Names Change, But the Arguments Don't

[TrappedinCalifornia]

I found this piece from People magazine. It came out 10 January 1994, nearly a quarter century ago.

A Call to Arms

...a deranged man shooting total strangers. Yet headline-grabbing mass murders tend to dramatize the national debate on gun control... had complied nine months earlier with California’s even stricter law... To gun-control advocates, this underscored their belief that the... is just a first step—that Congress should now consider licensing gun owners and banning the sale of all assault weapons. Opponents of gun control point to the... incident as further proof that gun laws don’t stop mayhem...

Further down...

“I can assure you that the guys I met in the nine prisons I served my sentence in did not get their guns at the gun store.” ... To one grief-stricken woman, guns are the best defense... became convinced that if everyone in ... had been packing a weapon that day, the massacre never would have happened. “It’s hard to describe how incredibly frustrating it was to sit there while this guy walked around shooting people, and there was nothing you could do about it” ... has appeared before Congress and on talk shows to make her case for relaxing gun laws and allowing “anyone who can vote” to carry a concealed weapon... points out that both guns ... used in the attack were purchased legally. Still, people like ... dismiss ... philosophy as dangerously simplistic. “If guns made you safer, we’d be the safest nation on earth,” ... “Instead, we’re the most violent.”

Continuing...

“Gun shows are legal, wholesome places" ... “People learn proper safety procedures here. There are educational programs.” But according to... president of the Fraternal Order of Police, gun shows can also attract an unsavory element. “The overwhelming majority of transactions at these shows are not recorded,” he says, “so that criminals, gang members and cults often obtain weapons there.” ... “I tend to judge the quality of a gun show by how far I get into it before I see the first picture of Adolf Hitler”...

Sounding familiar yet?

I could continue editing like this with a 24-year old article, but I trust the point has been made.

While this will be a trip down memory lane for many of us, I wonder how many, on both sides of the gun debate, appreciate how often we've, literally, been there, done this before and the 'answers,' on both sides, remain, essentially, the same?

[rootuser]

My favorite part is about "cults" lolol

There are answers that neither side want to approach.

Guns have never been the problem OR the solution in this country. Guns are just a tool and violence is a byproduct of other things. You can't compare us to Europe (Mostly homogenous) or Australia (huge racists). The melting pot unfortunately means tribal infighting.

[MarikinaMan]

Plantinga derived pro-2A argument

The constitutional creation of persons with the moral right to defend themselves from personal harm and government tyranny is something of tremendous value. The government can not eliminate the evil and violence in this country, or from outside, and hence eliminating the greater good of preserving a persons right to defend himself and whom he could have relationships supplants the evil that may arise from those that may abuse the right.

If there is nothing bad in this world, it can only be because that free men that inhabit this world have—by their own free will—always chosen to do the right thing. Is this kind of situation really possible? Yes. Something is logically possible just when it can be conceived without contradiction. There is nothing contradictory about supposing that there is a possible world where free creatures always make the right choices and never go wrong. Of course, it's highly improbable, given what we know about what’s already happened and of human nature in general. Improbability and impossibility ARE two different things.

The right of the individual is sacrosanct in a free country. It trumps the will of the masses. Disarming free men is tantamount to taking away their liberty.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

There are answers that neither side want to approach... Guns have never been the problem OR the solution in this country. Guns are just a tool and violence is a byproduct of other things.

True enough.

Does that mean it might be time to stop 'compromising' our 'cake' piecemeal and demand that 'the other side' proffer a compromise, such as CCW and armed guards in the schools; something along the lines of what Israel did 40 years ago?

Or, is that likely to be met with the idea that they consider it the height of compromise to 'allow' us to keep and, maybe, bear any arms at all?

[TrappedinCalifornia]

The constitutional creation of persons with the moral right to defend themselves...

A small quibble...

