I seem to recall some periods in US history where local supremacy and federal involvement had opposite effects.
Sane, and thus tragically poorly-adapted to the times in which we live?
3 Likes
You got that right! Testify, brother!
But there’s nothing that says local laws can’t have state level oversight, with the Federal government providing next-level oversight to the states. In fact, we’ve already got the structures in place for all that, and they are a lot more sustainable than a giant legislation trying to address every cultural, geographic and policing issue in every square foot of the USA.
But when state legislatures hamper cities trying to control gun trafficking by claiming that urban laws have to be written to suit rural hunters, that’s pretty insane. And when the NRA blocks funding of research on gun safety at the national level, that’s insane too. None of that insanity means it’s reasonable for highly privileged DC office workers to make gun laws for Ferguson, Missouri or Kake, Alaska.
So again, I think an insistence on one-size-fits-all solutions isn’t going to resolve this issue. If you really want to craft a gigantic, incredibly nuanced federal legislation that addresses every local situation, it’ll be tremendously expensive and difficult to maintain over time and will require input from tens of thousands of separate jurisdictions. Local rule is more efficient and just, if it can be made to work, and Federal legislation is not automatically either bad or good just because it has or hasn’t solved intractable problems in the past.
1 Like
But we’re talking about the general rhetoric and how it’s perceived. Even if we’re talking here, as individuals, I’d guess that lots of the nuance in our views are lost by what we’ve read and understood elsewhere.
1 Like
This is a good point. Federal laws should be broader and more open, with states tailoring down from there. Nearly all cities and states have more restrictive laws than the Feds. Montana might be an exception. Maybe Kansas now. In general, the closer you are to a problem, the more good you can do.
Examples - many states don’t allow for any NFA items. Some states still don’t allow any conceal carry except for very limited, specific persons (mainly cops and the rich and connected). Some state and cities have both registration and/or additional licensing requirements. Chicago and the state of Illinois is a well known example. Several states now have some version of an AWB. Washington DC had still has some of the tightest laws. So there are plenty of places who have attempted “sensible laws” above and beyond the feds.
The problem I have is - none of these places with more specific laws seem to be doing much better than anyone else. In fact, there are some notable examples where they appear to be doing worse than their neighbors. How is it that one can think we just haven’t hit on the right combination of laws, vs realize that we need to combat the causes of crime? I look at drug laws, where everything is 100% illegal, yet they are everywhere. By what logic does one think this will work in the US with guns?
This adds to my point. I think everyone thinks if we had more laws it would be like a CSI episode where anytime a criminal uses a gun, he can be tracked down and caught. The reality is, all of that requires a ton of actual work. It seems to me there is already low hanging fruit that is still to high to bother with. They even pack a spent shell with all new firearms, as one or two states require you to send it in so they can put it in their ballistics library. I believe those programs were shut down, because they costs millions of dollars and produced little to no results. (This is different than comparing shells found at crime scenes, which has yielded results matching spent shells to guns found on criminals.)
The long gun registration in Canada was abandoned for similar reasons.
I don’t have a lot more of the history to share other than what I said in the past. I think it was a carry over from southern Democrats. But as the Democrat demographics has changed, it makes sense on three levels they keep it:
-
They tend to be city dwellers, and city dwellers have less need for guns. I think this is the draw for the average democrat.
-
This is me stereotyping, but for the people IN CHARGE of the party, they come off as elitists and think they know what is best for you, and you don’t need your silly guns, ammosexual. Of course if they need a permit or armed protection, well they are the obvious exception. They aren’t a pleb.
-
I think the Republicans took it up as a cause because a) they gained power in the South and b) they were supposed to be the party against big government. So for many people, the only reason they need to be against it, is that the Republicans are for it.
So, again, while I probably won’t ever agree 100% on this stuff, at least you are encouraging rational thought about it. I have said before I’d be for new laws that target mainly criminals, but thus far nothing I have heard proposed does that. Worse, some of them would affect minorities and/or the poor disproportionately, even though I am sure that isn’t the intention.
I know some people are shitting the bed thinking about Trump having access to the government surveillance system. So when I say I am against registration schemes, this is the exact reason why. Let me ask you this - if you were a registered party member opposite of Trump, would you want him to be know exactly what you had through a mandatory federal registration of every firearm you own?
3 Likes
I’m feeling the same poke of pragmatism as @AnonyMouse. The Supreme Court has already ruled that Second Amendment provides the right to own a firearm for any U.S. citizen. Yes, this constitutional provision was poorly written but don’t exhaust yourself picking it apart. Its lexical structure doesn’t matter anymore because its meaning has already been defined by the highest level of the judiciary. Only Congress can change that and dream on if you think that’s ever going to happen any time this century.
That’s on the federal level. On the state level or local level, yeah, maybe things can change but even then black market firearms aren’t constrained by boundaries.
In principle, I have no problem with gun ownership. But right now the U.S. isn’t what I’d consider a model of that in practice. Switzerland still has that trophy.
2 Likes
Nah, and I don’t support registries for the very reason you list. Nor is this a new position for me as of the 9th.
You and I may not be as far apart as we think. I agree the firearm is only an object, I agree the solution isn’t more of the same laws, I agree the issue is a greater one with society and gun violence is the expression of it. I personally believe poverty, and all the hydra-like faces of evil that sprout from it, is the issue. However, as I’ve said before, there are communities that need to staunch the bleeding right now. I don’t know how to do it, and I’d be damned to look at a Chicagoan and say, ‘tough luck, your law might catch on here so no.’
