1. asknod January 20, 2013 at 9:20 pm……”I agree with your sentiments of more stringent background checks.”

2. asknod January 20, 2013 at 9:20 pm…..”I agree that anyone with “problems” shouldn’t be allowed to possess.”

3. asknod January 20, 2013 at 9:20 pm…..”When we tire of this type of violence, we’ll enact meaningful legislation that corrects the problem rather than convicting a lot of innocent folk and disenfranchising all for the sins of a few.”

4. asknod January 20, 2013 at 9:20 pm…..”Guns and the NRA are not on trial here.”

5. from facebook…Ask Nod “I abhor violence now, Brad.”

6. from facebook…Ask Nod “I don’t see changing a perfectly good document every time a disaster arises.”

7. Here’s the biggest common ground item, we both agree that something needs to be done to curb, reduce, or mitigate the epidemic of public slaughter. That’s the base agreement, however we do disagree on how that should done.

8. I also agree with you that ammo will be the easy target.

Further comments:

On item 6, I have not advocated for changing the constitution, nor do I advocate it so in effect we are in agreement here. What I do advocate is a public re-examination of what ‘well regulated’ means to us as a society. I agree that life, or justice is not static, it’s dynamic. Being that life and justice are dynamic, so must our ability to interpret law be dynamic. The founders didn’t envision a standing army, they envisioned a well regulated militia. Well we don’t have a militia, what we have is an armed public which is barely regulated. I suggest that we regulate the weapons that are available.

True, many laws are broken every day, we both agree on that. But that’s no basis for continuing to hide our heads in the sand and give up trying to imporve our society.

As far as not answering all of your questions, that’s not what I do. I am not here to be directed or controlled by your questions. I choose what I’ll answer and decline to engage in “whom ever asks the questions is in control of the conversation” tactics. Especially when the questions are only an attempt to divert attention from the problem at hand. The tried and true tactic of ‘reduce it to the ridiculous’ won’t work here just as the ‘expand the argument to dilute the objection’ won’t work here.

As I see it, we both want something done, we both want a reduction in needless public slaughter. That’s common ground. We can build from there but neither of us will get 100% agreement, that would be uncommon ground. In our search for answers we must understand that we can build on our agreements rather than let our disageements continually divide us.

You commented in your opening statement on Jan. 20, “How simplistic Sir…” Well let me say that any fool can get complicated. You’ve heard of Occam’s razor yes? The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. Or, put in a simpler way, the simplist idea is often the best.

What you can expect will be a curb on ammunition. Either that or a stupendous tax. No bullets equals no guns shooting. Control that and you essentially have everyone’s undivided attention. Again, a new black market will dawn. I trust America and Americans. I know in my heart that most are law abiding. Laws of any country depend on the majority adhering to them. The few that refuse should be dealt with harshly. As long as capital punishment is on the books, any Govt. talk of restricting how people kill each other is a nonstarter. Laws have loopholes and unintended consequences. If they don’t work, the tendency is to fix it with yet more laws. Look at our tax code for confirmation of this.

In closing sir, I observe that outlawing pot seems to be turning us into a nation of pot smokers.-quite the obverse of the desired effect. I cringe to think how law-abiding citizens will react to abridging our rights further. Your heart is in the right place. No one wants to see carnage like Connecticut’s. But then, no one wants to go unarmed when they know others are. As long as there is evil in the world, Govt. will seek to suppress it. How they choose to do so speaks volumes about their own morals. The people who advocate we do away with these weapons are surrounded with bodyguards sporting MP-5 9mm fully automatic submachine pistols. Some carry Car-15 fully auto assault carbines with (gasp) collapsible stocks and 30 round clips. Are they to restrict their weapons to comply, and if not, why not? They sure don’t need them for hunting. Since the NFA rid us of SMGs and hand grenades, they really don’t need anything more than .40 cal pistols. Nevertheless, they do and we don’t but they insist a reasonable accommodation would be to give up yet another class of weapons in hopes of getting it right “this time”. I know I will not change your mind on this. I just ask you to view it from many perspectives. Be your own devil’s advocate and meander down the road of “what if we…” Walk all the way through the consequences of past laws and how they helped or hindered. Craft a solution that fixes a problem rather than feeding pablum to assuage public opinion. Identify the problem and you are halfway to a solution.

