The Logic Behind The RKBA And Government Power

[rainbowbob]

I am interested in knowing do you think some felons should be able to own firearms? All felons? I find it interesting to know where you would draw the line as I draw it at all felons.

Putting aside for a moment the issues of convicted violent felons being released on our streets - can you please explain the reasoning behind denying the right of self-defense to a felon who has NOT committed a violent crime?

Shame and stigma for having made a mistake is one thing. Being denied the basic human right to defend oneself is quite another.

If we believe a felon convicted of a violent crime is too dangerous to be on the streets, then our sentencing policies should reflect that.

Felons convicted of non-violent crimes may be no more likely to commit criminal violence than you or I. Stripping citizens of their rights - even convicted felons - should only be considered if it can clearly be demonstrated to increase public safety.

I challenge you to explain to us how this could be so.

 

[t165]

rainbowbob...I used to think gun control was new to America's history. Then I found out different. I have learned that a closed mind is an ignorant mind. I may not like history and facts but to be informed requires learning. A visit to local libraries should help you research the matter of early gun control if you wish to learn. A simple google search will also assist you but the internet is full of argument/viewpoints instead of fact so separating the wheat from the chaff may take so time.

American history is replete with gun control. Vast and repetitive, both before and after the adoption of the 2nd amendment. Some on this thread get so mad when they hear this they pee all over themselves. But it is simply the truth.

I'll list a few examples both before and after the 2nd Amendment was created.

Marylands first gun control law was established in 1715 (or about that time). Chapter XLIV, section XXXll of the acts of 1715 basically stated a negro or other slave (yes...not all slaves were black) could not own/posess a firearm unless his master allowed him to.

Maryland also passed laws on or about 1756 which forbid roman catholics from owning firearms or ammunition.

On or around 1806 Maryland included mulattos from owning not only firearms but dogs. Now a free negro could own (1) dog if he obtained permission from the authorities.

The New York Sullivan law of the early 1900's forbid classes of white immigrants from owning/possessing firearms. Other states in the same time frame had similar laws.

States and territories all throughout America's history have practiced gun control regardless of the many individual interperations of the 2nd Amendment. Native Americans were deprived of firearm ownership. Enslaved chinese shipped into America were not allowed to own/posess firearms. Numerous settlements/towns/cities have always had gun control. Even Wyatt Earp and other famous lawmen enforced gun control. I could go on and on.

And ArfinGreebly...your arguments are nothing but sour grapes. You have lost the political fight. Somebody give this man some smelling salts to wake him up. He's been knocked out and is still groggy from the punch.

The law of the land states felons cannot legally own firearms. Those adjudicated mentally ill cannot lawfully own firearms. And I am perfectly aware criminals and mentally ill individuals do own/posess firearms. But I'll be ****** if I'm going to say it is okay. I have arrested individuals who illegally posessed firearms...I took their firearms away from them. This is the way it is and the way it will always be. I do not feel bad about it. I believe responsible law abiding citizens should be allowed to own firearms. partly to protect themselves from the gun-toting criminal minded idiots out there. Years ago a local child molester picked-up a 14 year old retarted boy off the sidewalk in front of his house. Took him to a local rural park and put a gun to his head and make him perfrom oral sex. We put this sick piece of **** in prison. Anyone who wishes to place a firearm in his hand again after he has served his time is a truly pathetic individual to my way of thinking. Now if ArfinGreebly wants to arm child molesters to rape children then he and I will have to agree to disagree on this point. I guess he can just sue me!

I have stated before I find comfort knowing the law is on my side. I and those who agree with me have won the fight. Those who have lost are mad but it is only talk...no muscle to back anything up. There has always been gun control laws. It is not that firearms are inherently evil, but many individuals are, thus the restrictions.

 

[Ruggles]

I think we are on a different page on this matter.

1. I could care less if the felon if violent or not, it simply makes no difference to me.
2. I could care less if they were released after doing their full sentence in prison, or if they were released early.
3. I could care less if they were deemed fully rehabilitated or 1/2 or not at all. Not everyone who gets out of prison is considered by anyone to be rehabilitated in anyway.
4. I could care less if they can defend themselves or not.
5. I think that everything that a felony conviction carries with it after the prison time is in fact part of their sentence from society. I support that 100%.
6. I have made it 40+ years, raising 3 kids and married for 17 years never having been accused or convicted of a felony. I have no compassion for those convicted of felonies. The age old "can't do the time don't due the crime" is an old and well known saying for a reason. Truth is eternal is someways.
7. My views on this have absolutely nothing to do with rather I would consider them dangerous or not.
8. Accuse me of being to too hard on felons, we could debate that. We do not need to debate rather my position is thought out on not IMO.

 

[Ruggles]

"There has always been gun control laws. It is not that firearms are inherently evil, but many individuals are, thus the restrictions."

Pretty much sums it up IMO.

 

[daorhgih]

We tell the released felon, "....you're a loser, you're a bad person, we can never ever trust you, and we want to make sure you suffer for eternity for what you did. You give them nothing to lose. How is that humane or just?" Then how do we keep convicted, released rapists from looking at women?? How do we ensure ourselves that "he has really changed."?

