Gun show madness!

[Boerseun]

This seems to be a bit loopy...

 

To cut a long story short, there exist a legal loophole in American federal law which allows thousands of unregistered gun sellers to sell guns, from handguns to shotguns to full-blown assault weapons, at so-called "gun shows", without performing any kind of check on the buyer. Licensed retailers, however, have to do so. Which means legislation forcing the licensed dealers to perform background checks is effectively useless. The buyer will simply go to a "gun show", and do his lethal shopping there.

 

It seems as if the National Rifle Association is vehemently against background checks at these gun shows, making you wonder at their motives. These checks are mandatory in Californian gun shows, and the honest gun show traders are still doing good business there. The only guys not having any fun, is the criminals, killers, wife-beaters, rapists and other misfits not allowed to own firearms, who now have to cross the state line into Nevada, where no background checks are necessary, largely thanks to the NRA.

 

I cannot understand the importance of the NRA in American politics. They surely are one of the biggest lobby groups in Washington, but why should this be so, seeing as their interests are so one-dimensional?

 

How important are they, really? And how, in the current era of terrorism and "The War on Terror" can they fight gun control? Performing background checks will not make it impossible for a law-abiding gun enthusiast to purchase a weapon. It will, however, make it harder for those who shouldn't have guns, to get them.

 

Over here, in SA, if you want to buy a gun, you have to come up with a very good reason for it. Guns cannot be bought second-hand at "gun shows", every transaction involving a secondhand weapon has to be registered with the police, and the weapon handed in to the police so that ballistic tests can be performed on the gun before the transaction goes through and the gun can be registered to its new owner. Nobody here thinks there's anything wrong with it - making it harder to obtain machines built for one purpose only, namely to kill, seems like a good idea. We've had stern gun control over here for years, its a way of life.

 

I think the only backup the NRA has, is the Second Amendment to the US Bill of Rights. But then you have to ask yourself, does background checks at gun shows impede on the Second Amendment? How do they justify their stance? And, if you think about it, when people with criminal records obtain guns at gun shows and proceed to commit a murder, does the NRA have blood on its hands, or are those killed through this gun-show loophole merely seen as collateral damage in the fight to protect the Second Amendment?

 

I don't really have a clue - I'm not an American. But I find the whole thing quite fascinating, nonetheless, and hope that some clever US folks can tell my why gun control is such a thorny issue in the States. Is it really only about the Second Amendment, or is the NRA maybe a front for something else? Any thoughts?

[Buffy]

I grew up in a house that was filled with guns, although I'd hardly call my then-step-father a gun nut: he just liked to shoot and collect them. He was hardly ideological about it, although he was an NRA member. As a result of that though, I *did* get to meet a lot of gun nuts, and the dynamic that I saw was an interesting one.

 

At the top of the NRA is a bunch of people who are mainly interested in political power. Not that they *want* it, but they know that because they control a political block that will vote reliably--if you're a politician who "gets the backing" of the NRA by being for gun ownership and reduced restrictions and their other pet concepts, you get the entire voting block--they get lots of perks and benefits, among them is to advance other, non-gun-related political agendas.

 

The NRA membership is a real mixed bag. They're mostly normal, but there's a huge minority--I'd guess about 30%--who are on the gun-nut end of the spectrum, of which a large chunk are the weirdo Black Helicopter One-World-Government conspiracy theorists, who are extremely influencial. Although its never *explicitly* stated by the NRA platform, the majority of NRA members do have at least the general belief that gun ownership is for their own personal protection: at the "normal" end, its against criminals, at the wacko end, its to be able to overthrow some radical communist infiltration of our government and precious bodily fluids. The leadership knows that they have to keep these divergent beliefs under one roof to have power, so *explictly* defining why everyone should have the right to guns that go way beyond what rational people would normally agree is reasonable, they fudge like crazy, and in practice advocate for things that the wacko end of their constituency lives by: that's right, its those gun shows which are not just unregulated, they're built to allow exchange of highly regulated firearms.

 

As proof of this, yes, I've had the opportunity to fire a privately-owned and highly illegal full-auto M-16 that was converted from an (in and out of legal status) AR-15 with kits that can be obtained with the right connections at gun shows.

 

Its an amazing dynamic. The Second Amendment provides wonderful fodder to keep it going pretty much forever. The real cognitive dissonance comes up when you try to sell gun control as a "stopping the terrorist" issue. Bring that up at an NRA meeting and watch the sparks fly!

 

Bang!

Buffy

[Boerseun]

Amazing...

