Casey Corr (my favorite out of all the loopy old timers at Crosscut) writes this after a visit to a outdoor supply store in Lacey:
But a day after news broke of an entire family murdered near Carnation by two other family members — one who allegedly told police “she was tired of everybody stepping on her,” I saw this sign posted at the Cabela’s entry:
“All firearms & bows that are brought in for repair; service or trade, must be opened & checked in at the Greeter’s Desk. This does not apply to conceal/carry permit holders.
Thank you, Cabela’s.
From what I gather, this is SOP at any store that sells guns. If you bring a gun inside, you have to check it upfront. That’s so they don’t have nimrods running all over the store with what-have-you.
But the news from Carnation and the gentle request that people check their guns put me on edge.
Really? How about the “no shirt, no shoes, no service” sign? Does that bend you out of shape?
The Anderson killings remind us we need to do more to make it less likely that guns are used in crimes. The irony, of course, is that many proposed gun reforms would not have changed the outcome of gun violence. That may even be the case with the Anderson family. We don’t know yet whether added delays on buying guns or extended background checks could have prevented the murders. Michele Anderson and Joseph McEnroe got their guns legally last summer, the P-I reported.
My views on guns tends to get me in trouble with my fellow Democrats, but I think it’s important to make a few things clear. Gun regulations tend to be pushed by those who don’t understand guns, who don’t understand the difference between what makes a rifle an “assault weapon,” or who don’t understand that law-abiding gun owners (the kind Casey ran in to down in Lacey) will abide by the law while criminals won’t.
Statistics may show that having a gun in your house makes it more likely you’ll shoot yourself or your kids. (If you drive a car, you’re much more likely to be in a car wreck, but I’ve never heard this fact used as the rationale for regulating cars.) I don’t know the people who are shooting themselves or their kids with their guns; the only gun owners I know are safety-minded folks who teach their kids that guns are not toys, no matter what it looks like on TV. (Spending a Saturday with Grandpa while he cleans his BAR was more fun than Playstation 2, or at least that’s what my friend’s daughter told me. She’s 9.)
So with guns, it seems to be a cultural problem between those who are ignorant of guns and want to pass laws to ban or restrict their sale, and the people who have guns, use and store them safely, and would rather the government stay out of their lives on the issue.
After the Capitol Hill shootings a while back, lots of people demanded new gun control policy. Specifically, a statewide ban on the sale of “assault weapons” and a closing of the state “gun show loophole.”
As the facts became clearer, it turned out that:
1) The shooter didn’t buy the guns at a Washington state gun show, and;
2) None of the weapons used were “assault weapons.”
This meant that any and all news laws being proposed would have done absolutely nothing to stop that crime.
As my opinions have migrated from serious gun control advocate to a somewhat passionate gun rights advocate, I have realized that the passage of new gun control laws are meant to assuage the nerves of people who are nervous about guns, and are less about preventing crime.
Thanks Will. You may get some crap from others on this site, but not from me. If there’s any nitpick, it’s that we DO register cars, in part because they have very obvious inherent dangers when used irresponsibly. I think the same should apply to guns, but the notion that we can reduce violence through banning the sale of guns or trying to limit where law-abiding citizens can carry them is foolish.
Will,
Not that I disagree with your overall point, your parenthetical thought about cars doesn’t really assist in the argument. Why do we license both vehicles and drivers if it’s not primarily for the purpose of reducing vehicular accidents?
Personally, I’d leave any discussion of cars out of a discussion of guns. It’s rather difficult to find any sort of useful analogy for either side of the argument.
“(If you drive a car, you’re much more likely to be in a car wreck, but I’ve never heard this fact used as the rationale for regulating cars.)”
Uhhhhh, HELLO???? You know that funny little plastic thing in your wallet with your picture on it?
There may perhaps be a more cogent argument based on the fact that the purpose of a car is to get someone from one place to another, while the essential purpose of a firearm is to put a hole in a living creature.
Mind you, for many people (myself included at times) a gun is used for something more innocuous, such as to put holes in paper targets or be put on display and admired for the design and craftsmanship that went into its creation. Nonetheless, it remains that guns were originally invented for the primary purpose of killing.