 

[Ruggles]

"We tell the released felon, "....you're a loser, you're a bad person, we can never ever trust you, and we want to make sure you suffer for eternity for what you did. You give them nothing to lose. How is that humane or just?" Then how do we keep convicted, released rapists from looking at women?? How do we ensure ourselves that "he has really changed."?"

No offense meant but what does a rapist looking at a women have to do with rather they can legally buy firearms or not? I am not talking in anyway about someone's conversion or lack of conversion in prison.

As for humane or just I lost the desire to show them those traits when they were convicted. Again I state I am not interested in if they have changed or not when we are talking about their rights or lack of rights after prison.

I am pretty hardline about convicted felons so my views may not be shared by all. I do seem to agree with the majority of the American people as these have been and remain the laws of the land.

 

[AKElroy]

It is very clear that a number of posters here believe that the US Govt took a misstep with background checks. I am not one of those. I am interested in what those who do believe that a misstep was taken think will happen regarding this. Please notice I said what will happen not what should happen in your view.

I am one of these. This is one area that most agree is a common sense measure, and why I believe we are blessed to not live in a democracy. However, at some point, we must acknowledge that at the very least NICS consitutes a governmental permission slip to exercise a right. I reject that notion. Arms ar not cars; they are SPECIFICALLY protected FROM governmental infringement. That said---

We tell the released felon, "....you're a loser, you're a bad person, we can never ever trust you, and we want to make sure you suffer for eternity for what you did. You give them nothing to lose. How is that humane or just?" Then how do we keep convicted, released rapists from looking at women?? How do we ensure ourselves that "he has really changed."?

Unlike the above post, I believe violent felons have already surrenderd any notion that thier future will not be subject to infringements by the state. I absolutely agree that fellons convicted of a violent act should be not be allowed to posses a firearm for whatever timeframe the state deems appropriate to their crime. HOW and BY WHOM these restrictions are enforced is critically important. First, such restrictions should clearly be state restrictions, (NOT Federal law). Second, only the offenders themselves should be effected. Let ROPE officers scrutinize the released all they want to see if they have acquired a gun, again, subject to the terms of their parole. It is NOT proper governnance to assume my potential guilt by requiring me to seek permission via NICS.

 

[rainbowbob]

t165:

You wrote the following:

Why did the founding fathers pass gun control laws...into effect which on their face seems to conflict with the 2nd Amendment?

None of the specific examples you provided in your subsequent post include any instance in which the "founding fathers" passed gun control laws in conflict with the 2A.

Perhaps we need to stipulate to the definition of "founding fathers"? Can we agree that term refers to those men who debated, wrote, and signed The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and The Bill of Rights?

As pointed out by Arfin, gun control laws enacted prior to the the 2A are irrelevant to your question, as are gun control laws enacted by states, cities, or communities after the 2A.

Perhaps you've never received an intelligent answer to your question because the basic premise of your question is so flawed.

If you have any examples of the framers responsible for enacting the 2A having also subsequently enacted gun control laws in conflict with the 2A - please provide them.

I won't suspend my respiratory functions while waiting.

 

[Ruggles]

Rainbowbob I think you are missing his point. The fact that gun laws have been around since the inception of this country clearly shows that the debate on gun control and the limits or non limits of the 2nd A are nothing new. The very fact that this debate is still ongoing into it's 4th century (1700s, 1800s, 1900s and 2000s) clearly shows me that their is no simple answer as some would suggest. It may be a very clear and simple answer to you and other on this forum but I think 200+ plus years of debate would have to show that indeed it is not.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Missing The Point?

Rainbowbob I think you are missing his point.

No. The man cited founding fathers to make his point. You keep moving the target to keep from getting pinned down on the principle.

The fact that gun laws have been around since the inception of this country clearly shows that the debate on gun control and the limits or non limits of the 2nd A are nothing new.

Signifying exactly what? Slavery is nothing new, either.

The very fact that this debate is still ongoing into it's 4th century (1700s, 1800s, 1900s and 2000s) clearly shows me that their is no simple answer as some would suggest.

But, simple or not, it turns out there IS an answer. It's the Second Amendment.

It may be a very clear and simple answer to you and other on this forum but I think 200+ plus years of debate would have to show that indeed it is not.

Behold, Democracy! "I've got more guys on my side, so we're right and you're wrong."


It really is simple.

It only becomes complicated when you need to abridge a simple declaration of an inviolate right in order to secure your position in control of the populace.

If you imagine for an instant that controlling honest people's access to weapons will somehow solve, or even reduce, crime, you are solving the wrong problem.

Murder can be effected with pretty much anything. Centuries of history show this clearly.

Guns, however, are the only tool that makes resistance to tyranny practical.

Pretending that gun control does anything other than impair honest men from their own defense is either willful ignorance or open dishonesty.

 

[AKElroy]

From where I sit, I hope the anti-gun crowd never read your post, for if they ever get the idea that we as responsible gun owners as a group have no compromise but stand fast on the total repeal of all gun laws then they will paint us as such to society. An image we in the trenches do not want to be tagged with. By the same token if the anti gun crowd ever pick up on the theory that all gun laws are useless and don’t work then they’re only recourse is to agree with that premise and their only platform will be to ban all firearms, period. Meanwhile, us guys who man the gun rights trenches will go on fighting the good fight and continue to take the abuse from the various soap box patriots on this and various other gun boards.

