Gun Ownership as an Honor

[Flying Pig]

We now live in a culture where kids can no longer play soldier or cowboys and Indians, but we are trying to push kids into shooting sports because attendance is declining at expensive skeet ranges in the Midwest.

I really don't see the connection between shooting at targets or clays and playing soldiers. In fact, I have always seen sport shooting as an antidote to the attitude of seeing guns as a way into violence - shooting stops being about killing things, fighting or violence and becomes, like any other sport, a matter of long (and often quite boring) training, teamwork and technical precision. That sort of healthy attitude is exactly what every coach wants to train in. More than that, though, it often gives people a way of getting things that they might otherwise get through gangs and violence - a lot of young kids go through school without finding anything that they feel good at, or anything which gives them a sense of achievement and makes them feel respected by others. A lot of those go and find those things by beating each other up or committing crimes. Shooting is particularly helpful in this country for that, because it comes through a (loosely) military organisation which can provide things like structure and responsibility which a lot of these people don't have at home. The same is true of all sports, but there aren't many that a child who is no good at rugby, football and cricket will find that they're good at. Even cadet shooting doesn't involve encouraging violence - we don't even let them shoot at man-shaped targets any more, though personally I think that might be a step too far.

 

[warpus]

However, doesn't have Canada gun laws similar to the US, except that people make less use of it?

I doubt our gun laws are similar, although they probably are in some respects. I have a friend who owns a bunch of guns, and from what he tells me, he has to follow very strict rules on how his guns are stored, how the ammunition is stored, what hoops he has to jump through if he wants to buy a new one, and there is even a very strict rule about which route he can take to his gun club. If the cops ever pull him over and find a gun on him, he has to be on that route. If he isn't, they take his guns away and charge him with a bunch of stuff.

We have a lot of guns here per capita, but you never see any around (or at least I don't) and our laws seem to be pretty strict when it comes to the privilege of gun ownership. It's a right as well of course, even here, but it is a privilege first and foremost.

Just like owning a car is both a right and privilege, it being one doesn't change that it is also the other.

 

[BvBPL]

So regarding the constitutionality of any changes and the notion of privileges versus rights.

Traditionally, a privilege is an earned interest where as a right is an interest that is automatic. That’s the common use in the vulgate. However, at law, the distinction may not be as clear. In my state, our high court has long held that privilege and right are synonymous when describing an interest. The distinct between the two of them has been done away with. I believe other states have the same policy. Indeed, there are plenty of things that appear to be privileges that are actually rights. The ability to practice as a licensed professional, for example, begins as a privilege but becomes a right once earned.

I’m not aware of what the federal courts think of all that. Suffice it to say that a reasonable argument could be made that a privilege and a right could be the same thing so making the distinction is pointless based upon the persuasive decisions of state courts.

As to the constitutionality of my proposal, I note that the second amendment allows for the right to bear arms for the purpose of a “well regulated militia.” This element of the amendment is uncommonly discussed, but the Supreme Court has previously ruled that it enables restrictions on weapons where the weapons in question are not related to a well-regulated militia. It does not seem a bridge to far to say that training in firearm use and safety would also fall under the requirement for good regulation.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I really don't see the connection between shooting at targets or clays and playing soldiers. In fact, I have always seen sport shooting as an antidote to the attitude of seeing guns as a way into violence - shooting stops being about killing things, fighting or violence and becomes, like any other sport, a matter of long (and often quite boring) training, teamwork and technical precision. That sort of healthy attitude is exactly what every coach wants to train in. More than that, though, it often gives people a way of getting things that they might otherwise get through gangs and violence - a lot of young kids go through school without finding anything that they feel good at, or anything which gives them a sense of achievement and makes them feel respected by others. A lot of those go and find those things by beating each other up or committing crimes. Shooting is particularly helpful in this country for that, because it comes through a (loosely) military organisation which can provide things like structure and responsibility which a lot of these people don't have at home. The same is true of all sports, but there aren't many that a child who is no good at rugby, football and cricket will find that they're good at. Even cadet shooting doesn't involve encouraging violence - we don't even let them shoot at man-shaped targets any more, though personally I think that might be a step too far.