Hmmm…methinks there’s more agreement than disagreement on this issue.
Guns v. cars. Are cars mentioned in the Constitution?
Guns are as much defensive weapons – “Stop or I’ll shoot!” – as offensive.
If guns should be registered, shouldn’t newspapers, churchs, and those who speak and write?
Sticky things, these Constitutional rights.
The Piper
So with guns, it seems to be a cultural problem between those who are ignorant of guns and want to pass laws to ban or restrict their sale, and the people who have guns, use and store them safely, and would rather the government stay out of their lives on the issue.
Let’s not make the mistake of assuming that these are the only two groups of people out there. For example, there are both law enforcement officers and academics immersed in the study of gun violence and its causes who favor gun control. There also exist the “people who have guns,” who most certainly do NOT “use and store them safely.” Your statement seems intentionally slanted to conceal or minimize both the existence and importance of these latter groups.
It also seems quite normal that people with a political agenda of any kind will latch onto an emotion-packed event to put forward their issues, as both sides (if there are only two) will whenever there is a firearm-related tragedy. None of that has a bearing on the validity of their issues per se. For example, the so-called “gun show loophole” needs to be closed whether people in Carnation would or would not have been saved by such closure.
@5
Guns v. cars. Are cars mentioned in the Constitution?
No, but I do see where you’re going with this.
Guns are as much defensive weapons – “Stop or I’ll shoot!” – as offensive.
That’s a good point.
If guns should be registered, shouldn’t newspapers, churchs, and those who speak and write?
No, because those things aren’t as inherently dangerous (although churches do have to register in order to be given tax-exempt status).
If you’re trying to compare gun ownership to other constitutional right by saying that things (like cars) invented since then aren’t at the same bar for protection, that I’d suggest than only the models of guns which had been invented before 1787 don’t have to be registered.
Piper – you sound kinda dorky using words like “methinks.”
IMO – an armed society is a polite society.
i am a gun owner and have a permit to carry concealed weapons. i am also in favor of regular testing to aquire licenses for such ownership.
it’s kinda like what i hear from many of the Elephants in regards to the wire tapping and drug testing…”if you ain’t doing nothing wrong then why worry”…and this is how i feel about gun ownership.
if you are responsible then why worry about permits and licenses??
i am a resposible gun owner and i would like that to be known….a licensing system would help.
I don’t know the people who are shooting themselves or their kids with their guns; the only gun owners I know are safety-minded folks who teach their kids that guns are not toys, no matter what it looks like on TV. (Spending a Saturday with Grandpa while he cleans his BAR was more fun than Playstation 2, or at least that’s what my friend’s daughter told me. She’s 9.)
I grew up around guns, so to me they’re not tools, toys, or penis extensions. They’re just guns. For the most part, I think your argument is pretty close to my position, Will, so I won’t quibble too much. However, the quote I highlighted here doesn’t help your argument. On the one hand, you say responsible gun owners teach their kids that guns aren’t toys, but a Saturday with gramps and his BAR is “fun”? I’m sure it can be, but your anecdote shows just how careful gun owning parents must be in demonstrating both the postives and negatives of guns.
As for the arguments put forth in comment #5, they’re just too embarrassing to address. Seriously, that’s Jonah Goldberg-level thinking.
Remember the first clause:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
@11…K…
The operative phrase is, “…the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
What part of “shall not” do you not understand?
The Piper
@8…PI…
Any word that was good enough for Shakespeare is good enough for me. Think Macbeth…
The Piper
Coincidence isn’t correlation. Corr assumes a connection between the sign and the Carnation homicides. He doesn’t consider the possibility that, in a newly-opened store, customers don’t know where the repair department is.
@12
Do you think that wording precludes all forms of registration?
What part of “well regulated” do you not understand? Are those words to be ignored?
I do not argue ban, but licensing seems to be within the scope of the amendment.
@7…Lee…
“If you’re trying to compare gun ownership to other constitutional right by saying that things (like cars) invented since then aren’t at the same bar for protection, that I’d suggest than only the models of guns which had been invented before 1787 don’t have to be registered.”
