Who should be allowed to purchase guns?

[M2 Carbine]

I just posted a LONG statement on another thread talking about how we are our own worst enemies. How the far right of the movement is so quick to "eat their own" if they vary slightly from the "all or nothing"..."pry it from my cold dead hands" mentality. I think we need to gather from this info that hardcore will never win. It is the people in the middle that make the rules since they are usually the majority. We need to accept that some gun control is going to exist. We need to concentrate on making sure it is fair and concrete and not arbitrary. Something simple like over 21, no criminal record, not mentally handicapped, and take a gun safety course. Then ALL law abiding citizens can own and even carry.

The trouble is, we are dealing with an unreasonable enemy that wants to totally do away with the private ownership of guns. (except they are the elite that should be allowed to own guns)

ANY "sensible" gun laws that have been accepted by the gun community is NEVER ENOUGH.
It's a fact that almost immediately after any anti gun control measures are passed the anti gun crowd starts calling for more restrictive measures.

Tomorrow we could give the liberal left EVERY gun control measure they want in exchange for us just keeping our 22 rifles and they would be after our remaining guns within 6 months or less.

Give up NOTHING because it will do you no good.

 

[NineseveN]

I can't agree more. The Spirit of the Founders needs to return to us. We need to set aside our differences and work for what we agree on.

The spirit of the founding fathers was that all of us had the right to keep and bear arms. When you "reasonable restriction" peple start getting that, we can move forward. This is not a "majority rules" issue, it is an issue of the facts and intent of the United States Constitution.

 

[Pafrmu]

The spirit of the founding fathers was that all of us had the right to keep and bear arms. When you "reasonable restriction" peple start getting that, we can move forward. This is not a "majority rules" issue, it is an issue of the facts and intent of the United States Constitution.

I was waiting for a comment like this.

The all of us of the constitution was very different from the all of us that you are talking about now. When the Constitution was written, the all of us was white males that owned property and were of a certain age (not sure what the age was.) Everyone else was excluded. Thats why we have the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments.

Besides, you may be assuming that the Founders would not have updated their views given current information. No one can speak for the Founders. We can only know what has been recorded in the historical record. We need to emulate their principles and act in a way that we think they would have acted.

 

[Deathrider1579]

The spirit of the founding fathers was that all of us had the right to keep and bear arms. When you "reasonable restriction" peple start getting that, we can move forward. This is not a "majority rules" issue, it is an issue of the facts and intent of the United States Constitution.

+100

I couldn't agree more!

All weapons for all the people!

-DR

 

[cosine]

We need to emulate their principles and act in a way that we think they would have acted.

Careful, this is a two-edged sword, which can work both for and against us. Hey, one could say that the Founding Fathers had not envisioned modern-day powerful firearms, and if they knew of their destructive force, would be against them. Guess what? Banning guns has just become an action acted in the way one thinks the Founding Fathers would have acted.

No one can be sure of how the Founding Fathers would act today. Trying to act in the way we think they would act is useless, because everybody is going to believe that their actions would emulate the way the Founding Fathers would act today if they were still alive.

The all of us of the constitution was very different from the all of us that you are talking about now. When the Constitution was written, the all of us was white males that owned property and were of a certain age (not sure what the age was.) Everyone else was excluded. Thats why we have the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments.

That argument is useless. The United States Constitution has been amended to include all. Therefore, all the rights enumerated in it, including the RKBA, are extended to everyone.

 

[Pafrmu]

Careful, this is a two-edged sword. No one can be sure of how the Founding Fathers would act today. Trying to act in the way we think they would act is useless, because everybody is going to believe that their actions would emulate the way the Founding Fathers would act today if they were still alive.

Touche! You point out a problem with our society today.

That argument is useless. The United States Constitution has been amended to include all. Therefore, all the rights enumerated in it, including the RKBA, are extended to everyone.

True but not by the Founders.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!

