The battle over "reasonable" gun regulations


PDA






Pages : [1] 2

Dave Workman
June 29, 2009, 11:40 AM
Gun Rights activists, prohibitionists battle over what is "reasonable" regulation of guns.

The Seattle Gun Rights Examiner asks some probing questions and how you answer will determine which side of this battle you are on.

http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m6d29-Gun-rights-activists-prohibitionists-battle-over-what-is-reasonable

If that doesn't work, try this:

http://tinyurl.com/lvx7tu

If you enjoyed reading about "The battle over "reasonable" gun regulations" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TexasRifleman
June 29, 2009, 12:07 PM
Seems to me like the Second as written is pretty reasonable.

Guess that's as much regulation as I'm OK with.

What is interesting is that many THR posters and others who call themselves "pro gun" are OK with many of the things in the article.

That always saddens me.

I like your article. Good food for thought.

rbernie
June 29, 2009, 12:18 PM
Sadly, despite decades of evidence to the contrary, many gun owners still believe that 'common sense, reasonable gun regulations' actually have merit in reducing violent crime.

<sigh>

Mohawk
June 29, 2009, 12:28 PM
“Reasonable restrictions” is really where the rubber meets the road as far as the Heller decision is concerned. If we as gun rights supporters advocate children, mentally incompetents, felons convicted of violent crimes and those convicted of spousal abuse to carry weapons then we will never have the mainstream public on our side. Society will never accept these conditions. It then becomes a matter of degree concerning reasonable restrictions. The fight for what is reasonable will go on as long as there are guns. But make no doubt that reasonable restrictions are here to stay. The anti-gun faction and the pro gun faction will argue over the degree of reasonable restrictions for centuries to come IMO.

Great article, by the way.

Walkalong
June 29, 2009, 12:29 PM
Sadly, despite decades of evidence to the contrary, many gun owners still believe that 'common sense, reasonable gun regulations' actually have merit in reducing violent crimeYep, it is a shame. I just cringe when I hear, I am pro gun, but.....................

Jim K
June 29, 2009, 12:42 PM
Somewhere I have a pamphlet urging a total ban on all guns, with the summary execution of everyone who ever owned any kind of a gun or ammunition, and his or her family. ("Love of guns" was supposed to be a genetic defect, hence the need to stop the spread of the horrible gun gene.)

The outfit, one "Citizens Against Guns" described their program as "a reasonable and responsible first step toward real gun control."

Any more questions about what the insane left considers "reasonable"?

Jim

SuperNaut
June 29, 2009, 12:45 PM
In politics "reasonable" is a word used by those in a weak position.

Mohawk
June 29, 2009, 01:39 PM
Somewhere I have a pamphlet urging a total ban on all guns, with the summary execution of everyone who ever owned any kind of a gun or ammunition, and his or her family. ("Love of guns" was supposed to be a genetic defect, hence the need to stop the spread of the horrible gun gene.)

The outfit, one "Citizens Against Guns" described their program as "a reasonable and responsible first step toward real gun control."

Any more questions about what the insane left considers "reasonable"?

Jim
You cite an extreme example of the far left philosophy. An extreme example of the far right philosophy would be the right to walk into any bank with an assault weapon at the ready and expect a warm welcome. After all, "it's your second ammendment right" to have any type of weapon you want, any place you choose. I suspect that many gun owners subscribe to this logic and will keep the mainstream of society viewing us as "gun nuts" for decades to come. The second ammendment is not an open checkbook to carry any gun, any time, anywhere you want under all circumstances. There are certain people who should not own guns, ever. Are you saying that all people irregardless of age, mental capacity or previous personal history should always be allowed to own and buy any type of gun they want, anywhere, anytime, under all circumstances? I disagree. I hope and pray I'm not the only gun owner who does so.

TexasRifleman
June 29, 2009, 01:41 PM
f we as gun rights supporters advocate children, mentally incompetents, felons convicted of violent crimes and those convicted of spousal abuse to carry weapons then we will never have the mainstream public on our side.

If these people are dangerous with a firearm they would be just as dangerous with a kitchen knife or a car or can of gasoline and a lighter would they not?

I get the point of public perception, but the reality is that if someone is a danger to others it matters little what tool they have access to and it's not possible to really make the argument otherwise without going into "feelings" and emotions.

Vern Humphrey
June 29, 2009, 01:43 PM
Take any proposed "reasonable" restrictions on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and translate it into "reasonable" restrictions on Freedom of the Press and see how it flies. For example, should reporters be licensed? Should people acting as reporters without a license be sent to jail? Should certain types of newspaper or TV articles be prohibited? Should there be "reasonable limits" on the length of stories or the number of times they are run? Should "assault articles" be banned? Should there be a federal tax on certain types of stories? Should reporters have to check with the FBI each time they file a story?

Remember, "The pen is mightier than the sword."

rbernie
June 29, 2009, 01:43 PM
Are you saying that all people irregardless of age, mental capacity or previous personal history should always be allowed to own and buy any type of gun they want, anywhere? Prior to a certain point in US history, this was absolutely true. The crime statistics from the period do not suggest that this was an actual problem.

So while age, mental capacity, and personal history may SOUND like reasonable yardsticks, history records very faithfully that they are largely irrelevant. More of a concern is how such 'reasonable' (yet ineffective) measures always seem to lead to additional 'reasonable' restrictions.

Deltaboy
June 29, 2009, 01:47 PM
The 2nd admendment covers it for me. I want the SC to overturn NFA and the 1968 GC act. I should be able to own a FA Thompson with no more paper work. Just like it was when my Great Grandpa was a young man.

Per the Papers test

12) Last and not least, which statement best describes you:

a) I own guns for protection, target shooting, hunting and for no reason at all; it’s none of your business or the government’s business why I own guns, what kinds of guns, how many or where I keep them.

Vern Humphrey
June 29, 2009, 01:56 PM
Are you saying that all people irregardless of age, mental capacity or previous personal history should always be allowed to own and buy any type of gun they want, anywhere?
Anyone who can vote should have exactly that right. If you don't think someone should be allowed to own a gun, for heaven's sake, revoke his right to the ballot as well.

Mohawk
June 29, 2009, 01:57 PM
Speaking of the matter of the first ammendment comparison to the second, you can't yell "fire" in a movie theater. This is reasonable restriction on the first. Regulating reporters and media outlets is unreasonable restrictions and is the result of a "nanny state" mentality.

As far as historical precedent concerning owning guns there are many examples of towns banning guns in the city limits and saloons requiring an individual to check their firearm at the bar before getting drunk. This was common practice in towns where cattle were driven to be shipped by train to the big cities. Kept the cowboys from killing each other. This is reasonable restriction.

A I stated in my previous posts the fight for gun rights will always revolve around "what is reasonable?". The far right will always demand total, unrestricted gun ownership and the far left will always go for the most restricted, liciensed, regulated, controlled position they can ram through, including total confiscation. It's the "nature of the beasts" if you will. Somewhere in the middle is the answer. The fight over "reasonable restrictions" will always be one of degree.

yokel
June 29, 2009, 01:59 PM
I've never believed the opposition when they claim they're only interested in just one more "sensible" or "reasonable" gun-control law. They ultimately want a total ban on weapons and only make incremental claims to disguise their real aims.

The unfortunate truth is that our obstinate opponents loathe the Second Amendment, and loathe the people who seek to exercise their rights under the Second Amendment.

Phatty
June 29, 2009, 01:59 PM
So while age, mental capacity, and personal history may SOUND like reasonable yardsticks, history records very faithfully that they are largely irrelevant.
Before there were a ridiculous number of laws regulating everyone and everything, people used their own common sense to deal with these issues. If an obviously crazy person walked into a general store and tried to buy a pistol, the store owner probably would simply refuse. Not because it would violate some law, but because it wouldn't be safe -- for himself or his community. Same thing for children. If a six-year-old boy walked into the store and tried to buy a pistol, the store owner would likely ask him where his parents were and not sell him the gun until the store owner had assurances that the parents consented.

Mohawk
June 29, 2009, 02:00 PM
Anyone who can vote should have exactly that right. If you don't think someone should be allowed to own a gun, for heaven's sake, revoke his right to the ballot as well.
people who are convicted felons and dishonorably discharged from the military are already prohibited.

TexasRifleman
June 29, 2009, 02:01 PM
Speaking of the matter of the first ammendment comparison to the second, you can't yell "fire" in a movie theater. This is reasonable restriction on the first.

That argument doesn't necessarily work and it gets old in a way.

That "don't yell fire in a theater" isn't as much a restriction on free speech itself as it is a restriction on YOUR right to "screw with" MY life.

By shouting FIRE in a theater you potentially put MY life in danger or at the very least you interrupt MY right to be left alone to watch the movie.

Has nothing to do with free speech in that way. Think of it this way. If you are the only person in the theater and you shout FIRE, is that a problem?
Of course not.

So, if you make that analogy to guns, as long as MY use of guns does not put YOUR life in danger or interfere with YOUR enjoyment of life then there is no need for a restriction.

And, since we have the entire US history before 1968 to look at (since that's the first time there were any actual restrictions on gun ownership) we can say that restrictions are not necessary and have no proven benefits since the gun crime rate was not changed at all by the 1968 Gun Control Act.

Vern Humphrey
June 29, 2009, 02:04 PM
Speaking of the matter of the first ammendment comparison to the second, you can't yell "fire" in a movie theater. This is reasonable restriction on the first.
It is reasonable if you are in a crowed theater that is not on fire. It is not reasonable if you are elsewhere. Stretching the anology is a violation of both civil rights and common sense.
Regulating reporters and media outlets is unreasonable restrictions and is the result of a "nanny state" mentality.
Same as restricting gun owners and stores.

As far as historical precedent concerning owning guns there are many examples of towns banning guns in the city limits and saloons requiring an individual to check their firearm at the bar before getting drunk.
As far as historical precident, cutting down young fruit trees once merited the death penalty. Injustice, however long standing, does not become justice.
This was common practice in towns where cattle were driven to be shipped by train to the big cities. Kept the cowboys from killing each other.
Prove it.

There is no more proof this prevented violent crimes than there is proof modern gun control prevents crime.

Somewhere in the middle is the answer.
No. The answer is in the Bill of Rights.

SuperNaut
June 29, 2009, 02:06 PM
The far right will always demand total, unrestricted gun ownership and the far left will always go for the most restricted, liciensed, regulated, controlled position they can ram through, including total confiscation. It's the "nature of the beasts" if you will. Somewhere in the middle is the answer. The fight over "reasonable restrictions" will always be one of degree.

The 2A isn't owned by the left or the right, would you use this argument for the 1A? Compromise on the 2A isn't a political exercise, it is meddling with one of the very foundations of our country. There is no middle on the BoR.

benEzra
June 29, 2009, 02:09 PM
Take any proposed "reasonable" restrictions on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and translate it into "reasonable" restrictions on Freedom of the Press and see how it flies. For example, should reporters be licensed? Should people acting as reporters without a license be sent to jail? Should certain types of newspaper or TV articles be prohibited? Should there be "reasonable limits" on the length of stories or the number of times they are run? Should "assault articles" be banned? Should there be a federal tax on certain types of stories? Should reporters have to check with the FBI each time they file a story?
Those are all unreasonable restrictions. Reasonable restrictions on the 1stA include penalties for libel, slander, and the distribution of child pornography. Those things can and have passed a strict-scrutiny test, the same high standard that should be applied to 2ndA jurisprudence.

The problem with "reasonable gun control" lies with the way the anti's have tried to use the word "reasonable" to cover things that are not at all reasonable.

Mohawk
June 29, 2009, 02:10 PM
I've never believed the opposition when they claim they're only interested in just one more "sensible" or "reasonable" gun-control law. They ultimately want a total ban on weapons and only make incremental claims to disguise their real aims.

The unfortunate truth is that our obstinate opponents loathe the Second Amendment, and loathe the people who seek to exercise their rights under the Second Amendment.
What you say is basicly true. The ultimate goal of the gun rights opposition is the banning of all guns for everybody, everywhere. By the same token, the ultimate goal of the gun rights faction is the right of every swinging mary and dick in the country to carry any weapon they want, anywhere,(regardless of private property rights) under all circumstances. Neither position is based on reality. Reasonable restrictions are here to stay, the fight for gun rights will and does revolve around the question of "what is reasonable".

Vern Humphrey
June 29, 2009, 02:13 PM
The antis argument is based on a false premise -- that somehow gun control results in less crime. That has been disproven over and over.

There is a second false premise -- that the Constitution can be altered by opinion, mere laws and other subterfuges, without the need for going through the ammendment process. We can look around us and see the damage that idea has caused, as one right after another is infringed and vitiated.

SuperNaut
June 29, 2009, 02:13 PM
The unspoken thing is that reasonable restrictions already exist. Prohibitions against murder for example. I'd call that a reasonable restriction that is pretty well covered by thousands of laws. Is there a magic number of gun laws that are required for the laws to actually work? Should we keep passing new laws that duplicate old laws in hopes that the new shiny ones will suddenly cause criminals to obey?

Vern Humphrey
June 29, 2009, 02:17 PM
The unspoken thing is that reasonable restrictions already exist. Prohibitions against murder for example.
And the antis' premise is that a person who intends to commit murder would never violate a law prohibiting him from having a gun.

yokel
June 29, 2009, 02:29 PM
The current system is a morass of regulation and restriction that at the very least needs reform, not just more regulation.

Montrosities such as the NFA and GCA certainly ought to be repealed if honestly and objectively evaluated in terms of their efficacy in deterring crime and criminals.

Vern Humphrey
June 29, 2009, 02:34 PM
That's exactly what I meant when I said:
The antis' argument is based on a false premise -- that somehow gun control results in less crime. That has been disproven over and over.
And in trying to foist off that false premise on us by circumventing the 2nd Amendment, they have shown the way to circumvent all of the Bill of Rights.

To the antis, I say, don't ever complain about some new law that "violates the Constitution." The government is simply driving through the hole you left in the Bill of Rights when you ripped out the 2nd Amendment."

Sav .250
June 29, 2009, 02:51 PM
It`s a known fact...........when you break ranks, the battle is lost.
Stand fast. United we stand....Divided we fall.

Mohawk
June 29, 2009, 02:58 PM
The current system is a morass of regulation and restriction that at the very least needs reform, not just more regulation.

Montrosities such as the NFA and GCA certainly ought to be repealed if honestly and objectively evaluated in terms of their efficacy in deterring crime and criminals.
I agree with evey word you posted, Yokel. But there needs to be a system in place to insure that some people don't have easy access to firearms. Unsupervised children, certified mentally insane, violent felons. There should NOT be restrictions on types of firearms owned or registration of firearms. Property rights come into play also. Does the rights of a property owner trump the rights of a gun owner to carry on said property? Or is the reverse true? We already know that the antis will use the reasonable restriction clause to try and beat gun rights into the ground so it's a moot point. Hell, that's their job. Our fight is at the reasonable restriction level and it will always be. If our position is that NO Restriction of any kind is the only reasonable stance, then we will ultimately paint ourself into a corner and become irrelevant. Those who say that the wording of the 2nd. is all that is necessary should realize thet the nation is set up in such a way that SCOTUS has the responsibility to interpret the constitution and the Bill of rights. Their decision is the law of the land. They have stated that reasonable restrictions are constitutional. Until they change that wording, reasonable restrictions are here to stay. Our fight is to counter those unreasonable restrictions through protests and the legal system.

JShirley
June 29, 2009, 02:59 PM
Based on my understanding of the Constitution (not just the 2nd Amendment), reasonable gun regulations would be personal ownership of individual infantry weapons, and weapons smaller than instruments of national policy (warships, long-range missiles and bombers, nuclear weapons, etc).

Plenty of folks disagree, but they have the right to be wrong. :D

Mohawk, a property owner could reasonably stipulate what you may carry on his property. If you violated his requirements, he could ask you to leave.

Montrosities such as the NFA and GCA certainly ought to be repealed if honestly and objectively evaluated in terms of their efficacy in deterring crime and criminals.

I don't agree in the slightest. OH, I agree that they (NFA and GCA) don't deter crime, but you're falling into a trap, and a false one, at that. Crime isn't the issue.

Sav, this is for you:

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~MA96/PUCK/bfsnake.jpg



John

TexasRifleman
June 29, 2009, 03:01 PM
But there needs to be a system in place to insure that some people don't have easy access to firearms. Unsupervised children, certified mentally insane, violent felons.

