NDN Thoughts on the Gun Control Issue

[Elo Janis]

I am interested how you all felt about the gun control debate that has ensued after the Sandy Hook massacre. It seems to be getting more and more heated every day with the nation equally divided between gun owners who are vehemently opposed to any sort of regulation and those who are calling for new laws restricting guns and old laws being more strictly enforced.
As a person who does not own a gun, I am in full support of a ban on assault rifles and ammunition, in addition to stricter enforcement of existing laws. I do not hunt nor do I feel I need one for personal protection.
To me, it seems that this issue is more for political purposes and a power grab rather than for public safety. I base this belief on the fact that the NRA is funded almost exclusively by hard core extremist Republicans and those lunatic fringe individuals who keep complaining their 2nd Amendment rights are being taken away. After seeing the foaming at the mouth talk radio host on Piers Morgan and a few subsequent guests who are just as crazy, it makes my beliefs even stronger.
So what are your thoughts on the issue and what do you believe the Native population in general think about it? I realize many of us are hunters so thoughts might be in favor of leaving things as they are. Also, for those of you who are living on or are familiar with Reservation laws, what are the general thoughts there?

[Toolbox]

First off the term "assault-weapon" (assault rifle) are terms used completely out of context to instill fear into those who don't know anything about firearms. However, by definition an "assault-weapon"(rifle) is a select-fire weapon with at least one fully AUTOMATIC mode. What the morons on the news don't and refuse to tell you is that for the most part civilians are not allowed to posses any fully automatic weapon. Basically to own one it had to be made before 1984 and you have to pay a special tax stamp ($200). The thing is because of laws on firearms imports and the increasing rarity of fully automatic firearms made before 1986 they can typically be bought for anywhere between $10,000 and up. The only way to posses a newly manufactured fully auto weapon is to get a "class 3" FFL and pay the hefty tax each year on it. Also you become heavily watched b the FBI and the BATFE. With that in mind most criminals and nut jobs DON'T own "assault weapons". I saw an old Browning .50cal M2, the infamous "Ma Duece" for sale at a gun show, it was in bad shape and needed lots of work - the price tag $12,000 with the tripod and before taxes.

I don't mind the universal background checks, mental health database expansion, and the increased availability of research data for gun crimes and violence. However to ban semi-automatic rifles and pistols is complete and udder bull poop. Semi-automatic rifles are rarely used in crimes, the stats show less than 4%, which means that those crimes are high profile and usually gang or mob related. Most gun crimes are committed with handguns, the majority of which were purchased illegally through a "straw purchase".

So why is banning semi-automatic rifles bull poop? First off all of the rifles in that description that currently exist would be grandfathered in, so they won't be taken off the streets. Secondly the rounds they fire rounds that are typically less powerful than standard hunting rounds. The .223 used in most AR-15s, like the Bushmaster rifles used in the recent shootings, are not nearly as powerful as a .30-06 used to hunt deer. In fact some states ban the use of .223 for anything other varmint hunting because a .223 typically won't kill a deer in one hit.

Thirdly, and deserving it's own paragraph, banning semi-auto rifles will not prevent mass killings. Look back in the period between 1994 and 2004 when the first ban was in place. Mass shootings happened during that time, most notably Columbine. If someone wants to commit an act of mass killing they will find a way to do it. The Aurora, CO shooter had rigged his whole apartment with homemade explosives set to be detonated with a toy he left on the front lawn. They didn't detonate because of faulty wiring. Whats to say he wouldn't have started throwing pipe bombs around the theater if he hadn't had access to a rifle. IN FACT most of the damage done in the theater was from a handgun and not the rifle, because 100 round drum mags suck and jam very easily, HIS DID. One of the most horrific instances of mass killings in the U.S., non-foreign terrorist related, was done by a guy with a truck, ammonium nitrate fertilizer and diesel fuel (ANFO) - the OKC federal building bombing. Ok, so maybe bombs are a bit too extreme for most nut jobs, so they grab an ordinary shot gun, tremendous power at close range and they only have to point and barely have to aim.

Now if the feds want to confiscate the semi-autos currently out on the streets, taking them from law abiding citizens who are of sound mind - you know 99% of gun owners, they wouldn't be able to get all of them because we don't register our weapons here. Also they couldn't; afford a buy-back program like they did in Australia because the nation is in too much debt to spend billions buying up everyone's guns at fair market value.