Judging from the Huffington Post, I find it a little insulting to suggest we need be concerned about being viewed as extremist. Those concerns never cross the minds of our opposition. You are fighting the fight as it comes, as I hope we all are. One bad bill at a time, one anti politician at a time. I commend that. These efforts are doing a fine job of slowing our defeat; they can never bring about victory. Ultimately, the ONLY way to prevail is to educate the fundamentals of our founding, and the sanctity of our basic rights. You suggest we must appear mainstream to prevail, I argue that these efforts simply conceed to the opposition that RKBA is the governments' to dispense; giving up precious ground that forfeights the entire base of our collective opposition. This is at its core an argument of principle. Should we stop quoting our founders intentions? Our very founding documents are viewed as extremist propaganda by the left in this country. At some point we need to understand that the left are offended by our existance and our politics, and they want us defeated. Conceeding sacred ground simply hands them victory without an argument based in principle ever being employed.

I hope the anti-gun crowd never read your post, for if they ever get the idea that we as responsible gun owners as a group have no compromise but stand fast on the total repeal of all gun laws then they will paint us as such to society.

They already do. Joining them in more restrictions is simply joining them in opposition to RKBA; Exactly how "They" became "them" to begin with.

 

[christcorp]

Arfin; Obviously we will never agree. Personally, I believe you have twisted quite a bit of what I and others have posted. But let's put that aside, and let me ask you a very simple question.

Are there ANY CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY that you believe SHOULD NOT own a gun? Minors? Convicted Rapists? Convicted Murderers? Child Molesters? Mentally Ill? Elderly with Alzheimer's? Psychopaths with multiple split personalities? I'll let you come up with some other possibilities. But it's a SIMPLE QUESTION. Should ANY of the people I listed, or any other category that I may not have thought to mention, fall into a category in which you would AGREE that they shouldn't be allowed to "Exercise their Right to the 2nd amendment"?

Now, if you say NO; that there shouldn't be ANY PEOPLE EVER in the country that shouldn't be allowed to Keep and Bear Arms; then don't even read the rest of the thread, because it will make no difference to you, me, or anyone else. Just leave it at you don't believe in ANY RESTRICTIONS on citizens of the United States being allowed to Keep and Bear Arms.

Now; assuming you said YES; which I would have to guess that PROBABLY 99.99999998374% of all Americans would say YES to; the 2nd part of the question is:

HOW do you determine IF a person falls under any category that you would agree shouldn't be allowed to Keep and Bear Arms???? Isn't that what a Background Check is???

And if you read my posts as I wrote them, and not what you THINK I said; you would see that I made it quite clear that it is NOT UP TO THE CITIZEN TO PROVE THEY SHOULD be allowed to Keep and Bear arms. I specifically said that it's the government's RESPONSIBILITY to prove that the individual shouldn't be allowed. And they would have to do that INSTANTLY or the citizen is given the Benefit of the Doubt and should be allowed to buy the gun then and there. I DON'T believe in waiting periods of any kind. If the state wants to enact permits, licenses, background checks, etc.... Fine. BUT IT MUST BE DONE INSTANTLY!!!! The citizen should NOT be required to have to prove their innocence and they shouldn't have to WAIT to exercise their right.

But there ARE some people that should not be allowed to Keep and Bear arms. And no matter how you want to play the word game; if you believe that there is even 1 person out there that SHOULDN'T be allowed to keep and bear arms; (Just like there are some people that shouldn't have a driver's license; even though denying it could be considered an infringement on the person's right "LIBERTY" and also their "Pursuit of Happiness". Yet we realize that there are some people because of medical issues; numerous alcohol related incidents; old age; etc... shouldn't be allowed a drivers license. Well, for these same examples; maybe some people shouldn't be allowed to Keep and Bear Arms. And if we agree that even 1 "TYPE" of person shouldn't be allowed to keep and bear arms, then we have to agree that there has to be some method in place to determine if a person falls into that category.

Don't get me wrong. I think we have WAY TOO MANY GUN LAWS. I think many of them are redundant and useless. I think many (At the state level) do in fact INFRINGE on a citizen's right to Keep and Bear arms. My who argument is against those who believe that ALL LAWS should be abolished. And yes, when PEOPLE are involved and interacting with each other, there must be rules/laws/policies established for social order. Some are culturally developed. (You don't stand in front of a group giving a speech, and pick your nose and eat it. It's not a law, but it's a social norm). Some are legally developed. (You don't stand in front of a group giving a speech and begin to masturbate).

But again, to stay specific; I believe that we only need 4 laws concerning guns.
1. WHO can have them. (No, I don't believe that ALL should. Including minors, mental patients, drug/alcohol abusers, etc...)
2. WHERE you can shoot it. (There are idiots who would sit on their front porch in a populated area shoot it just because "They Can"). Or they are shooting on/across someone else's private property.
3. WHEN you can shoot it. There are the obvious times such as in self defense, hunting, sport shooting, plinking, etc.... (Again, there are idiots who would try to do that old western style bullying where they are picking on someone and shoot the ground at their feet and yell "DANCE")
4. WHAT happens if you break one of the first 3 laws. Basically the punishment for someone who ABUSES their right. Someone who abuses someone else's rights.

