Senate OKs bill to exempt firearms from federal regulation

[Gaspar]

Agreed.

This is why some things ought to be regulated on a state-by-state basis. Conditions are different in different places.

OMG I can't believe my screen.

[we vs us]

Anyone think there would be "drive-by's" if the whole neighborhood was ready to respond in kind??

Yes, actually . . . yes I do.  Mutually Assured Destruction (of which this is a variant) really only works when the Destruction is on a level larger than the personal.  It's the moral problem of wiping out a city or a region or a country or the world that stops your hand.  I think we can all agree that people have remarkably fewer moral problems taking risks with their own selves.

Similarly, it only works if the weapon you're carrying will Assure said destruction.  In other words:  as soon as I'm forced to use my weapon, we will all assuredly die.  With handguns (or AKs or any personal arms) there exists the real chance you can just wing someone.  It doesn't have to be fatal every time.  If you take that out of the equation, there's a much better chance you'll use your handgun (or AK or whatever).

[Conan71]

Some of these "liberal states" have good reason to regulate guns.  Most of the states you're thinking of are highly urbanized and have crime ecosystems that are far more developed and lethal than Oklahoma's.  Look, regardless of where we all live, OK's a rural state, and guns here serve closer to the role that they used to serve on the frontier:  hunting, and to protect the homestead when the law is too far away to provide protection.  In more urbanized states it's different.  Every gun -- legally owned or not -- represents much more of a danger to its community, whether its owner intends it or not. 

The problem is, restricting the weapons doesn't change anything, it simply makes it harder for people who want them for the right reasons (hunting, self protection, collecting) to get them.  Only people who tend to obey laws in the first place will obey and observe gun laws.  Abuse of firearms usually occurs in tandem with other crimes.

[Conan71]

Yes, actually . . . yes I do.  Mutually Assured Destruction (of which this is a variant) really only works when the Destruction is on a level larger than the personal.  It's the moral problem of wiping out a city or a region or a country or the world that stops your hand.  I think we can all agree that people have remarkably fewer moral problems taking risks with their own selves.

Similarly, it only works if the weapon you're carrying will Assure said destruction.  In other words:  as soon as I'm forced to use my weapon, we will all assuredly die.  With handguns (or AKs or any personal arms) there exists the real chance you can just wing someone.  It doesn't have to be fatal every time.  If you take that out of the equation, there's a much better chance you'll use your handgun (or AK or whatever).

I think you are missing the point of the deterrent effects.  Criminals generally are going to avoid going places which are well lit and their chances of being caught or shot are greater.  It's along the same lines of why a burglar will pick the house on the block without the ADT sign in the front yard to burglarize.

[we vs us]

I think you are missing the point of the deterrent effects.  Criminals generally are going to avoid going places which are well lit and their chances of being caught or shot are greater.  It's along the same lines of why a burglar will pick the house on the block without the ADT sign in the front yard to burglarize.

Will you be putting a "I Keep a Glock Under My Pillow, Stupid Miscreant!" sign in the front flowerbed?  How will they know?  Unless everyone has to carry a gun by law, there's going to be no change from the way it is now which is:  some people will carry, some will not.  Only, the people who carry now will be able to carry anything they want.

And re: restricting weapons . . . I think it does change things, but it surely doesn't turn violent crime off like a light.  In Chicago, Daley found that there was a double-edged sword to local control.  He could mandate anything he wanted, but couldn't stop the flow of guns into the city from other, less controlled places.  Can't buy a shotgun in Chicago?  No problem.  Step across the border into Gary, IN and purchase your fill.  And while you're at it, get some hollowpoints for your handgun.  You can do that if you're a meek housewife on the northside or a gangbanger from the westside.  Either way, you can slow but not stop the flow of weapons into the city.

This is either an argument for more national control or for less local control, but it's going to depend on where you sit, obviously.

As an aside, I was watching a doc on TV (think it was PBS, but can't remember what it was) about immigration and the drug wars.  In Mexico, guns of all stripes are illegal, but the drug cartels are arming themselves with guns built and bought in America, and smuggling them across the border.  While there are issues of border security baked into that question, it's also quite obvious that our freedom to buy/sell/and own guns is abetting the ridiculous murder rate in some of those Mexican border towns.

[custosnox]

As an aside, I was watching a doc on TV (think it was PBS, but can't remember what it was) about immigration and the drug wars.  In Mexico, guns of all stripes are illegal, but the drug cartels are arming themselves with guns built and bought in America, and smuggling them across the border.  While there are issues of border security baked into that question, it's also quite obvious that our freedom to buy/sell/and own guns is abetting the ridiculous murder rate in some of those Mexican border towns.