So how about registration? Thats just one more step to the government taking away all your guns. They did that in the UK and now only criminals there have them. Also the UK has many times more "violent-crime" per 100,000 people than US does. They have over 2,000 per 100,000 and we have a little over 400 per 100,000.

[Toolbox]

Deserving of it's own post.

Another reason why banning rifles based on some cosmetic characteristics is also bull poop is that it blocks access to the second amendment for those who require the ergonomics afforded by features such as adjustable, telescoping stocks and pistol grips.

For instance, I personally prefer the comfort of being able to adjust the stock on my rifle and the comfort of it's pistol grip. The reason is that I have a metal plate in my right arm which to an extent limits my ability to properly use, with comfort, standard rifle stock lengths and the angle which I have to twist my wrist to get my finger on the trigger. Thats a big deal because if, God forbid, I ever need to use it in an emergency it would take me much longer to line the shot up and the accuracy of which would be decreased because I can only hold my wrist in that position for a short period of time. Accuracy in a home or urban defense situation is critical as to prevent collateral damage. At the range I can use a standard gun BUT thats because they require us to be at a table so the gun is resting on a tripod or blocks of some kind and I have all the time I want to line up the shot. I do get nice spreads with the old Russian Mosin Nagant at 100yds (the range max).

Another point on ergonomics. There are a lot of soldiers returning home from the conflicts in the middle east who have injuries to the hands and or arms that put them in the same bucket as not being able to use rifles equipped with the standard stock and trigger position. Who is anyone to tell a injured solider returning home from battle with an injured arm or missing finger or two, lost or damaged defending our arses, that he or she can't have access to firearms with ergonomic features that allow them access to the second amendment and access to firearms that they can use to protect their homes and families as well as hunt? I dare any of those anti-gun, scared of the world, statist people to walk up to a soldier in the above situation and say that they don't have the right to a gun that fits their disabilities - it won't end well for the person that does.

Each step towards diminishing the second amendment is another step to communism or totalitarianism. History has proven it over and over again.

[Toolbox]

Please note: This thread is in a subforum that is set to full moderation. Your posts will not show up right away, they have to be approved by a moderator first. Don't worry as long as you follow the forum rules your full posts and opinions will get posted.

Thank You,
~TooBox, Arena Director

[Stands Alone]

I think too many people thought our right to bear arms was going to be taken away....not possible due to our second amendment.

I agree with universal background checks. I'm not sure about the whole mental health issue, is the government planning to check every Americans mental health before they are able to purchase a gun or every child in school who gets angry, or withdrawn are going to be checked out to see if they have a mental problem? Maybe I just don't understand all of the mental issues being addressed.

About the assault rifles that can shoot 100 or more rounds I can understand a ban on those, although my husband & I strongly disagree! Unless you're having 50 or more people attacking your home...what's the point for that type of gun! To use that type of weapon for hunting....what meat would be left?

These are just my thoughts!

[Zeke]

Each step towards diminishing the second amendment is another step to communism or totalitarianism. History has proven it over and over again.

Excellent writing but I call BS in a couple of areas, especially your premise codified above.

Basically, that's just reactionary as Amendments are NOT universal with limitations being placed on them with some regularity. (Can you yell "fire" in a crowded theater? Classic example...)

This is a fictional representation but the stats are accurate:

Gun deaths.

There's really no getting around that. There's also no questioning those nations as NOT "communist" or "totalitarian." (In truth, that entire slippery slope argument is merely NRA propaganda.) In fact, the 2A as protection against a tyrannical government has been a defunct theory since 1865.

I am familiar with firearms personally, professionally and academically. There is ZERO justification for John Q. Public to own military grade hardware beyond an amendable 235-year-old document that never conceived of such personal killing power.

"Well regulated" is in the first sentence of the 2A. Personally, I think it's about time this area was addressed.

[Toolbox]

Excellent writing but I call BS in a couple of areas, especially your premise codified above.

Basically, that's just reactionary as Amendments are NOT universal with limitations being placed on them with some regularity. (Can you yell "fire" in a crowded theater? Classic example...)