Ditto forms of expression, speech, etc., should be protected by the First Amendment, and then only in the manner in which they were understood at the time.
Remember, the Bill of Rights is a check AGAINST government, not a limitation on the rights of citizens. The Second Amendment merely codified what was regarded as the Common Law right of every Englishman to own weapons to safeguard his home and property.
That the nature of the threat has changed from hostile Indians and wild animals to drug-crazed burglers or homicidal maniacs, the need to defend one’s self or property remains. Think Jeanne Assam.
The Piper
how hard is it to license and test gun owners???
where does this infringe on the 2nd??
good god people!!!!
there was no standing army so what we needed were citizens that could, at a moments notice, be called into active duty.
NOT EVERY PERSON HAS THE RIGHT TO OWN A GUN!!!
they have the right to be part of a militia…or what we now call the National Guard.
@17
That the nature of the threat has changed from hostile Indians and wild animals to drug-crazed burglers or homicidal maniacs, the need to defend one’s self or property remains. Think Jeanne Assam.
As I wrote above, I have no interest in prohibiting ownership or limiting where licensed individuals can possess a firearm. You’re using a strawman instead of responding to me. Would Jeanne Assam have been unable to do what she did if she had to fill out paperwork when purchasing her gun? Of course not.
@15…Lee…
First, what’s the purpose of registration? What social value is there other than to keep a record of who owns guns so that it will be easy to find and confiscate them later?
That the law currently forbids selling guns to minors or those with criminal and now mental illness histories is legitimate as far as I’m concerned. But why should I have to register my .22 that I’ve had since 1963, or my Browning 12-gauge that my uncle gave me in 1978?
A concealed weapon permit is something different. There, that the weapon is hid from view is something society has a legit interest in involving itself.
But licensing and registering all guns just ’cause?
What is interesting, however, is how many of you HA Happy Hooligans start from a premise on the right of the people to keep and bear arms that I’m quite comfortable with, and seemingly ditto you with me.
Maybe the next DL should be at Wade’s Guns?
The Piper
@18…UB…
If someone breaks into your home, will you call the National Guard? Or defend your family and property with a gun?
Which is the more reasonable and foreseeable in 1787?
The Piper
What did the words “well regulated” mean in 1787?
@20
First, what’s the purpose of registration? What social value is there other than to keep a record of who owns guns so that it will be easy to find and confiscate them later?
It makes it easier for law enforcement to identify negligent parties when guns are used in crime. Do you worry that registering our cars will lead to the government confiscating all our cars?
That the law currently forbids selling guns to minors or those with criminal and now mental illness histories is legitimate as far as I’m concerned. But why should I have to register my .22 that I’ve had since 1963, or my Browning 12-gauge that my uncle gave me in 1978?
It’s unrealistic to try to register all old firearms. If it were implemented, it would solely be for new purchases.
A concealed weapon permit is something different. There, that the weapon is hid from view is something society has a legit interest in involving itself.
I think we agree on this.
What is interesting, however, is how many of you HA Happy Hooligans start from a premise on the right of the people to keep and bear arms that I’m quite comfortable with, and seemingly ditto you with me.
Maybe the next DL should be at Wade’s Guns?
Do they have beer there?
@22…K…
That you went to the privy on a consistent basis.
The Piper
Sometimes you have so much sense & sensibility, Will, that we wonder why you lowered yourself to Goldstein’s horse’s ass.
@22…K…
Or that it meant that the citizenry both individually and as a body were trained and equipped to be called out at a moment’s notice. In other words, that EVERY home was essentially a part of the militia, and that the militia wasn’t an organized, sworn-in force as we know it today, but instead were volunteers who brought their guns from home, used them to defend the community, then took their guns back home to, if necessary, defend the homes themselves.
It could be argued, then, that a “well regulated militia” is the Constitutional underpinning for both a draft and the requirement that every home contain a firearm.
Just think…if every door in town had a sign saying, “The occupants of this home are armed, know how to use firearms, and are perfectly willing to use them in defense of life and property,” what would happen to residential burglaries?