I personally think these are the ONLY 4 laws that need to exist. And I believe that they should/could be NATIONAL. This way a person can buy a gun legally in ANY state. We also wouldn't require a permit to carry concealed. But to say that NO GUN LAWS ARE NECESSARY is ridiculous. There's a lot of people our there that really don't have any business Keeping and Bearing Arms. And none of this argument is cliche Straw Men crap. There ARE people in society that require laws. And no, you can't just have laws against the crime and NOT for the tool used. Not when the tool used has ONLY 1 PRIMARY PURPOSE. To Kill people. That's what we are discussing. Defending ourselves. Just like a car has 1 MAIN PURPOSE. Yet there are now offenses CALLED "VEHICULAR HOMICIDE". Specifically because even though the main purpose of a car is to transport; more people die in automobiles than from guns. And ALCOHOL and DRUGS are tools; and they have laws attached to them.

Sorry; but I firmly believe that if the government wants to set standards; then as long as those standards can be met INSTANTLY and does not delay or stop the citizen from having a gun and exercising their right to Keep and Bear arms; and ANY denial of a citizen based on accepted reasons, MUST be proven by the state; It is not up to the citizen to prove innocence; then I don't see any infringement on rights. Now, if the citizen even has to wait 1 day; that's unacceptable.

 

[Seminole]

The reality of the matter is that individual rights should not and do not have the ability to superseded the rights of society (and thus other individuals) as a whole. There are and should be limits to all rights, you can not have a society functions without those limits.

Once again, please define what you mean by "rights." It doesn't seem to mean what is meant by that word in the Constitution.

Natural rights--the Framers of the Constitution referred to these as "unalienable" rights--as understood by Locke, Hutcheson, and other philosophers who influenced the Framers, pertain only to individual human beings and are an inherent part of what it means to be human. While all individuals have the same rights, "society" is simply a collection of individuals and does not and has no rights at all.

The rights enshrined in the Constitution (as well as those not mentioned specifically, but referred to in the 9th Ammendment as retained by the people) all derive from the basic and natural condition of being human--self ownership (I'm specifically following Locke's argument here, though you can find the same reasoning in other 17th and early 18th-century philosophers). Because I own myself and others own themselves, we can agree to gather together: this is the origin of the right to free assembly. Because I own myself, I own what I work for: this is the origin of the right to property.

One of the characteristics of these natural rights is that they are, in philosophical terms, "negative rights." That is, they impose no obligation on anyone else other than to permit me to exercise them freely. Because this is so, true rights cannot conflict or "supercede" or be superceded by those of others as you assume. Let's use free speech as an illustration: while because I own myself, including my mouth, I have the right to free speech. My right to free speech, however, does not impose an obligation on anyone else to listen to me. Because like me others have the property of self-ownership, they have the right to not listen to me. My right to free speech does not conflict with their right to not listen to me. The right to a free press also illustrates the nature of true rights. While I have the right to property because I own myself and thus my labor, and I can thus purchase a printing press from a willing seller in order to publish my opinions, I do not have the "right" to force someone to sell me the press (much less to provide me with a press for free) nor to force someone to purchase the pamphlets I may print, because they have the same rights that I have.

The same principles apply to the right to keep and bear arms. This right derives from one's right to one's own life (this is essentially the principle of self-ownership). Because I am a living human being, I have the right to preserve my own life by any means necessary, including weapons. Because I own my self, I have the right to property and thus have the right to purchase, keep, and carry weapons suitable for the defense of my life. This right to keep and bear arms does not conflict with any right of any other person. My keeping and bearing a sword, pistol. or fully automatic AK-47 (for example) does not deprive anyone of his own life or property. It is important to note that the use of my weapon to threaten the life of someone who was doing me no harm or to rob her of her property is not the exercise of my right to keep and bearing of arms, but is instead a violation of the rights of another. Once again, there is no conflict between the rights of individuals. It is impossible for the rights of one individual to "supercede" the rights of another. And since "society" is not a human being, but simply a collection of such individuals, it has no rights that can be thought of as separate from those who comprise it.

 

[Lou McGopher]

This talk of governments deriving their power from consent of the governed sounds nice and all, but it's not true.

The truth is that governments derive their power through coercion of the governed.

Be wary of when the government strips one segment of society of its rights, no matter what the excuse. Eventually, it will dispossess you of those same rights.

 

[Ruggles]

"Be wary of when the government strips one segment of society of its rights, no matter what the excuse. Eventually, it will dispossess you of those same rights."

I could not disagree more, the government is nothing more than society disposing rights from themselves. I think that is is perfectly acceptable as it has been for hundreds of years. I do not buy into the view that because we as a society remove or restrict the rights of some that we will eventually do so to all. To say that is to say we have no control on the very government that wields that power, and that is not true at all. Debating this point would be beyond useless as we would never reach common ground on this.

Seminole my friend I think we are so far apart in the ways we see things to do much good debating it. You consider your rights as such that they can not and should not be subject to the rules that society. I think that society has the right to set rules and standards that do have the ability to impose control on what some might consider their rights. The issue between us is not the definition of rights, it's the view on the rights of society vs the rights of the individual. I think debate is pointless in our cases as well.

 

[tasco 74]

yep i'm a simple man too........... but don't let YOUR confusion of simple and stupid be your last mistake........................................... the founders of this nation meant the 2nd amendment to be just as a lot of us interpret it.... "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not infringed".........

 

[Seminole]

Seminole my friend I think we are so far apart in the ways we see things to do much good debating it.