 

Would it be conceivable for the NRA to 'self-destruct', when the cooler-headed moderate members have had enough of the minority nut-jobs? If the members who truly believe that they have guns for self-protection and are responsible in their ownership of guns decide they don't want to be further associated with the Black Helicopter Evil Government Conspiracy survivalist crowd? The Washington corps of the NRA will probably go all the way to prevent this, in order to maintain their power, but isn't such a schism in the ranks very possible?

 

I find the power they yield over Congress a bit scary, actually. Not that it bugs me, personally; I'm far away in Africa. But the US Congress gets to pass legislation that has a global effect. And I don't want a bunch of gun-crazy nut-jobs over in the States dictating to their Senators which laws to pass and which to vote against, simply because they're a predictable voting block...?

 

Besides - how many votes do they actually control? I've read that they have around 4 million members. But those members obviously speak to their friends and relatives, and probabably exerts some sort of voting influence over them. But do they turn out 4 million votes at the poll?

[CraigD]

I believe resistance to laws requiring private citizens to report the transfer of ownership of guns (eg: the NICS) is rooted in the suspicion that such reporting is being used by the US Federal government to maintain a database of the location of as many guns as possible, with the intention that, were civil dissatisfaction with government to become so great that armed rebellion were to occur, this information would be used to disarm the American People. People who strongly suspect this are unlikely to join the NRA, for fear that such membership would also provide the government with the information it needs to come and take their guns.

 

American culture and politics are strongly rooted in an ethic of mistrust of government. Although the entire US Constitution exemplifies this, being concerned largely with describing not what US government should do, but what it must never be allowed to, the Second Amendment (“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”) has special significance. Though scholars debate what it’s “true meaning”, many laypeople consider it to have a covert, implied meaning: that the militia (a much misunderstood term referring, according to the best authorities I’ve read, simply to people capable of military service) should possess the weapons necessary to overthrow the government should its policies cause the state to cease to be “free”.

 

Others believe the Second Amendment is intended to provide a “last line of defense” should an invader overwhelm the regular military. As in the previous position, these people worry that an invading army might obtain government and private records of gun ownership, and use them to more effectively disarm the civilian population. I don’t think this rationale is correct: for an example of how effective well-armed militia in countries without central records of gun ownership are at repelling professional invading armies, see present day Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

Another interpretation is that its important for Americans to grow up using guns, so they’ll be skilled soldiers if their service is needed in the military. Although this rationale was valid as recently as the early 20th century, I don’t believe it is any longer – modern military equipment and tactics are little similar to sport weapon use, and modern military training programs are arguably more effective if trainees have no previous firearms experience from which they might have learned “bad habits” that would interfere with their training.

 

From this analysis, one might believe I support the Brady Project and similar organizations and individuals seeking to increase the regulation of firearms, and oppose the NRA and similar seeking opposed to such regulations. I do not.

 

Although the USA has a disturbingly high per-capita rate of gun violence, I believe this to be due more to exaggerated feelings of insecurity among the population, due in large part to the tendency of the media to report the most frightening events occurring in the nation and the world in a way that confuses the public into believing they are much more likely to personally encounter such violence than is statistically true. This atmosphere of fear motivates people to unnecessarily purchase firearms, some of which find their way into the hands of criminals, incompetent children, or people experiencing acute emotional distress. The increased purchasing of guns, particularly handguns intended for use against human beings, results in increased availability, affordability, and business interest in their manufacturing and distribution. Criminals, anticipating that their victims have guns, are more likely to have and use guns. Potential victims, anticipating that criminals have guns, are more likely to have and use guns, a vicious cycle of misunderstanding and violence. Even law enforcement people, in my experience, suffer from an exaggerated sense of danger, feeding into the vicious cycle.

 

In addition to increased death and injury from violence (gun and other), the public’s exaggerated perception of danger creates stress, which is detrimental to health.

 

It’s a difficult (and perhaps off-topic) problem, but rather than focusing efforts on increased regulation of gun ownership, I believe focusing them on correcting public misperceptions of danger is the best way to promote general welfare and domestic tranquility.

[HydrogenBond]

I am not really a gun person but can see good arguments on both sides. I'll take the position of the gun person. Most gun collectors are just regular people, with guns as their hobby. I suppose stamps are also a hooby, but not as athletic.

 

If one could force guns to be illegal, that does not mean that all guns would be eliminated. Anyone in the criminal element, who doesn't care about what is legal, will still be able to buy guns. If we factor out special nuke materials, almost anything illegal can be bought in the black market, although prices do get inflated.

