The current movement in the effort to ‘control’ who gets guns 1) does not work, 2) is unconstitutional. Maryland epitomizes this movement: Ban guns, limit magazine capacity, require registration, finger printing… These are efforts that Obama and many democrats at the federal level are pushing. Washington DC had an outright ban on guns in that city and gun crimes were disproportionately high to the claim that these gun control methods would curb gun violence.
I’m well aware, and I am against any type of regulation or bans on the federal level, including permits of any sort. I think that all those who support the 2nd Amendment can agree that any bans in both state and federal levels are a direct infringement, and I think that includes bans on high capacity magazines. Finger prints are borderline depending, and I’ll address registration in a minute. My difference in this topic is that I am an avid supporter of States ‘rights’. United States v. Cruikshank: [the Second Amendment] "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government." yet, with the 14th Amendment, it is held that the specifically enumerated rights apply to the states. And while I hold this true, I contend that a state may retain the power (which must be specifically stated in their constitution) to regulate the wearing of arms so long as such regulation does not equate to a substantive interference.
I think I’ve outlined my position and boundaries on permit abuse specifically for handguns fairly well.
Name your city where gun crimes are the highest and you’ll find they have the most strict gun control laws.
Well, that’s not exactly true because New Orleans has one of the highest gun homicide rates in the country and has fairly relaxed gun laws, but to be fair, it’s difficult to make city to city or state to state comparisons due to the numerous possible factors. For example, in 2010 Texas had the second highest number of gun homicides at about 800, but hey, it’s a big freakin state (hah). We could also look at places like Vermont which have open carry without a permit and they had 2… yes, two… gun homicides in the same year, but, the state is mostly rural. The best way to determine the effects of gun control laws is comparisons within the same city itself – such as how the murder rate in Chicago is at it’s lowest in 50 years, which just so happens to follow the Supreme Court stricking down their handgun ban that was in place for nearly 30 years.
Most criminals that commit gun crimes don’t bother to get their guns legally, so how do any of these laws work? The mentally ill (like Adam Lanza) ‘acquired’ (I’ll say stole) typically get their guns from other owners. How do these laws prevent them from getting guns? The answer to both is… they don’t.
That’s because the laws are aimed at playing nanny, rather than educating the law-abiding gun owners, and allowing school staff to arm themselves, or even, and up to, full firearms training classes in school. Never seen a mass shooting at a gun range, have we? There’s a reason for that.
In an effort to create a perfect world, anti-gun folks have created a less perfect world. These laws only serve to embolden criminals knowing most law-abiding people are unarmed. If I were to implement laws that tried to solve gun crime problems I would target the crime, not the object. With strict, swift, harsh punishment.
I agree 100%, but…
Hold owners who lose control of their fireamrs to someone that commits a gun crime they will receive swift and harsh punishment.
Hold on there…. You would punish the victim of a theft, as if he is responsible for the crime itself? If someone breaks into my house, steals my gun, and kills someone… I should be liable? That’s not right. In cases like Adam Lanza it may be known where the gun came from, but in most cases there wouldn’t be a way to tell who own the gun without … Gun registration. Gun registration serves no purpose in the effort to secure public safety, and does nothing but create a shopping list for arbitrary confiscation, or in the case you present: punishing those who had nothing to do with the crime.
Our government is sending the message that if you’re a law-respecting person with no intentions of inflicting harm on any innocent person, you can’t be trusted and the government will make a criminal out of you with these gun control laws; while at the same time telling criminals “it’s now open season”.
I absolutely hold to that principle as I quoted; “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
