Skip to main content

View Diary: Universal background check could be as dead as assault weapons ban (614 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  On the one hand (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Paul1a, 714day, Joy of Fishes, jeff in nyc

    Gun registration is pretty much "show us your papers" when it comes to guns and could be abused in the same way that being able to demand someone "show us your papers" to prove legal residence can be abused.

    But, on the other hand, so what?  A part of me just doesn't care.

    •  well you could make the same argument about (7+ / 0-)

      voter reg.  The Supreme Court case involving the Arizona law makes that clear.

      But I'd still argue that in general voter registration is a net positive not a net negative.

      Anything has the potential to be abused.

      •  I strongly believe (15+ / 0-)

        That government can't do good things unless you give it power that has the potential to be abused.  I believe gun registration is a big government solution and I am often in favor of big government solutions.  Though I don't believe in confiscating guns, I think gun registration is part of the increase in data collecting power that is necessary for more effective and efficient law enforcement.

        •  Let me help you with phrasing (11+ / 0-)

          I think the 2nd Amendment folk would prefer that you say

          " ... gun registration is part of the increase in data collecting power that is necessary for a well regulated militia."
          I think quoting the 2nd Amendment is always helpful in reminding people the founding fathers did not say the ultimate goal was people having guns, but rather the goal was to have a well regulated militia and the way to do that was to allow people to keep and bear arms.  Many, especially on the right, have selective amnesia on that point.
          •  And when they want to rely on Heller (10+ / 0-)

            it's good to remind them that 2A does not include a right to be a menace to oneself or others.

            People who have not proven safe gun handling, accurate shooting skill, and knowledge of firearms law are too often a menace to themselves and others.

            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

            by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:30:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No constitutional right... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Kentucky Kid

              ...including, speech (and religion), allows anyone to pose a menace to another person.

              But, we don't require government pre-approval or government databases of all who want to speak in order to insure that we preempt child pornographers or releasing of classified national security information.

              People often misinterpret the scope of "free speech" and get belligerent and demand it in arenas where they don't, in fact, have any such rights (private property for example or where the volume or hours of speech are limited by content neutral rules). So, obviously, we should make sure that speakers are well trained before speaking.

              Statistically, the overwhelming majority of gun owners don't pose a menace to others.

              (I'm personally not against requiring passing a test in firearms safety in order to purchase/own a firearm, as long as the test is easily available, is free, and is easily passed by most people -- just as I'm not against testing showing an understanding of compound interest or supply/demand curves in order to vote.)

              •  100,000 shootings every year (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Avila

                A statistically significant fraction of which were in the hands of someone who was a menace to themselves or others.

                You're example of porn is perhaps a good one.

                If someone used their own children to make porn videos and their own recording equipment and never releases any copies of the porn out of their private property there is little the state can do to detect or protect the children who are harmed by the presence of porn in the home or being used to create porn.

                BUT the moment that porn does into the public sphere it is totally sanctionable.

                The right to self defense is a universal human right. It doesn't reside in the constitution. The US 2A right to use a gun for self defense depends upon firearm competence.

                In contracts, anyone who is incompetent to sign (because they cannot understand the terms of a contract) cannot be bound by the contract when they sign unawares.

                "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:53:53 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Point to numbers of shootings or even gun deaths (0+ / 0-)

                  without context is meaningless.  Attributing these statistics to proverbial straw "gun owners" as is typically done and tacitly implied in your post is obviously manipulative.  You may be verbose and vociferous, but you lack validity.

          •  I'm ok with an individual gun ownership right (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ColoTim, LilithGardener, The Marti

            I'm not seeking to get rid of that.  I would, however, prefer to phrase it in a way that makes it clear that I do not like anti-government libertarians who fear law enforcement.

            •  My main concern is those who put their right (7+ / 0-)

              to own a gun above my right to have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  I accept limits on my rights when they impinge negatively on others, yet many in the gun fetish camp (which is a subset of the RKBA group) feel they have the right to a gun no matter how much they endanger themselves (not really my concern) or others (a major concern).

              •  Nobody can endanger someone with a gun.... (0+ / 0-)

                or any other object.

                Hence the crime of assault, murder etc.