This is where the old saying "if you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns" comes from.  When you make it the law of the land, only those that respect the law in the first place are going to follow that law.  When the criminals want weapons, they will find them.  Unless we disarm everyone in the world, which means militaries as well, there is no way to stop the criminals from getting them, they will come from somewhere.

[Conan71]

Will you be putting a "I Keep a Glock Under My Pillow, Stupid Miscreant!" sign in the front flowerbed?  How will they know?  Unless everyone has to carry a gun by law, there's going to be no change from the way it is now which is:  some people will carry, some will not.  Only, the people who carry now will be able to carry anything they want.

And re: restricting weapons . . . I think it does change things, but it surely doesn't turn violent crime off like a light.  In Chicago, Daley found that there was a double-edged sword to local control.  He could mandate anything he wanted, but couldn't stop the flow of guns into the city from other, less controlled places.  Can't buy a shotgun in Chicago?  No problem.  Step across the border into Gary, IN and purchase your fill.  And while you're at it, get some hollowpoints for your handgun.  You can do that if you're a meek housewife on the northside or a gangbanger from the westside.  Either way, you can slow but not stop the flow of weapons into the city.

This is either an argument for more national control or for less local control, but it's going to depend on where you sit, obviously.

As an aside, I was watching a doc on TV (think it was PBS, but can't remember what it was) about immigration and the drug wars.  In Mexico, guns of all stripes are illegal, but the drug cartels are arming themselves with guns built and bought in America, and smuggling them across the border.  While there are issues of border security baked into that question, it's also quite obvious that our freedom to buy/sell/and own guns is abetting the ridiculous murder rate in some of those Mexican border towns.

That's an absolute false-hood about guns "of all stripes" being illegal in Mexico.  Certain calibers and types are illegal with the exception of law enforcement and the military.

If contraband guns are making it into the hands of drug runners, that's Mexico's own fault for not better policing the borders.  It's not the fault of our gun laws.  Based on our laws, Mexican nationals aren't walking into Academy Sports in El Paso and walking out ten minutes later with a new .45.

You could stop the manufacture of all firearms tomorrow, ban the sale and ownership and yet still, any miscreant who wants a firearm will still be able to get one.

[dbacks fan]

Here is an article on a trial that was dismissed on a technicallity, on how some of the weapons, specifically AK-47's got into the hands of the Mexican Drug Cartel. No they didn't walk into the local gun store, we delivered them to the Cartel. They are planning on retrying the case.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/05/07/20080507akbust0507.html



http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2009/03/18/20090318guns0318-ON.html

[we vs us]

That's an absolute false-hood about guns "of all stripes" being illegal in Mexico.  Certain calibers and types are illegal with the exception of law enforcement and the military.

You're right about the specificity of the Mexican gun regulation.  I should've taken ten seconds to wikipedia it.  At the same time that doesn't mean the cross-border dynamic doesn't hold true to how we know it works within municipalities in the US.  Just like Gary Indiana is part of the Chicago gun supply chain, it's completely feasible that American gun sources can be part of the Mexican gun supply chain.  We all know how permeable the border is for illegals and drugs on our side . . . why not for guns, too?

You could stop the manufacture of all firearms tomorrow, ban the sale and ownership and yet still, any miscreant who wants a firearm will still be able to get one.

And what's to stop you from getting one, too?  Presumably, if you thought it were that important to be protected, you'd get one too, by hook or by crook.

But all of this is pedestrian, really, in that I'm not a big proponent of taking everybody's precious precious guns.  Do I like guns?  No.  Do I think at least 50% of American demand for them is pure fetish rather than legit need?  Yes.  Can I do anything about it?  No.  So I'll discuss/argue this to a point, but my heart really isn't in it.  The pro-gun folks are MUCH more fired up about it than people who believe in stricter control.  There's plenty of other big fish to fry. 

[jamesrage]

I agree completely with your second sentence. It's too bad the first one is full of batshitinsane paranoia.

How is it batshitinsane paranoia? It is a fact that registrations have lead to confiscation in other countries and even in the US.

http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/Mortellaro/jm02.htm

Nobody's coming for your guns, despite what GOA has been claiming for god only knows how long.

Bans on certain firearms, registrations, permit/license requirements just to exercise a constitution right.

Lil Wayne is serving a one year sentence for having a loaded firearm on his tourbus,something which he has a constitutional right to.

The rest of us would just like to see the adjudicated insane and people who have proven themselves felons wielding a gun in the commission of their crimes to not have them.

Criminals do not obey laws,which is why they are called criminals in the first place. The only thing background checks,licenses/permits,registrations, and waiting periods do is inconvenience law abiding citizens. Those things being used to fight crime makes as much sense as gun free zone sign.