How can you not comprehend that your "reasonable gun control" measures involve the same flawed mentality as our enemies? What is reasonable, to you, and how do you think you can justify enforcing this view on all of us? Maybe you're an Elmer Fudd. You don't see any legitimate use for anything other than bolt action rifles and hunting shotguns. It is completely reasonable to ban the black rifles and handguns cause they aren't sporting until someone decides there is no legitimate use for these high-powered scoped sniper rifles passing and hunting rifles and these large bore street sweepers somehow not considered destructive devices. Eventually, all gun control becomes resonable once you start threading in exceptions and restricting rights of a small minority. These rights were guaranteed to the minority more than anyone. They don't exist for the majority cause the majority votes to get their way. These rights were always intended to place restrictions on the government and the majority that controls it--majority rule with minority rights. You can't just start deciding which minorities it applies to.
Take felons, violent or non-violent, for example. They have been judged in accordance with the laws of this country and the provisions of the Constitution in a public trial by a jury of their peers. When they have served their sentence, justice is served. They are free and entitled to all the rights of a free citizen. If justice has not been served, then you should have kept them in longer. But it is not just to treat them like second class citizens. That is exactly the mentality that eventually forces them into old habits. It simply doesn't matter if statistics show a certain class of offender is likely to repeat. This country's justice system was supposedly founded on the belief that all are innocent until proven guilty. If they break the law again, we will punish them. But restricting rights and treating them like criminals for the rest of their lives, even after they have served their sentence, is not right, is not just, and only encourages a return to violent or deviant behavior.
Gun control is not reasonable to any degree. Most of us agree that gun control does not work. I can show clearly that there is no correlation between a state's gun control provisions and their violent crime. Yet somehow you forget this in the face of your own "reasonable measures." Somehow people become disillusioned into thinking that their provisions are different, their gun control is reasonable and will work. But this is exactly the mentality held by our opponents. And it is wrong. Rights are absolute. And the rights guaranteed to us by our own Bill of Rights include all the restrictions that were deemed necessary or even beneficial by our Founding Fathers. You only have the right to peacibly assemble, for example. And when the Second Amendment says clearly and distinctly "shall not be infringed," it means just that--not shall not be infringed if you are of a certain age, or physical capability, or have never sold drugs, or never been convicted of a crime of violence--and all gun control measures are "reasonable" until someone else's idea of the term gets forced on you. Gun control to any degree is wrong and based on a flawed mentality that can not be justified or excused by a free people. Those willing to accept compromise at the expense of liberty are making their own beds, but sadly, it is their children and grandchildren who will be forced to sleep in them as rights are eroded by further compromise and more "reasonable restrictions." The Second Amendment will not long be recognized to any degree by anyone for as long as people are willing to chip away at it. So forgive me if I share the same radical views of our Founding Fathers, but I can't justify any of your "reasonable gun control." Sixty some-odd percent of you are slitting all our throats with your compromise.

 

[Ironbarr]

Hear! Hear!

 

[BigFatKen]

all

We had to send English people field glasses and small arms to watch for an invasion in 1940.

If an enemy invaded the US, would it not be wise for everyone to own a gun?

The Japanese did not invade L.A., as some of them wanted, because one of them saidretorically) "Invade America? With perhaps one gun per two houses? The enemy would know every hiding place, attack us, and withdraw to the next hiding place. It would be as invading a swamp." (paraphrased)

They did decide on a bombing raid to gain six months. One of their decision factors was seeing the Army drilling with wooden rifles as Congress was too cheap to buy rifles for all soldiers.

 

[geekWithA.45]

I really hate to say this.

The spirit of the founding fathers was that all of us had the right to keep and bear arms.

I'm afraid that's simply not the objective truth.

No, I'm not talking about non freemen, slavery, or any of that nonsense.


From, "The Embarrassing Second Amendment":
http://www.guncite.com/journals/embar.html

Cress persuasively shows that no one defended universal possession of arms. New Hampshire had no objection to disarming those who "are or have been in actual rebellion," just as Samuel Adams stressed that only "peaceable citizens" should be protected in their right of "keeping their own arms."[58] All these points can be conceded, however, without conceding as well that Congress--or, for that matter, the States--had the power to disarm these "peaceable citizens."