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:03:57 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That doesn't even make sense (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  FogCityJohn

                  Or are you ignoring the meaning of "endanger"?  That's like saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people", which is laughable, since thousands of people are killed every year by guns who would not be killed in any other fashion.

                  There are lots of accidents, lots of threats made with guns, lots of people who are threatened by people who they know have guns (e.g. wives who get protection orders from ex-husbands who they know have guns and are dangerous).

                  •  "doesn't make sense" (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    noway2

                    Is that why we charge the gun, knife etc with the crime of murder?

                    I am surrounded by guns. It is a very low crime area. I can assure you, it isn't the gun that is the problem.

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                    by FrankRose on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 09:25:41 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  No one can endanger someone with a gun? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ColoTim, LilithGardener

                  Hmmm?  If no one can endanger someone with a gun, then the whole self-defense justification for gun ownership pretty much goes out the window.  After all, people who buy guns because they say they need them for self-defense very much want to endanger other human beings whom they perceive to be a threat.

                  But then logic doesn't appear to be your strong point.

                  "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                  by FogCityJohn on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 10:03:27 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The comment pretty clearly referred to crimes. (0+ / 0-)

                    But then literacy doesn't appear to be your strong point.

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                    by FrankRose on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 10:36:04 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  So what if it refers to crimes? (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      ColoTim, LilithGardener

                      Your statement is nonsensical on its face.  "No one can endanger someone with a gun"?  Really?  If no one can endanger someone with a gun, how is it that people are killed and wounded when they're shot?

                      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                      by FogCityJohn on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 10:54:53 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  No. Not legally. Which was the point of the thread (0+ / 0-)

                        Again, 'literacy'--you should work on it.

                        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                        by FrankRose on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 11:58:37 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Yes, legally. (0+ / 0-)

                          See, e.g., State v. Ghiloni, 398 A.2d 1204, 1205-06 (Ct. App. 1978):

                          A person is guilty of reckless endangerment in the second degree “when he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a risk of physical injury to another person.” General Statutes s 53a-64. “(A) person acts ‘recklessly’ with respect to a result . . . when he is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur . . . . The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregarding it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.” General Statutes s 53a-3(13). The statute applies an objective yardstick to measure the nature and degree of the risk. If this yardstick is used here, there was [1206] ample evidence from which the trier could have concluded that when the defendant fired his gun at the ground in the general vicinity of the assailants, the risk of injury was substantial. The statute applies a subjective yardstick to measure the defendant's awareness of the risk. Subjective realization of a risk may be inferred from a person's words and conduct when viewed in the light of the surrounding circumstances. LaFave and Scott, Criminal Law (2d Ed.) s 30. The defendant had been familiar with firearms for twenty-five years. He acknowledged to the police that he should have fired his shot into the air and that it was stupid to have fired at the ground. He did not know where *574 the bullet hit. The assailants on the street below were dressed in baker-type white uniforms and were within close range of his line of fire. Those factors, taken in the light of the surrounding circumstances, were sufficient to permit the court to conclude not only that the defendant was aware of the nature of the risk involved in his conduct but that he consciously chose to disregard it in a misguided belief that by doing so he was helping to apprehend the perpetrators of a vicious assault.

                          "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                          by FogCityJohn on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 10:21:07 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  And for your further reading enjoyment: (0+ / 0-)

                          People v. Shoonmaker, 479 N.Y.S.2d 765, 766-67 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984):

                          On this appeal, defendant argues that his conviction of reckless endangerment in the first degree cannot stand since no person was in the immediate vicinity of the path of his bullet. That fact was merely**767 fortuitous and cannot inure to the benefit of this defendant, who knew the house was occupied and who did not know the location of the occupants when he fired into the outside wall of the kitchen (see Matter of Mario Y., 75 A.D.2d 954, 956, 428 N.Y.S.2d 71).

                          "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                          by FogCityJohn on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 10:29:28 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

    •  If you're stopped on the road, they don't say (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LilithGardener, The Marti

      "Show us your papers?"  I bet all of us show them your license to drive and your insurance card.  I don't think it's the same as the AZ law that stops you for no reason other than your physical appearance or language.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site