freedoms depended on keeping government in check (speech, worship) but that some (want, fear) depended on government stepping in to help out.
Think about what this means: freedom is not just a situation in which government is powerless; rather, freedom is something that society identifies as a goal and strives for together.
And if we want to live in a society that is free from fear, we cannot have guns so readily available that anyone with a Joker fantasy can gun down scores of innocents in a movie theatre.
So the question of which gun regulations should be put in place is not a question of how much liberty will be lost. It's a question of how much freedom will be gained.
Follow Kent Greenfield on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kentgreenfield1
Doesn't sound like freedom to me.
Your agenda is perfectly clear when you resort to calling those who value the Bill of Rights more than you as "Gun nut, Fringe believers."
You paint me as somehow unstable and untrustworthy. I guess anything to disarm your enemies.
http://www.libertybelles.org/articles/awscam.htm
This is a false dichotomy.
The tiny fringe of people who harm other people with guns do not do so legally.
There is no right to shoot people or freedom to kill.
Our freedom to live in safer communities is at odds with the people who don't follow the law.
Attributing the problem to a few fringe "gun nuts" mischaracterizes the problem.
There are a great many "gun nuts" who harm no one. The problem is with the actual nuts, and their intent to cause harm to others.
It seems that even "the most reasonable gun regulation[s]" of which there are many, haven't stopped the intent of those who cause harm.
Which proposed "most reasonable gun regulation" is there that can deter a person who is only interested in harming others, and is willing to break any law to do so?
How do "assault weapons" make society less safe? The homicide rate is at a 30 year low.
For info on people using voluntary Libertarian tools on similar and other issues, please see the non-partisan Libertarian International Organization @ http://www.Libertarian-International.or g ....
The AR-15 rifle--
"The AR-15 rifle system [popular with civilians] is that of a heavy-barreled, highly accurate, long range rifle for both target shooting and the hunting of small vermin and predators. There is an almost endless variation of in-between styles of the AR-15 that can do double duty as a defensive and precision rifle..." --Jeff Quinn
James Holmes had an AR-15 semi-auto rifle. Where I live (Eastern Oregon, Western Idaho) that specific rifle (among others that are functionally similar) is actually used for varmint control on farms and ranches. It was not "intended for war". The Colt M-16 was intended for war. This is just another example of vilifying a particular firearm by calling it an "assault rifle". The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Any semi-auto rifle that uses detachable magazines is dangerous in the hands of a criminal or violently insane person. I am agreeable to laws that would stop those people from having weapons. I will never agree to punishing (in effect) me and millions of other legal gun owners for the crimes of others by banning firearms that we legally own and have committed no crimes with.
you can't drink everywhere. you shouldnt be able to take a gun everywhere. our taxes pay for police forces so we don't have to play wyatt earp - that's a privilege. we shouldn't have to worry that the angry guy sitting next to us at the bar is packing heat. there's vast room for compromise on gun control - the assault weapons ban used to be federal law - but unilateral refusal to compromise on the pro-gun side. can we even get more rigorous background check legislation and/or screening for potentially mentally ill purchasers? the denver shooter was denied admission to a gun club b/c he raised eyebrows. just think if he'd been subjected to that scrutiny when he tried to buy guns.
The Century 16 theater in Aurora, CO is a perfect example of a place where you can't take a gun. And that idea worked so well.
"High-capacity magazines" is an arbitrary term. To the gun control people, it means a magazine holding more then ten rounds. But that's their opinion. And people can most definitely have a need for a "high capacity magazine." Look at the guy in Arizona who had four men, three armed with pistols and one with an assault rifle, try to break into his home. He fought back with his own firearm and they ran away. This was in broad daylight. But what if it had been at night, and what if more then one of them had an assault rifle? What if it was a gang initiation where they can't fail or face violence from the gang and thus a firefight breaks out? The average person in particular may miss due to nerves and adrenaline in such a situation, and an old person especially is not going to be quick at reloading or anything. Being able to just slap in a 30, 40, or 50 round magazine is a lot more re-assuring then if you only have five or ten rounds!
Also, assault rifles are already highly-regulated.They are classified as machine guns under gun law, and as such are a privilege to own, not a right. The AR-15 that Holmes used and Remington 870 are not assault rifles. AR-15s are the civilian version of the M-16 assault rifle, and are a semi-automatic rifle. They look the same as the M-16, but mechanically are not, as they have no automatic fire capability. They are used regularly for hunting. Remington 870s are used for everything, hunting, police, military, home defense, sport shooting, etc...many hunting rifles have been adopted from military models. Hunters have been doing that for decades.
Psych test
Written test on gun safety, maintenance, etc
Firing range test
Pass those, you can get a gun. You don't, no gun.
Now you may be able to screw with one enough to make it malfunction and fire uncontrollably until the magazine is empty.
The reciever of the AR is different from the reciever of the M16. A few springs don't turn the AR into an automatic rifle.
"I don't care if he does, he's sane, intelligent, responsible, and can actually shoot accurately." -- No1Complainer
Converting a semiautomatic rifle to fully automatic is against federal law.
If he successfully managed to do so it took more than just a few springs, and now I doubt both his, and your, sanity.
For your knowledge of, and failure to report, the activity, you get to be an accomplice.
Obviously you are one of the people you have indicated having a problem with.
I think a little time in a federal detention center for you and your friend will indeed make it tougher for you both to get a gun.
This man, like all the others, don't run into a gun store, shooting range, or police station looking for a fair fight. They prey on the weak, and seek the path of least resistance. The sooner people start realizing they have a social obligation to protect themselves and others, the quicker these evil men will be put down in the ground.
The media and the ignorant need to stop sensationalizing guns as the problem, and look inward as to why they can't man-up and face reality of their inability to protect themselves.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms
Our murder rate with firearms is as high as such countries as El Salvador, Mexico, Zimbabwe, and South Africa. Wow those countries are really liberated too
In the end, it really doesn't matter. You're either prepared to survive when violence finds you, or you're not. Just don't expect everyone else to lay down their life so easily.
In fact, if the author's rationale can be generalized, it would seem to imply that we as a society would be better served by banning alcohol (which didn't work well previously and hasn't been very successful with many drugs).
Perhaps the author could at least have provided some evidence that past restrictions have curbed firearm-related violence.
Finally, the author's goal of a utopic society free from fear is admirable, but unrealistic. We will not eradicate threats, crimes, harms, terrorism, etc., so I don't think it serves his point to talk in those sorts of absolute terms.