Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

branford

(4,462 posts)
19. The threats you want to quite rightly prevent are already illegal.
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 12:22 AM
Nov 2014

Ironically, I'm also fairly moderate on the issue of gun control and hardly an absolutist, do not own any guns myself, nor have any current need or desire to buy one, and live in a firearm restrictive jurisdiction (NYC). I nevertheless realize the current state of the law, including trends generally liberalizing firearms ownership and carrying rules, as well as the politics that have recently seen every state have carry options and a Congress that cannot even pass universal background checks similar to those that occur by FFL's, which would, absent very unusual mechanisms, be entirely constitutional. The only restrictions that seem to have gathered any real support at all are background checks of private sales, something most gun owners and supporters have no objection to other than the mechanism (e.g., open NICS to private parties to avoid registration lists, etc.)

Hoping that the Constitutional framework that has increasingly liberalized gun ownership will soon change is not a viable or prudent strategy, nor is quoting some book because it agrees with your perspective. I have no doubt that you sincerely believe that some of you proposals, particularly related to mental health are relatively minor, unobtrusive and little different from other restrictions. Your ultimate motives appears similarly benign. My criticisms are certainly no personal. Neither your personal beliefs or mine, however, form the legal reality, and most of your proposed measure have already lost both in the courts and legislatures. The fact that your ideas may in fact reduce gun crime is also not necessarily of any Constitutional significance. Notably, trying to piggy-back greater restrictions on background checks or licensing requirements has been tried numerous time before and failed, often miserably. Chicago and Washington, D.C. are just a couple of the more recent and very prominent examples of not only the failure of such a strategy, but the resultant power and increased resources gun rights advocates gain from such losses.

There are many methods to deal with gun violence in our country. Some actual firearm restrictions are perfectly lawful, to the extent you can generate sufficient political support to make them law. It is the lack of support, or really more often the strong, near myopic, opposition of gun rights advocates, that prevent most regulation, rather than any Constitutional problems. Ideas that are clearly unlawful or already held to be so by the courts, highly restrictive, or deal with privacy issues, will not be passed, and again heighten the resources of the opposition. Your real opposition is certainly not me or even the courts. You have to convince far more of your fellow citizens and generate the same level of enthusiasm and determination of your opponents.

As you acknowledge, so long as gun ownership is a cultural and legal priority to many Americans, there will be gun violence. However, there are mitigating solutions that gun rights and gun control advocates can find common ground, particularly among Democrats, although they focus more on social issues that guns themselves, yet avoid a continuing culture war. Those solutions include mental health treatment (your area of expertise) and social safety nets and services that most Democrats support, and will have a positive effect with respect to the prevention of all crime and or an overall healthier and happier society.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

People Control, Not Gun Control Sancho Nov 2014 #1
We could be twin brothers of different mothers. flamin lib Nov 2014 #2
Yes...happens everyday... Sancho Nov 2014 #3
Mandatory safe storage is a good idea, GGJohn Nov 2014 #4
Everyone should know if you are dangerous... Sancho Nov 2014 #5
Regarding safe storage, how would that be enforced? GGJohn Nov 2014 #6
Sure there's a right to protect the public from danger... Sancho Nov 2014 #7
You didn't answer my question, GGJohn Nov 2014 #8
Simple... Sancho Nov 2014 #9
I'm all for safe storage laws, but enforcing it is problematic. GGJohn Nov 2014 #10
You are exaggerating.. Sancho Nov 2014 #11
Which rule would you enforce with an ordinance or law? Sancho Nov 2014 #12
Mandatory, unannouced home inspections. ncjustice80 Nov 2014 #23
We know that there are all sorts of "legal" challenges..but here's the thing... Sancho Nov 2014 #24
A few thoughts. branford Nov 2014 #13
Just like always, folks overreach their "rights" but don't answer the question!!! Sancho Nov 2014 #14
First, with all due respect, you are not the arbiter of whether and what I choose to post. branford Nov 2014 #15
Everything I propose is legal... Sancho Nov 2014 #16
Sigh. branford Nov 2014 #17
Sigh... Sancho Nov 2014 #18
The threats you want to quite rightly prevent are already illegal. branford Nov 2014 #19
We are rehashing the same arguments in the book I suggested... Sancho Nov 2014 #20
We're unfortunately talking past each other. branford Nov 2014 #21
I just mentioned the one book because it's convenient...I can give you a bibliography if you like.. Sancho Nov 2014 #22
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control Reform Activism»Another senseless death a...»Reply #19