The Constitution does not "create" the moral right of self-defense. As Scalia stated in Heller (2008):

The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms... The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution. JUSTICE BREYER’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms... is profoundly mistaken. He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue—but that can only show that self-defense had little to do with the right’s codification; it was the central component of the right itself... Besides ignoring the historical reality that the Second Amendment was not intended to lay down a “novel principl[e]” but rather codified a right “inherited from our English ancestors,” ... (emphasis mine)

In short, the ancient or 'natural' right existed long before the Constitution was penned; something also alluded to in the Declaration of Independence with the portion stating - endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are... The Constitution simply recognized, codified, and protected the pre-existing right.

This is why John Adams (in 1798) noted:

We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by <[. . .]> morality and Religion.... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other...

Thus, put another way, the 'individual right' of self defense was part of an existing morality which the Constitution incorporated and reflected, not something it 'created.' Otherwise, I mostly agree with your statement...

The right of the individual is sacrosanct in a free country. It trumps the will of the masses. Disarming free men is tantamount to taking away their liberty.

However, you do run up against the reality that individual rights must be balanced against societal (the 'group') interests. The underlying question is: Where is the proper and/or acceptable balance point?

Is that, perhaps, why the names change, but the argument/counter-arguments tend to remain the same?

Are we seeing the erosion of individual liberties reaching a point where we are in danger of flaunting reality where, despite the fact that Government cannot eliminate the evil and violence in this country, or from outside, fear of that the evil that may arise from those that may abuse the right has become so great that society does not see the utility and value of what you cite regarding individual liberty?

Or... Are we simply revisiting, using an oft repeated script, what rootuser referred to above as 'tribal infighting of the melting pot' between those who, knowingly or unknowingly, do not value individual liberty and those who prize an 'ancient, individual right?'

[Jimi Jah]

Yes, and then the dims got their 1994 @ss-salt weapons ban that Bubba signed.

They then proceeded to get slaughtered in the 1994 midterm election.

Dems learned their lessons, talk all you want about gun bans but when it comes to voting for a ban, they will pass every time to keep their seats.

Obozo had the senate, house and presidency. Barry didn't try to do anything on guns even though our old bat Di-fi re-introduces the same AR ban bill every year.

Now if we could connect those hot air producers to a wind turbine we might get some low cost energy out of them?

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Yes, and then the dims got their 1994 @ss-salt weapons ban that Bubba signed.

They then proceeded to get slaughtered in the 1994 midterm election.

Yes. They got slaughtered, but gun control wasn't the only reason they did. In fact, it could be argued that healthcare reform was a bigger factor and that the Contract with America was, potentially, an even bigger one.

While we may tend to focus on 'guns,' not everyone in the rest of the country does. In fact, even on this site, we have members voting for Liberal candidates, despite their positions on gun control, because of other issues where they disagree with modern Conservatives. Even though it might be popular (not to mention more comfortable) on a site ostensibly dedicated to a single issue to tout that single issue as paramount, relatively few in the general electorate are single issue voters.

The bottom line is that your first sentence is the key. They got, so-called, "assault weapons" banned and it took us 10 years to get rid of that ban. We can argue about its effectiveness, both in terms of intent and the specifics of what was banned, but the crux of the matter is that it served as a 'test run' that didn't entirely come out in our favor.

If you'll recall, there were several court cases filed, claiming it violated the Constitution. None of them succeeded and the ban was found to be 'constitutional;' at least on the grounds it was challenged. Just as significantly, while it may seem obvious to many of us what the outcome would/should be, Heller (2008) did NOT make it entirely clear where SCOTUS would come down if such a ban were challenged based on that ruling. Given what SCOTUS has been doing with regard to 2nd Amendment cases, including 'assault weapon' bans, it's still a 'gamble' when it comes to predicting what the decision would be.

