Fri Jan 11, 2013, 02:15 PM
markpkessinger (6,951 posts)
Don't call it "gun control", but rather "gun regulation"
This excellent piece of advice was given on Facebook (and posted to Sharpton's Politics Nation) by my friend, Louie Crew (who, as it happens, is also the founder of Integrity, the LGBT organization within the Episcopal Church). I think it's great advice since, as we all know, words matter!
Everyone, please stop using the phrase "gun control." Respect the U.S. Constitution: use the phrase "gun regulation." we regulate speed on the highway, legal blood alcohol limits, age of eligibility of Medicare, requirements to be licensed professionally as physician, nurse........ The Second Amendment asks us to demand that our militia be "well regulated"
8 replies, 880 views
Don't call it "gun control", but rather "gun regulation" (Original post)
|Buzz Clik||Jan 2013||#1|
|Spider Jerusalem||Jan 2013||#6|
|Spider Jerusalem||Jan 2013||#8|
Response to Odin2005 (Reply #2)
Fri Jan 11, 2013, 05:12 PM
derby378 (30,122 posts)
5. Already tried - we're not buying into it
"Gun safety" is just that - learning how to safely handle, shoot, and store a firearm.
Gun control, on the other hand, is something else. And Feinstein's proposed ban-and-grab is not about "gun safety."
Response to derby378 (Reply #5)
Fri Jan 11, 2013, 05:35 PM
Spider Jerusalem (19,509 posts)
6. Who's "we"?
The "from my cold, dead hands" crowd I suppose.
Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and
Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.
Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
Background check of owner and any transferee;
Type and serial number of the firearm;
Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.
Which honestly doesn't sound any more onerous than getting a driving licence. You're photographed and fingerprinted for that in a lot of places as well (and good luck selling a car without someone running the serial number and asking for clear title). Subjecting guns to the same level of regulation as cars doesn't seem unreasonable. Nor does a ban on magazine of more than ten rounds capacity. Nor for that matter does a ban on specific types of weapons that at the same time recognises the need of legitimate and responsible hunters and sportsment and so on.
Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #6)
Fri Jan 11, 2013, 06:20 PM
derby378 (30,122 posts)
7. That National Firearms Act provision renders the whole thing toxic beyond belief
Basically, if you own a semi-automatic firearm that's covered by the ban, it's confiscated until you can get an NFA permit to take possession of that weapon again. A permit for technology that's been around for at least a hundred years - maybe even two hundred.
And by the way, that permit costs $200 and comes with a minimum 60-day waiting period. I'd allow for six months, to be realistic.
Once again, and I cannot say this enough - the Second Amendment is not about hunters and sportsmen, no matter how much some people might try to convince you it is.
Response to derby378 (Reply #7)
Fri Jan 11, 2013, 06:53 PM
Spider Jerusalem (19,509 posts)
8. That $200 fee hasn't changed since 1934.
If adjusted for inflation it would be over $3k.
And I'm well aware of what the Second Amendment is for. Because I'm familiar with the history behind it. And it has no relevance to the modern world. "A well-regulated militia." Where does that come from? Answering this question and giving it an appropriate historical context requires knowledge not only of the history of the American colonies in the 18th century and in the period of the war for independence, but of British, and specifically Scottish and English, history for several hundred years before. In medieval England, the king required his subjects to maintain arms and train themselves in their use. The medieval "militia" was the yeoman with his longbow. Standing armies were impractical, and the social organisation of the kingdom and the power of the earls and barons meant that they would have distrusted any king who attempted to raise a standing army. A "militia" of trained archers owing allegiance to their local lord, who in turn owed his to an earl who owed his to the king, was another matter. These are the men who won at Crecy, and Agincourt, who made English archery feared throughout Europe. But: the requirement to keep arms was limited to certain classes of subjects; yeomen (small freeholders) and men at arms (knights, who were the gentry and nobility).
Moving forward a few hundred years: this medieval system had, by the sixteenth and seventeenth centuris, developed into the militia; able-bodied men of certain social classes obliged to train at arms and give service in keeping the peace and suppressing insurrection. Due to lack of training the militias were next to useless and saw little employment in the English Civil War (with few exceptions, most notably the Honourable Artillery Company of London). This militia system naturally spread to North America in the sevententh century with British colonisation; at the same time, in the later Jacobean/early Hanoverian era, in Britain, the Scottish militia was suppressed, and the Scots disarmed following Jacobite risings. What do we have as a historical context then? A distrust of standing armies as representative of an excessively powerful central government, coming from both English and Scottish experience in the decades and centuries prior to the drafting of the Second Amendment; the guarantee of militias was a guarantee not to the people as citizens but to the states as political entities under federal government. And the need for an armed and trained populace was more immediate in an era when frontier lawlessness was not uncommon (see for instance the Carolina Regulator movement), when hostile native tribes presented a real threat to small and dispersed settlements, when the United States was a fledgling country sharing a continent with outposts of three great European powers.
Whatever historical justification and basis for the Second Amendment there was 220 years ago is no longer relevant to the modern world; the USA has a standing army, and the role of the militia has been supplanted by the reserves and National Guard.