If so, your view is not just far from mine, it is far from the Constitution. Another way of saying that is that it is unconstitutional. You are not bound to agree with the Constitution, of course, but in all honesty you should at least admit that you don't agree with it

The issue between us is not the definition of rights

Really? I've set out fairly clearly what "rights" meant to the philosophers who influenced the Framers, to the Framers themselves, and thus in the Constitution. It is the only way in which the concept of rights seems useful to me. But you still have not said what you mean by the term. Can you? If so, please do so.

it's the view on the rights of society vs the rights of the individual.

See, once again, the difference in views hinges on the definition of "rights." The Bill of Rights of the Constitution is replete with references to the rights of "the people," who are clearly understood as individuals, as the Supreme Court articulated even in regard to the Second Amendment in Heller. The framers understood clearly however, that neither the government nor any nebulous entity such as "society" apart from the individuals which comprise it can have any such "rights."

I think debate is pointless in our cases as well.

This seems to have become a recurring refrain whenever you can't support your position from a logical or historical point of view. If you can't do so, why should it be taken seriously?

 

[Ruggles]

As far as supporting my views logically I have done so many times, just because you do not agree with my logic does not mean it is not indeed logical.

As for historically I will stand on how we as a country and a people have governed ourself since the inception of this country. Not how you or I want to try and interpret what the founders meant, and make no mistake that is all you are doing, giving your interpretation. We have always governed by compromising with each other over our differences, just as the founders did when they created the very documents you are speaking of. Worked then, works now and will work in the future.

IMO you are dwelling too much on what you believe should be rather than what actually is regarding how laws and regulations are created in this country. As I have said before my efforts are being directed at how to "win" within the system that exist as opposed to trying to argue that system in incorrect. As much as your efforts are given in good faith (and I think they are indeed created out of a desire for the same ends as I seek) IMO they are for naught in the debate for real world 2nd A rights.

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Faith In Government

Arfin; Obviously we will never agree. Personally, I believe you have twisted quite a bit of what I and others have posted. But let's put that aside, and let me ask you a very simple question.

No need to twist. I see gun control as dishonest and unnecessary. You see it as the valid expression of "social authority" as personified by the government.

Are there ANY CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY that you believe SHOULD NOT own a gun? Minors? Convicted Rapists? Convicted Murderers? Child Molesters? Mentally Ill? Elderly with Alzheimer's? Psychopaths with multiple split personalities? I'll let you come up with some other possibilities. But it's a SIMPLE QUESTION. Should ANY of the people I listed, or any other category that I may not have thought to mention, fall into a category in which you would AGREE that they shouldn't be allowed to "Exercise their Right to the 2nd amendment"?

Sure. Anyone who's in prison. Anyone who's actually hospitalized for a mental disorder. Anyone who has been forbidden to own an axe, a chainsaw, rat poison, a kitchen knife, a claw hammer, a large screwdriver, a bow and arrow, and a car.

Where we differ is that you would release people deemed "unworthy" into society and make the rest of us prove we aren't those guys.

If you honestly believe a man should walk the streets, buy a car, own a kitchen knife and a box of tools, buy a bow and arrow, then for the love of Mike, let him alone. Let him defend himself.

Sure, there are plausible reasons he shouldn't own a gun, but they are either dishonest or an admission that the social system has failed.

(Children don't count in this discussion, so quit trying to make them a valid class of "prohibited persons." A ten-year-old doesn't own or drive a car, either. We're discussing adults.)

HOW do you determine IF a person falls under any category that you would agree shouldn't be allowed to Keep and Bear Arms???? Isn't that what a Background Check is???

No. The man I don't trust with a gun is locked up. I know where he is, and I don't have to keep checking everyone else to make sure you're not him. The ones I let out to walk the streets and mingle with society, I also trust with guns.

A background check assumes guilt as the default. I have to give you my ID so you can make sure I'm not in a bad guy database. So why do you think I'm a criminal until you have "checked me out" with the FBI?

And if you read my posts as I wrote them, and not what you THINK I said; you would see that I made it quite clear that it is NOT UP TO THE CITIZEN TO PROVE THEY SHOULD be allowed to Keep and Bear arms. I specifically said that it's the government's RESPONSIBILITY to prove that the individual shouldn't be allowed.

You keep saying that. And yet you support a system that does exactly this.

And they would have to do that INSTANTLY or the citizen is given the Benefit of the Doubt and should be allowed to buy the gun then and there. I DON'T believe in waiting periods of any kind. If the state wants to enact permits, licenses, background checks, etc.... Fine. BUT IT MUST BE DONE INSTANTLY!!!!

Why is that fine? Why is whatever the state wants to do fine? How is it possible that you believe this?

The citizen should NOT be required to have to prove their innocence and they shouldn't have to WAIT to exercise their right.

And yet the background check is exactly the citizen proving he's not on some prohibited list.

But there ARE some people that should not be allowed to Keep and Bear arms. And no matter how you want to play the word game; if you believe that there is even 1 person out there that SHOULDN'T be allowed to keep and bear arms; (Just like there are some people that shouldn't have a driver's license; even though denying it could be considered an infringement on the person's right "LIBERTY" and also their "Pursuit of Happiness". Yet we realize that there are some people because of medical issues; numerous alcohol related incidents; old age; etc... shouldn't be allowed a drivers license. Well, for these same examples; maybe some people shouldn't be allowed to Keep and Bear Arms. And if we agree that even 1 "TYPE" of person shouldn't be allowed to keep and bear arms, then we have to agree that there has to be some method in place to determine if a person falls into that category.