BTW…it’s appalling the level of persecution now being applied to the WSP trooper who shoot and killed the crazed assailant on I-5 a few days ago. Contending that he used excessive force in firing the third shot is so much stupid second guessing from the peanut gallery.
The Piper
People are afraid of things they don’t understand, and the best form of gun control for people who don’t understand guns is — DON’T OWN THEM.
An “assault weapon,” btw, is a rifle (designed for military use) with a high rate of fire and a large-capacity magazine which is therefore capable of putting out a sustained high rate of fire — NOT a rifle that “looks like a military rifle” or has a flash suppressor and/or a bayonet lug!
There was NEVER an “assault weapon ban” in this country. What Congress did pass was a ban on imported rifles with flash suppressors and/or bayonet lugs. You could still have a rifle with those accouterments provided it was manufactured domestically. And you could have a high-rate-of-fire rifle capable of receiving a large-capacity magazine regardless of where it came from, as long as it didn’t have a flash suppressor and/or bayonet lug, even if it otherwise looked like (and was) an AK-47 or SKS or M-16 or Stoner.
The so-called “assault weapon ban” was a fucking joke whose only purpose was to appease voters who know nothing about guns who get excited every time some nut shoots up a daycare with a gun that turns out to be perfectly legal under the “assault weapon ban.”
@26- for the sake of argument, let’s accept your post. Now let’s look at the third paragraph.
“The occupants of this home are armed, know how to use firearms, and are perfectly willing to use them in defense of life and property,”
How do we assure they know how to use them?
Not that I necessarily accept all @ 26
@28…K…
Consider…most of the HA Happy Hooligans on this thread seem to be pretty pro-gun rights, so you’re in the minority.
Note that my suggestion wasn’t something that MUST happen, but something that would be cool if it did happen. In other words, if everyone on town got on board the gun-owner bus.
If you did, K, you would heigh yourself to Wade’s or Cabela’s (to the chagrin of Case Corr) or even a Big 5 Sporting Goods, get you a firearm of some kind (most sporting goods stores stock only rifles and shotguns as opposed to gun shops that deal with a broad range of handguns…still in all, a rifle will work just fine), go to a range and learn how to operate it safely, then keep it in your home.
Consider also, that at one time in America, it was culturally de rigeuer for every male and most females who lived anywhere in the country save in the few genuinely urban centers that existed at the time to become absolutely proficient in the use of firearms well before they could even read…if they ever learned how to read, that is. Such proficiency was necessary both for reasons of self-defense, but also to eat.
Curious…are you a gun owner? If not, why? Would you ever consider owning a firearm?
The Piper
I’ve been noticing that all that the “Gun-Free Zone” stuff really does is to create a pool of known-to-be-unarmed victims. Easy pickings for the less-than-honest among us. Anti-gun zealots should be willing to post a simple sign in front of their homes:
“This is a gun-free home”
Unless you are willing to do that, you don’t NEED to know if I am armed or not. Keep the bad guys guessing. It’s not anybody else’s business.
I am not a gun owner. I also do not but into the crime paranoia. I do not live in fear of a break-in form crazies after me and mine.
I did not say anywhere to ban them. I am in favor of some degree of regulation- concealed weapons, automatic weapons, to start with.
Why do you refuse to respond to my question about the first clause?
And to broaden this out a bit, what I find most distasteful about this exchange with Piper and what ofter goes on here in the blogosphere is the aggressive, obnoxious approach where if you do not agree with every word I say, you therefore must be an idiot.
Perhaps venting one’s spleen makes you feel better, but it doesn’t pass for an intelligent discussion.
Got some better things to do now
@31…K…
I did respond…by pointing out that the operative words are, “…the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The plain language of “shall not be infringed,” leaves little room for doubt.
If your feelings get hurt by the robust nature of the discourse, then remember that blogging is a lot like professional wrestling, and you, yourself, participate thusly by using a nom de grapple.
And at least on this thread, there’s been a pretty decent level of agreement from both the right and left on the right to own guns. We may quibble on details, but we’re in accord on the essential.
Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus…
The Piper
@8
If you’re interested in a polite society, I think you’re in the wrong comment thread.