This is a fictional representation but the stats are accurate:

Gun deaths.

There's really no getting around that. There's also no questioning those nations as NOT "communist" or "totalitarian." (In truth, that entire slippery slope argument is merely NRA propaganda.) In fact, the 2A as protection against a tyrannical government has been a defunct theory since 1865.

I am familiar with firearms personally, professionally and academically. There is ZERO justification for John Q. Public to own military grade hardware beyond an amendable 235-year-old document that never conceived of such personal killing power.

"Well regulated" is in the first sentence of the 2A. Personally, I think it's about time this area was addressed.

It may sound like BS if you limit my statement to say that we would end up like Nazi Germany. We would end up more like England is today. Where citizens don't have the right to defend themselves with minimal contact with the assailant. Where there are cameras recording everyone's moves. Where there are limits on freedom of speech and press. So yes in a way I could have been a little more clear.

Your video and statement regarding the language of the second amendment is wrong at least as far as SCOTUS is concerned. The case, "DC vs Heller" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distric...mbia_v._Heller In that case the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) upheld that "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22." So the time to address it happened on June 26, 2008.

Also the term "military grade" is BS. All it means is that they are durable. Also the .223 (5.56x45 NATO) isn't that strong of a round compared to hunting rounds. Do people need fully automatic weapons, hell no, their pointless anyway because accuracy goes right out the door as soon as you let loose. According to the proposed new laws by people like Feinstein, Biden, or Bloomberg, the Smith and Wesson M&P 15-22 (.22 cal) gun, that I use for targets and plinking, is "Military Grade" because it has an adjustable stock, pistol grip, 25 round magazines, and a muzzle break. While it is one sleek and mean looking gun the .22 round is hardly military grade unless my house was being invaded by armed mutant rabbits. Heck the Mosin I shoot with is "Military grade" (Russian standard at least).

The argument that John Q Public doesn't deserve access to "Military grade" or style weapons is as stupid as saying people don't need access to cars that go over 80MPH with 200 plus horse power. Speeding is illegal, dangerous and kills lots of people every year. Considering that the small fraction of drivers who drive drunk at excessive speeds kill thousands every year we should ban cars and booze because again a small fraction of people may break the law with them. See how stupid the argument is and how unreasonable it it? Thats exactly the same type of reasoning being given by the people who want to ban "assault rifles" and higher capacity magazines.

[Zeke]

It may sound like BS if you limit my statement to say that we would end up like Nazi Germany. We would end up more like England is today. Where citizens don't have the right to defend themselves with minimal contact with the assailant. Where there are cameras recording everyone's moves. Where there are limits on freedom of speech and press. So yes in a way I could have been a little more clear.

Noted. Oddly, none of those things interfere with freedom on a grand scale unless you're a universalist. The only actual limits in Great Britain create the most cultured society in the world. In sum, nobody sees an issue but Neanderthals.

Your video and statement regarding the language of the second amendment is wrong at least as far as SCOTUS is concerned. The case, "DC vs Heller" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distric...mbia_v._Heller In that case the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) upheld that "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22." So the time to address it happened on June 26, 2008.

And the video is from earlier. But, if you desire to worry about operational nitpicking, you'll have to explain the ongoing limiting of other Amendments. In sum, the 2A is not sacrosanct or unlimited regardless of what you've just drafted.

Also the term "military grade" is BS. All it means is that they are durable. Also the .223 (5.56x45 NATO) isn't that strong of a round compared to hunting rounds. Do people need fully automatic weapons, hell no, their pointless anyway because accuracy goes right out the door as soon as you let loose. According to the proposed new laws by people like Feinstein, Biden, or Bloomberg, the Smith and Wesson M&P 15-22 (.22 cal) gun, that I use for targets and plinking, is "Military Grade" because it has an adjustable stock, pistol grip, 25 round magazines, and a muzzle break. While it is one sleek and mean looking gun the .22 round is hardly military grade unless my house was being invaded by armed mutant rabbits. Heck the Mosin I shoot with is "Military grade" (Russian standard at least).

If it's BS why were you so readily able to define it? In sum, it's not.