WHY is this needed? Speak from reality, not from emotion OK? And be intellectually honest.

Before 1968 none of these restrictions existed in the US and the gun crime rate was not much different than it is today. In fact the gun crime rate is a little higher now.

Given that absolutely documented fact, why do you state that these things are needed?

Remember, no emotional stuff; just facts and logic.

Vern Humphrey
June 29, 2009, 03:12 PM
It`s a known fact...........when you break ranks, the battle is lost.
Stand fast. United we stand....Divided we fall.
And the antis know that. That's why we're seeing so many trolls and trojan horses on gun boards these days asking questions about "reasonable gun control." That's why they've created organizations like the American Hunters and Shooters Association -- a phantom organization funded by the likes of George Soros to pretend to speak for us.

Strings
June 29, 2009, 03:18 PM
Gawds, but I hate these discussions...

If Joe Burgler has served his sentence, paid whatever restitution he owes, and has finished his probation, why shouldn't he have full rights? Or, to put it more simply, if we can't trust him with a gun, why is he out in public in the first place?

We've already seen this slippery slope in action: the Lautenberg amendment. Sounded noble: we're gonna keep guns away from wife-beaters. Yet, it's done nothing but remove rights from a great many people, often without due process.

Do we REALLY want to allow more of the same?

Jamie C.
June 29, 2009, 03:34 PM
But there needs to be a system in place to insure that some people don't have easy access to firearms. Unsupervised children, certified mentally insane, violent felons.

Seems to me that none of the three types of people listed above should be allowed to run loose and unsupervised at any time anyway, so therefore wouldn't have access to anything dangerous.

But once again, some people want to attack the object, not the person or the behavior.

Oh, and regarding unsupervised children... since they don't tend to have sense enough to have access to guns, why do we turn 16 year-old children that don't even have a whole brain or good judgment yet loose with high-speed killing machines weighing thousands of pounds? Machines that have a proven record of causing more deaths annually than firearms?

You would think that all the people wanting to restrict firearms for "the sake of the children" would be clamoring for a higher age limit on getting a drivers license, if their goal was really to keep children ( and adults ) safe from unnecessary hazards.



J.C.

5whiskey
June 29, 2009, 03:40 PM
I answered yes to one thing... and not because I'm die hard up for seeing it happen. I would answer yes to always requiring the NCIS check... just because that wouldn't bother me. If I do private party transfers, I want either a pistol permit, CCW license, or go to an FFL... even if I'm only transferring a rifle. Hate me for it. Flame me for it. I would feel at least in part responsible if I sold an AR15 to someone who has a history of violence and used that weapon in a crime.

TexasRifleman
June 29, 2009, 03:45 PM
I would feel at least in part responsible if I sold an AR15 to someone who has a history of violence and used that weapon in a crime.

Would you feel the same if you sold them a car and they got drunk and drove through a school yard full of children?

If so what proposal do you make to make sure people who drink and drive don't buy cars?

Again, you guys keep focusing on the tool or item of crime/violence as somehow being the problem. It is not.

If you would not require the same thing for car purchases then you're being intellectually dishonest about the reasons for wanting background checks etc. for guns.

It's "feelings" and "emotion" I see at work here, not logical thinking.

rbernie
June 29, 2009, 03:46 PM
I would answer yes to always requiring the NCIS check... just because that wouldn't bother me. If I do private party transfers, I want either a pistol permit, CCW license, or go to an FFL... even if I'm only transferring a rifle. Hate me for it. Flame me for it. I would feel at least in part responsible if I sold an AR15 to someone who has a history of violence and used that weapon in a crime. The ten thousand people each year that are NICS-denied and successfully appeal (weeks/months later) really are taking one for the team, just so you can feel better, huh?

<sigh>

I guess that it doesn't really matter what the collateral issues are, so long as YOU feel better about yourself....

dirt_j00
June 29, 2009, 03:48 PM
If I sold someone a car, and they ran over a pedestrian with it, is that my fault?

What if they had a prior DUI? Or just liked to drink and drive?

Its not the tool, its the person.

EDIT: Our resident legal scholar, TexasRifleman beat me to it.

TexasRifleman
June 29, 2009, 03:52 PM
Our resident legal scholar, TexasRifleman beat me to it.

LOL thanks for the compliment but it's hardly scholarly.

These are 3rd grade logic exercises which is why I am always surprised to see supposedly "pro gun" people falling into these traps of thinking.

yokel
June 29, 2009, 03:57 PM
don't agree in the slightest. OH, I agree that they (NFA and GCA) don't deter crime, but you're falling into a trap, and a false one, at that. Crime isn't the issue.

I'm well aware that public safety and crime prevention is but a mere pretext.

Nonetheless, it's not difficult to knock the legs out from under the ostensible reason, motive, or aim.

Alas, it seems apparent that over the years and decades a not insignificant number of folks who would like to think of themselves as supportive have become inured to at least some regulations and restricitions.

mljdeckard
June 29, 2009, 03:59 PM
I agree that the current battle is to define 'reasonable' before the opposition defines it FOR us. Everyone should buy an AR. The more they are in 'common use', the more difficult it is to restrict them.

My idea of compromise is that this year, we will only drop HALF of the useless, ineffective gun laws on the books. Next year, we'll look at the other half.

We lost a LOT of ground over the last 70 years by allowing ourselves to be defined my the opposition. We must aggressively push the other direction.

Guns neither cause nor prevent crime. Crime is a socio-economic problem, not a gun problem.

Vern Humphrey
June 29, 2009, 04:18 PM
Seems to me that none of the three types of people listed above should be allowed to run loose and unsupervised at any time anyway, so therefore wouldn't have access to anything dangerous.
Nor should they be allowed to vote. A man who can't be trusted with a bullet should not be trusted with a ballot.

But all who can vote can bear arms -- and that's where I stand.

JShirley
June 29, 2009, 04:58 PM
A man who can't be trusted with a bullet should not be trusted with a ballot.

Another sig worthy line. Drat, I can't add 'em all.

J

CWL
June 29, 2009, 05:07 PM
"reasonable" is a scary code-work for gun control.

An "anti" can use it to bait and condemn gunowners. If you are against "reasonable" gun regulations, wouldn't that make you "unreasonable"?

Leanwolf
June 29, 2009, 05:15 PM
MOHAWK - "Speaking of the matter of the first ammendment comparison to the second, you can't yell "fire" in a movie theater."


False!!

Of course you can shout "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater, any time you wish.

But there are legal consequences if you do so. The only way you could not shout "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater, would be for a government official to stand at the theater entrance with a knife to cut out the tongue of every person entering the theater, in order to prevent anyone from shouting "FIRE!!" in that theater, crowded or not. Afterall, someone might shout "FIRE!!" in that theater. Better safe than sorry, huh?

That is called "Prior Restraint." Acting against a person(s) because he or she might abuse his or her First Amendment Right.

The "reasonable" gun laws so sacrosanct to the NeoLibs, are "Prior Restraint" laws, because some gun owner might abuse his Second Amendment Right, therefore punish ALL gun owners or wannabee gun owners.

Once "reasonable" Prior Restraint laws are passed against the Constitutional Rights of the individual, it is always only a short step to then pass more and more and more "reasonable" laws against same.

NeoLibs who seek the eventual banning and confiscation of all firearms from us, never, ever disengage, and their standard tactic is always, "We just want a few reasonable, common sense" gun control laws. Then more, and more, and more, and more..........

L.W.

Dave Workman
June 29, 2009, 05:25 PM
I like your article. Good food for thought.

Well, Tex, I wrote it just for you.

A lot of good discussion here and what it demonstrates is that not all gun owners think alike.

Keep it up, keep this going! I'll have enough fodder for a follow-up piece

ConstitutionCowboy
June 29, 2009, 05:30 PM
I posted the following in the comments at Dave Workman's article:

After due process, rights don't get limited or removed. You may be deprived of live, liberty, or property, but those things are not forfeit. None of your rights are supposed to ever be forfeited. The right to keep and bear arms is one of the most benign and innocuous rights we have! The simple keeping and bearing of arms causes no one any harm. Even the most vile and violent person who simply keeps and bears arms causes no harm. The problem is use. There is no prohibition on passing law that limits or prohibits use that does not interfere with self defense. There is not one limit in the Second Amendment upon the prohibition upon government to infringe upon the right. There is not one exception allowing ANY government of the keeping and bearing of arms. If you think you see one, please point it out.

The problem has never been the proliferation, class, or magnitude of arms, but the misuse of arms and government's failure to adequately deal with the misusers.

Woody

"Charge the Court, Congress, and the several state legislatures with what to do with all the violent criminals who cannot be trusted with arms. We law abiding citizens shouldn't be burdened with having to prove we are not one of the untrustworthy just because those in government don't want to stop crime by keeping violent criminals locked up." B.E. Wood

Leanwolf
June 29, 2009, 05:30 PM
5WHISKEY - "I would answer yes to always requiring the NCIS check... just because that wouldn't bother me. If I do private party transfers, I want either a pistol permit, CCW license, or go to an FFL... even if I'm only transferring a rifle."

So, Whiskey 5, you believe that crime will be diminished if every gun owner in the United States were to be required by Government politicians and a Federal Law, to never sell, trade, gift, or transfer any firearm to another person, without permission from Big Brother??

That would mean any person who violated that edict would be thrown in Federal prison, or be shot and killed by Government Police Gun Enforcers, if he or she "made a furtive move," or "resisted" when the Gun Enforcers came to arrest them.

Take a look at a map of the United States of America. Then please explain to us just how such a law as you want, "NICS Forever, For Everyone," would work, logistically, and logically.

Think of the unintended consequences of such a law in this country, with 80,000,000 gun owners scattered all over this country, from remote cabins in the backwoods, to huge cities.

Think it through, beginning, middle, and end.

L.W.

springmom
June 29, 2009, 06:01 PM
Mohawk, are you saying that whether we like it or not, the fact is that we *are* stuck with the "reasonable restriction" issue, or are you saying that we *ought* to have "reasonable restrictions"? I ask because at various points in the thread, it sounds like you're on one side, then elsewhere sounds like you're on the other.

If it is the second, why do the "reasonable restrictions" belong under the purview of the legislative process? If Billy Bob is at the gun counter on a fine Saturday morning and a person comes in wanting to buy a gun while talking to his boots, why is it not sufficient for Billy Bob to use his common sense and not sell him a gun? Keep in mind that the would-be customer can walk out the door and buy FTF from another citizen (without common sense) if he wishes to anyway (in many states). Why the faith that the legislative process will provide some fail-safe that normal common sense cannot?

IOW, 'taint the government's business to do this.

Jan

Mohawk
June 29, 2009, 08:13 PM
I"m on the first side of the issue. The less restriction on gun control the better off we are. Someone else posted a very good point. If we don't define reasonable restriction the anti gunners will do it for us. I guess you would call me a realist. The fact that private property owners, weather private business or private property can restrict firearms on their property is a reasonable restriction as far as I'm concerned. As I stated in my first post on the subject it's all a matter of degree. There are reasonable restrictions in place right now and there are very many unreasonable restrictions we need to get overturned. Those who speak in absolutes that no restriction of any sort is permissable are fooling themselves and doing the gun community a great disservice. The issue is larger than black and white. Each type of proposed restriction should be judged on it's own merits and countered with clear concise arguements.
For the record I don't believe that any federal restriction on gun control is legal or just, for all the reasons many in this thread have stated. Gun ownership is a great responsibility shared by all of us. If your next door neighbor has been getting into violent fights with his wife and has been beating on her for the past two weeks and he comes over and wants to buy that glock you have for sale and you refuse, then you are exercising "reasonable restrictions". Local munincipalities should have the right to restrict gun use as they see fit up to a point. In Prescott, Az. back in the 1870s they banned guns in the bars along Whiskey Row because all the cowboys were getting drunk and killing each other. After the ban the killings were reduced greatly. I do not believe that the right of self defense can be restricted by banning guns en mass as they did in Washington, DC and the Supreme court agrees with me on that issue.
If we as a gun rights group advocate ownership of guns by certified mentally deficient individuals, small children and violent felons then we stand to lose all. some restrictions are necessary, society as a whole demands it. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a fantasy world.

TexasRifleman
June 29, 2009, 08:13 PM
If we as a gun rights group advocate ownership of guns by certified mentally deficient individuals, small children and violent felons then we stand to lose all. some restrictions are necessary, society as a whole demands it. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a fantasy world.

You mean like all of us here in the US did before 1968?

Like that you mean? When the gun crime rate was lower?

Yeah, that's fantasy land.....

You do know that before 1968 all of the things you say are necessary did not exist right?

There were no Federal Firearms dealers, there was no background check, you could mail order long guns and handguns to your home.

History and facts are not on your side. Care to address the facts at all or are you going to continue going on "feelings"?

The "feelings" thing is a big problem. You are making the same argument the anti's make, wanting to pass gun laws and believing restrictions are needed because of some gut feeling you have.

For your historical reference you have cited one small town in one particular year, which is what people do when the general statistics don't back up their beliefs.

As a whole, the gun crime rate in the US was lower when anyone who wanted one could buy a gun, that's a fact.

Now, what you can argue is the REASON that might be true. It might be any number of things including a general difference in societal beliefs, but it doesn't change the fact that back when you could order a pistol through the mail from Sears to your house there was a lower gun crime rate in this country.

So if that's the case then you can't make the argument that all these gun laws are needed. Something else has changed, and it's NOT the issue of guns.

This is not now and has NEVER been about guns. It's about control, it's about societies problems, and it's about how we deal with those problems.

Blaming guns, drugs, aliens, or bad television are just cop outs and scapegoats.

Mohawk
June 29, 2009, 08:31 PM
You mean like all of us here in the US did before 1968?

Like that you mean? When the gun crime rate was lower?

Yeah, that's fantasy land.....

You do know that before 1968 all of the things you say are necessary did not exist right?

There were no Federal Firearms dealers, there was no background check, you could mail order long guns and handguns to your home.

History and facts are not on your side. Care to address the facts at all or are you going to continue going on "feelings"?
What's your point, Sir. I've already stated that I think all federal restrictions ala' 1968, 1984, 1989, ad nausium on firarms is illegal and unjust. Are you advocating that all young children should be allowed to purchase a gun as easy as a stick of gum? Are you saying that you'll go to bat for a convicted murderer who killed his children the right to own a firearm? You make a lot of trite comments and people seem to hold your opinions in high regard but what exactly is your position on restriction. Do you feel that a gun owner has the right to enter any private property with his weapon irregardless of what the owner's policy is? Where do you stand on these issues, I'd really like to know.

TexasRifleman
June 29, 2009, 08:43 PM
Where do you stand on these issues, I'd really like to know.

Again, you list things that are not gun issues, they are society issues. You want to pretend somehow that if we have enough regulations about guns the other problems will disappear.

A convicted murderer who killed his children for example should not be out of prison for me to NEED to argue his right to own a gun. If he is out of prison for that crime that's a CRIMINAL JUSTICE issue not a GUN issue. If we as a society are letting those people out of prison the LAST thing we should be arguing about is whether or not they should have a gun but rather what the hell they are doing out in the first place.

Children (under 18) have long been held to not have the same rights as an adult, so the fact that there might be no restrictions or gun laws for adults has nothing to do with children buying guns. That was never allowed anyway. It was for the parents to exercise that right on behalf of their children. You use the strawman argument of kids buying guns at wal mart, which is not now and has never been suggested, legal, or rational. You use that because it makes me sound "crazy" to suggest that there should be no gun laws.

Private property rights, and the carrying of guns on private property is, AGAIN, not a gun issue. Replace the carrying of a flashlight, book, or shoes with gun as it relates to private property rights. Does a private property owner have the right to keep me from carrying a book on his property? Why is a gun any different as far as the property rights issue goes?

You keep wanting to make gun debates out of issues that don't really involve a gun.

THAT is what the anti's do, make it appear that the gun itself is the problem.

The gun is not the problem at all.

Where do you stand on these issues, I'd really like to know.

That's the point, where I stand on these matters isn't important since they are not GUN related issues and this is a gun forum.

All of the things you bring up are important and should be dealt with by a society, but it's not about the guns or gun laws and that is my point in all of this. These are not gun control issues yet we allow the anti's to make them into gun control issues.

yokel
June 29, 2009, 09:03 PM
The issue is larger than black and white.