And you want the government to decide who those people should be. And you want government to "administer" this system.

Because, after hundreds of years of screwing up pretty much everything they touch, at least government gets it right with gun control.

The other thing you consistently miss is why "prohibited persons" aren't prohibited from owing or obtaining any of several dozen other deadly implements.

But again, to stay specific; I believe that we only need 4 laws concerning guns.
1. WHO can have them. (No, I don't believe that ALL should. Including minors, mental patients, drug/alcohol abusers, etc...)
2. WHERE you can shoot it. (There are idiots who would sit on their front porch in a populated area shoot it just because "They Can"). Or they are shooting on/across someone else's private property.
3. WHEN you can shoot it. There are the obvious times such as in self defense, hunting, sport shooting, plinking, etc.... (Again, there are idiots who would try to do that old western style bullying where they are picking on someone and shoot the ground at their feet and yell "DANCE")
4. WHAT happens if you break one of the first 3 laws. Basically the punishment for someone who ABUSES their right. Someone who abuses someone else's rights.

Your #1 involves prior restraint. Can't agree.
Your #2 is the subject of local ordinances, and I generally have no beef there.
Your #3 is, likewise, a matter of state and local law. Some are okay, some are egregiously stupid.
Your #4 is mostly going to be covered by other laws. Murder, reckless endangerment, assault, battery, intimidation, and so on are pretty much already covered. I've already explained why "special case" legislation is a bad idea.

I personally think these are the ONLY 4 laws that need to exist. And I believe that they should/could be NATIONAL.

No. Expecting the federal government to adequately fashion ordinances of localities is foolish.

This way a person can buy a gun legally in ANY state. We also wouldn't require a permit to carry concealed.

Rock on.

But to say that NO GUN LAWS ARE NECESSARY is ridiculous.

And no one has proposed this.

There's a lot of people our there that really don't have any business Keeping and Bearing Arms.

Yes, but they're all locked up.

And none of this argument is cliche Straw Men crap.

Cliche? How quaint. You're probably not going to get your wish.

There ARE people in society that require laws.

Ironically, the ones who need them the most are the ones least likely to obey them.

And no, you can't just have laws against the crime and NOT for the tool used.

And this is where you go off into the weeds. A just and fair law addresses behavior and conduct, not possessions or property. If there isn't a victim, there isn't a crime.

Not when the tool used has ONLY 1 PRIMARY PURPOSE. To Kill people.

Painting with a rather broad brush. Why aren't 80 million gun owners out there killing people then? Is it that they don't grasp the purpose of this tool they've bought? How dare they hunt quail and deer and wild hogs! And all those holes in paper targets -- gads, what a waste. Clearly, these people are too stupid to own guns, as they have completely failed to grasp their purpose.

And, no, it isn't that they refrain from killing people because of the law. It's something they wouldn't do anyway.

Oddly, your "primary purpose" clause is closer to the mark than it might at first seem. Those who mean to rule us worry about exactly that, because that makes firearms an effective tool of resistance to tyranny.

That's what we are discussing. Defending ourselves.

Defending ourselves =/= killing people.

Just like a car has 1 MAIN PURPOSE. Yet there are now offenses CALLED "VEHICULAR HOMICIDE". Specifically because even though the main purpose of a car is to transport; more people die in automobiles than from guns. And ALCOHOL and DRUGS are tools; and they have laws attached to them.

I might note that if you murder someone with a car, the judge is probably not going to worry much about the car's "main purpose." He's interested in the crime -- the act -- more than the tool. Unless, of course, he's working with legislated "sentencing guidelines" that apply to assault cars.

Sorry; but I firmly believe that if the government wants to set standards; then as long as those standards can be met INSTANTLY and does not delay or stop the citizen from having a gun and exercising their right to Keep and Bear arms; and ANY denial of a citizen based on accepted reasons, MUST be proven by the state; It is not up to the citizen to prove innocence; then I don't see any infringement on rights. Now, if the citizen even has to wait 1 day; that's unacceptable.

I find your faith in government quite breathtaking.


I am prepared to stipulate that we're not going to see eye-to-eye on this.

You're prepared to violate constitutional principles in order to feel safer, and you're willing to entrust that to a government.

I find that deeply troubling.

I hope that, in time, with experience, and with more study, you will find it troubling, too.

For now, however, I can only reflect that I once thought along the lines you do.

I had to live through some stuff before I began to question what "everybody knows" as true.

You're not going to learn this from me.

I guess I'll have to live with that.

 

[christcorp]

I believe that everything I've said, and the manner, is totally constitutional. I am living in the real world, and you're living in a "I wish it was" world. You think that a mass murderer, child molester, rapist, etc.... should be locked up for eternity. That's fine. That would be nice. The problem is, they WON'T be locked up for eternity. They will be back out among society. You also believe that these felons who have paid their debt to society are therefor rehabilitated and worthy of having ALL of their rights reinstated. Again, a dream world. They shouldn't have ALL their rights reinstated. How many states have a "3 Strikes" law? That's because those being released from prison are committing more crimes and going back in.