This is America. Just as you cannot be “a little pregnant”, nor can you just give the 2nd Amendment “a little haircut” a la the NFA of 1934. Use your own argument. They outlawed machine guns, sawed off shotguns, hand grenades and all manner of explosives devices to protect us in 1934. Absent all of these items for 69 years, we now are endangered by “semi-automatic” guns. After you outlaw those and the carnage continues, the next inevitable step is taken. For our safety, all guns must be outlawed so that these atrocities will never occur. It’s politically incorrect to cite to examples such as Hitler, Stalin, Fidel Castro, Idi Amin, and Pol Pot. Look no further than Mexico next door to you for what’s next. They have nice, enlightened laws on the possession of any kind of gun-period.

In every civilized society, this doesn’t pose too much of a problem until a mentally deranged person pops up. Norway is virtually crime-free in this respect. Note the adverb virtually. There are no absolutes in life other than birth and death. Restricting any item simply breeds a black market for it. Outlawing it merely makes the existing ones far more valuable. It would take a century to rid us of every existing assault weapon optimistically. Would that even put a dent in these horrific incidences? If not, then why go there?
Solutions to problems are easy. Having the gumption to enforce laws to prevent this is what is lacking. The habit of throwing more laws at it doesn’t work. If it did, the NFA would have solved it. It didn’t. Neither did the laws following Kennedy’s assassination, 1986 and the GOPA? Nope. 1989 and opening the NFA books to grandfather in any old machine guns? Negative. The 1994 ban? Nope. What, exactly do you see that has changed in 2013 that is going to bring a new dynamic to the table?
I pride myself on my open-mindedness, Golding. I draw the line on the Koolaid cure. Put the weirdos back in the asylums. Perform meaningful background checks that can pull up records that disqualify violent people. Sell guns at gun shows like they do here in Washington-only to those with concealed weapons permits. They have already passed the “test”. No sales to anyone who needs a psychiatrist to navigate life. None to domestic violence offenders of either sex. That leaves the average American who has not done anything wrong free to enjoy what you tout as the “Right to life”-as paraphrased in “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Call it the Second Amendment, the fourth or whatever floats your boat but do not advocate abridging the right because others abuse it. There can be no more “accommodations” with the govt. We have rid ourselves of Saturday night specials, short shotguns and all manner of guns that do not pass the “sensitivity” test. Tell me about how all that hope and change on the gun laws has panned out over the last three score and ten years.

If you advocate for more stringent gun laws, that is your choice. Please do not feel we stand on any common ground if your position is more controls. I see you have some of the most stringent in the nation in California. Check your state crime statistics and murder rates to see if they have eradicated the crime. Murder is decreasing everywhere in the US. Guns are increasing. See any correlation?

Yes, it’s simplistic. In brief, we have a problem and we need a solution. It’s that simple.

We can engage in paralysis by analysis if we choose; this is our normal choice when faced with simple problems. We parse words, challenge each other’s definitions, argue for our positions with passion, and finally do nothing. But if we do engage in paralysis by analysis (or hiding our heads in the sands of the 2nd amendment and choosing not to make hard choices) we are failing in our duty to at least try to ensure the safety of future generations.

Banning assault rifles and high capacity magazines may be a slippery slope, but avoiding our duty to attempt to create a safer environment for our progeny is a cliff. We have the moral dictate to act. There’s another simplistic statement for you to ponder.

I do not advocate gun grabs or mandatory gun turn ins. I do advocate responsible gun ownership.

Let’s get back to what might work shall we?