I would submit that there is really nothing subtle about what's at stake. Whoever has the arms tends to win when it comes to self-defense and doesn't lose life or property. But if the tyrant/criminal has the gun, he has the upper hand.

ConstitutionCowboy
June 29, 2009, 09:10 PM
Those who speak in absolutes that no restriction of any sort is permissable are fooling themselves and doing the gun community a great disservice. The issue is larger than black and white. Each type of proposed restriction should be judged on it's own merits and countered with clear concise arguements.

You would give the Second Amendment no credence? Please note that this "reasonable restriction" you reference...

The fact that private property owners, weather private business or private property can restrict firearms on their property is a reasonable restriction as far as I'm concerned.

...would not be covered by the Second Amendment. The prohibition in the Second Amendment only applies to government and not private citizens and most enterprises. While you state you believe the feds should make no restrictions on gun ownership(if I'm reading your first sentence in your second paragraph correctly), you would support local municipalities having some gun control. Whether it would reduce violence is questionable, but there is no doubt that gun free zones create safe zones for criminals and crazies.

If we as a gun rights group advocate ownership of guns by certified mentally deficient individuals, small children and violent felons then we stand to lose all. some restrictions are necessary, society as a whole demands it. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a fantasy world.

I don't think anyone here is advocating violent felons, the dangerously insane and unsupervised minors run around with arms. Some of us do, however, advocate keeping violent felons locked up or executed, the mentally unstable institutionalized or under 24/7/365 guardianship, and minors kept under the guardianship of their parents. These things are all constitutional and do not interfere with the rest of us exercising our right to keep and bear arms. The funny part of this is doing these three things would make life safer for all of us than life is now under these unconstitutional limits, restrictions, and background checks - including for the anti-gun-rights crowd!

Don't forget that these unconstitutional laws we are saddled with do not stop violent felons, the mentally unstable, and unsupervised juveniles - who are released upon society - from obtaining arms and wreaking their mayhem. But these unconstitutional laws do make it difficult and sometimes impossible for the law abiding to deal with this violence when it is brought upon them by these criminal, unstable, and irresponsible people.

I wrote all this before I read what Texas Rifleman wrote in Comments # 53 and #55, but it's all still relevant. Kudos, Tex.

Woody

TexasRifleman
June 29, 2009, 09:12 PM
I don't think anyone here is advocating violent felons, the dangerously insane and unsupervised minors run around with arms. Some of us do, however, advocate keeping violent felons locked up or executed, the mentally unstable institutionalized or under 24/7/365 guardianship, and minors kept under the guardianship of their parents.

Hallelujah and can I get an AMEN from the cheap seats!

THIS is the point. If these issues were dealt with correctly we wouldn't be having the gun rights discussion.

In reality, asking for gun laws is an admission of failure of all the other parts of society.

Ruggles
June 29, 2009, 09:31 PM
Just my .02

1. Federal firearms laws are not going away, we either work within those parameters our we let those who would like to see the banning of all firearms control the debate.

2. You can indeed support some firearms laws regarding ownership and sales and still be a strong supporter of the 2ndA.

Last thread on this got ugly and childish to say the least. I hope this one does not go down that same road.

Strings
June 29, 2009, 10:04 PM
1) I would say instead: "they aren't going away anytime soon"

If an anti-gun stance is demonstrated consistently to be poisonous to a politician, there will cease to be a push towards such. After awhile, the tide can be pushed the other way (just like the antis got the silly laws in the first place: little by little)

2) Yeah, you sure can. You can support the rights of white, God-fearing Christians to own guns while agreeing that them coloreds and heathens shouldn't be allowed to own 'em.

That's where gun control got it's start: as a form of institutionalized racism. It's expanded since the "good ol' days", but that's what's at it's root: a method of keeping "undesirables" from being full citizens.

Again, I will say: if an adult can't be trusted with a gun, then why the hell are they out among the populace?

Story from many years ago: guy went to a gun shop, looking to buy a handgun. Spent LOTS of time, fondling many different weapons before deciding what he wanted. Turns out he was a prohibited person, so they denied the sale*. So he left the gun shop, went to a hardware store, and bought a couple hammers to kill his wife and kids.

The prohibitions helped... how, again?

Another example of this is someone I know, who did time for stealing from his employer. Got a felony conviction: yet he's reformed, is a perfectly productive member of society. Keeping him from possessing a weapon or voting helps society... how again?

So, by all means, someone tell me how these restrictions are helpful or "good". Not talking about "what can we actually push back to", or any of that: given enough time and dedicated people, we can push back to the gooberment issuing FA rifles to every citizen. But the argument has been presented that some restrictions are "good" and "acceptable". I'd like to know what those restrictions are...






*When I read the article, it was stated that the gentleman had committed enough crimes to be out away for a couple hundred years, before he ever left the shop. Wow... good job on society, keeping the violent person from getting a gun!

Bookworm
June 29, 2009, 10:43 PM
Private property rights, and the carrying of guns on private property is, AGAIN, not a gun issue. Replace the carrying of a flashlight, book, or shoes with gun as it relates to private property rights. Does a private property owner have the right to keep me from carrying a book on his property? Why is a gun any different as far as the property rights issue goes?



Private property rights are one of the core rights. We have the right to be left alone, especially on our property. You betcha, if you carried a book, gun, or whatever, you'll leave my property when I said to, or I'd make you leave.

christcorp
June 29, 2009, 10:59 PM
I answered every question the way a PRO-GUN/PRO-2nd Amendment person probably would. However; such an article and questions are freakin STUPID. I took a lot of statistics classes in college; and such an article and questions violated the #1 rule of surveys and such. Not asking leading questions. These questions are stated in such a way as to have a definitive PRO-CON stance on guns. And for that, those who managed and wrote the article should be castrated. All it did was provide a venue to FURTHER DIVIDE the pro and con gun crowds. If you answered ONLY what the question said and didn't read into it; then you're either an ultra conservative gun totin red neck or an ultra far left liberal who is anti-constitution.

The truth is: just as with ALL RIGHTS; some people either forfeit or should have certain rights taken away or curbed. And the only way to do that, is to have some method of checking out a person prior to the purchase of a gun. I.e. I definitely believe that a convicted child molester, rapist, or individual who has been convicted of committing physical harm to another person in an offensive manner that was not in the lines of self defense; should NOT be allowed to have a handgun. While a rifle or shotgun can still be used in a "Personal Crime"; they are less likely, and a truly repentant person (Paid their debt to society) should be allowed to have their right back in the form of being allowed a rifle and/or shotgun. Whether for sport, hunting, or home defense. But they don't need to be "Legally" allowed to CARRY a weapon. (Handgun). Then again; a non-repentant criminal doesn't respect the law anyway; so people have to remember that 100% of ALL laws are for the LAW ABIDING PERSON!!! The criminal doesn't care what Obama, congress, the senate, the mayor, governor, or anyone else makes a law for.

And the benefit of the doubt MUST BE GIVEN to a person's rights. That means that we don't need to license or restrict the private sale of weapons among friends/family. I do think that the inter-state sale of firearms going through an FFL license holder is a good idea. But that's as far as that should go. And we shouldn't have to have rules, laws, etc... for carrying concealed, magazine capacity, etc....

Unfortunately, this article and questions doesn't allow for this elaboration by those answering the questions. You're either a god fearing red neck or you're a far left Rodney King liberal who believes in; "Can't we all just get along". There's a lot of middle ground on this topic. And if those writing such articles and polls actually cared about the truth and making a better country instead of sensationalism and making headlines for themselves; then they'd find out and realize that MOST freedoms the far left could live with because there's some logical validations that the far right could live with. And both sides would realize that there can actually be cooperation whereby the "Law Abiding Citizen"; who are the ONLY people that laws actually apply to anyway; could actually NOT have their rights infringed on while at the same time, those with felony acts upon other citizens can be denied the LEGAL and more readily available means of a weapon that can pose a more convenient temptation as a tool to commit a future crime. But instead, the far left is going to create dissension and not allow cooperation; while the far right is going to continue only crying about their rights. Unfortunately, such narrow mindedness on both sides won't allow each side to realize that it IS POSSIBLE to control such a concern without ANY Law Abiding Citizen losing their rights.

TexasRifleman
June 29, 2009, 11:05 PM
Private property rights are one of the core rights. We have the right to be left alone, especially on our property. You betcha, if you carried a book, gun, or whatever, you'll leave my property when I said to, or I'd make you leave.

And I never said otherwise. What I said was it isn't a GUN issue. The gun is not the central piece of the property rights argument, it's incidental.

Ruggles
June 29, 2009, 11:32 PM
"1) I would say instead: "they aren't going away anytime soon"

If an anti-gun stance is demonstrated consistently to be poisonous to a politician, there will cease to be a push towards such. After awhile, the tide can be pushed the other way (just like the antis got the silly laws in the first place: little by little)

2) Yeah, you sure can. You can support the rights of white, God-fearing Christians to own guns while agreeing that them coloreds and heathens shouldn't be allowed to own 'em.

That's where gun control got it's start: as a form of institutionalized racism. It's expanded since the "good ol' days", but that's what's at it's root: a method of keeping "undesirables" from being full citizens.

Again, I will say: if an adult can't be trusted with a gun, then why the hell are they out among the populace?

Story from many years ago: guy went to a gun shop, looking to buy a handgun. Spent LOTS of time, fondling many different weapons before deciding what he wanted. Turns out he was a prohibited person, so they denied the sale*. So he left the gun shop, went to a hardware store, and bought a couple hammers to kill his wife and kids.

The prohibitions helped... how, again?

Another example of this is someone I know, who did time for stealing from his employer. Got a felony conviction: yet he's reformed, is a perfectly productive member of society. Keeping him from possessing a weapon or voting helps society... how again?

So, by all means, someone tell me how these restrictions are helpful or "good". Not talking about "what can we actually push back to", or any of that: given enough time and dedicated people, we can push back to the gooberment issuing FA rifles to every citizen. But the argument has been presented that some restrictions are "good" and "acceptable". I'd like to know what those restrictions are..."

See what I meant about these threads getting childish and ugly. I am not attacking you in anyway yet you feel the need to equate me and my views to racism, elitism or classism and then implying that my positions are not thought out because you do not agree to them.

I am not your foe on this matter, just because we do not see eye to eye on the details of how to get there does not mean we do not have the same destination in mind.

Trying to say that current gun laws have no positive effect at all on crime is an position that can not be defended against basic common sense. To say that if a law (in this case firearm legislation) is not fully successful in stopping the action it was intended to stop it should be abolished is silly.

Again I am on your side, I own a number of firearms that are of the type many antis would love to ban. Implying (at least that is how I read into your post) that I am not a true supporter of the 2ndA because I do not interpret it the exact same way you do is incorrect and insulting and IMO exactly how the "other side" would want it.

The fight over the right to own firearms is going to be a long and hard one. If we on the pro side try to stand on principal (i.e. the 2ndA says....) alone with no thought to real world politics and mindsets of the typical American we will lose and we will lose big. It might be a ugly truth but it is a truth non the less. I am for one am glad that the leaders in this debate on the pro side recognize that.

Ruggles
June 29, 2009, 11:33 PM
"There's a lot of middle ground on this topic."

Exactly.

TexasRifleman
June 29, 2009, 11:34 PM
The fight over the right to own firearms is going to be a long and hard one. If we on the pro side try to stand on principal (i.e. the 2ndA says....) alone with no thought to real world politics and mindsets of the typical American we will lose and we will lose big. It might be a ugly truth but it is a truth non the less. I am for one am glad that the leaders in this debate on the pro side recognize that.

You will notice though that the recent wins have moved from the ballot box to the courtroom so you may be wrong in assuming the leaders of the pro gun movement are worried about mindset of the typical American.

Heller, and the incorporation cases coming behind it, will (if they go our way) do more for gun rights than the last 30 years of politicking have done and it requires no opinion or input from the typical American.

Mohawk
June 29, 2009, 11:43 PM
And I never said otherwise. What I said was it isn't a GUN issue. The gun is not the central piece of the property rights argument, it's incidental.
I respectfully disagree. It’s all about the gun. If a property owner does not want a gun on his premise he has the right to ban them. He’s not concerned about the person but the gun. This is reasonable restriction in my eyes, As I’ve stated in my posts over and over, It’s all about degree”. If you can accept one reasonable restriction then all restrictions are possible. Of course the gun banners will think that reasonable restriction means all guns should be banned. We as a group need to agree on what is reasonable and fight like hell against the restrictions that are not reasonable. But taking a stand that all restrictions are unreasonable will not further our cause. JMHO
I understand the purity of your convictions but I also understand the reality of the tug of war between the absolute gun banners and the totally unregulated, unrestricted gun ownership faction. I just don/t think either position is relevant.
Now somebody drape themselves in the flag, get up on the soapbox and say I’m calling the BOR irrelevant.

ConstitutionCowboy
June 30, 2009, 12:11 AM
Mohawk and Ruggles;

Why do you evade keeping violent felons locked up or executed, the mentally unstable institutionalized or under 24/7/365 guardianship, and minors kept under the guardianship of their parents? That's how it used to be, worked fine, and didn't infringe upon the rights of the law abiding. Does it not fit into your agenda?

I respectfully disagree. It’s all about the gun. If a property owner does not want a gun on his premise he has the right to ban them. He’s not concerned about the person but the gun.

If the person was Jeffery Damer would that property owner feel the same? The gun doesn't pull its own trigger. I'll answer for you. Yes, he'd feel the same. He'd feel the same because he feels rather than thinks. So, think about violent people being kept locked up, the unstable institutionalized, and kids properly parented. What danger does the rest of us law abiding citizens pose to society that we need to jump through hoops and comply with unconstitutional law in order to keep and bear arms?

Woody

Mohawk
June 30, 2009, 12:23 AM
Mohawk and Ruggles;

Why do you evade keeping violent felons locked up or executed, the mentally unstable institutionalized or under 24/7/365 guardianship, and minors kept under the guardianship of their parents? That's how it used to be, worked fine, and didn't infringe upon the rights of the law abiding. Does it not fit into your agenda?



If the person was Jeffery Damer would that property owner feel the same? The gun doesn't pull its own trigger. I'll answer for you. Yes, he'd feel the same. He'd feel the same because he feels rather than thinks. So, think about violent people being kept locked up, the unstable institutionalized, and kids properly parented. What danger does the rest of us law abiding citizens pose to society that we need to jump through hoops and comply with unconstitutional law in order to keep and bear arms?

Woody
We already have the largest percentage of the general population locked up. More than any country in the world. Look it up. We are not a "warehouse society" we attempt to rehabilitate social misfits. That's what parole boards are all about. England tried what you suggest back in the 1800s. Steal a loaf of bread and you get shipped off to Australia. You want society to change to fit your gun rights agenda. I'm afraid that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

TexasRifleman
June 30, 2009, 12:26 AM
He’s not concerned about the person but the gun. This is reasonable restriction in my eyes

You quoted that from a Brady brochure didn't you.....

Do you realize how out of it that sounds, to suggest that the inanimate object itself is a danger rather than the person?

Seriously, that's just silly. You are placing the source of potential problems on an inanimate object.

Think about what you just said there.

If the person doesn't matter let me ask you this. Would you allow these same property owners to ban guns if they are worn by the police?

If not, why? You just said it's the gun not the person but I suspect that's not really the case is it? Which is why I maintain this is not a gun issue at all.

Should a store in the mall be allowed to put up a sign that says "NO COPS". Why not "NO BLACKS"? See what the reaction of the "typical American" is then.

And I understand your point of "soft selling" this stuff out of fear of the reaction of the typical American. But, as I posted earlier, the advances we are making are happening in the court room, not the ballot box so to a large extent the need for placating the typical American doesn't help us anyway.

Doing that since 1968 is what got us here.

First it was gun dealers and limitations on sales.
Then it was Hughes, no more NFA machineguns, a gun not used in a single crime since 1934.
Then it was Brady and waiting periods, followed by the background checks.
Then it was Clinton crime bill and 10 year bans on guns based on 'looks'.

I'd propose that worrying about the "typical American" is what got us to this point in the first place; more gun laws than most dreamed possible with no impact on gun crime.

Maybe doing things the same way we've been doing them isn't such a good idea?

Deckard
June 30, 2009, 12:44 AM
I don't recall the Bill of Rights saying: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall only be reasonably infringed.

The Bill of Rights was written as a set of absolutes. A citizens rights to due process, free speech and religion are not subject to reasonable restrictions because the framers realized how critical to liberty those things were and to give the government any wiggle room would be disastrous.