Now; fix the judicial system; make it where criminals of physical crimes against others are never released; and we can talk about having NO GUN LAWS. Work out where we never have to have laws concerning the 1st amendment right to free speech, expression and religion; and we can talk about no gun laws at all. You say that in theory You say that no one has proposed have NO GUN LAWS. Wrong. MANY on this forum have proposed EXACTLY THAT. And even you have not been able to get yourself to admit that some gun laws are required.

But the bottom line is that until there is a judicial system that keeps felons in prison forever, there WILL be people on the streets that shouldn't have guns. And they AREN'T all in prison or a mental hospital. (And kids DO count; because no where in the constitution have I read where the magical age of 18 or 21 years old is the age of adulthood. That is a modern law, and APPARENTLY one that you are willing to agree with because it fits your argument. So yes, we can mention 10 year olds walking into a pawn shop and buying a gun. So you must then be saying that it's OK to have a law that says you MUST be 21 to purchase a handgun???? Why not 18???? Why not 16????? And IF it is 21 years old, and you agree with this law, then how can you agree to the individual who is buying a gun HAVING TO SHOW THEIR DRIVERS LICENSE. Aren't they having to PROVE that they are "Eligible" to purchase a gun. See, you want some rules/laws to apply, but you don't want others. I can agree with this. Some laws suck. But if you AGREE that a person has to be a certain age to purchase a gun, then there has to be some way of verifying that they are that age. That's a background check. Maybe it's as simple as a drivers license. But because our failed legal system allows murderers and mental patients to leave their facilities and come back into society, then we have to determine if they are one of the folks walking into the pawn shop trying to buy the gun.

Now, I've heard these arguments way too many times over the years. I am a staunch believe and supporter of the constitution. I have studied it for many years. I spent 21 years swearing an oath to protect and defend it. And I will do whatever it takes to ensure that it does survive. But I can't just sit by and listen to people believe that we live in some sort of Rodney King dream world "Where we All get along". That isn't the real world. And because WE THE PEOPLE is made up of more than just you and your rights; and because not everyone is willing to respect each other's rights; some laws are required. And because our judicial system has flaws, we sometimes have to restrict certain individuals in society from having guns, cars, and other freedoms. At least legally. And sometimes, the only way to determine if an individual is eligible to retain their rights and certain freedoms, is to check into that person.

 

[rainbowbob]

This some pretty good debate goin' on in this here thread.

 

[t165]

rainbowbob...I posted answers to some of the questions you asked me. Apparently my answers upset someone...they have disappeared! It appears the 1st Amendment is not sacred here. There appears to be redacting afoot! Restricting one Constitutional Admendment in an attempt to preserve another. The irony of it all.

There is no standard I am aware of in defining the phrase "founding fathers". Most seem to agree the definition includes both the "signers" of the Declaration of Independence and the "framers", the delegates who attended the Federal Convention which drafted the Constitution. Some include different individuals like prominent military personel and others.

I feel the gun control laws practiced before the adoption of the United States Constitution and passage of the original Bill of Rights is historically and legally important. Most were simply absorbed by the subsequent state constitutions during ratification. If you really wish to learn America's history and the involvement of our founding fathers concerning gun control then research the various state constitutions and laws in that time period. I have offered example after example to support my arguments and why go throught he trouble of listing references when I have just had whole posts removed from this thread because someone did not like what I had to say or support my position.

Abraham Lincoln said..."let the people know the truth and the country is safe". I'm a bit disappointed some powers-that-be here at The High Road do not believe in that!

 

[waterhouse]

rainbowbob...I posted answers to some of the questions you asked me. Apparently my answers upset someone...they have disappeared! It appears the 1st Amendment is not sacred here. There appears to be redacting afoot! Restricting one Constitutional Admendment in an attempt to preserve another. The irony of it all.

Here we go again:

http://www.thehighroad.org/code-of-conduct.html

A note on FREE SPEECH:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment is greatly respected here on The High Road, as are all other Amendments that the Second Amendment defends. However, The High Road is private property and requests that members adhere to all forum policies. It is a contract agreed to by all who become members of The High Road. Those who break forum rules cannot invoke censorship or freedom of speech - a contract broken is a contract broken. If you do not like the rules of conduct or the acceptable topics, seek out a new venue to frequent or start your own board.

I feel the gun control laws practiced before the adoption of the United States Constitution and passage of the original Bill of Rights is historically and legally important.

I feel the same. However, the fact that there have always been gun control laws, though legally and historically important, does not answer your claim that:

Why did the founding fathers pass gun control laws "infringement" into effect which on their face seems to conflict with the 2nd Amendment?

rainbowbob (I am also curious. I don't doubt that it is possible, I just want to see real, actual proof) simply asked you to show which of the Founding Fathers proposed gun control laws.

I have offered example after example to support my arguments and why go throught he trouble of listing references when I have just had whole posts removed from this thread because someone did not like what I had to say or support my position.

You have offered several examples, but none that seem to have been proposed by the men who founded the country. Also, I read your last post (the deleted one), and it was mostly a response to a picture of a Troll doll. In fact, in that post you asked that the moderator do his job and do what he said he would do in post number 21, in which Arfin stated:

We try to encourage civil discussions here at THR.

Baiting and sniping and ridicule are not civil.