“It makes it easier for law enforcement to identify negligent parties when guns are used in crime.”
I fail to see how this is accomplished. If a crime is committed with a 9mm handgun. If I happen to own and have registered a 9mm handgun, how will this help the police determine whether or not I am involved in the crime? It could allow the Government to abuse their powers (Something you libs love to scream about especially when it comes to the Police. Except of course when it has to do with Gun Rights) and falsely go after innocent law abiding gun owners.
“Do you worry that registering our cars will lead to the government confiscating all our cars?”
Ummmm, while you may have a right to own property, you don’t have any right to drive a car. That is a privilege. And one that yes, the government can take away from you. Comparing gun registration to auto registration is like comparing Marcy Bruner to someone that has actual qualifications. You just shouldn’t do it.
@ 34- Don’t flatter yourself, Pipes. Where did I advocate ban, and when did you reply to the meaning of the first clause?
It ain’t robust discourse when you deliberately misrepresent and refuse to honestly engage.
There is room for dialog on where a line should be drawn. You’re not interested in it.
@37…K…
Sigh…the operative and controlling portion of the Second Amendment is just as I said:
“‘…the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The plain language of ‘shall not be infringed, leaves little room for doubt.”
The rest of the language can be considered akin to obiter dictum.
You presume a line that I consider un-Constitutional…Your line is, to me, well beyond the line that’s proper.
Fascinating that gun control isn’t on any Congressional agenda anywhere…Newly elected Democratic Senator James Webb of Virginia is about as strong an advocate of gun rights as anyone in Washington, D.C. In his case, it’s a matter of principle. In the case of others, they know that supporting increased gun regulation is a one-way ticket to losing an election.
Whatever lines there are to draw will probably get drawn in favor of gun owners and their continued right to own firearms without further governmental intrusion.
The Piper
@36
Ummmm, while you may have a right to own property, you don’t have any right to drive a car. That is a privilege. And one that yes, the government can take away from you.
How is that different from guns? We take away gun ownership privileges from people (ex-felons, for example).
2008 will be a big year in the gun control debate because there’s a pretty good chance the Supreme Court will address, for the first time in decades, the question of whether the 2nd Amendment applies only to state-sponsored militias, or includes individuals.
by Will, 12/31/2007, 11:18 AM
Casey Corr (my favorite out of all the loopy old timers at Crosscut) writes this after a visit to a outdoor supply store in Lacey:
As my opinions have migrated from serious gun control advocate to a somewhat passionate gun rights advocate, I have realized that the passage of new gun control laws are meant to assuage the nerves of people who are nervous about guns, and are less about preventing crime.
Will; if you had something more than shit for brains you would not make the statement made above. Gun laws only allow the criminal elements to have guns and like Canada they never work. You need to see a therapist to solve your fear of weapons. Every time I take my troops to a training exercised they after words found out those weapons they just use did not meet the Hollywood hype. When you separate the bull shit from what you just claim maybe we can produce some decent criminal control laws. Even you can’t sell your bull shit to the funny lawyer rabbit.
Roger Rabbit says:
2008 will be a big year in the gun control debate because there’s a pretty good chance the Supreme Court will address, for the first time in decades, the question of whether the 2nd Amendment applies only to state-sponsored militias, or includes individuals.
Roger after WTO they better include the individuals because the Governor of this State disarmed the National Guard because they were afraid of what happen in Kent State. During the Rodney King Riots the National Guard was tied up in a Football Stadium because they couldn’t find any ammunition for their weapons. You know the State with the worst gun control laws in the Nation. Do not depend on the National Guard for your survival if you got nuts running the State goverment.
Lee says:
@36
Ummmm, while you may have a right to own property, you don’t have any right to drive a car. That is a privilege. And one that yes, the government can take away from you.
How is that different from guns? We take away gun ownership privileges from people (ex-felons, for example).
Lee let relate to the French Revolution maybe you can understand how your ranks will shrink by trying to make your dreams come true. Nothing say we can’t cut off heads today of elitist like you. Remember your friends says your cause is above the law and it is ok to break them to meet your means.