The only gun law I'd accept under the second amendment would be the NICS background check as it does not infringe upon a citizens right to bear arms. It merely keeps firearms out of the hands of felons (who forfeited some of their constitutional rights by committing the crimes they did).

Strings
June 30, 2009, 12:45 AM
Wow... first time I've ever had a post quoted in it's entirety. Should I feel honored?

Was NOT trying to paint the view of anyone in this discussion as anything: was illustrating a point. The fact that my post was quoted, in it's entirety, suggests that I might have hit a nerve.

The power to restrict a right is the power to destroy a right. If we define "acceptable restriction" as anyone "underage, mentally incompetent, or violent", we open a gate...

What happens when a belief in Scripture is considered a sign of mental instability? Not as far fetched as you might think...

That makes two examples (or three, if you go by "Christian, Heathen, Black" as different groups) of people infringed upon (or that could be). And again: if you don't think it could happen, take a look at how you can loose your 2A rights in some states just for divorcing your spouse (or her filing for a divorce)...

You all wish to discuss restricting a tool, putting restraints on the tool. How about we try and concentrate on actions, and the societal causes of such? We let the other side frame the argument as being about the tool, then we've already lost...

Mohawk
June 30, 2009, 12:49 AM
You quoted that from a Brady brochure didn't you.....

Do you realize how out of it that sounds, to suggest that the inanimate object itself is a danger rather than the person?

Seriously, that's just silly. You are placing the source of potential problems on an inanimate object.

Think about what you just said there.

If the person doesn't matter let me ask you this. Would you allow these same property owners to ban guns if they are worn by the police?

If not, why? You just said it's the gun not the person but I suspect that's not really the case is it? Which is why I maintain this is not a gun issue at all.

Should a store in the mall be allowed to put up a sign that says "NO COPS". Why not "NO BLACKS"? See what the reaction of the "typical American" is then.

And I understand your point of "soft selling" this stuff out of fear of the reaction of the typical American. But, as I posted earlier, the advances we are making are happening in the court room, not the ballot box so to a large extent the need for placating the typical American doesn't help us anyway.

Doing that since 1968 is what got us here.

First it was gun dealers and limitations on sales.
Then it was Hughes, no more NFA machineguns, a gun not used in a single crime since 1934.
Then it was Brady and waiting periods, followed by the background checks.
Then it was Clinton crime bill and 10 year bans on guns based on 'looks'.

I'd propose that worrying about the "typical American" is what got us to this point in the first place; more gun laws than most dreamed possible with no impact on gun crime.

Maybe doing things the same way we've been doing them isn't such a good idea?
Well now you want to brand me as a Brady bunch individual. Ain't that cute. Is that all you got? So you believe that a gun owner has the right to carry on private property even when the owner forbids it? First off, big guy, stay on message and don't degenerate to personal attacks. I, personally don't give a hoot how big a Kahuna you are on this site. I react to your posts. Second, this is the High Road, You need to realize that all 2nd. ammendment supporters don't think exactly like you. If a property owner doesn't want guns on his property it's as simple as that. Reasonable restriction. Try telling him your obtuse theory about the gun having nothing to do with the situation as he runs your ass off. Or shoot him for taking offense at your transgression on his property. See how you come out in court.

Strings
June 30, 2009, 12:52 AM
>We already have the largest percentage of the general population locked up. More than any country in the world. Look it up. We are not a "warehouse society" we attempt to rehabilitate social misfits. That's what parole boards are all about. England tried what you suggest back in the 1800s. Steal a loaf of bread and you get shipped off to Australia. You want society to change to fit your gun rights agenda. I'm afraid that isn't going to happen anytime soon.<

hmmmm... how about looking at what most of the people in prison are there for?

You'll find that many are there for non-violent crimes (such as drug possession and dealing). It's gotten to the point that the purpose of the parole board is NOT to "judge the level of rehabilitation of the offender", but rather to make more room for more drug criminals...

Like I said: societal causes of crime. But it's not quick & easy, so people don't want to deal with it...

TexasRifleman
June 30, 2009, 12:53 AM
First off, big guy, stay on message and don't degenerate to personal attacks.

That is not a personal attack. Your post states that the gun itself is the problem, not the person holding it.

That is the exact sentiment echoed by the Brady Campaign.

You may not like it, but it's absolutely true. You made the statement, I didn't.

? So you believe that a gun owner has the right to carry on private property even when the owner forbids it?

Nowhere in my posts have I ever said that. Now you're just making things up. You seem confused on what we are talking about here.

We are talking about the Second Amendment. That is a restriction on what GOVERNMENTS may do. This has nothing to do with private property owners, which is why it isn't a gun issue. Private property owners can do whatever they want, but that has nothing to do with guns.

At some point you get to a debate about private property that is open to the public, businesses etc, and that gets into the Civil Rights argument, but that is a different issue than we're discussing here.

Mohawk
June 30, 2009, 12:56 AM
Wow... first time I've ever had a post quoted in it's entirety. Should I feel honored?

Was NOT trying to paint the view of anyone in this discussion as anything: was illustrating a point. The fact that my post was quoted, in it's entirety, suggests that I might have hit a nerve.

The power to restrict a right is the power to destroy a right. If we define "acceptable restriction" as anyone "underage, mentally incompetent, or violent", we open a gate...

What happens when a belief in Scripture is considered a sign of mental instability? Not as far fetched as you might think...

That makes two examples (or three, if you go by "Christian, Heathen, Black" as different groups) of people infringed upon (or that could be). And again: if you don't think it could happen, take a look at how you can loose your 2A rights in some states just for divorcing your spouse (or her filing for a divorce)...

You all wish to discuss restricting a tool, putting restraints on the tool. How about we try and concentrate on actions, and the societal causes of such? We let the other side frame the argument as being about the tool, then we've already lost...
You are trying to paint a picture that I and others who have posted in this thread want restrictions. This is simply not true at all. I personally can not think of one new restriction I'd like to see. I also think that many restrictions in place are nanny state mandates that should be repealed. My only point in this whole thread is to point out that restrictions are real. They exist and we as a group have to recognize that fact and deal with each threat to our rights on an individual basis. We must identify which ones are relevant and vigourously fight the rest.

Strings
June 30, 2009, 12:59 AM
*sigh*

>Well now you want to brand me as a Brady bunch individual. Ain't that cute. Is that all you got? So you believe that a gun owner has the right to carry on private property even when the owner forbids it? First off, big guy, stay on message and don't degenerate to personal attacks. I, personally don't give a hoot how big a Kahuna you are on this site. I react to your posts. Second, this is the High Road, You need to realize that all 2nd. ammendment supporters don't think exactly like you. If a property owner doesn't want guns on his property it's as simple as that. Reasonable restriction. Try telling him your obtuse theory about the gun having nothing to do with the situation as he runs your ass off. Or shoot him for taking offense at your transgression on his property. See how you come out in court.<

That isn't a gun issue...

If I decide don't want you coming on my property for whatever reason, that is my right as the owner of that property.

That reason could be you carrying a gun, or wearing a religious symbol openly, or you refusing to make your wife wear a burkha. The reason doesn't matter...

Here, you're confusing what the Bill of Rights actually is (which is strictly a restraint on government).

Had a roommate that made a similar argument. He insisted that we did NOT have freedom of speech, because he couldn't just walk into a newsroom and get whatever diatribe he wanted to spout in print or on the 5 o'clock news. Took me a LONG time to get through his head that 1A did NOT mean that the local newspaper editor was required to print what YOU wanted him to. But you're making essentially the same argument...

What restrictions a private property owner decides to put on his private property is his business. It's only a BoR issue if the government tries to dictate what those restrictions will be...

Ruggles
June 30, 2009, 01:03 AM
"Heller, and the incorporation cases coming behind it, will (if they go our way) do more for gun rights than the last 30 years of politicking have done and it requires no opinion or input from the typical American."

...because the SC Justices who decided that case had nothing to do with politics, I mean their appointing was strictly politics free.....which of course means the votes to put those who appointed those justices in office had nothing to do with it....which by default means the typical American had nothing to do with it.

That is your fatal mistake, trying to separate the politics from this.

Strings
June 30, 2009, 01:03 AM
Let me see if I can restate what you just said, and see if we can agree...

>You are trying to paint a picture that I and others who have posted in this thread want restrictions. This is simply not true at all. I personally can not think of one new restriction I'd like to see. I also think that many restrictions in place are nanny state mandates that should be repealed. My only point in this whole thread is to point out that restrictions are real. They exist and we as a group have to recognize that fact and deal with each threat to our rights on an individual basis. We must identify which ones are relevant and vigourously fight the rest.<

How about this:

"We need to recognize that certain restrictions are going to be with us for awhile. Our job at present is to prioritize those, to deal with having them struck down in an order that is possible"

Can you agree with the above?

Mohawk
June 30, 2009, 01:06 AM
Let me see if I can restate what you just said, and see if we can agree...

>You are trying to paint a picture that I and others who have posted in this thread want restrictions. This is simply not true at all. I personally can not think of one new restriction I'd like to see. I also think that many restrictions in place are nanny state mandates that should be repealed. My only point in this whole thread is to point out that restrictions are real. They exist and we as a group have to recognize that fact and deal with each threat to our rights on an individual basis. We must identify which ones are relevant and vigourously fight the rest.<

How about this:

"We need to recognize that certain restrictions are going to be with us for awhile. Our job at present is to prioritize those, to deal with having them struck down in an order that is possible"

Can you agree with the above?
Yes!

TexasRifleman
June 30, 2009, 01:06 AM
...because the SC Justices who decided that case had nothing to do with politics, I mean their appointing was strictly politics free.....which of course means the votes to put those who appointed those justices in office had nothing to do with it....which by default means the typical American had nothing to do with it.

That is your fatal mistake, trying to separate the politics from this.

Umm, Souter was appointed by Reagan.

Your argument that party politics has much to do with the voting direction of the Supreme Court falls pretty flat if you look at the voting records.

Counting on a good judicial appointment from politics is dangerous. I don't remember the Second Amendment coming up directly in any Justices confirmation hearings.

Counting on the typical American voter to help gun owners has simply not worked. From that we got the Clinton ban and the Brady Law at a Federal level.

What major pro gun legislation have we had since FOPA?

Ruggles
June 30, 2009, 01:17 AM
"Quote:
...because the SC Justices who decided that case had nothing to do with politics, I mean their appointing was strictly politics free.....which of course means the votes to put those who appointed those justices in office had nothing to do with it....which by default means the typical American had nothing to do with it.

That is your fatal mistake, trying to separate the politics from this.
Umm, Souter was appointed by Reagan.

Your argument that party politics has much to do with the voting direction of the Supreme Court falls pretty flat if you look at the voting records."

You right of course, politics and political parties have almost nothing to do with the SC nor how it is likely to vote. We all know that Presidents would never nominate judges just because they share their views on such matters.

I mean I am just as comfy with Obama filling the next 2-3 seats on the SC as I would be with McCain doing so..........should have no impact on future firearm cases in the SC.

Ruggles
June 30, 2009, 01:21 AM
You fellas have fun at this, this is by far a topic that is more than pointless to debate.

I for one am finished.

I remain a supporter of 2nd A rights who favor some firearms legislation.

SuperNaut
June 30, 2009, 01:22 AM
You should check out the AHSA.

TexasRifleman
June 30, 2009, 01:23 AM
You right of course, politics and political parties have almost nothing to do with the SC nor how it is likely to vote. We all know that Presidents would never nominate judges just because they share their views on such matters.

Again, you mean like Souter.

Counting on politics alone is what got us here.

I get your point but you're wanting to depend on something that has failed us in the past. We have a court seated today that has ruled on Heller in our favor and would likely rule for state incorporation of the Second Amendment.

That is reality, today. If that happens we'll have made more progress than in the last 3 or 4 decades.

And, if guns were in the voting public's mind we wouldn't be facing the Obama choices anyway. So, counting on the voters failed us there as well.

sarduy
June 30, 2009, 01:25 AM
"reasonable" gun regulations... is when there is no gun regulation at all!
But severe punishment for those who use guns in crimes/assaults and not the one defending his/her life.

kyo
June 30, 2009, 01:30 AM
I feel that the background checks are reasonable. I have posted this before and some **** called me liberal for it. Oh well. Its how I feel.
I don't like the waiting period, or ban of open carry. I live in GA and if the dice fall right this fall, I will be able to carry at school, and have a lifetime permit instead of renewing it.

I agree with Strings BTW. IF a private citizen says keep off my property if you are carrying, and you stay on, you are a criminal trespasser at this point. That ain't got nothin to do with liberal or not. Hell, I could tell you to get off my lawn for wearing a hat, and if you didn't your trespassin.
Anyone who says that I can't enforce what I want on my own turf is out of their mind.

TexasRifleman
June 30, 2009, 01:32 AM
You fellas have fun at this, this is by far a topic that is more than pointless to debate.

Agreed.

But at the least it confirms what the OP says in his article, that we'll sit here and battle over what is reasonable as we watch the whole thing slip away.

That's why incorporation is so important.

You guys that want lots of reasonable restrictions can live in Illinois and New York and those of us that don't want any at all can live in Texas, Alaska, and Montana.

I'm OK with that, but at least get it out of the hands of the Fed.

kyo
June 30, 2009, 01:44 AM
yea ok, because in texas you can walk into court with your gun. same with alaska and montana. GA must be so liberal! That isn't a reasonable restriction! :eek:

IndianaBoy
June 30, 2009, 01:49 AM
Every adult citizen of the United States of America should be able to own the exact same weapons carried by our Armed Forces.

Anyone who is guilty of a crime so heinous that they cannot be trusted with a firearm, should be hanging from a tree or in jail.

That is as reasonable as I get.

Background checks are a symptom of a disease that has nothing to do with guns. It has to do with our broken judicial system that lets predators out amongst their prey.

kyo
June 30, 2009, 02:04 AM
so if i steal a car I should be hanged. or be put in jail for life. Or better yet, go to jail and then be hung after I serve my sentence.
you sure are reasonable about this.
A background check has nothing to do with guns? Lets look at some common sense here. The current law is that to get one you need a background check. So, at the moment, it has everything to do with getting one legally. if you want to split hairs and say personal transactions fine, whatever. So, just because you think it shouldn't have anything to do with it, doesn't mean it doesn't.

eqfan592
June 30, 2009, 02:27 AM
TexasRifleman, is it possible that the 1968 law did not have an appreciable impact on gun violence because of the underground illegal gun trade? If so, is it not possible then that if this illegal gun trade were brought under control, that the 1968 laws would then appear to make more sense? I believe the stat is around 95% of all gun related crimes are committed with illegally purchased firearms, but I can't remember for sure.

I'm just putting this out there because you really seem to have your ducks in a row and I'm interested to hear what you have to say on the issue. :)

Leanwolf
June 30, 2009, 02:54 AM
TEXAS RIFLEMAN - "Umm, Souter was appointed by Reagan."



No, he wasn't.

Souter was appointed by Prez Bush The Elder.

L.W.

Strings
June 30, 2009, 03:36 AM
eqfan: you're talking about an impossibility. Saying "If the illegal trade in guns was discontinued" is playing a "what if?" game that gets us nowhere.

One unfortunate fact of human life: anything desired can be had, for a price. So long as prohibited folks want to get weapons, they'll find a way to do so.

kyo: one point I'm been trying to make (and badly, it seems), is that we need to revamp a BUNCH of things in our criminal justice system. Hopefully, to work better with reality...

One group to "pick on" here: sexual predators. It's been proven fairly conclusively that a true SP is impossible to rehabilitate. Such folks should be executed, as quickly and humanely as possible: not as punishment, but to protect society. Same for repeat offenders on murder...

For all other "felony" offenses, there should be some way for a person to regain their rights. Serve their time, make it through probation, pay restitution (whatever), and you can apply to have your rights reinstated. If we can't trust that person to legally own a gun, then why should we trust them to be among the citizenry?

Under the current system (commit felony, serve time, be forever branded as "untrustworthy"), there really isn't much reason for a felon to really try. Perhaps, if having served their time their record was sealed outside of the court (and their full rights restored), more who make mistakes when younger could learn from them and better themselves (and thereby become contributing citizens)...

