Kampf I see what you're saying. But doesn't the second amendment gaurantee us this right so we can maintain militias? I don't see a whole lot of militia activity. And I'm pretty sure most school shootings are done by people who obtain their guns illegally. Like from their parents. Domestic shootings would still be a problem, but with a lack of "disposable" guns they would be far easier to solve. And ultimately we are a pretty small internet community. I don't think anything we discuss in this thread is going to be put into action so what is the point of discussing anything seriously if not to hear other peoples thoughts and ideas?
If you just glance at the text and don't read the history. The issue of defense against tyranny isn't brought up ad nauseam for shits and giggles. Not always though. Cho got his weapons legally and the columbine shooters acquired them from a gun show, but yes, more often than not it's a gun stolen from another person. My point was that this could never happen, so even if we can't, us honorable members of the TiB influence policy, the discussion is still moot. Yeah it sounds cool, and would definitely reduce gun crimes, but it's a bit silly when it's a pipe dream that could never be implemented.
I see that. I guess my main question is would the gun owners her be willing to give up A LOT of the freedoms of owning a gun to greatly reduce gun crime. Maybe a hypothetical wasn't the best way to go about asking this question. However I do think its and import question to ask. Even if the answer is not a simple one.
So...if you could somehow make all "illegal guns" disappear or be ineffective, then gun crime would disappear? That's some fine detective work, Lou. If you restrict use, you lower the utility. That's why biometrics on cars/laptops haven't been all that great: sometimes the owner is not the user. Lower the utility, more often than not, the technology is ignored. It seems that there is a series of instructions for a 3D printable gun. It looks like technology is pushing things in the opposite direction. Not to mention the hundreds of tutorials on how to build a workable firearm online.
How on earth would this come close to getting rid of all gun crime? Especially of the sort that began this thread. As has been stated before, there are people that committed terrible things with legally obtained guns. If the gunman is willing to kill himself at the end, he's not going to care that they can "only" use their gun or that it's being tracked. While we're at it let's discuss the pros and cons of having magical gun fairies follow us everywhere. These fairies would be the only way to obtain bullets, and they would give them out only if they deem it necessary. For other crimes (say robbery with a gun) it might put a big dent, or you could just get mugged with a knife.
The biometrics is a swell idea. Except for the fact you'd have people who would figure out how to modify it and shut it off the second that becomes a requirement. A lot of guns have interchangeable parts. Mine can switch out from a 9mm to a .40 by swapping a few parts pretty easily. Not to mention you can't buy an automatic without jumping through hoops to get an FFL, yet, you can find instructions on how modify certain semi-autos to full auto on the Internet. So again, you'd have law abiding people who follow it, and criminals who will find a way around it.
This is pretty troubling: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/09/politics/gun-control-battle/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/09/politics/ ... ol-battle/</a> So basically Obama is considering using an Executive Order to enact gun control without Congress. I can't imagine the shitstorm that will follow if he actually goes through with it.
In my opinion it's impossible for that to work... among reasons, IWantSomeJuice mentions how you could just disable it. All you need to disassemble and swap parts in the majority of guns out there is some screwdrivers and pin punches, and it wouldn't be any challenge to just replace the biometrically controlled parts (especially if they had to retro-fit an existing design to use the biometrics). Short story: It would enable motivated criminals. It will be a mega shitstorm. I wonder how much sleep Wayne LaPierre has been getting these past few days...
Not saying it would or could happen because of open carry laws, but imagine a million gun owners march on D.C. It would seem that based on the last 3 week period, based on gun sales and the jump in NRA membership that the message from the public is pretty clear. Though that has never stopped politicians with agendas.
Really? I was looking at the polls and they seem to indicate that many are in favor of more gun laws. As much as some people have been bitching about the left being too 'reactionary' in their calls for more gun laws, the other side has been just as reactionary in buying new guns like crazy and screaming for no new laws and threatening a new Civil War or a new revolution. Beside that, the last election was kind of a barometer, in that the "gun hating" left won the presidency and senate pretty handily. I actually think the majority is in favor of new gun laws. Not outright banning guns (those same polls indicate the majority are in favor of allowing concealed carry of handguns), but new laws that maybe require background checks before ALL gun purchases or other new laws, or much more strict enforcement of current laws.
Without getting too much off topic, lets be honest. He won because a lot of stupid people voted for him, (the so-called "Low Information Voter") and a lot of Repubs stayed home. I'm not willing to put a ton of stock into people wanting more gun laws when they don't pay attention in the first place. But regardless if that's true or not, he should not be circumventing Congress on such a explosive issue. People are going to go ballistic if that starts happening, just like they (rightfully) did when Bush pulled that shit. There's a separation of powers for a reason.
Please, I feel the same way about most of the people who voted for GWB. Here's what I'm thinking: It's already been mentioned in this thread that we already have lots of laws regarding gun sales/ownership that aren't really enforced, which contributes to the problem. Since the Justice Department is a part of the Executive Branch, he may very well be within his authority as the President to order the Justice Department to make a much greater effort into enforcing the laws that we already have on the books.
You miss my point. If the legislative branch enacts new laws, they are within their right to do so. If the President uses an executive order to circumvent that process, this is something else. You show me a poll of people giving answers to questions in many cases they know nothing about. You should ask Gallup to qualify those responses: How many of those polled knew the laws currently on the books? Of those who did know about the laws on the books, were they aware of how they are currently enforced? How many of those polled had any experience with firearms beyond seeing them on T.V.? Answers to those questions might make a poll like this a little more useful.
....except Obama and most Democratic Congressional/Senate candidates in contested races wouldn't touch the issue with a 10-foot pole. There's a reason for that.
I'll tell you this- start talking about actual laws that are on the books and the most ardent gun control supporters shut right the fuck up, as evidenced by this thread.
What, in your mind, makes this especially different from any other use of executive orders, which are a pretty common executive tool? I think you likely have a good point, but I wouldn't mind seeing those opposed spell it out.
Enacting rules which may materially affect your constitutional rights for starters. Believe me when I say this as well, the constantly creeping and broadening of the scope of executive power that has gone on for the last decade or two is startling to me. This trend (executive orders and Czar appointments) needs to be reversed.
Please point out the laws Obama has enacted that have restricted gun use in the US. Specifically, if you are able.