From "TO KEEP AND BEAR THEIR PRIVATE ARMS: THE
ADOPTION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, 1787-1791"
http://www.guncite.com/journals/haladopt.html

The latter was the case in regard to the proposals of Samuel Adams in the Massachusetts convention "that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms...."[52] Similarly, the proposals adopted by the Pennsylvania minority included the following:

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals....[53](p.27)

More: http://www.google.com/search?rls=en...om+peaceable&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

-----------------------------------------------

As I've said before, the issue of armed felons, violent or otherwise is a red herring.

We cannot meaningfully address the question until we look at the deep, multifaceted question of society's relationship to the dangerous felon.

Currently, the reality is that our society's default NON answer to the problem is to let unrehabilitated dangerous felons, who are likely to commit additional offenses run around loose.

In that context, disarming them is certainly going to strike people as _more_ reasonable and attractive than it would be under circumstances in which there was some confidence that a parolee was UNLIKELY to offend again.

No, I'm not happy with this, situation, especially from the first principles perspective, but I gotta call it the way I see it.

I also want to point out that we are angsting over something like .004% of the population.

There are several reasons why this disturbs us:

* We get nailed on slippery slopes daily
* We recognize that there are sometimes severe flaws and injustices in our present justice system.
* The mechanisms to remedy such injustices are often broken
* Our opponents and enemies are all to happy to grease the slope for us, strap rockets on our backs, and give us a good shove down the hill.
* And yes, we want a consistent set of principles.

 

[AhChit]

Everybody..... Shall not be infringed.

The guy down the street who was just released from prison after doing 10yrs on a plea for raping a 68 yr old Grandmother and her 8 and 10 yr old Granddaughters at gun point shares your view........

I am sure I am going to take it from behind on this board for this one but here goes.................. "Shall not be infringed" is not all inclusive.......

 

[taliv]

The guy down the street who was just released from prison after doing 10yrs on a plea for raping a 68 yr old Grandmother and her 8 and 10 yr old Granddaughters at gun point shares your view........

I am sure I am going to take it from behind on this board for this one but here goes.................. "Shall not be infringed" is not all inclusive.......

ahchit, what you have failed to show is how infringing on his right accomplishes anything. For it to accomplish something, you would have to show that gun control works. that man does not need a gun to rape a 70 yr old woman. the lack of a gun would not in any way inhibit a repeat offense.

 

[DocHarman]

Even Felons!!!!

Everyone should be allowed to have guns?!!! Really? I have debated this subject many times, but I always come to the same conclusion... in order for me to be able to keep my guns, I need to assure the government I will not abuse the deadly potential a firearm holds. I am not a felon. Nor do I ever choose to be one-- but if I am someday convicted of a felony, I believe certain rights such as firearm-owning could justly be taken from me.

EVERYTHING has to have SOME sort of restrictions (cars, guns, alcohol, prescription medication, even beef (!) ) -- this is a fact of life that lies in the essence of societal woes.

There will always be restrictions on firearms... which means someone, somewhere is going to have to suffer these restrictions. The decision here is who should that someone be? Me? Hell, no!!! You? Probably not. But chances are, neither you nor I are felons.

So who? I don't know about you, but if it comes down to the government wanting a list of "who loses their guns" I will have no problem saying, "the felons." (And I will sleep pretty darn good with that decision.)

Please, I want to read arguments countering my reasoning. I truly appreciate a good debate! Thanks

 

[R.W.Dale]

The guy down the street who was just released from prison after doing 10yrs on a plea for raping a 68 yr old Grandmother and her 8 and 10 yr old Granddaughters at gun point shares your view........

I am sure I am going to take it from behind on this board for this one but here goes.................. "Shall not be infringed" is not all inclusive.......