Isher
June 30, 2009, 03:56 AM
So, to cut to the chase, here;

"How many angels can sit on the point of a needle?"


isher

Davek1977
June 30, 2009, 08:46 AM
I want the basis for any laws or regulations to be based on fact, not emotion. Thats the fault I find with Mohawk's arguments. He is arguing that we need such laws, when the facts have demonstrated that the more heavily regulated guns have been, the higher the crime rate has risen. He has been unable to substantiate exactly WHY we need them, but rather only that we do, and that they are here to stay. He is trying to confuse the issue by bringing private property rights into the equation, which is completely irrelavent. The 2nd Amendment only offers protection from the govt, not private individuals. He is unable to demonstrate how any of the regulations he's resigned to accecpt actually affect crime to any measureable degree. In the end, its an emotion-based argument, which will always fall flat when approached by logic, as TexasRifleman has repeatedly pointed out. I've yet to see gun control policies that actually work in this country, and far more regulations and laws that make no sense whatsoever. I suggest that all cuurent gun laws are reviewed, and what laws prevented what crimes made public. Those that have not been shown to effectively serve their purposes would be scrapped. If a law doesn't have a clear purpose, or the purpose of the law has been shown to be ineffective, the law would be scrapped. That process alone would rid the books of thousands of pointless, needless laws and regulations designed to protect us from ourselves and each other, without sacrifcing the emotions of those that believe that gun laws keep us safer. After all, ONLY laws shown to not have a significant impact on gun crime would be removed.....effective (if there IS such a thing) laws remain, ineffective ones get flushed. Everyone wins

Vern Humphrey
June 30, 2009, 08:51 AM
so if i steal a car I should be hanged. or be put in jail for life. Or better yet, go to jail and then be hung after I serve my sentence.
Don't be rediculous.

If you steal a car, you should be punished and that punishment should include a stiff prison term. You should not be allowed to vote or have a firearm while being punished. If you keep stealing cars, you should be kept in prison.

SaxonPig
June 30, 2009, 09:00 AM
"Reasonable" is a catch word used by those who would utterly destroy the Second Amendment to make them sound "reasonable" and marginalize those who oppose them. Anyone with even a single working brain cell can quickly figure out that no gun law stops a single crime.

Replace the word "reasonable" with the word "effective" and I am on board with that. Someone come up with an EFFECTIVE gun control law and I will sign on. But it won't happen because GUNS are not what need to be controlled, it's the criminals.

TexasRifleman
June 30, 2009, 09:07 AM
TexasRifleman, is it possible that the 1968 law did not have an appreciable impact on gun violence because of the underground illegal gun trade? If so, is it not possible then that if this illegal gun trade were brought under control, that the 1968 laws would then appear to make more sense? I believe the stat is around 95% of all gun related crimes are committed with illegally purchased firearms, but I can't remember for sure.

I'm just putting this out there because you really seem to have your ducks in a row and I'm interested to hear what you have to say on the issue.


First, never seen any research on that angle but....

Listen to what you just said, and think about it a bit.

"the reason the gun law didn't work is because people kept breaking other laws". :)

THAT is the point my friend. Criminals will always be criminals. They don't tend to obey laws.

Those danged criminals. If they would just stop breaking those laws we'd see how much the law helped. We should pass another law :)

If we just keep passing more laws eventually they will start obeying them right? We just need ONE more... OK, now ONE more.

OK, well we said one more before but now we're sure... just ONE more... OK we lied, sorry, one more then we're done. Well wait.....

Vern Humphrey
June 30, 2009, 09:37 AM
Replace the word "reasonable" with the word "effective" and I am on board with that. Someone come up with an EFFECTIVE gun control law and I will sign on.
EFFECTIVE gun control is what Rosie O'Donnell wants ("If you have a gun, you should go to jail.")

We don't want effective gun control, we want effective CRIME PREVENTION. And we want the metrics and reporting system embedded in the law, so we can SEE if the law, whatever it is, is actually reducing crime. And we want a sunset provision, so if it isn't effective, it goes away.

CoRoMo
June 30, 2009, 10:14 AM
To say that if a law (in this case firearm legislation) is not fully successful in stopping the action it was intended to stop it should be abolished is silly.


Because the intentions of the law are more important than its effectiveness? That's a purely emotional stance. What's silly is holding dear to ineffective laws for no logical reason. Continuing to do the same thing over and over, while expecting different outcomes is silly.

What harm to society did the NICS check undo?

Point to the proof of its wisdom.

Please, please show us what massive evidence justifies that system.

Dave Workman
June 30, 2009, 10:38 AM
christcorp wrote:
I answered every question the way a PRO-GUN/PRO-2nd Amendment person probably would. However; such an article and questions are freakin STUPID. I took a lot of statistics classes in college; and such an article and questions violated the #1 rule of surveys and such. Not asking leading questions. These questions are stated in such a way as to have a definitive PRO-CON stance on guns. And for that, those who managed and wrote the article should be castrated. All it did was provide a venue to FURTHER DIVIDE the pro and con gun crowds. If you answered ONLY what the question said and didn't read into it; then you're either an ultra conservative gun totin red neck or an ultra far left liberal who is anti-constitution.


And you wrote some other insulting things as well.

FYI, I wrote the piece, which you would realize if you read the byline.
It is not a scientific poll (never was intended to be one), it is a column that falls under the "fair comment" guidelines. It was written to provide a foundation for discussion.


If you don't care for the way it was written, well, too bad. Everyone else here seems to understand what I did and they're doing a splendid job of reacting and interacting with one another. Very healthy debate, while you seem stuck on....what's that word, again?

Yes, the questions ARE "stated in such a way as to have a definitive PRO-CON stance on guns." Well, DUH!

Relax, take a valium and re-read the article. Or don't.

Vern Humphrey
June 30, 2009, 10:42 AM
Because the intentions of the law are more important than its effectiveness? That's a purely emotional stance. What's silly is holding dear to ineffective laws for no logical reason. Continuing to do the same thing over and over, while expecting different outcomes is silly.

What harm to society did the NICS check undo?

Point to the proof of its wisdom.

Please, please show us what massive evidence justifies that system.
The antis expect us to believe -- based on no evidence whatsoever -- that their "reasonable" infringements on the Bill of Rights "work." If we don't believe, we are "unreasonable." If we show positive evidence that they don't work, we're heretics.

christcorp
June 30, 2009, 10:42 AM
No matter how reasonable or effective you want it to be; there would HAVE to be some sort of background check. If not, there's no way to determine if the person wanting to buy a gun is in the category that everyone else agrees on 100% as the "Accepted" and "Effective" means. So, no matter what that effective or acceptable means is; some sort of background check has to be down.

As for the PRIVATE Property owner; They have and SHOULD have complete say over what happens on their property; so long as those "Allowed" on said property are "FREE TO LEAVE" at any time if they don't agree with any rules or policies set forth by the Property Owner. And if the "Visitor" refuses to comply with said rules/policies; and then refuses to leave said "Private Property"; that person should be arrest and put in jail for trespassing. So; if I the owner of a piece of property says "No Guns" or "No Hats" or "No Pets" or "ANYTHING"; then YOU as the VISITOR who physical presence there is a "PRIVILEGE" and NOT a "RIGHT"; must decide whether to abide by my rules/policies, or decide to NOT come onto my property. That is a very simple and logical position based on a private property owner's RIGHTS. The ONLY RIGHT that you as a Visitor has on someone else's PRIVATE PROPERTY, is the RIGHT TO LEAVE. ANYTHING else there is a PRIVILEGE.

The ONLY RIGHTS we have are the right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". All amendments in the Bill of Rights are simply boundaries to PROHIBIT the government from interfering with the common natural and basic principles that allow us to live our lives within our right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". In other words, the Bill of Rights is how we exercise our right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". We exercise these 3 rights by being allowed to defend ourselves. By being able to worship and speak as we wish. By not having our private property illegally searched and taken away from us. And so on. The Bill of Rights are the tools we use to be free to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuing Happiness". But it's a common and ACCEPTED FACT; that you can not deprive another person of their RIGHT to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" by claiming YOU have rights. Your happiness which for you includes freedom of Religion, doesn't mean you get to walk onto your neighbor's yard and sacrifice his dog. Your freedom of LIBERTY doesn't mean you are allowed to trespass another person's private property without their consent just because YOU believe that you have the right to liberty to come and go wherever you want to. That is why you DON'T have ANY say so on someone else's private property; other than to be allowed to LEAVE.

This premise also means if you use some of the tools of the Bill of Rights to transgress someone else's rights; and you are found guilty by your peers; then it is totally acceptable to NOT ALLOW you to use some of the tools of your freedom via the Bill of Rights, in the future. I.e. It is acceptable that a convicted child abuser; even though they have served "X" amount of years, can have their punishment include being on community lists stating you are a convicted child abuser. Forced to wear a locater bracelet. And other means. It might mean that your RIGHT to LIBERTY is being limited; but that is acceptable. And if you abused someone else's right happiness, life, and liberty by raping; murder; assault; robbery; etc... then it is totally acceptable to limit this person's arsenal of tools; via the bill of rights. They can still have their RIGHT to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness; but they will have to find a way to do so without the use of a firearm; allowed to pursue certain employment; or possibly a number of other tools in their PURSUIT of happiness. There is NOTHING unreasonable with this frame of thought. A convicted criminal; after paying their debt; also has the RIGHT to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. But they shouldn't be allowed the same tools that the law abiding citizens enjoy through the Bill of Rights. They will have to pursue their happiness with a Limited amount of tools.

And the only way to determine who/what/where/when is to do some sort of background check. That is reasonable; so long as it's instant and free. And those who are free to use the 2nd amendment as a tool in their pursuit of happiness; protecting their life; and maintaining their liberty; should be allowed to do so totally unobstructed. ANYONE legally possessing a gun should be allowed to carry it concealed or open without permits. They shouldn't be limited to what type of gun, how many, where purchased, state lines, etc... If you are free to use the 2nd amendment as a tool to your Rights; it should be 100% unobstructed.

Vern Humphrey
June 30, 2009, 10:47 AM
No matter how reasonable or effective you want it to be; there would HAVE to be some sort of background check.
Why does there HAVE to be some sort of background check? What purpose does it serve? And can you demonstrate with facts that it actually has served that purpose?

TexasRifleman
June 30, 2009, 10:49 AM
No matter how reasonable or effective you want it to be; there would HAVE to be some sort of background check.

This one always is so interesting to me. People absolutely insisting there needs to be some background check in place but they always forget:

1) 95% (varies depending on the source) of guns used in crimes are stolen and

2) private party transactions require no background checks.

So what exactly is it about background checks that makes you feel better?

Seriously, why do they make you "feel good"? I don't get it.


The other thing that is always fun is this whole private property thing. I read many guys just going off about private property rights this, private property rights that. Yet, with the background check you are saying that you believe the government should put restrictions on your buying and selling of personal private property.

Gives me a headache trying to rationalize some of the thinking I read here.

eqfan592
June 30, 2009, 11:27 AM
Texas, you do make a good point, though I don't think it's a politically viable position to hold right now (EDIT:this is in reference to getting rid of the background check requirement). However, pointing out the "illegally possessed" gun fact is still a good way to help defend against further gun laws.

Honestly, to me, gun control advocates are distracting from the REAL issues that cause the majority of crime in this nation, such as poor education and poverty (IMHO at least). That's what gets me mad at them the most. They force us to waste our time with this crap, and they distract from the real issues. It's a divisive argument that makes it hard for people to "reach across the isle" to work together on these issues.

Anyway, sorry for the mini-rant. Thanks for the input :)

TexasRifleman
June 30, 2009, 11:39 AM
Honestly, to me, gun control advocates are distracting from the REAL issues that cause the majority of crime in this nation, such as poor education and poverty (IMHO at least). That's what gets me mad at them the most. They force us to waste our time with this crap, and they distract from the real issues. It's a divisive argument that makes it hard for people to "reach across the isle" to work together on these issues.

I think you pretty much nailed it there.

Gun control is where politicians turn when their social programs have failed so that they can claim they are "doing something" and get re-elected.

That's all gun control laws are and all they have ever been.

Vern Humphrey
June 30, 2009, 12:13 PM
Honestly, to me, gun control advocates are distracting from the REAL issues that cause the majority of crime in this nation, such as poor education and poverty (IMHO at least).
Those two are one and the same thing -- poor education begets poverty.

But liberals don't like what you said -- because education is the responsibility of government. Read your state constitution, and I will bet a dollar it contains words to the effect that it is the responsibility of the state to educate the children.

And of all the socialist programs in the country, the Public School system is the closest to Marx' ideal -- the goverment owns the means of production (the buildings, computers, books, etc.) The government hires and pays the workers (teachers, administrators, bus drivers, etc.) The government totally controls the system.

And the system has completely failed.

Now some liberal will jump up and say, "Well my child's school is okay." And I'll say, "What's your state and district?" And go to the state Report Card site and find that there's another district within a few miles that has an abismal record. I'll find that minority children score far lower than majority children.

And that is the shame of our system -- in the rich, liberal enclaves, the schools aren't so bad. It's in the poor areas that they fail. And the liberals don't care -- they've got their schools, and the devil with anyone else's kids.

It's a heck of a lot easier to blame guns than it is to admit that the failure of liberal programs is responsible for crime and poverty.

christcorp
June 30, 2009, 12:20 PM
An instant background check doesn't stop or hinder any law abiding citizen from obtaining a weapon if they want it. It does take away the convenience of a felon from picking up a gun instantly. Can they still get a gun? Yes; but it will take them going through their inner circle to get one illegally; or from a private sale which isn't always as readily available. Obviously; if a criminal was allowed to walk into a pawn shop or gun shop and buy any gun within minutes; then they probably would be able to commit their crime immediately. If it's a financial issue; they'll still steal the weapons. But there's a lot of crimes committed that are done without the use of a gun. Making a gun instantly available to a criminal makes no sense. And again; no one's rights or ability to own a gun is impaired by an instant background check. The check is normally completed faster than you can fill out the paper work to buy the gun.

But I do believe that the rules need to be national. If the 2nd amendment is suppose to mean the same thing for all Americans in every state; then one state shouldn't require a permit while another doesn't. A person legal to buy a gun should be allowed to buy anything they want and carry it anyway they want. And all without permit. But there are NO NEGATIVES to an instant background check. None at all.

And I believe that Private property is a no brainer. If it's MY property, then I have complete say so on what happens on it. If you don't like it, you are free to leave or free to not even enter it. You have no "RIGHTS" on my private property. You only have privileges. And it may sound arrogant, but I won't compromise that belief. There is absolutely nothing that can be said that will make me change my position on that. I KNOW I'm right about that. There is nothing anyone can tell me that will convince me that another person should be allowed to tell me what I can or can't do on my property. As long as I am not deceiving people and making them come onto my property by false pretense; then they have the ultimate decision on whether to come onto my property or not to. But to believe you have RIGHTS on my property is absurd. You don't even have the right to free speech. I can tell you to shut the hell up, and if you don't like it, you are free to leave. That is the ONLY right you have. The right to leave. I don't have the right to detain you. But other than that; no way in hell do you have ANY rights. Only privileges.

General Geoff
June 30, 2009, 12:24 PM
An instant background check doesn't stop or hinder any law abiding citizen from obtaining a weapon if they want it.

Thousands of people who have been held up for various anomalies and records discrepancies would tell you otherwise.

But there are NO NEGATIVES to an instant background check. None at all.

That would only be true if the instant background check system operated on a "proceed with sale UNLESS we find definitive proof of a felony conviction" basis. As of right now, you can be denied or delayed for numerous reasons, which makes the system broken.

And even if it DID operate on that basis, who's paying for this instant background check system? Such a scheme obviously costs a lot of money to keep running. Money that could be put to better use elsewhere. Since NICS does not statistically prevent or reduce crime in any way, I think we'd all be better off if it were abolished, along with the rest of the 1968 GCA and 1934 NFA.

TexasRifleman
June 30, 2009, 12:28 PM
Obviously; if a criminal was allowed to walk into a pawn shop or gun shop and buy any gun within minutes; then they probably would be able to commit their crime immediately.

So the problem with your line of reasoning here is that we have very recent history to look at. The Brady law and it's background check have only been in place since 1993.

Before 1993, the things you warn about didn't happen, they just didn't.

What exactly then is the point of the background checks? They didn't exist before 1993, they still don't apply to private transactions, and 90 something plus percent of guns used in crimes are stolen.

And again; no one's rights or ability to own a gun is impaired by an instant background check. The check is normally completed faster than you can fill out the paper work to buy the gun.