If we ban assault rifles and high capacity magazines right now we won’t be addressing the availability of existing weapons, that’s completely true, but as time goes by these weapons of mass destruction will decrease in number due to attrition. They will become even less available to those who would use them for mass murder if we become more responsible in our gun ownership (a key factor), and as the population grows, they will become less significant as available weapons in regards to the percentage of weapons in our public arsenal.

I did a Google search on ‘how many assault weapons in the US” and came upon this site: http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20121222/NEWS02/712229941 , they estimate that there are somewhere around 3,750,000 AR-15-type rifles in the United States today. So let’s just use that number for our math (while it in no way reflect the actual number of assault type weapons, it a starting place). We have a population of about 311,591,917 people here in the US. It’s also estimated that the number of assault rifles such as the AR-15 type are growing at a rate of about 3% per year, and the population is growing as well. If we stop the production, importation, and sale of this type of rifle, it’s percentage of available weapons in relationship to the population will decrease.

If we accept this data, we can extrapolate a growing scarcity of assault weapons in relation to those who would use them illegally if they could. Yes, that’s simplistic, but most likely true.

Will that help us today? Maybe, most likely not, but we have to do something. We have the moral obligation to our children to do something to make their, and our, country safer.

If we ban the manufacture, importation, and sale of replacement parts for assault rifles we will speed the reduction by attrition.

While we take these simple measures to create a safer environment for future generations, and to a lesser extent for our own generation, we can then work on more complicated measures like defining what types of mental illness, criminal history, personality disorders, or whatever we decide on as a metric for gun ownership.

As time goes by our existing public arsenal of assault weapons will become antiquated just as the musket became antiquated. We both recognize that new weapons are developed all the time. The evolution of weapons technology will continue, no doubt about it.

We don’t need to kick the can down the road just because we don’t have a final solution. We can start with a partial solution and then work more comprehensive solutions. We can, if we want, fuss, cuss, and discuss the DSM and what mental disorders would disqualify a person from gun ownership or access. We could discuss the safety requirements in regards to current owners of assault rifles, we could discuss what constitutes assault rifles, we could discuss until we’re blue in the face.

I stand by our right to bear arms, and I also stand by my remarks regarding our need to re-evaluate the provision in the 2nd amendment about what a “well regulated” militia looks like. And I stand by my belief that we have a moral obligation to our fellow citizens to take preventative action now rather than engaging in paralysis by analysis.

We’ve found some common ground which doesn’t surprise me, rather, it delights me.

Thanks for your comments, we need more voices, not fewer…

Evets says:

January 14, 2013 at 8:09 pm (Edit)

Good one Brad, but the real reason for the 2nd amendment even being placed in the Bill of Rights has more to do with controlling rebellious slaves than it does fighting tyrants. As you well know, there is no mention of “government” nor tyrant in the 2nd amendment. It speaks to the “security” of a free State. The southern states were very fearful of the “Negro” population due to several murderous uprisings. Their leaders demanded that Madison include wording about weapons rights and particularly “militias” because these had already been formed and employed to hunt down escaped slaves. The 2nd amendment has a darker past than most Americans would care to admit.

I agree that the concerns of southern slave owners influenced the consitution and the bill of rights, however the main motivation for the 2nd ammendment wasn’t slave uprisings. The questions of maintaining a militia and the individual right to bear arms is rooted in European law as far back as the 1600′s.

Our national history in regards to slavery is indeed shameful and that shame is not at all mitigated by the world history of slavery. As I’ve commented before, the Adam Smith observations on economics described in ‘Wealth of Nations” are based largely on slave based economies which is one reason for their invalididty in today’s economic climate. But those thoughts are for other posts.

If your interested, the Journal of Law & Politics published a very informative artical on the evolution of the second ammendment in 1987. Follow this link for some very interesting reading http://www.guncite.com/journals/hardhist.html

Thanks for you comment, your opinion is not only welcome, it is valued.

Brad

darker past than most Americans would care to admit.