Discuss the topic, argue the merits, propose a thesis, or whatever.

Leave the personal jabs out of it.

I won't offer this advice a second time.

Then the moderator did his job, and erased the picture of the Troll doll and your response to it. I read the post and again saw no Founding Father's names mentioned, nor the gun control laws that they enacted.

One other thing:

Many of the gun control laws you point to in our history were based on the belief that some people (mainly anyone who was not a property owning white male) were not equal in rights to, well, property owning white males.

The slaves you refer to weren't allowed to vote either. They were seen as property. There were laws throughout out short history that tried to keep non white males from having the same rights as white males. These laws, although they are in our history and are of historical and legal importance, and although they were practiced by our founding fathers, were still terrible laws.

We have (hopefully) evolved as a nation to think beyond this concept.

So I will take your question one step further. I challenge you to prove that our founding fathers ever enacted legislation that imposed gun control on "the people," keeping in mind that their version of "people" was more racist and elitist than ours is.

In another thread you said that your college professor proved you wrong and changed your mind on this issue. That happened to me several times in college as well, and they are the lessons I remember most clearly. There are ~39 signers to the Constitution, and I believe ~56 to the Declaration of Independence (although many of these names overlap). If your professor made you aware of any of these men actually enacting gun control laws please share the name of the Founding Father in question.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Final Notes

I believe that everything I've said, and the manner, is totally constitutional.

We will disagree here.

I am living in the real world, and you're living in a "I wish it was" world.

I argue for the principle. You argue that we have to accept what has become.

You think that a mass murderer, child molester, rapist, etc.... should be locked up for eternity.

Or terminated. Or fully rehabilitated. That's the principle. You don't let heinous felons wander the streets.

That's fine. That would be nice. The problem is, they WON'T be locked up for eternity. They will be back out among society.

Accepting what has become.

You also believe that these felons who have paid their debt to society are therefor rehabilitated and worthy of having ALL of their rights reinstated. Again, a dream world.

Not quite what I've said. Rehabilitation is possible. Real redemption. Those folks get returned to society. Sitting in a box for 10 years isn't either one, and isn't the same as "paying one's debt to society." This isn't "what is" but it's "what can be." It's the principle.

They shouldn't have ALL their rights reinstated. How many states have a "3 Strikes" law? That's because those being released from prison are committing more crimes and going back in.

Citing the failure of society and social programs in support of gun control. And we already know gun control doesn't affect crime.

Now; fix the judicial system; make it where criminals of physical crimes against others are never released;

. . . or are fully rehabilitated . . .

and we can talk about having NO GUN LAWS.

I already do. Oh, and it's not "gun laws," it's "gun control" laws. I don't have a beef with usage ordinances. Proscribing tool ownership fixes the wrong problem.

Work out where we never have to have laws concerning the 1st amendment right to free speech, expression and religion; and we can talk about no gun laws at all.

Irrelevant. Using one body of laws to justify another is absurd.

You say that in theory You say that no one has proposed have NO GUN LAWS. Wrong. MANY on this forum have proposed EXACTLY THAT. And even you have not been able to get yourself to admit that some gun laws are required.

See above, and my earlier writings. "Gun laws" is too imprecise a term.

But the bottom line is that until there is a judicial system that keeps felons in prison forever, there WILL be people on the streets that shouldn't have guns. And they AREN'T all in prison or a mental hospital.

They shouldn't have knives or chain saws, either. And a long list of other deadly implements. And you still want me to jump through hoops to prove I'm not him.

(And kids DO count; because no where in the constitution have I read where the magical age of 18 or 21 years old is the age of adulthood. That is a modern law, and APPARENTLY one that you are willing to agree with because it fits your argument. So yes, we can mention 10 year olds walking into a pawn shop and buying a gun. So you must then be saying that it's OK to have a law that says you MUST be 21 to purchase a handgun???? Why not 18???? Why not 16????? And IF it is 21 years old, and you agree with this law, then how can you agree to the individual who is buying a gun HAVING TO SHOW THEIR DRIVERS LICENSE. Aren't they having to PROVE that they are "Eligible" to purchase a gun. See, you want some rules/laws to apply, but you don't want others. I can agree with this. Some laws suck. But if you AGREE that a person has to be a certain age to purchase a gun, then there has to be some way of verifying that they are that age.

Fine, check the guy's ID. If he's over 18, sell him a gun. If he's younger, he has to have it given to him by a parent. This is not "gun control" per se.

That's a background check.

I wouldn't call it that. You, of course, are free to do so.

Maybe it's as simple as a drivers license. But because our failed legal system allows murderers and mental patients to leave their facilities and come back into society, then we have to determine if they are one of the folks walking into the pawn shop trying to buy the gun.

You still -- by default -- assume I'm a criminal or mental patient. I can't accept that.



Now, I really do have to get to work.

You may continue to assert that the principle doesn't matter and that we have to live with the problems we have and whatever the legislators throw at us.

I believe you place far too much faith in government.

You are free to disagree.

It is my opinion that we've exhausted the useful portion of this thread, and I'm pretty sure neither of us will be swayed by further argument.

Enjoy.

 

[General Geoff]

I hear a lot of talk about "living in the real world," in reference to arguing for gun control. That is an argument for the status quo only; gun control is not gravity, the world will not end without it. A total lack of gun control would not result in total anarchy.