Depending on who you source the info from there are as many as 20,000 false NICS rejects every year. You're going to tell me there is no impairment of rights in those cases?

But there are NO NEGATIVES to an instant background check. None at all.

Which is provably false, but even if we pretend you are right, and there are no negatives, what are the positives? Again, provably none since the crime rate didn't go down after 1993.

So you are in favor of laws that cost a ton of taxpayer money to administrate, have no positive benefits at all, and cause at least 20,000 problems a year for law abiding citizens?

Wow.

christcorp
June 30, 2009, 12:36 PM
Yea; and my Ford Mustang sometimes breaks down too. That doesn't mean I throw it away in the garbage. Nothing is perfect. There are a lot of rules/laws/policies that can and should be fixed. So, we fix it. But you don't just throw it in the garbage because a small minority of consumers are being inconvenienced.

Just like I should be able to carry a gun to and from ANY state in the country. That needs to be fixed. I should be able to buy a weapon online or over the phone WITHOUT it having to go through an FFL dealer. I should be able to have it delivered to my house via the post office. That needs to be fixed. There are a lot of laws concerning guns that need to be fixed. But the answer isn't to be a lawless society living in our paranoid compounds. I LOVE the fact that the government knows that there's 80 million gun owners. I WANT the government to know that there are 150 million gun owners. And I want them to know that if they took every military, police, DEA, FBI, CIA, Sheriff, HS, or deputized any other type of law enforcement; that there is no way in hell that they would have enough fire power to stop the people from maintaining control of the political process. The problem is; as a PEOPLE; we aren't very well organized. That's because we have some radicals and some complacent sheep. But the one thing I definitely learned and came to appreciate after 21 years in the military; is that no organization or society can be successful if there isn't discipline. A discipline means certain rules.

The problem isn't gun laws. The laws are fine. The problem is that many people don't RESPECT the laws. And the reason they don't respect the laws, is because there is no mandatory sentencing with any of our laws. If a criminal knew for a fact that a certain crime would result in a guaranteed sentence if caught; there would be some second thoughts. But as it stands, between plea bargain, state's evidence, and good behavior; a criminal with a 10 year sentence can get out in 3. For them; crime pays.

General Geoff
June 30, 2009, 12:38 PM
But you don't just throw it in the garbage because a small minority of consumers are being inconvenienced.

Your Ford Mustang provides a legitimate function. NICS does not.

Vern Humphrey
June 30, 2009, 12:39 PM
An instant background check doesn't stop or hinder any law abiding citizen from obtaining a weapon if they want it. It does take away the convenience of a felon from picking up a gun instantly.
Don't give us your opinion, give us evidence. Show actual data proving the instant background check has resulted in a reduction of violent crime.

TexasRifleman
June 30, 2009, 12:42 PM
But you don't just throw it in the garbage because a small minority of consumers are being inconvenienced.

Wait. You just said there were no negatives to the background checks.

First it was "there are no negatives". Now it's "well there are a few but so what".

This is the criteria now for passing laws in this country? And you're OK with that?

Again ignoring the fact that the crime rate before and after 1993 didn't change?

A discipline means certain rules.

Discpline means rules that have a positive impact, not just rules for the sake of rules.

You cannot show where the NICS has a positive impact.

I've been asking for years for you guys that are OK with Brady to show where it's had a positive impact. I'm still waiting.

Vern Humphrey
June 30, 2009, 12:45 PM
But you don't just throw it in the garbage because a small minority of consumers are being inconvenienced.
No, you throw it in the garbage because:

1. It doesn't work.
2. It costs a lot of money.
3. It inconveniences a lot of people.

And:

4. It violates the Constitution.

christcorp
June 30, 2009, 01:07 PM
I guess I'm mostly curious about what texas and vern believes then is the RIGHT answer???? Because no matter how many people comment; their answer seems to always be the same. No rules at all; no background checks at all; no restrictions at all; and so on. Sort of reminds me of some ignorant people that's attitude was: "Well, the teens are going to have sex anyway; so we should be providing them with condoms". In other words, they don't believe they can make any change or have any impact on the behavior of teens. So therefor, why even try. Just give them condoms and HOPE they don't get pregnant or get aids. We don't need to teach kids NOT to have sex, because they're going to do it anyway.

Well I guess that rules, background checks, restrictions, etc... have no affect whatsoever. Therefor, we shouldn't try and make it work. We should just open up the availability to every single person in the country; law abiding or criminal, legal or illegal immigrant, sane or mentally disturbed, etc... Because restrictions, rules, checks, etc... don't work anyway. Then we'll just punish those who misuse the guns. Damn; Texas and Vern, you sound so much like a far left Rodney King liberal that it's scary. "Can't we all just get along"?

Vern Humphrey
June 30, 2009, 01:12 PM
I guess I'm mostly curious about what texas and vern believes then is the RIGHT answer????

The right answer is simple -- follow the Constitution.

Do not attempt to circumvent the Bill of Rights. Do not attempt to foist off on us approaches that don't work and violate the Bill of Rights.

And if you've been following the thread -- work on the real problem, the failed education system. Build a fire under local and state government and demand that all children get a first class education -- after all, to condemn some children to bad public schools violates their 14th Amendment right to equal protection under the law.

rbernie
June 30, 2009, 01:12 PM
Because no matter how many people comment; their answer seems to always be the same. No rules at all; no background checks at all; no restrictions at all; and so on.Pre-1968 would be just fine, thankyouverymuch.

Sort of reminds me of some ignorant people that's attitude was: "Well, the teens are going to have sex anyway; so we should be providing them with condoms". In other words, they don't believe they can make any change or have any impact on the behavior of teens. So therefor, why even try. Just give them condoms and HOPE they don't get pregnant or get aids. We don't need to teach kids NOT to have sex, because they're going to do it anyway.
Let's accept this analogy as true.

My approach would be to TEACH folk to not have sex, but also teach them how to deal with it responsibly. If they misused their, uh, tackle, there would be social penalties to pay. That is how things went WRT firearms prior to 1968 or so.

Your approach would be akin to having the government lock each and every teen into a chastity belt and only allow them to remove it occasionally when they pass whatever you define as a background/character check.

Which sounds more insane?

General Geoff
June 30, 2009, 01:13 PM
Well I guess that rules, background checks, restrictions, etc... have no affect whatsoever. Therefor, we shouldn't try and make it work. We should just open up the availability to every single person in the country; law abiding or criminal, legal or illegal immigrant, sane or mentally disturbed, etc... Because restrictions, rules, checks, etc... don't work anyway. Then we'll just punish those who misuse the guns.

That's exactly what we're saying.

Ownership of a gun has no victim; thus it should not be a crime, regardless of who owns it. Guns are no different than power tools. When's the last time you needed a background check and a form 4473 to buy a circular saw?

Jamie C.
June 30, 2009, 01:28 PM
The problem isn't gun laws. The laws are fine. The problem is that many people don't RESPECT the laws. And the reason they don't respect the laws, is because there is no mandatory sentencing with any of our laws. If a criminal knew for a fact that a certain crime would result in a guaranteed sentence if caught; there would be some second thoughts. But as it stands, between plea bargain, state's evidence, and good behavior; a criminal with a 10 year sentence can get out in 3. For them; crime pays.

You're contradicting yourself here.

One, the laws aren't "fine" if the people who commit crimes aren't obeying them, irregardless of the reason for it.

Two, if the people who commit crimes aren't obeying them any way... why add more to the stack?

And since you mention sentencing and punishment, why not take the route of enforcing the laws that would keep firearms from being a problem in the first place? You know... the ones regarding rape, robbery, murder, and all those other violent crimes? There's plenty of those on the books already, y'know.

Seems to me that if that were done, and the laws actually had some "teeth", then any law concerning weapons of any kind would be pointless and redundant.

So, by your own logic, making the punishment severe enough for committing the act it's self... and actually implementing it... should completely eliminate the need or desire to ban or control the tools or objects used in the process. No?



J.C.

Vern Humphrey
June 30, 2009, 01:36 PM
One, the laws aren't "fine" if the people who commit crimes aren't obeying them, irregardless of the reason for it.

Two, if the people who commit crimes aren't obeying them any way... why add more to the stack?
The first test of fairness is fidelity to purpose. A law that doesn't work is unfair to everyone -- because the rights of honest people are restricted for no payback.

eqfan592
June 30, 2009, 02:55 PM
Well, with all do respect Vern, speaking as what would be classified as a "liberal", I can tell you that myself, nor anybody else that I know, would say that the current education system is a success.

The problem with privatizing schools is that most (if not all) voucher or privatized systems do not make much in the way of allowances for "troubled" children, nor for children with disabilities. Voucher schools tend to pick the cream of the crop, and avoid the others like the black death. This has the affect of making them appear to be an amazing success, but that success is only skin deep.

Now, if you want to put forward a plan for privatized schools where ALL children are included, then you will certainly have my ear (and I'm serious about this).

But this is getting off topic I think, and this is such an amazing complex issue (education) that we could spend days discussing and debating the problems and their causes. The only thing I HAVE learned is that there really are no simple solutions to these problems.

CoRoMo
June 30, 2009, 03:22 PM
Sort of reminds me of some ignorant people that's attitude was: "Well, the teens are going to have sex anyway; so we should be providing them with condoms". In other words, they don't believe they can make any change or have any impact on the behavior of teens. So therefor, why even try. Just give them condoms and HOPE they don't get pregnant or get aids. We don't need to teach kids NOT to have sex, because they're going to do it anyway.

You prescribed your analogy to the wrong side of this argument. We're not the ones throwing up our hands in compromise by accepting a second wrong to make a right.

The failures of our correctional system, immigration system, etc. aren't made right by an ineffective gun law. Those laws were couched with certain intended goals, but none of them have achieved a whit of their purpose.

Then we'll just punish those who misuse the guns.

Now, there's the wisdom. If we only did that, and did it right, what would we have to argue about?

TexasRifleman
June 30, 2009, 03:24 PM
We should just open up the availability to every single person in the country; law abiding or criminal, legal or illegal immigrant, sane or mentally disturbed, etc... Because restrictions, rules, checks, etc... don't work anyway. Then we'll just punish those who misuse the guns.

This was how it was done before 1968 and the gun crime rate wasn't appreciably different between then and now.

Do you see anything at all in that fact that makes you question the laws that have been passed since then to "protect us"?

The crime rate involving firearms is the same today as it was in 1973. That's a fact. Given that, what exactly is your point?

springmom
June 30, 2009, 03:31 PM
Sort of reminds me of some ignorant people that's attitude was: "Well, the teens are going to have sex anyway; so we should be providing them with condoms". In other words, they don't believe they can make any change or have any impact on the behavior of teens. So therefor, why even try. Just give them condoms and HOPE they don't get pregnant or get aids. We don't need to teach kids NOT to have sex, because they're going to do it anyway.

No. It's the equivalent to saying "we're not going to make them a prescription item and hide them behind the pharmacy counter anymore." In other words, it is a matter of individual freedom, not someone exercising control over someone else.

NICS accomplishes nothing. Zero. Zip. Nada. And it costs a lot to accomplish that nothing. It. Doesn't. Work.

If you can prove....note that word, prove....that it has limited crime, then show us the evidence. But you can't, because it hasn't. It's a stupid impediment that Congresscritters could point to and say "see how tough on crime we are? re-elect us!" That's it.

Jan

TexasRifleman
June 30, 2009, 03:33 PM
More facts. I know the facts hurt some of your heads because it doesn't line up with your feelings, and I'm sorry for that.

If you have facts you'd like to discuss I am more than happy to hear them.

Here is how much good the Gun Control Act of 1968 did you. This is when you got the restrictions you are so proud of about who could buy a gun. See how much this helped?

Feel better?

Source, with MANY other charts. Don't read though, all your illusions about gun laws keeping you safe will go away.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Zimring68.htm

springmom
June 30, 2009, 03:36 PM
TR: are those absolute figures for each year, or per unit of population, or what? And where did you get them? Might help some of our "reasonable" brethren here if they can go read the original where this came from. (She said hopefully...)

Jan

CoRoMo
June 30, 2009, 03:38 PM
Reading through this thread, I see a number of questions that have gone unanswered. That number is rather large, so I only quote a few in regards to NICS.

What harm to society did the NICS check undo?
Why does there HAVE to be some sort of background check? What purpose does it serve? And can you demonstrate with facts that it actually has served that purpose?What exactly then is the point of the background checks? They didn't exist before 1993, they still don't apply to private transactions, and 90 something plus percent of guns used in crimes are stolen.

Anyone willing to lift the bat off your shoulder for these pitches?
Continuing to avoid these direct questions reveals the lack of integrity to your argument.

TexasRifleman
June 30, 2009, 03:39 PM
And where did you get them? Might help some of our "reasonable" brethren here if they can go read the original where this came from. (She said hopefully...)


Added the link. That second chart is for cities with populations over 250,000 but the document has tons of stuff.

Not that they will read it or believe it.

I've posted it before and I get the "well, that doesn't really matter" stuff......

Anyone willing to lift the bat off your shoulder for these pitches?

I asked those same 3 questions in the monstrous thread we did on this a while back.

I am still waiting for someone to answer them.

The thing that is truly sad to me is that we're having to debate these things with people that call themselves "pro gun".

To Dave Workman's point in the article he published, if we can't even agree on the terms we use we're toast.

Many in this thread believe their feelings about the current gun laws are "reasonable" yet we prove to them those laws have had no effect.

A truly reasonable person would say "Damn, you're right, the gun laws on the books haven't done a thing, maybe we should try something different".

That never happens either and I am not sure why.

rbernie
June 30, 2009, 04:10 PM
Let's stay on topic. The last three posts just got vaporized - I don't want to lock the whole dang thread but if y'all cannot keep on topic I will have little choice.

waterhouse
June 30, 2009, 04:27 PM
Just read through most of this. I don't have much to add, except to say thanks again to TR and Vern and others for taking the time to fight the good fight, and thanks to Dave Workman for writing the article which hopefully has gotten at least a few folks to think things through.

I recently had a non gun friend bring up the NICS background check, and how important it was. I sent him a link to the last time we hashed this out (mostly the same debaters and certainly the same facts presented) and told him to let me know when he was done reading it if he still thought it was a good idea.

The non gun guy, who at the start of the discussion thought every sale should go through a background check, ended up deciding that no good has come out of the system and that it is therefore a waste of his tax dollars.

But you don't just throw it in the garbage because a small minority of consumers are being inconvenienced.

How many people having their rights trampled on is enough for you? Make no mistake, the government taking away a natural right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights is not merely an "inconvenience."

Vern Humphrey
June 30, 2009, 04:35 PM
The non gun guy, who at the start of the discussion thought every sale should go through a background check, ended up deciding that no good has come out of the system and that it is therefore a waste of his tax dollars.
Which is what any rational person looking at the facts (and not going on pre-conceived ideas) would conclude.

eqfan592
June 30, 2009, 05:20 PM
TR, the chart you have posted there does show a very visible decrease in the rate of increase of the 2 firearms related crimes there starting in 1968, which is actually the first visible support that the 1968 laws DID help prevent crime (or at the very least, reduced it's overall rate of increase). Had the increase continued in the strait line fashion that it did between 1966 and 1968, the later years would have been well off the chart.

However, that chart is not enough to draw a full conclusion like that. I'd like to see an expanded chart, including many years prior to 1968 and going all the way up to current crime rates. But honestly, that chart is not something I would post in order to promote the idea that the 1968 law did nothing.

TexasRifleman
June 30, 2009, 05:24 PM
But honestly, that chart is not something I would post in order to promote the idea that the 1968 law did nothing.

You didn't read the accompanying document did you.... There is no way to get the level of detail needed from a single chart, which is why the link has the rest of the data.

Figure 1 shows trends in handgun homicide and nonfatal assault by firearms in the 57 largest United States cities. The assault figures, which are not broken down by type of firearm, should be composed of about 80 per cent handgun attacks, since 79 per cent of all firearms homicides during the period were committed with handguns in these cities.

Handgun homicides and gun assaults increase consistently throughout the period, but the rate of increase slows considerably after 1969. Assuming about a one-year lead time for guns produced or imported to reach city streets, the moderating rate of increase coincides with the reduction in new handguns entering the civilian market.