The argument that John Q Public doesn't deserve access to "Military grade" or style weapons is as stupid as saying people don't need access to cars that go over 80MPH with 200 plus horse power. Speeding is illegal, dangerous and kills lots of people every year. Considering that the small fraction of drivers who drive drunk at excessive speeds kill thousands every year we should ban cars and booze because again a small fraction of people may break the law with them. See how stupid the argument is and how unreasonable it it? Thats exactly the same type of reasoning being given by the people who want to ban "assault rifles" and higher capacity magazines.

Let's see. We require licensing, renewal, testing, an expectancy of competence, inspection of the instrument, insurance, bear an age limitation, instruction in schools, and taxation on a tool NOT designed specifically to kill versus much less on a tool that is.

Are you sure you want to go there? It's losing argument.

[Zeke]

Your video and statement regarding the language of the second amendment is wrong at least as far as SCOTUS is concerned.

But what about those stats?

Unassailable and avoided in your commentary.

[Toolbox]

Noted. Oddly, none of those things interfere with freedom on a grand scale unless you're a universalist. The only actual limits in Great Britain create the most cultured society in the world. In sum, nobody sees an issue but Neanderthals.

Or anyone who doesn't want to government to spy on them and watch their every move.

And the video is from earlier. But, if you desire to worry about operational nitpicking, you'll have to explain the ongoing limiting of other Amendments. In sum, the 2A is not sacrosanct or unlimited regardless of what you've just drafted.

This is a discussion on the second amendment. My use of the case referenced was to show that your previous statement about the language of the second amendment, particularly the prefatory clause, has been hashed out and the SCOTUS ruled on it.

If it's BS why were you so readily able to define it? In sum, it's not.

Just pointing out that the term "Military Grade" is just marketing BS. Read "marketing" as both the manufacturer advertisement and political propaganda from the anti-gun side.

Let's see. We require licensing, renewal, testing, an expectancy of competence, inspection of the instrument, insurance, bear an age limitation, instruction in schools, and taxation on a tool NOT designed specifically to kill versus much less on a tool that is.

Are you sure you want to go there? It's losing argument.

You totally missed the sarcasm in my statement. I was comparing one pointless argument to another. In the spirit of entertainment I say this. Guns require taxation, background checks (sometimes), they are a tool for hunting (food gathering) and for home defense, and they have a limitation "Use for LAWFUL purposes only".

[Toolbox]

But what about those stats?

Unassailable and avoided in your commentary.

I think you may have quoted the wrong statement. Please clarify because the item you quoted has no stats as it is a reference to a Supreme Court case ruling.

[Zeke]

I think you may have quoted the wrong statement. Please clarify because the item you quoted has no stats as it is a reference to a Supreme Court case ruling.

The quote/stats: "If you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia, you’ll get a population roughly the size of the United States. We had 32,000 gun deaths last year. They had 112. Do you think it’s because Americans are more homicidal by nature? Or do you think it’s because those guys have gun control laws?"

There's really no getting around this (from 2001).

Obviously, we both have some strong thoughts here. I'm good with that. Here's where I am coming from:

There are folks I would trust playing with my kids carrying a cocked and locked 1911-A1 .45 on their hip and there are those I wouldn't trust with an unloaded airsoft rifle in the middle of the Sahara 200 miles from another person.

How do you know which group people belong in? YOU CAN'T.

A minor inconvenience to the former group is 100% worthwhile if it hinders a single person from the latter to obtain a large magazine or military grade weapon (that the former doesn't need, anyway).

It's just logical.

[milehighsalute]

injuns love guns.....injuns like to hunt

[CandaePrincess]

Here's how I see it.

Mental health issues are a concern, we need to work on a better system to help those in need.

On that note: The "owner" of the guns that killed the children and staff of Newtown was not crazy. Her son was. She was perfectly "sane" to own a gun. However, how stable was a woman who knew there was something wrong with her son and decided to have assault weapons and guns in her home?

Lastly, no one uses an assault rifle to hunt, or owns one with good intentions in mind.

Also, most polls show the majority of people do want bans on certain weapons as well as finding other ways to stop unstable people from committing crimes.

Not really sure what they will do with getting rid of violent video games or movies.......no one wants to kill the moneymaker.

[wardancer]

I just don't believe they(Powers of Government) will ever convince the criminals to turn in their weapons.

My idea of gun control is the ability to aim and fire....accurately.