That animal should have already taken a long drop at the end of a short rope, but that's another issue all togeather.

I cannot believe that over half of the voters in this poll believe in as Hillary put it "common sense gun controll"

 

[neoncowboy]

I assume we're talking about gun laws...not gun store policies.

In which case, everyone should be legally eligible to purchase a firearm because everyone is who has the inherent right to a legitimate means of self defense.

Now, if I were a seller, I would probably not be inclined to sell to violent, deranged or severely mentally handicapped and unsupervised individuals...but that's just me.

On the other hand, criminals who endanger/threaten/assault others ought to be severely (as in, long sentences in forced labor camps) punished...not merely incarcerated in high-security 'felon hotels'. Murderers ought to enjoy a 100% death sentence policy. Those are the policies that will eradicate violent crime...not restricting the law abiding (or presumed innocent) population from gun ownership.

 

[NineseveN]

For those of you on the disarming felons side of the fence, I'll submit this for a third time:

Explain to me why gun control is a good restriction to place on felons and more importantly, why it works on them yet it does not work on any other group within society? What problem does it actually solve and how does it solve it?


If we cannot answer those questions, then disarming felons does no good other than to make some people pull the wool over their own eyes and feel safer, without actualy making them safer or accomplishing anything of substance for that matter.

We can debate the specifics if we like on whether or not it was intended that felons (violent or otherwise) should have guns once released from prison and how the abuse of the penal codes affects that determination, but let's first answer the questions raised earlier in my posts.

 

[NineseveN]

I assume we're talking about gun laws...not gun store policies.

In which case, everyone should be legally eligible to purchase a firearm because everyone is who has the inherent right to a legitimate means of self defense.

Now, if I were a seller, I would probably not be inclined to sell to violent, deranged or severely mentally handicapped and unsupervised individuals...but that's just me.

On the other hand, criminals who endanger/threaten/assault others ought to be severely (as in, long sentences in forced labor camps) punished...not merely incarcerated in high-security 'felon hotels'. Murderers ought to enjoy a 100% death sentence policy. Those are the policies that will eradicate violent crime...not restricting the law abiding (or presumed innocent) population from gun ownership.

That's a perfectly acceptable position.

 

[joab]

Explain to me why gun control is a good restriction to place on felons and more importantly, why it works on them yet it does not work on any other group within society? What problem does it actually solve and how does it solve it?

It gives LEO one more reason to arrest the felon.
He could be loitering or jay walking or any other ticketable offense but if he has a gun he can now be arrested and put back into the system

If he commits a murder and is found to be in possession of a gun he can get another 5 or 10 years tacked on to his life sentence.

I know that doesn't answer your question, but since nobody else could either I thought I'd take a shot at explaining what I think is the basis for the felon disarmament law.

Besides that what politician is going to back a law legally arming felons and how is he going to find enough retiring politicians to vote on it for it to pass

 

[ksnecktieman]

If you want your grand kids to own guns then compromise is the wrong thing to do. The gun controllers only want to reduce gun ownership by ten percent. They do not care which ten percent. NEXT YEAR they will want another ten percent. Compromise has hurt us so bad now, and villified guns so much that eight year olds can get kicked out of school for playing cowboys and indians, and pointing their finger and saying bang bang.
Children have been kicked out of school for taking a toy pistol the size of a postage stamp to school (It happened to be a pistol from a GI Joe figurine).
The time for compromise is past. We need to convince our lawmakers to return our freedoms.

I REALLY doubt that forty percent of the gun owners can swing this deal.

Playboy? You should reread my last post, I never said anything about respect. The discussion was about being polite.

 

[Maxwell]

To accept gun control in the form of "reasonable restrictions" is to accept that gun control works. That is to say, that is keeps the weapons out of the "wrong hands".

Hasnt happend. Criminals still get guns, and the mentaly unstable still get them. In attempeting (and failing) to stop a mass shooting, you deprived the victems of their 2nd amendment rights and made the situation worse.
In attempting to make sure only upstanding tax payers own guns, a poor homeless man had the stuffings beat out of him by thrill killing teenagers.
Would you have normally let that victem buy a gun or keep the one he had?