Meanwhile, Democrats have learned from that ban. We now have similar bans and more restrictions at the State and Local levels than prior to 1994. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote against Trump with a platform that included reinstatement of the 1994 ban. There's more, but simply saying that Obama and the Democrats didn't push one through because they were 'scared to' is a bit misleading. They had other 'priorities' in terms of agenda and the "total control" often cited was actually a shorter time period than often portrayed and wasn't, of necessity, the "absolute control" it is touted as being.

There's also the fact that George W. Bush was reported as willing to renew the ban if Congress passed it. You might argue that he knew it wouldn't and, thereby, felt free to take that position. But, can you declare, with any certainty, that he would not have signed it had Congress passed it? I don't think so.

So, disparage them with the name-calling if you wish. But, don't be deluded or persuaded by those "on the Right" (as opposed to those "in the right") that "it can't happen again because they learned an hard lesson."

[Jimi Jah]

Another new poll says the same thing I did. Ban AR's? still at 50/50.

Hot air is all we will see. The AR is far more popular in American culture now than it was in 1994. It's here to stay. It's "America's Gun".

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Another new poll says the same thing I did. Ban AR's? still at 50/50.

Hot air is all we will see. The AR is far more popular in American culture now than it was in 1994. It's here to stay. It's "America's Gun".

Which poll? According to The Washington Post, their poll with ABC shows...

...has sparked calls to reinstate the 10-year ban on assault weapons that expired in 2004.... But Americans are roughly split on this proposal, with 50 percent in support and 46 percent opposed, a stark contrast from the 80 percent support for the ban in 1994, the year it was enacted. The current level of support is little different from 51 percent in 2016... The falloff in support for restricting assault weapons has come from all partisan groups, but has been starkest among Republicans and independents. While more than 7 in 10 Republicans and independents supported banning assault weapons in 1999, the new Post-ABC poll finds 45 percent of independents supporting it now, dropping to 29 percent among Republicans. A 71 percent majority of Democrats support such a ban...

Note the parts I put in bold.

What if the Democrats were in control instead of Republicans? Would Trump sign such a ban given that he once favored it? Is he that solidly in the 2nd Amendment camp or it more a case of political expediency, which makes it possible that he could 'compromise' if the perceived 'need' arose?

Remember, a 6/22/17 Pew poll showed that 68% favored an assault weapon ban.

Substantial majorities also favor creating a federal government database to track all gun sales (71%), banning assault-style weapons (68%), and banning high-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition (65%).

With "Republicans" like Kasich becoming 'squishy'...

"Would you feel as though your Second Amendment rights would be eroded because you couldn't buy a Goddarn AR-15?" Kasich said. "These are the things that have to be looked at. And action has to happen before–and, look, you're never going to fix all of this, but commonsense gun laws make sense."

...and some donors now becoming 'squishy'...

"I would support a fiscally conservative person who supports the ban, and at this moment in time, I really don't care whether it's a Republican or Democrat," Hoffman said.

...Federally, it's unlikely to happen, at the moment. But, that's not necessarily where the assault weapon bans are currently being fought. Note what I said...

We now have similar bans and more restrictions at the State and Local levels than prior to 1994.

California, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Hawaii, and D.C. now have some form of ban.

Denver has an assault weapon ban. Just yesterday, Dennis Kucinich was reported to be calling for city councils in Ohio to demand assault weapon bans. (Maybe Kasich has become 'squishy' for a reason?)

Florida is currently unlikely to ban them; but, there are elements in the Government favoring it.

We have a relatively recent thread about an attempt in Washington and, even though the current iteration died, it shows an intent by portions of the politicians.

Certainly, there are States more resistant. However, even some states, such as Georgia, which have trended "Republican" for awhile, have their own movements.

Don't believe me? How about Adam Winkler in 2016...

The state level is where the action is for gun control today.

You are correct. Polls ebb and flow in terms of their numbers. At the Federal level, it is certainly less likely, for now. Unfortunately, as I said, Democrats learned from the 1994 - 2004 ban and, while people like Feinstein continue to pound the drum ('blow hot air') in that arena, that's not where the battles - political and judicial - are currently being fought.