One lesson of the 1968 import restrictions is that a production standard need not be conceptually acceptable to have impact on the United States handgun market. Any standards that disrupt handgun, production can have short-run effects, and any standards that raise prices significantly or restrict production capacity can have some long-range impact on handgun sales and use. The problem with this type of partial solution is not merely that it has "loopholes" through which compensating increases in production can flow: it also lacks coherent principle. The mechanism used by section 925(d)(3)¾shutting off the flow of a particular type of weapon¾might work with a relatively high degree of effectiveness if only we could determine what it is that we really want to prohibit.

So, the import market was so severely impacted by the 1968 GCA that handgun crimes decreased for a short period because of lack of domestic production.

Once domestic production came back up so did the crime rate.

So, as the document and data show, the licensing of FFLs, the age limits, the restriction on certain types of persons, none of these things made any change in the crime rate. The slowing during the period after the GCA is attributable nearly 100% to the decrease in the market place.

So sure, if you want to make it illegal to manufacture all types guns then yes, you can impact gun crime. But you can't do it just on imports, you would need to fundamentally outlaw all firearm production in this country.

Sometimes I get the feeling some here would be OK with that.

eqfan592
June 30, 2009, 05:41 PM
Not the entire thing, no, but I did read portions of it. First the paper is over 30 years old, so there is no current data available. Second, the author even states that there is a visible moderation in the rate of increase based off that chart (though it is not stated that the moderation is due to the 1968 bill, but this IS a conclusion that could be drawn from the chart).

All I'm saying is that the chart in question is not any sort of "slam dunk" against the 1968 law. And please note that while the author does call into question the usefulness of the law, he also admits that his conclusions are not entirely based on nor entirely supported by the data on hand.

Big_E
June 30, 2009, 05:45 PM
IMHO, waiting periods are stupid. If I were going to kill someone or myself I would have done so without waiting the 10 days (here in CA) and I wouldn't need to buy a new firearm. I could easily do either with a knife, my hands, a car, accelerants and a lighter, etc...

Also, the mentally "disabled" and convicted felons becomes are tough dilemma with me. Those released from prison and off of parole have served their time, some change their ways and some don't, but what does background checks gonna do if they will just go to one of their "homies" house and get a pistol with the serial #'s filed off for dirt cheap? People with mental disabilities are also kind of tough in this regard. I know some of these people who are very nice and law abiding. Maybe some disorders should be restricted but who knows. All it should come down to is maybe, just maybe whether or not a person has a strong history of violence, then again, a bureaucrat will be the one who defines "strong history" and someone who only threw a punch when he or she were 5 can become a victim.... It's a tough world out there. /end rant

TexasRifleman
June 30, 2009, 05:46 PM
First the paper is over 30 years old, so there is no current data available.

See, you guys are never happy. This is what I mean, arguing about something that doesn't even matter.

The report is centered around the effects of laws before and after the 1968 GCA, so who cares if the data has modern information in it.

The time frame from the mid 50's to the mid 70's is all that matters.

All I'm saying is that the chart in question is not any sort of "slam dunk" against the 1968 law.

As I just explained, the decrease is attributable to the outlawing of imports. The crime rate came back up once domestic manufacturers increased their production.

All of your and others arguments have centered around the age restrictions, background checks, firearms dealer licenses etc. Those are shown by this report and the other research to have not done a single thing to the crime rate.

The only thing that impacted it was restricting imports, or restricting domestic gun production completely.

Certainly with enough muscle gun crime could be reduced drastically. Shut down all the gun makers, you'd see a crime drop eventually.

As I said, I get the feeling that some here would be fine with that.

The hard part for you I think is that you are not used to seeing people in the debate be completely honest.

I am being completely honest in the presentation of the data. No spin, not making things up as I go.

The data does show some crime reduction from the '68 GCA, because of the import restrictions.

It would be dishonest to claim otherwise.

However, it's just as dishonest to attribute the drop to dealer licensing, age limits, restrictions of selling to felons, ending mail order sales, etc.

And, that is the claim that you and others have made, that these limitations on the sale of firearms has helped or will help control gun crime.

It has not, and does not. Will you admit it? I doubt it.

runrabbitrun
June 30, 2009, 06:11 PM
Real late to the party here...

2a states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

CCW permits, background checks, permits to purchase a hand gun, et el
are ALL infringements of the 2a and are therefore, unconstitutional.

I, being an American (the home of the free) WILL NOT follow these unconstitutional laws.

ALL the legislation/rules/regulations that have been added to our countries laws in this regard
are indeed illegal/unconstitutional and therefore >>> MUST and WILL be repealed.
(One way or the other)...

I am sick and tired of worrying if my guns (tools) are breaking some 'unconstitutional law'.
I'm sick and tired of wondering if the guns in my truck are 'secured' in some lock box
prescribed by 'illegal laws/rules/regulations', just to carry them to the range to shoot,
or traverse through-out the US.
I'm sick and tired of worrying that if I shoot a bad guy coming into my home.
It may result in me going to jail or being sued by his surviving relatives.
I'm sick and tired of _______________


I could go on, but I'm sick and tired of it all.

I want MY country back from these 'feel good' emotional asp wipe liberals/socialists/nannys/tyrants/communists...
(Or what ever label we want to give them.)
And I'm willing to take it back with what ever means/force is necessary to do so.

I hope I'm not alone.

eqfan592
June 30, 2009, 06:21 PM
TR, I was going to respond a little more harshly, but then I realized that I think you have me mistaken for someone else. I don't believe I have made any arguments specifically stating that the age restrictions helped reduce crime. I have said at one time (though not on this thread I believe) that those seemed to make sense to me, but I believe on that thread you pointed out that they did not have any appreciable impact, and at the time I did not argue, as I didn't entirely disagree with your statement. Thus, I don't think it is fair to say that I am being dishonest in our discussion here, nor that I have made any sweeping claims about the effectiveness of age restrictions, background checks, etc.

Something that you need to remember is that playing devil’s advocate with each other is one of the best things we can do to help defend our rights. If we don't have good, SOLID answers to these questions, then we will have a harder time dealing with those that would take away our 2a rights.

I don't entirely agree with you that only data from the 50's to 70's is useful, but I do see your point. I would still like to see information reaching from 20 years in each direction from the passage of the bill. Also, as I stated earlier, I did not have the chance to read the entirety of that article, but does it reference other nations that may have introduced similar age restrictions and background checks, but without the import restrictions, to see if the other restrictions by themselves had any affect? I would be curious to see such data, and I'm sure it has to be out there somewhere. I'll make sure to look around for it if nobody else has a quick source.

eqfan592
June 30, 2009, 06:26 PM
runrabbit, the problem is that you never owned the country personally, nor was it ever included in the constitution that only YOUR way would be the right way at all times. Part of living in a democracy is dealing with people who have a different world view. If you can't handle that, and feel the need to resort to threats of force against those who don't agree with you, then maybe democracy isn't your best bet.

And I think this is WAY off topic, and not really appropriate either.

TexasRifleman
June 30, 2009, 06:27 PM
ut then I realized that I think you have me mistaken for someone else. I don't believe I have made any arguments specifically stating that the age restrictions helped reduce crime.

My apologies. Too many posts to keep up with, and I'm sorry for mistaking yours.

I would be curious to see such data, and I'm sure it has to be out there somewhere. I'll make sure to look around for it if nobody else has a quick source.

The NRA, SAF, etc have put together literally thousands of pages on all this stuff and it all come back to the same general conclusion.

Gun laws have never been shown to have real, true, measurable impact on crime.

Even in places where they are so repressive that guns are all but unheard of the crimes simply move to being committed with other tools; knives, rocks, or sharp sticks.

You can't find a single success story of gun laws fixing crime problems, even in the most repressive countries on the planet.

All you find is a trail of disarmed law abiding citizens.

Vern Humphrey
June 30, 2009, 06:28 PM
Certainly with enough muscle gun crime could be reduced drastically. Shut down all the gun makers, you'd see a crime drop eventually
No, you'd see an increase in gun smuggling.

And if we can't stop the smuggling of drugs and illegal workers, how can we ever stop the smuggling of guns, once we create a market?

TexasRifleman
June 30, 2009, 06:30 PM
No, you'd see an increase in gun smuggling.

And if we can't stop the smuggling of drugs and illegal workers, how can we ever stop the smuggling of guns, once we create a market?

Exactly, that's next. You'd see crime dip drastically for a while til they started coming in from Mexico, then the same thing starts again.

Same with this 68 GCA data, we saw a marked dip at first, then it came right back up when the supply caught up.

Criminals are going to commit crimes, that's just what they do. Believing that restricting access to guns will stop that is just insane.

And this thread is getting old.


In the end, some folks here really believe they are safer with restrictions in place regarding licensing of firearms dealers, background checks, age restrictions beyond the usual adult age (21 for handguns), restrictions on law abiding citizens carrying guns, etc. even when all the data shows otherwise.

They don't have any proof, they don't even try to offer any, but they cling to those beliefs with all their might. Then they call themselves advocates of the Second Amendment. As long as that is the case we won't see much change in the gun laws in this country.

runrabbitrun
June 30, 2009, 06:31 PM
runrabbit, the problem is that you never owned the country personally, nor was it ever included in the constitution that only YOUR way would be the right way at all times. Part of living in a democracy is dealing with people who have a different world view. If you can't handle that, and feel the need to resort to threats of force against those who don't agree with you, then maybe democracy isn't your best bet.

And I think this is WAY off topic, and not really appropriate either.

I'm just saying... enough is enough.

It's TIME our legistlators LOOK at ALL these
unconstitutional laws and reform them as needed.

You can't keep piling law after law after law and expect anyone can
understand them.. Let alone abide by and/or follow them.

And my post IS appropriate. IMHO

eqfan592
June 30, 2009, 06:34 PM
Vern, you make a very good point. The war on drugs has been a total failure, thus I doubt any such war on "guns" if they were to be made illegal would or if further restrictions were put forward would be any more effective.

TR, no problem man, it happens :) I know that the NRA has boat loads of info, but I wasn't sure that specific comparison was ever done. I'll poke around their site and see if I can find it or a similar study. :)

Vern Humphrey
June 30, 2009, 06:34 PM
Criminals are going to commit crimes, that's just what they do. Believing that restricting access to guns will stop that is just insane.
It's all based on the fallicy that inanimate objects cause crime. As someone said, that makes about as much sense as Rosie O'Donnell blaming spoons for making her fat.

googol
June 30, 2009, 06:38 PM
Should "assault articles" be banned?

If such articles could blow my brains out from a mile away, then I'd look closely at restrictions on them.

runrabbitrun
June 30, 2009, 06:41 PM
I personally would like to see anyone who debates
this type stuff do like I've done in other debates.

Admit when your wrong and learn something from the debate.

Infringements we see today on 2A are wrong.

If we need to change the 2a's wording.... FINE.

DO IT...
And quit trying to circumvent the Constitution Of The United States.

Many people DIED to defend it.

Vern Humphrey
June 30, 2009, 06:56 PM
Should "assault articles" be banned?

If such articles could blow my brains out from a mile away, then I'd look closely at restrictions on them.
Perhaps you don't understand how dangerous assault articles are. They can be distributed through the mail, embedded in magazines and newspapers. So embedded, they can be picked up and read by children.

Assault articles are known to cause elevated blood pressure in consevatives and extreme flatulence in liberals.

Only licensed journalists should be allowed to write assault articles, and there should be a transfer tax of $200 for each copy of a magazine or newspaper containing an assault article. Only persons who have been psychologically screened should be allowed to buy media with assault articles, which must have an internal lock to keep children from accessing them.

Big_E
June 30, 2009, 06:58 PM
Another thing, people (gun grabbers/politcians) seem to fail at realizing that it is the :eek:!!!2ND!!!:eek: Amendment. Not the 5th or 9th or 19th etc...

Our founding fathers had a reason to place gun rights second, to protect our freedoms. If it were instead placed in the 19th spot then maybe it would be more tangible to debate. Like my old man says, "You can't have the 1st Amendment without the 2nd!"

runrabbitrun
June 30, 2009, 07:14 PM
This debate/discussion is pretty much over. IMHO

Good article by the OP and it generated some good posts here.
But it's over.

The people who feel some 'regulations' or 'more' are need have failed to provide
factual reasons as to why we need to continue down this unconstitutional path.

All that's left is to undo the BAD things past BAD legislation has done.
(Hopefully, with-out having to fire a single shot)...

Maybe, we should round up the critters who violated their oath
to uphold the Constitution and put them on trial for treason?
So the next batch understands, YOU CAN'T just circumvent the Constitution. :cool:

Lou McGopher
June 30, 2009, 08:01 PM
Take any proposed "reasonable" restrictions on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and translate it into "reasonable" restrictions on Freedom of the Press and see how it flies. For example, should reporters be licensed?

Broadcasters must be licensed.

And you've never seen those Press badges, required to get access to certain events? You think they give those out to just any ol' reporter or blogger?

Should people acting as reporters without a license be sent to jail?

Try broadcasting without a license, or accessing one of those restricted events without a Press badge. :)

Should certain types of newspaper or TV articles be prohibited?

You mean like the restrictions on radio and TV ads during election season? Or campaign contributions and so-called "soft money"? Or like advertisements for cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, pharmaceuticals, and dietary supplements? Or speech that contains libel, slander, hate speech, or obscenity? Or holding up a sign that reads "Bong hits for Jesus?" Or criticizing Scientology?

Should "assault articles" be banned?

You mean like speech that contains "fighting words" or language deemed to provoke "imminent lawless action," or is in violation of the Smith Act?

Should reporters have to check with the FBI each time they file a story?

Part of section 215 of the Patriot Act states, “No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.”

That means if the FBI has requested or received any information or evidence - library records, medical records, customer records, etc, - and you are aware of this, you are not allowed to tell anyone else about it. You can't whisper it to your spouse, or mention it to your pastor, or blog about it on Facebook.

Those are all unreasonable restrictions. Reasonable restrictions on the 1stA include penalties for libel, slander, and the distribution of child pornography. Those things can and have passed a strict-scrutiny test, the same high standard that should be applied to 2ndA jurisprudence.

The problem with "reasonable gun control" lies with the way the anti's have tried to use the word "reasonable" to cover things that are not at all reasonable.

First, the words "reasonable restriction" does not appear anywhere in the First or Second Amendments. The real problem is that what constitutes "reasonable" is highly subjective.

It is absolutely imperative we take a zero-tolerance stance toward the infringement of ANY of our liberties.

Vern Humphrey
June 30, 2009, 08:21 PM
Broadcasters must be licensed.
That's the transmitter, not the reporter.

And you've never seen those Press badges, required to get access to certain events? You think they give those out to just any ol' reporter or blogger?
Yes. Although space may limit the number of attendees, there are pools established for those who cannot attend personally.

Strings
June 30, 2009, 08:30 PM
>If such articles could blow my brains out from a mile away, then I'd look closely at restrictions on them. <

Oh... so you've never seen the damage that can be done to someone via press coverage? Google "Joe the Plumber"...

>And you've never seen those Press badges, required to get access to certain events? You think they give those out to just any ol' reporter or blogger?<

That's something handled by the coordinators of said events. Quick newsflash: not every event (regardless of how newsworthy) allows ANY press in: does that mean the 1A is dead?

ArfinGreebly
June 30, 2009, 10:09 PM
They have a thing called a "sterile environment" where everyone who enters is screened. Everyone. Except certain special exempt people (like the guards, the judge, and so on) who are supposed to be -- by definition -- trustworthy.

In an environment like that, a courtroom for example, where a murder trial is underway, it would be reasonable to restrict the carry and use of weapons. The family of the victim can be so emotionally distraught that they want to administer justice personally, and that's simply not on. The friends and family of the accused may want to take advantage of the venue to break their guy out, and that also is not on. So we hire some guys, subject them to absurd background checks, appoint them as guards, and we allow them to carry and we allow the judge to carry (had a customer who was a criminal court judge, and he'd actually been attacked in his own courtroom).

Now, THAT is a so-called "sterile" environment. Within the bounds of what's physically possible, all access to the venue is controlled. Nobody but the bailiff, the guards, and the judge can be armed. It's their show, and it's a completely controlled environment.

Now, I would say that it is, in fact, reasonable to restrict access to weapons in that venue.

That, in my eyes, is a "reasonable" restriction.

Now, outside that sterile venue? It's no longer controlled. The safety that can be "practically" guaranteed inside the venue cannot be guaranteed at all outside. So outside, on the street, in the mall, at the movies, at your place of business or work, in your car, at a restaurant, in your home, hiking in the woods, and so on: the safety and security of your person and of your family is entirely your job, so it makes no sense to have restrictions on access to weapons there.