 

Gun registration does lower the ability for a criminal to get guns in the legitimate market, while driving the price up in the blackmarket. But gun registration also tell the criminals who has the guns, making crime a little safer, as long as you do you internet research first. Mr Jone's has no gun registered, he will be a softer target. It also tells criminals where they can get free guns, which they can use on crime. Mr Smith as an assault rifle and is on vacation. Cool.

 

Picture if the gun show people needed to register, and a criminal was seeking a bunch of free guns. They walk up and down the ailes, until they see what they want. Next, they ask to the see the seller's registration to get the number. Next, they go to one of those internet spy sites and get the home address from the registration directory. Next, they go and pick up their free guns. It is that simple. It almost seems like a clever criminal should have come up with the registration scam sooner. But too much bragging, will give away the element of surprise.

 

The uncertainty is currently left in place, making the criminal have to use some of their stolen money to buy guns at a fair market price. There is no free ride, yet. The gun shop owner, works and stores guna at his place of business, so registration is free advertising. It also buffers him and his family from criminals coming to his home for guns, since the good stuff is in a different place.

[Lancaster]

"If everyone had a gun, people would be a lot more polite."

-Anonymous

[maikeru]

Funny that I read this after I just included a new saying in my signature: "God did not make all men equal; Colonel Colt did" (from the Old West).

 

I'm not particularly in favor of guns, but I'm also somewhat wary of governmental control, as we've seen with the scandals, corruption, and a certain war in just the last decade... Both my neighbors, on the right and left of me, own firearms. I don't. I come from a family which has never owned guns. I'm not a gun person, I guess. This is one of those areas I'm woefully ignorant about, never having much personal experience or interest in it.

[InfiniteNow]

Perhaps the second ammendment should be again ammended. Currently, it states:

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.

 

Would it be of assistance to have another such as:

A well regulated society, being necessary for the survival of life on the planet, shall have the right to transparency of government and visibility into actions taken by government.

 

Just a thought... :confused:

 

 

To B's original question, heightened anxiety leads to heightened need for a sense of safety. Anxiety in the world is growing in both frequency and magnitude, and for many, happiness is a warm gun.

[Buffy]

No constitutional scholar of repute would support the notion that the founding fathers included the second amendment as a mechanism for overthrowing a government out of control. The gun nuts insist it is, but its pretty clear that they assumed that the separation of powers would take care of any such problems. Little did they know that such an extreme Executive like the Cheney Cabal would happen at the same time as Congress and The Supreme Court decided to abdicate their powers. Hopefully we're back from the brink and don't have to march on the White House with our Tec-9's and M-16s anytime soon....

 

Power grows out of the barrel of the gun, :confused:

Buffy

[CraigD]

No constitutional scholar of repute would support the notion that the founding fathers included the second amendment as a mechanism for overthrowing a government out of control.

While Constitutional scholars of repute (I’ve little acquaintance with such folk – oddly, the most popular authors of Constitutional commentary seem to be radicals such as failed Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork) may not support this notion, to the history student, it’s undeniable that many of the founding fathers (which, for precision’s sake, I’ll define here as delegates to the several American congresses from 1774 to 1787) wrote and even published commentary explicitly stating their intention that the Second Amendment protect the ability of the People to overthrow their government. Several examples may be found in Glenn Reynold’s 1995 Tennessee Law Review article “A CRITICAL GUIDE TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT”, such as Tenche Coxe’s 1789 remarks:

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

Several such commentary by 19th century scholars, jurists, and politicians appears in the literature.

 

I remain personally convinced that, regardless of the intentions of some or even a majority of the founding fathers, private arms have not provided a practical means for the People to overthrow a hypothetical tyrannical US “government gone bad”. Changes in military tactics and technology have made it practically impossible for even a well-trained and organized militia to overcome the standing military of the US (Federal Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, and the various state National Guards). For such a scenario to be even vaguely possible, private ownership of not only millitary-type small and squad weapon arms, but weapons such as aircraft, radar-controlled anti-aircraft guns and missiles, conventional and nuclear field artillery and missles, and the command and control systems necessary to integrate all these, would be required. All but the most extreme gun nut would be reluctant to allow private citizens to keep and bear such weapons.

[Buffy]

I stand corrected! That's a great article Craig, thanks for posting the link!

 

It sure is interesting how even if they did think that all those guns could be used to overthrow an oppresive out of control government, they didn't really seem to think through how that would *work*.

 

Its not only not imaginable with the imbalance of weapons as you point out, but when some group be it a group of state militias or independent citizen militias would be justified in their actions against some set of governmental wrongs.