I’ve gone back and forth on this issue for decades now. I don’t think there will ever be one answer to it; the answer 100 years ago is not the one for today and today’s may not be the one for 100 years from now. It’s important enough that until Utopia comes (hint, it won’t) we keep reconsidering what is right.
2 Likes
To be clear, that wasn’t directed at you - but just in general.
I can’t really keep track of what everyone thinks, I just know some people are freaking out over the surveillance (NOW it’s important…), and some people think registration is a good idea. Or they don’t understand why people are against it. This is why.
Chicago is an exceptional case, because their problems are from a variety of sources. Even if you were able to magically make every gun in Chicago disappear, they would still be killing each other. And it is only in certain areas that it is really bad, it isn’t like all of it is awash in blood. I don’t have an answer either, but the solution would involve something that would make people willing to kill and die to make it, a much more desirable path. People who have options and hope usually aren’t the ones committing crime.
1 Like
I don’t think I was talking about the general rhetoric or the media, but how people from opposite sides of this issue relate.
100%
2 Likes
Heh, that’s twice now you’ve gotten me by writing ‘You’ in a response.
Depends on the crime, but yeah. The continued creation of artificial poverty for the sake of profit and control will kill this country.
1 Like
Sorry - there is the you you, and general you - third person something something.
My other problem is, and this happens when I talk, is I switch rails in my mind, but I neglect to let others know were are going off on a tangent. In my head it is a logical jourey, but to the observer they are like, “WTF?”
When I switch from a reply to a general statement I have tried to spell that out, but obviously not always.
1 Like
It’s good; you have a strong stance on the issue but are willing to discuss it without shouting. That’s rare anymore and worth a little puzzling through.
2 Likes
An uncomfortably good point. But at least with more localized, more specific regulation we might stumble into something useful? Since our planning and reasoning committees don’t seem to have come up with any universally popular approach so far.
A weak defense of my proposition, but at least it has hoary old tradition behind it. Jefferson and Franklin were all about the states doing tons of stupid things to figure out what actually worked, right?
I’ve always believed that a citizen’s best defense against crime of all kinds is availability of decent jobs in the surrounding area. Automation and cheap foreign slave labor have put paid to that, though.
Incidentally, when I was in Chicago for the Microsoft shindig I was very impressed by the friendliness, cleanliness and culture of the city. Every part of it I visited was at least as nice as the best parts of the cities I visit fairly regularly (Philadelphia, Wilmington, Baltimore, and DC). I never heard a gunshot the whole time I was there, and I never saw the cops beating up anyone, either. So although I understand there’s plenty of violence and police brutality there, it’s certainly not in your face as much as it is in Wilmington or Baltimore. I suppose it’s more tucked out of sight in specific neighborhoods, like in Philly.
2 Likes
Must have been a nice part of Chicago? 
I always liked Chicago as a kid. I don’t know why, probably because it was the closest place that was a real big city. I have been there a few time and enjoyed it. Flew through it several times.
But, the first time I visited it was with a church group, and I found a .357 magnum shell in a Mc Donalds parking lot. I think I still have it somewhere…
2 Likes
1 Like
What is powerful about police (and military) is not their firepower, it is their organization. The fact that they are radio connected to a hub which can dispatch more cops to back them up is where their real power is, and they are well aware of this fact. Without this level of organization, neither they nor any resistance to them would be of any consequence.
I think that it is a serious mistake to avoid being organized and/or armed with the excuse that you would ultimately be defeated. Power - not unlike ideals such as “freedom” and “security” - is never absolute. As I put it to those who are skeptical of encryption (because somebody will eventually break it…) “So does this mean that you don’t lock your house, or your car, because those locks are not infallible?” Most people seem to be sufficiently pragmatic to realize that making it difficult for an opposition can be enough. Hell, the right does this to the left politically at every turn. The point is not whether or not you personally can be killed or back-bagged. Ultimately, anybody can. The point is whether or not you make it easy enough for those who would do so to be worth their while. If enough people enact solid defenses, it can require perhaps not more firepower than an enemy can muster, but perhaps more time, effort, money. goodwill, etc. But you cannot lose sight of the fact that they would happily take you out if it was convenient.
Many leftists I communicate with also take this sort of conflict personally, as if government does it because they hate YOU. The average street hooligan probably does. But governments (and corporations) engage in war, in organized oppression , and subjugation tactics because they have actual goals they are trying to fulfill. Yes, the US military might be the most powerful in the world, but they know that they cannot bring more than the tiniest fraction of it to bear on the US itself without destroying their own objectives as well. The population of a corporatist state function not as citizens but as a resource to be used - they cannot be let go, but they cannot be destroyed en masse either. The ideologies we are being confronted with are hiding a deeper economic conflict. If it was just you, they could kill you and move on. There is no market nor dictatorship without an audience, a peanut gallery to prop them up. The parasite needs a populace.
2 Likes
At 17, my oldest earned the right to have a locked glass-faced gun cabinet in his room, (some of the guns in there are his) but all the ammo was in the vault. Still is. Actually, the ammo is in a safe in the vault.
1 Like
I’m not sure if it’s possible for there to have been much more smug condescension in that article.
It’s sad, because I actually agree with some if the points the author was trying to make (especially around training and education - take away the mystique and think of firearms as just another tool and they become much less scary as a whole).
That said I couldn’t get past the delivery and I’m sure most the target audience would stop reading after just a few sentences.
3 Likes
Ah-yep. From what I read probably a lot in there I’d agree with, but I’ll never know as damn if I could stomach it.
2 Likes
It is my opinion that the the power of the NRA is more or less equal to the power of the gun control lobby. If you want to disempower them, make them unnecessary. If they don’t need to constantly fight gun control measures, they will probably just go back to running safety programs.
1 Like