Even in the most liberal of states, gun ownership is perfectly legal.

http://www.newyorkcriminalattorneyblog.com/2009/03/new_york_gun_laws_when_your_un.html
NEW YORK GUN LAWS - WHEN YOUR UNLOADED GUN IS REALLY LOADED

Tilem & Campbell is fortunate to have former Firearms Trafficking prosecutor Peter H. Tilem as its Senior Partner able to advise clients on all aspects of New York gun possession. Under New York law, the severity of a Criminal Possession of a Weapon charge dealing with a firearm can hinge on whether the firearm was loaded or not. For example, one may be charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon (CPW) in the Fourth Degree for simply possessing a firearm [See PL 265.01(1)]. Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree does not require that the firearm be loaded. Therefore, one is guilty of CPW 4th if they simply possess an unloaded firearm without proper licensing. Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the 4th degree is an "A" misdemeanor that carries up to one year in jail.

However, if one possess a loaded firearm outside their home or business, the charge is CPW 2nd, a "C" felony which carries a mandatory minimum 3 ½ year to a maximum 15 years in state prison. [See PL 265.03(3); PL 70.02(3)(b)]. Therefore, if you possess an operable firearm outside your home or place of business, the difference between facing an "A" misdemeanor (CPW 4th) which carries up to one year in jail with no mandatory minimum (which means probation is possible) and the "C" felony (CPW 2nd) which carries a mandatory minimum of 3 ½ years in state prison has everything to do with whether the firearm was loaded.

Have you seen the number of literal machine guns they've got out in California?

Link?

[nathanm]

Criminals do not obey laws,which is why they are called criminals in the first place. The only thing background checks,licenses/permits,registrations, and waiting periods do is inconvenience law abiding citizens. Those things being used to fight crime makes as much sense as gun free zone sign.

You're half right. Criminals do often illegally acquire guns. Why is it that we should let them acquire them more cheaply through legal means?

[heironymouspasparagus]

Nathanm,
Wrong question - they don't use legal means anyway.  Check the FBI info about guns used in crime; invariably (except for maybe 3 per year) they are stolen.  Or bought on the international black market.  There just aren't that many legal full auto AK's around to get cheaply through legal means.  And they aren't cheap if legal.  No gun is.


Wevsus said,
I think we can all agree that people have remarkably fewer moral problems taking risks with their own selves.

Similarly, it only works if the weapon you're carrying will Assure said destruction.  In other words:  as soon as I'm forced to use my weapon, we will all assuredly die.  With handguns (or AKs or any personal arms) there exists the real chance you can just wing someone.  It doesn't have to be fatal every time.  If you take that out of the equation, there's a much better chance you'll use your handgun (or AK or whatever).


Huh?  I don't agree at all that people in general have fewer moral problems taking risks with their own selves.  Is that what you meant to write?  Doesn't make sense and goes WAY against the self-preservation the vast majority of us feel.

And in the second part, take what out of the equation?  Anyone who carries a gun or keeps it around for "self defense" and hasn't figured out whether they are willing to use it is an idiot.  Before you carry or have a gun around you had better decide that you are willing to use it to kill someone.  If you are not willing to do that, just leave the guns alone.  And if you are going to carry or possess, learn how to use it properly and practice!!

The whole idea of trying to "wing" an attacker and hold them is a horrible injustice done to society by TV and movies.  Trying to "wing" someone is beyond description stupid.  Shooting in the air to "scare them off" is at least as bad.  You might hit an innocent with the wild shot.


And last of all, the Constitution says we have the right.

[nathanm]

And last of all, the Constitution says we have the right.

The Constitution also says we all have the right to vote, yet somehow felons aren't permitted to do so. Ironically, the states that are most vehemently protective of the second amendment are the ones least likely to allow felons to vote.

While I consider all our liberties sacrosanct, there is certainly a list in my head ranking them by how much energy I'm willing to spend defending them. To my mind, denying someone their right to vote is a far greater crime than denying someone their right to bear arms.

[custosnox]

The Constitution also says we all have the right to vote, yet somehow felons aren't permitted to do so.

That is inaccurate.  While not able to vote while incarcerated (at least I don't think they can), once released they still retain their right to do so.

[nathanm]

That is inaccurate.  While not able to vote while incarcerated (at least I don't think they can), once released they still retain their right to do so.

You might want to check Oklahoma law on that one. Or Florida law. Or Arkansas law, or any of the other 34 states that don't restore a felon's right to vote once they've been released. In 12 of those states, the only way to get your franchise back is to get a pardon from the Governor. A further 23 states don't allow those on parole to vote. 18 of those don't even allow those on probation (including Oklahoma) to vote.

Only two states have sane policy on this issue and never prevent a person from voting. Oklahoma is not as bad as the 12 states that permanently bar felons (or in some cases certain felons) from ever voting again, but it's still stone-age stuff.