Post
by timmy » Sun Dec 14, 2014 9:55 pm
XL has given a very nice summary of gun controls in the USA -- thanks XL. Please note his words on state and local laws. These are gradually being brought in line with Constitutional provisions, but a wide array of them still bedevils gun owners.
Regarding what happens to a gun when someone dies, this depends on the state. Some states would have the gun pass to the heirs like any other property. Other states may have ownership rules, and these rules may depend on whether the firearm in question is a handgun. Fully automatic weapons are covered under separate federal law -- one needs to abide by a very restrictive set of regulations for these.
Bennedose, you keep coming back to the "200 million firearms" phrase, as if there is something wrong with this. Frankly, I think that the number of automobiles in this nation (among other issues) is of far greater concern. First of all, it is not as if these weapons lie in a large pile in the middle of town, where anyone and everyone has access to them. It is also clear that those with multiple firearms (like myself) pose no increased threat to society. Rambo may depict people loaded to the gills with guns, which are blazing away in every direction, but most ordinary humans can only shoot one gun at a time. So, for instance, I may have 20-something guns, but this poses little more threat than my having just one. Secondly, this number of guns indicates a more widespread distribution of them in the hands of the populace, which offers, in and of itself, some degree of protection. Many gun owners vote, and it would be much harder to initiate collection schemes, as Canada and Australia did, regarding semi-automatic long guns and handguns. There are simply too many voters who would object to such a measure in the USA. The distribution of firearms is therefore, in and of itself, an obstacle to draconian gun control measures. I would add that part of this situation has been brought about, ironically, by the very people who try to impose more restrictive gun regulations. The gun community here runs to the stores like chickens with their heads cut off at any whiff of restrictions being imposed. I would say to gun control advocates that, if they want to slow the rate of gun sales in this country, they need to stop threatening RKBA and there will be a lot fewer buying sprees for guns.
As regards Anand's comments about polls and the Constitution, please understand that if the Constitution actually meant what a lot of blabbering people here in the USA imply, there would be no reason for the NRA or any other group that lobbies for gun rights. You should understand that the fundamental Constitutional principle was stated by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes many years ago when he said that the Constitution says whatever a majority of the people say that it does. Those who have this idea that the Constitution enshrines certain rights in a sacrosanct way in the USA are very far off the mark and need to be classed with those who believe in the tooth fairy and other mythological ideas, like "fairness."
The fact is, all of those rights in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are quite fluid. Many groups are fighting to protect Free Speech, Religion, Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, besides RKBA. If these rights were truly inviolable, there'd be no need to have anyone fighting over them. Even the language to RKBA is not that clear cut, and while it provides a lot more of a basis for personal gun ownership than other countries have, it's by no means a sure thing that we will keep our gun rights without vigilance.
I know it is a wonderful thing to go on about the USA's Founding Fathers, George Washington chopping down the cherry tree, and Abe Lincoln spitting rails (and all that hooey). But remember, those same Founding Fathers, in their infinite wisdom, enshrined the right of one human being to own another and counted some human beings as 3/5s of a man (Article 1 Section 2 will give you a start on this matter). I certainly hope that we recognize the need for changing that! We should also remember that, when the Constitution was submitted for ratification, the States refused to do so without it being amended ten times, right from the get-go. So lets not go down that road of the Constitution being sacred scripture that is infallible and must never be changed, nor be shacked to the silly notion that in every aspect, the intentions of people who pooped in pots, rode horses an wore wigs, and had never seen light bulbs or nuclear bombs must trump any ideas of common sense. There's a lot of difference between governing an urban society than 4 million people living on the edge of a continental wilderness.
The US Constitution is, in fact, noteworthy for its brevity, which lends itself toward being exactly what Oliver Wendell Holmes said: whatever people think it says.
What is important is to recognize that there are certain fundamental liberties that all people should have -- those for which we see people struggling to obtain and protect all over the world. As far as I am concerned, and now, arguably over 50% of my fellow citizens along with me, RKBA is one of those basic rights to which we, like all others, are entitled.
Regarding polls, the reason for these polls to exist is for money, like anything else. Political campaigns will hire a pollster to find out how their candidate is doing in an election run. It ought to be plain that, if the poll doesn't reflect how people feel about the candidate, paying for the poll is as much of a waste of money as cheating at solitaire is a waste of time! Businesses hire pollsters to see how their products might be received. Newspapers may want to present how people really think about one thing or another, serious or silly. There are polls published by certain groups that unquestionably lean one way or another. This reflects the difference in people: Some folks get a bunch of data together to support their viewpoint, while others get a bunch of data together to FORM a viewpoint -- in other words, to learn something. The first type can learn nothing from a mountain of data, and they will always find the second type to be a threat to them and their entrenched notions.
Some polling establishments have achieved a reputation for fairness and lack of bias, while others have not.
Certainly, the media will try to present whatever data they come across as supporting their assumptions. But throwing out all news is hardly the answer: Should we believe that men never walked on the moon, or that a terrible tidal wave never swept the Indian Ocean in 2005 because it was on the news? Of course, that's ridiculous. If we can't be everywhere all the time, we have to take someone's word for something, just like we did when our mothers told us not to touch the stove because it was hot and would burn us. We have to try to sort out fact from fiction, and recognize that, like everything else human, that process is subject to imperfection. The alternative is living in a cave.
As far as gun shows in the USA are concerned, it appears that you've never bought a gun at one, otherwise you'd know that they check your ID, make you fill out the form, and check you out with the FBI, just like at the gun shop -- all as XL has already laid out.
“Fanaticism consists of redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim.”
saying in the British Royal Navy
). They will tell you "Facts" about how high the likelyhood of gun violence can be if a gun is in the house, or about how many children die yearly due to gun violence/negligence.