@ 41
Are you a retarded person? Or just stupid?
You need to reread the thing you are quoting. If you did, you’d find that you and I actually agree. Or you can just go on being whatever it is that you are.
Ah yes, the old agree with me or your ignorant ploy. Nice Will!
@10;
I took the “fun” to be the same sort of fun I used to have watching my grandfather repair adding machines. I would watch him use all the cool tools and stuff and he would explain what he was doing and it was fun.
The U.S. has a serious gun violence problem. About a dozen other wealthy wester countries regulate guns and don’t have this problem. Contrary to the wing nut prediction people in these places do not experience more burglary, home invasion or dishonest government. What makes for bad gun control legislation is an examination of one or two incidence instead of the whole epidemic.
migrated from serious gun control advocate to a somewhat passionate gun rights advocate,
Will says:
@ 41
Are you a retarded person? Or just stupid?
You need to reread the thing you are quoting. If you did, you’d find that you and I actually agree. Or you can just go on being whatever it is that you are.
Sorry Will got a little heated before reading your statement.
I think you’ve got it right here Will. And, (dare I say it), the more you examine your positions you might even,(gasp and horror!) find youself morphing into a conservative!
That’s supposed to be “yourself”. Give me a break, it is New Years day.
A bit off topic perhaps but did any of you libbies shoot of fireworks last night at the stroke of midnight?
Your nanny leftists government prohibits such things.
Shame on you for actually believing…if just for a few moments…in freedom.
Oh and by the way Will, you will be a “loopy old timer” before you know it.
You hit 45 or 50 and suddenly you don’t know or care who or what is “hot”. You’ll have no idea who someone like “Fergie” is. You won’t care, either. You will be sentenced to 30 years of being a “loopy old timer” and there isn’t a damn thing you can do about it.
The murderers in Carnation are a result of the welfare
mentality. They were living on the property owned by the
hard working deceased probably for free and they probably
had enough of it. Imagine being of the mindset where
you would rather kill your family because they thought
you should work and support yourself. Good old liberal
values aren’t they wonderful. Electric chair for both.
Wow, someone who uses their mind instead of their heart. I didn’t think such people existed at HA. The solution is not less guns, but more guns, or if not more guns, at least more self defense weaponry. Had any students at VT been carrying pepper spray, things might have different. If would be criminals know that almost anyone around them is armed (to whatever degree they can handle) and ready to defend themselves, crime would go down. Instead, we get the Nanny State laws designed to cow us all.
Again, good to see that at least Will uses his head.
We’re all “law abiding” until we’re not, aren’t we?
I’m very familiar with guns. I don’t consider guns evil. I’m a hunter. I hate it when knee jerk reactions to gun violence take short cuts on cause and effect.
But I’ve known 5 people well who are now dead from gun violence – hand gun violence. I’ve seen it destroy families.
It sure seems reasonable to me to enact sensible control laws to try to end the killing, and enforce them.
The gun show issue is an obvious start. What’s the harm in trigger locks? Some guns, like certain machine guns, are already illegal, so why not apply restrictions to certain guns that easily qualify as “assault weapons?” There’s more that can be done under the law.
And there’s little downside to passing more laws that make the world safer from guns.
Locking up nutcase loonies that use guns to kill people might be a better solution. How long does the average murderer or rapist get these days? Maybe 5-10 years? Then liberals let them out to prey on innocent citizens. You can read about it time after time. If liberals had any common sense at all murderers would stay behind bars where they belong, they wouldn’t be set free to harm the rest of us. Oh but I forget…it isn’t bad people that are the problem, it’s guns. What the heck is wrong with you people?
And in the interest of full disclosure I’ve never owned a gun other than my trusty BB rifle. I ended up with a pistol once after settling an estate. I gave it away.
1. The constitution guarantees not the right of individual gun ownership, but rather the right of “the people” to keep and bear arms in order to form a militia:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Militia’s, as we all know, are operated by states, and not individuals.
2. A persons likelihood of being shot by a gun rises significantly when a gun is kept in that house.
3. Over time, the number of gun related deaths would go down significantly if guns were outlawed.
So why is this even a discussion?