We already have plenty of sports which do all of that. In fact, we have far too many of them.

And it is an excuse to bring the "military organization" to the public school system which is the last thing they need.

As to the constitutionality of my proposal, I note that the second amendment allows for the right to bear arms for the purpose of a “well regulated militia.” This element of the amendment is uncommonly discussed, but the Supreme Court has previously ruled that it enables restrictions on weapons where the weapons in question are not related to a well-regulated militia. It does not seem a bridge to far to say that training in firearm use and safety would also fall under the requirement for good regulation.

You should really get up to speed with the recent court decisions. The "well regulated militia" aspects of the Second Amendment is now being completely ignored by the current reactionary Supreme Court.

 

[warpus]

I brought up the whole right vs privilege distinction keeping in mind that they are not mutually exclusive. The legality of the distinction aside, I wanted people to think about that perception of gun ownership.

I have a right to exchange my money for goods and services. Not in every case, but I live in a capitalist country, and as such nobody can stop me from heading to a mall and spending it as I see fit, provided I meet the requirements for whatever it is that I'm buying.

That's my right. Privilege comes into the picture when you use that money to buy something that can be dangerous, such as a weapon or a car, for example. In such a case there will be stricter requirements to purchase the product and as such your right to purchase it also becomes a privilege. By that I mean that I have for example the privilege to operate a motor vehicle under a specific set of guidelines. If I do not follow the guidelines, the privilege may be taken away from me. It is my right to make the purchase perhaps, but that does not stop it also being a privilege - I need to follow the rules in order to continue to exercise my right.

Now, in my mind it is far better to have a culture of "guns are a privilege first and foremost and a right second", because in such a culture people will respect guns and gun ownership more. This is sort of what we have in Canada - we have a lot of guns here, but gun ownership is to us sort of like car ownership.. with more rules tacked on. It's a dangerous weapon, so you've got to treat it with respect. You get to have that right and privilege of using and owning a gun - as long as you treat it with that respect and follow the rules. If you don't - the privilege gets taken away from you, since you could be a danger to others.

I don't see this changing in the U.S. anytime soon, because gun ownership issues are an ideological battle there. .. But eventually you guys might get there.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Canadian gun laws would definitely lower the number of guns per 100 people. This would also likely decrease the number of gun deaths per 100,000 proportionally.

And you are quite right. Don't hold your breath.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Speaking of gun ownership, I saw a funny thing on the news yesterday. They were advertising for a gun trade in event where people can trade in their guns, no questions asked, for a $50 gift card. Now I ask you, who in their right mind is trading in a gun that costs hundreds of dollars for a $50 gift card? Other than the obvious criminals who are using the "no questions asked" part to offload weapons that have been used in crimes.

 

[BvBPL]

Now, in my mind it is far better to have a culture of "guns are a privilege first and foremost and a right second", because in such a culture people will respect guns and gun ownership more. This is sort of what we have in Canada - we have a lot of guns here, but gun ownership is to us sort of like car ownership.. with more rules tacked on. It's a dangerous weapon, so you've got to treat it with respect. You get to have that right and privilege of using and owning a gun - as long as you treat it with that respect and follow the rules. If you don't - the privilege gets taken away from you, since you could be a danger to others.

I don't see this changing in the U.S. anytime soon, because gun ownership issues are an ideological battle there. .. But eventually you guys might get there.

My proposal seeks to change the cultural perception to ownership being a privilege in a manner that can be legally justified within the Constitution.

The carrot and stick approach previously described is my suggested manner to bridge the ideological divide.

 

[warpus]

My proposal seeks to change the cultural perception to ownership being a privilege in a manner that can be legally justified within the Constitution.

Is that really so difficult to do though?