After all this, enforcement of a gun law isint free. Every year we doll out millions on the batfe and other agencies looking for results, and every new years its fairly clear they havnt gotten any.
Its wasted cash that could have been spent better elsewhere, its increased prices on firearms we all have to pay, and its damage to the American gun industry.

If you believe that the gun laws which are troublesome to you dont work, why would you believe any gun law works?

 

[kfranz]

It gives LEO one more reason to arrest the felon.
He could be loitering or jay walking or any other ticketable offense but if he has a gun he can now be arrested and put back into the system

If he commits a murder and is found to be in possession of a gun he can get another 5 or 10 years tacked on to his life sentence.

I know that doesn't answer your question, but since nobody else could either I thought I'd take a shot at explaining what I think is the basis for the felon disarmament law.

Besides that what politician is going to back a law legally arming felons and how is he going to find enough retiring politicians to vote on it for it to pass

Your response is indicitive of a criminal justice problem, not a gun control problem. No need to continue to punish felons once they've served their consequence. What constitutes a proper "serving of their consequence" is a topic for another thread. I don't know of anyone who thinks the current system, as it functions, is right.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

The guy down the street who was just released from prison after doing 10yrs on a plea for raping a 68 yr old Grandmother and her 8 and 10 yr old Granddaughters at gun point shares your view........

I am sure I am going to take it from behind on this board for this one but here goes.................. "Shall not be infringed" is not all inclusive.......

You're right. That man has an obvious respect for the law and thus will not arm himself because it is illegal

O wait, rape is illegal and he still did that. He served his time for that but if so inclined to repeat offense, I am sure his history of disregarding the law will prevent him from arming himself. Right That is an absurd concept. If someone is willing to rape and murder, they aren't going to care if the tool they use to do it is legal or not. He will be armed if inclined and the law won't stop him.

In the meantime, is it really worth adopting a "guilty until proven innocent" philosphy that runs contrary to the spirit of our judicial system, and infringing on the rights of this individual for a crime he hasn't commited?

 

[AhChit]

ahchit, what you have failed to show is how infringing on his right accomplishes anything. For it to accomplish something, you would have to show that gun control works. that man does not need a gun to rape a 70 yr old woman. the lack of a gun would not in any way inhibit a repeat offense.

These types of things are not always black and white.... the lack of a gun would not in any way inhibit a repeat offense........ can't an argument be made that with out one he may not be as inclined to act on his impulses?

Please keep in miND that my argument here is not one of disdain for the 2nd Amendment. In using "Shall not be infringed" as a blanket, all inclusive statement don't you also imply that someones rights are being infringed upon when they are denied boarding from an airplane with a firearm they decided to "Keep and Bear" in there pocket?

 

[AhChit]

In the meantime, is it really worth adopting a "guilty until proven innocent" philosphy that runs contrary to the spirit of our judicial system, and infringing on the rights of this individual for a crime he hasn't commited?

In my example aren't his rights only being "infringed" apon only after being found guilty by a jury of his peers, hence being titled a Felon?

 

[AhChit]

You're right. That man has an obvious respect for the law and thus will not arm himself because it is illegal

O wait, rape is illegal and he still did that. He served his time for that but if so inclined to repeat offense, I am sure his history of disregarding the law will prevent him from arming himself. Right That is an absurd concept. If someone is willing to rape and murder, they aren't going to care if the tool they use to do it is legal or not. He will be armed if inclined and the law won't stop him.

What is absurd is your presumption that I implied he would not repeat his offenses stats vary but we can say 25% will. Or maybe more absurd is that you feel we should allow him one more avenue of purchase based on an amendment that was written when the consequences of being convicted of rape was death.

This (Unfortunately) is not 1787 and we are forced to deal with the reality that the judicial system and police force in our country is mostly a reactionary force at best.