 

The victors write the history books,

Buffy

[TheFaithfulStone]

I do not own a gun for self defense (although I've HELD it in that capacity before) I own it for hunting birds.

 

I think a great many people forget just how rural much of the United States actually is. My house when I was a kid was at LEAST twenty minutes away from the nearest sherriffs office. Not only does that mean you can't call the sheriff to shoot a rabid dog or maurauding bobcat, it means you can't really COUNT on them in the rare situation when you actually need them.

 

I don't know - I think that in 1776 you might have been able to overthrow the government if you had a critical mass of hunting rifles. You could steal a field piece or two and mount at least an effective guerilla campaign. And as is being currently witnessed, you don't need to have a well-armed society in order to have violence with guns, bombs, and whatever else you can get your hands on. We humans can get extremely creative when it comes to killing each other.

 

So, anyway, count me in the gun-nut crew who is immediately suspicious of anybody who wants to know WHY I want a gun. I don't have a criminal record, whose business is it? I can kill somebody with a car, a knife, a broken bottle, or a sling shot. Why do I need a gun? You can trace a gun. Can't trace a bow and arrow. Besides, in my experience with running up against them, gun laws primarily inconvience those who are interested in following them. They seem to me to be an awful lot like DRM and draconian copyright measures.

 

On another note, I've always taken the Second Amendment to be a prohibition on hiring foreign mercanaries. (Think "Hessian.") The "well regulated millitia." Basically "Government, thou shalt not stock the armed forces with well paid foreigners, but only with citizens." (Or legal resident aliens or whatever.)

 

TFS

[Boerseun]

All good and interesting posts, guys!

 

...but even with keeping the Second Amendment in mind, how are background-check free gun shows justified?

 

I'm against laws which would take my gun away, but I'm all for laws which would make it hard for the criminals to get guns. But then they'll simply end up stealing guns, so the point is moot, I guess.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Yeah, can't figure that one out myself. I consider that "enforcement of existing laws." A loophole that needs to be closed.

 

they'll simply end up stealing guns

 

Or buying them from people who don't bother to run background checks out of the back of an '82 Buick LeSabre.

 

TFS

[Boerseun]

Or buying them from people who don't bother to run background checks out of the back of an '82 Buick LeSabre.

...of which an unregulated gun show is just a bigger version! :)

[Boerseun]

Sorry for bumping this one, but in the light of the recent shootings in VA, how would this impact on the Gun Lobby?

 

Would they say "Okay, let's run background checks wherever guns change hands," or "we should've made it possible for all 32 victims to obtain guns easily so that they could've defended themselves."?

 

This is a bit of a Gordion knot, I know. But instead of simply taking an axe an cut through the knot, maybe simply untying it should be tried...

 

Gun-free Boerseun the Peaceful

[CraigD]

Sorry for bumping this one, but in the light of the recent shootings in VA, how would this impact on the Gun Lobby?

Because Cho Seung-hui purchased his guns legally from a licensed retail store, I don’t think the Virginia Tech massacre should have much impact on this threads title subject, the purchasing and trading of guns by individuals and non-retail dealers at gun shows.

 

As details continue to emerge showing a history of behavior by Cho that includes complaint by students and police investigations (but no criminal charges) of “stalking”, academic action as a result of displays of anger, and psychiatric treatment for suicidal tendencies, I think it’s sensible to re-evaluate the “reasonable checks” states currently require when purchasing a gun.

 

This Guardian article quotes John Markell, the gun store owner who on 3/13/2007 sold Cho one of his guns (the 9 mm Glock), as stating “He was a nice, clean-cut college kid. We won't sell a gun if we have any idea at all that a purchase is suspicious.” Had he known of Cho’s history, would he have considered his purchase suspicious, and refused it?

 

Although the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution clearly protects the rights of most people to own guns, it does not demand that governments allow all people to own them. Currently, Virginia’s gun ownership laws exclude such people as convicted felons. Tragedies like the Tech massacre demonstrate, at least to me, that the criteria should be broadened to include people like Cho, either through much broadened background checks, or through the use of psychological screening.

 

Such an expansion would surely be technically difficult and expensive, and would result in a decrease in sales of guns to people who would not use them in a crime, and might even be future victims of crimes for lack of a gun with which to defend themselves. Because the “gun lobby” represents, in part, both the interest of companies who’s profits depend on gun sales, and of people who need guns for self protection, it would likely oppose it. Nonetheless, I support it, and believe that it would not violate Second Amendment guarantees.