Voting is both a right as as well as a privilege. Doesn't everyone accept this? Shouldn't be much of a reach for them to accept thing about guns - unless they really don't want to. And if they don't, then no amount of justification is going to sway them.

 

[BvBPL]

It may or may not be difficult, but it does require some prior thought and consideration. Which is what this thread is for.

 

[Flying Pig]

Speaking of gun ownership, I saw a funny thing on the news yesterday. They were advertising for a gun trade in event where people can trade in their guns, no questions asked, for a $50 gift card. Now I ask you, who in their right mind is trading in a gun that costs hundreds of dollars for a $50 gift card? Other than the obvious criminals who are using the "no questions asked" part to offload weapons that have been used in crimes.

Or rifles that are so badly damaged that repairing them would be more expensive than buying a new one. That said, in most cases you can pillage at least something (an action, a barrel, a stock...) that would be worth a few quid from even the worst complete rifle.

 

[cav scout]

So let’s do this: instead of basically giving everyone a free pass to vote, which is basically what our current system is, let’s make voting incumbent upon passing rigorous poll test examinations. Let’s make sure that people respect voting before they can cast a ballot. Make them pledge to be upright members of the community. Make them jump through hoops that demonstrate that they know that voting is a responsibility.

 

[Formaldehyde]

My proposal seeks to change the cultural perception to ownership being a privilege in a manner that can be legally justified within the Constitution.

The carrot and stick approach previously described is my suggested manner to bridge the ideological divide.

It may or may not be difficult, but it does require some prior thought and consideration. Which is what this thread is for.

Only the part you continue to miss is that those you are trying to convince with this nonsensical propaganda campaign to blow smoke at their nether regions don't see it as a "privilege" at all. And neither does the current reactionary Supreme Court.

 

[Birdjaguar]

So let’s do this: instead of basically giving everyone a free pass to vote, which is basically what our current system is, let’s make voting incumbent upon passing rigorous poll test examinations. Let’s make sure that people respect voting before they can cast a ballot. Make them pledge to be upright members of the community. Make them jump through hoops that demonstrate that they know that voting is a responsibility.

they had those kinds of requirements in the south until the voting rights acts. Mostly such laws kept blacks from voting. Any kind of voting restrictions will favor the rich, the powerful and the educated. Such folks make up an inappropriate percentage of the population for democracy.

 

[cav scout]

they had those kinds of requirements in the south until the voting rights acts. Mostly such laws kept blacks from voting. Any kind of voting restrictions will favor the rich, the powerful and the educated. Such folks make up an inappropriate percentage of the population for democracy.

So wait... are you saying that a law that might seems perfectly reasonable at face value might actually enable the powerful/elite to exercise undo control over others?

 

[Birdjaguar]

So wait... are you saying that a law that might seems perfectly reasonable at face value might actually enable the powerful/elite to exercise undo control over others?

Well, I'm sure its not very likely, but it could happen.

 

[cav scout]

Well, I'm sure its not very likely, but it could happen.

I think it would be inevitable actually. It's human nature for Man to exercise as much power over his fellow Man as possible when given the opportunity.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I left this out of my post. We (as a group) are incapable of not exploiting others for personal gain.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I think it would be inevitable actually. It's human nature for Man to exercise as much power over his fellow Man as possible when given the opportunity.

Perhaps you are hanging out with the wrong supposed humans.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Speaking of gun ownership, I saw a funny thing on the news yesterday. They were advertising for a gun trade in event where people can trade in their guns, no questions asked, for a $50 gift card. Now I ask you, who in their right mind is trading in a gun that costs hundreds of dollars for a $50 gift card? Other than the obvious criminals who are using the "no questions asked" part to offload weapons that have been used in crimes.

If it's nearby, you can buy a few $15 pellet pistols (not airsoft) at Wal-Mart and turn them in. They'll take them. $100+ of gifts cards for free.

EDIT: BTW, in Charlotte, NC, I once traded in a box of worthless broken BB guns and got $250. They were giving cash for them back then.