Schools are not a "sterile" environment. Hospitals are not a "sterile" environment. Museums are not a "sterile" environment.

I'm of two minds about being armed in the seat of the legislature . . . :p

The point is, when someone proposes to disarm you, they assume responsibility for your safety. If they can't -- or won't -- ensure your safety, they have no business at all trying to disarm you.

The primary objective of "gun control" is disarmament.

The people who intend disarmament dare not say it that way, as it will gain them unwanted attention and wrath.

So, with disarmament in mind, what's the best way to "sell" the idea to an unsuspecting populace?

Pretend it's about fighting crime. Everyone hates crime, right?

So, gradually (and with care, 'cuz we don't want to wake anyone) we stress again and again how crime and guns are "inextricably" tied together, and how guns are used by criminals, and how guns cause death, and how -- at long last -- guns are crime.

And, since guns are crime, it only "makes sense" to regulate them, right?

Everyone hates crime, right?

And, eventually, if we just keep at it, and use our control of the school curricula as an I.V. drip into the minds of our students, we can get to the point where "guns are bad" and the Second Amendment is a "constitutional error" that must be corrected with laws controlling guns (guns are bad, m'kay?) -- alternatively that the Second Amendment is "obsolete" as we are "much more civilized" nowadays, and it really should go away now that we have "other ways" to protect us from bad people.

I am reminded of the Chancellor -- one of the Skeksis in The Dark Crystal -- pleading his case to the Gelflings that he wants to "make peace." There's probably a YouTube of that scene that will convey the "feel" of it.

In the context of gun control, "reasonable" means simply "reasons I think I can get you to accept and believe." Not real or true reasons, just plausible reasons.

If I can get you to believe them, it doesn't matter if they're true.

And once I have you disarmed, it doesn't matter what you believe.

runrabbitrun
June 30, 2009, 10:17 PM
And once I have you disarmed, it doesn't matter what you believe.


Powerful, true and WOW.

(No MOD BK... OK? :neener:

eqfan592
June 30, 2009, 10:25 PM
"The point is, when someone proposes to disarm you, they assume responsibility for your safety. If they can't -- or won't -- ensure your safety, they have no business at all trying to disarm you."

WOW, SLAM DUNK RIGHT THERE!

Can we take your entire post and sticky it somewhere? It's laid out perfectly IMHO. And would you mind if I used the above quoted text as a sig line?

ConstitutionCowboy
June 30, 2009, 10:30 PM
FrankInFL made the following comments over at Dave Workman's article:
The function of government is to protect our rights: "...to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving..."

When government doesn't protect our rights we are instructed to dump it: "whenever any government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it..."

The function of the 2nd amendment, therefore, must be to assist us when we abolish the government.

Allowing the government to say which arms are appropriate to abolishing itself is nuts. Thus, the --absolute-- prohibition: "shall not be infringed".
June 30, 9:31 AM

Upon reading FrankInFL's comment, the following question is begged: "So why aren't we dumping it?" My response is that we can still alter(restore) it. But, we must not allow our arms to be diminished lest we need them if we have to abolish(dump) it and encounter resistance along the way. Far too many in government wish to disarm us to the point that we can't abolish or alter(restore) it.

It is obvious the intent of our Founding Fathers is that we be armed at least as well if not better than any armed forces of the Union. We the People are supposed to be the most formidable force in the Union - by design! Article I Section 8, Clauses 11 through 17 point that out:

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power ...

... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; ...

I can see that it is the aim of far too many in government to disarm us to the point that a revolt(abolishment) can't take place. What those in government should be doing instead of trying to prevent revolution is to act in a manner such that revolution never becomes necessary: In other words, act in accord with the Constitution. Protect our rights instead of infringe upon them. It is, after all, to the benefit of those in government, in order that our union and the several states be secure, to have an armed populace that can rise to the task and prevail against any and all enemies, foreign and domestic. It appears to me that many in government are on a path to make themselves Domestic Enemy Number One instead!

What "reasonable restrictions" would - or did - the Founding Fathers place upon us? None! If anyone wishes to place restrictions on our Right to keep and Bear Arms, the Founding Fathers left an open avenue for you in Article V of the Constitution. Pursue that avenue and all your arguments will be heard. "Till then, your arguments fall on deaf ears and encourage enemies of the Constitution to pass unconstitutional laws to the detriment of the security of the United States, the several states, and THE ABILITY OF WE THE PEOPLE TO DEFEND OURSELVES from criminals, despots, and tyrants.

Woody

If you want security, buy a gun. If you want longevity, learn how to use it. If you want freedom, carry it. There is nothing worth more than freedom you win for yourself. There is nothing more valuable to that end than the tools of the right that make it possible. B.E.Wood

ConstitutionCowboy
June 30, 2009, 10:43 PM
They have a thing called a "sterile environment" where everyone who enters is screened. Everyone. Except certain special exempt people (like the guards, the judge, and so on) who are supposed to be -- by definition -- trustworthy.

In an environment like that, a courtroom for example, where a murder trial is underway, it would be reasonable to restrict the carry and use of weapons. The family of the victim can be so emotionally distraught that they want to administer justice personally, and that's simply not on. The friends and family of the accused may want to take advantage of the venue to break their guy out, and that also is not on. So we hire some guys, subject them to absurd background checks, appoint them as guards, and we allow them to carry and we allow the judge to carry (had a customer who was a criminal court judge, and he'd actually been attacked in his own courtroom).

Even this can be made unnecessary with a secure courtroom, partitioned off with bullet proof glass and other barriers that will still allow a trial to proceed unencumbered yet safe for all regardless of who is armed and how they feel.

Woody

eqfan592
June 30, 2009, 11:17 PM
I'd hate to think of how much a bullet proof court room would cost, and it still wouldn't offer the same protections to family members in the court room (potential hostage situations and family retaliations could still be a huge problem).

Lou McGopher
June 30, 2009, 11:23 PM
Broadcasters must be licensed.
That's the transmitter, not the reporter.
What's the difference? What if they required licensing for printing? Would you apply the same logic and say "That's the printer, not the reporter?"

And you've never seen those Press badges, required to get access to certain events? You think they give those out to just any ol' reporter or blogger?
Yes. Although space may limit the number of attendees, there are pools established for those who cannot attend personally.

I get that they can't let everybody in all at once. But you can bet that for government functions (e.g. press conferences), they're going to be highly selective about whom they pick. And I don't mean for security purposes; I'm referring to those who are critical of them. They'll let in some "critics," but generally only those of whom they can expect to be critical in the usual way.. who may question policy but not authority... critics who play along with the game... critics who only put up the appearance of being critical.

If we permit one transgression against one of our freedoms, we've lost the argument against further transgressions against our other freedoms. It's an all-or-nothing deal. Either we refuse all attempts to infringe upon our liberty, or we will lose all of our liberty, slowly but surely.

There are no reasonable restrictions on speech. There are no reasonable restrictions on the right to self-defense.

Lou McGopher
June 30, 2009, 11:34 PM
They have a thing called a "sterile environment" where everyone who enters is screened. Everyone. Except certain special exempt people (like the guards, the judge, and so on) who are supposed to be -- by definition -- trustworthy.

In an environment like that, a courtroom for example, where a murder trial is underway, it would be reasonable to restrict the carry and use of weapons. The family of the victim can be so emotionally distraught that they want to administer justice personally, and that's simply not on.

So this distraught family member of the victim wouldn't consider shooting the suspected perpetrator outside of the courtroom? Do such people become immediately more rational and calm when they are outside of the courtroom?

If someone wants to shoot the defendant, would it be preferable for them to try it out in the street, where they may go unseen and escape, or for them to attempt it where they are surrounded by others, certain to be caught, and more likely to be thwarted by someone nearby?

Truthseeker
July 1, 2009, 02:51 AM
ArfinGreebly,

Remarkable post. I compliment you. Brilliant.

eqfan592
July 1, 2009, 03:32 AM
genius, use logic. Sure, it is possible the person would be willing to try something outside of the courtroom, but the courtroom is the only area where you KNOW for a fact that the family member will come in contact with the person in question. This is a very emotionally charged environment and situation, and to not take some basic precautions not only puts at risk the defendant, but every single person in the court room.

ArfinGreebly
July 1, 2009, 03:33 AM
Sufficiently motivated, I'm sure the defendant could be shot in jail.

That kind of wasn't the point. (And Woody is quite correct; it's possible to solve the problem another way.)

It was simply an example of an environment where it could reasonably be claimed off limits to arms.

The actual point wasn't that there can be such a thing as a "reasonable" restriction.

The point was that The primary objective of "gun control" is disarmament.

I'm really not going to engage in ever-more-contorted exercises to see if I can construct the perfect "reasonable restriction" scenario.

I wasn't trying to make the case for "reasonable restrictions" but merely to give a possible example.

Gun control is disarmament.

Crime is a straw man.

People who wish to have uncontested control put up the "crime" straw man, and then knock it down with legislation that not only doesn't accomplish its stated obectives, it encroaches ever more on the liberties of the populace in the name of "keeping them safe."

Actual logic has pretty much nothing to do with it.

As a case in point, take the Brady Bill and the Clinton AWB.

The driving impetus behind the Brady Bill, and to some degree the AWB, was the attempt on Reagan's life. He was shot with a .22 calibre revolver, a gun that had belonged to Hinckley for years.

So, what was the "logical" consequence?

Laws imposing waiting periods. Background checks. Laws banning "high" capacity magazines. Laws banning certain "evil-looking" rifles. Caliber restrictions.

Wait . . . what?

Doesn't matter that the entire thrust of the "DO SOMETHING!" legislation was a complete non-sequitur.

They had an emotionally plausible excuse to pass irrelevant -- but harmful -- legislation.

However, here's a thought: not a single one of the weapons listed in the ban was ever used to assassinate or used in an assassination attempt on a president. None.

However, a surprising number of them might have been useful in the hands of a citizenry defending itself from a government's tyranny.

They didn't ban the weapons most commonly used in crimes.

They banned the weapons that might be most useful in resisting oppression.

It was probably just a clerical error, though.

I'm sure they didn't mean it that way.

Tamlin
July 1, 2009, 04:31 AM
I guess I'm stirring the pot again - :evil: but something that Mohawk said early in this thread is true: SCOTUS has said that "reasonable restrictions" will be permitted. Do most of us agree with this? NO! But right now, this is the way it is. SCOTUS has spoken. What I took from Mohawk's posts was that if we don't go on the offensive, trying to make our own views of "reasonable restrictions" the predominantly accepted views, we'll lose a lot more because then the Bradys will be the only ones trying to define what "reasonable" means.

Here are facts for all of you people wanting facts: The Second Amendment says what it says - it's in black and white text, so what's the problem, right? Pro gunners believe that "shall not be infringed" means just that - NO infringements. Anti gunners STILL believe, even post-Heller (eg, Ted Kennedy), that it's tied to the militia, and that there is no individual right. The FACT is, both sides will never agree. The FACT is, SCOTUS has made a binding interpretation - for good and bad. The FACT is, we are stuck with "reasonable restrictions" until another SCOTUS court changes that. I'm willing to bet that won't be anytime in our lifetimes. The FACT is, Scalia's Reasonable Restrictions include persons and places. We can dig our heels in all we want, pound our chests and scream "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" until we turn blue. We can be right as rain, but it doesn't change the FACT that there WILL BE restrictions. I would much rather concede "no guns in courthouses / no guns for violent felons" - to get SCOTUS to agree with us and end it there.

christcorp
July 1, 2009, 11:30 AM
Unfortunately; Heller dealt with Washington D.C.; which is NOT a state. As such; many states don't consider the Heller decision to be precedent; nor does it apply to states which are given power by the constitution whereby Washington D.C. does not. Also; if the 2nd amendment was a black and white and crystal clear that many pro-2nd amendment folks would like to believe; then we wouldn't have 50 individual states with different levels of "Infringement" concerning permits, licenses, wait times, CC requirements, etc... Obviously, it ISN'T CLEAR or Black and White.

Also; the "Bill of Rights" is NOT a list of rights that the people have. The "Bill of Rights" is a list of things the GOVERNMENT IS PROHIBITED from doing to the people in THE PEOPLE'S QUEST for enjoying their Rights of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". What many consider to be rights in the "Bill of Rights" are simply the TOOLS we as citizens have to ensure that we can ensure our Rights of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". Basically; the people should be allowed to do ANYTHING that they wish to do, because it demonstrates their pursuit of happiness. Obviously, what a person decides to do has to be tempered with the effect they have on another citizen. This however is the basis for all other arguments. Just because one person doesn't like it or is offended by it, does that mean another person shouldn't be allowed to do/exercise such an action? Physical actions are pretty obvious. If what a person physically does, does not directly affect another person, then there is nothing that should be restricted. However; thoughts, words, religion, etc... can be a lot more vague.

But we are concerned with the 2nd amendment. The reason we have guns primarily, is to defend ourselves against personal and property crimes against us, as well as against tyranny. Even though the states have ratified the government's restrictions on the people in the constitution and bill of rights; they've allowed the states to reserve the right of interpretation on what it considers to be an infringement on the people. And THAT is the problem. Vermont can say that as a state, the people aren't required to have a concealed weapons permit, because the 2nd amendment says you can have a gun and doesn't restrict HOW you carry that gun. Yet; a state like New Jersey believes that they aren't restricting or infringing on the rights of the people, because they don't believe they are saying NO to the citizens owning guns; just setting requirements for possessing said guns. And while I think they are going over board and are infringing, there is an argument that can be made for their position.

Do the tools/actions that we call the bill of rights; and including the true rights of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" exist for ALL AMERICANS? Maybe it's ONLY for those above 18 years old??? Why??? When first established, it DIDN'T apply or exist for women or Blacks. But no matter how you look at it, our country and states restrict and infringe. Should a 10 year old boy be allowed to own a gun because it's his 2nd amendment right to preserve his LIFE and Liberty? If so; why do we allow the state and federal government to set age limits. We set limits on privileges such as driving, drinking, etc.... Yet, in the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, are we not restricting a 17 year old from HAPPINESS by saying they aren't allowed to go out drinking alcohol. (Simplify it and don't include the dangers of driving and drinking). There are a lot of things in our country/culture that a person can claim "MAKES THEM HAPPY". Yet, we restrict and infringe on their happiness by regulating or even criminalizing certain activities. Alcohol, Drugs, Sex, and many other activities are regulated and restricted. I know that some will simply call these activities privileges and NOT RIGHTS. Well again; our RIGHTS are to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The bill of rights are simply the tools that we have; that the GOVERNMENT SHALL BE RESTRICTED ON, so that we can exercise our pursuit of happiness. I.e. the 2nd amendment isn't there because it makes us HAPPY and it's fun. It's there so we can protect ourselves so the government/0thers don't take away our life or liberty and in turn our ability to pursue happiness. But it has become acceptable that when a person is NOT considered "Responsible"; that their "Rights" can be infringed on. A 12 year old has their rights infringed on by age limits, by parent's permission, and by other authorities such as the education system.

The first thing that needs to be corrected is that the bill of rights that limits the government infringements to the people, need to be made universal throughout our country. The "Rules" need to be the same in Texas, Vermont, New Jersey, California, and Florida. We need to be able to purchase, sell, carry, etc... equally in all states. A citizen should be able to go on vacation from one state to another and sell/buy/carry a weapon. If we can get this organized, I believe the rest of the rules, limitations, etc... will be obvious and will fall into place.,

ConstitutionCowboy
July 1, 2009, 11:37 AM
I guess I'm stirring the pot again - but something that Mohawk said early in this thread is true: SCOTUS has said that "reasonable restrictions" will be permitted.

Truth be told, Mohawk is wrong about this. I'll 'splain it tonight. Antinon Scalia was very clever how he wrote about this in the opinion.

Woody

yokel
July 1, 2009, 12:04 PM
It is absolutely imperative we take a zero-tolerance stance toward the infringement of ANY of our liberties.

Which would involve shaking off the old skin of much too much submissive and unquestioning acceptance of the status quo.

I fervently hope that we all have the means within us to free ourselves from the constraints of decades of negative conditioning via mass media, society, peers, parents, etc.

Please do not believe in anything merely on the authority of our politicians and the judges they appoint. But after observation and analysis, when you find anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

This absence of any connection between belief and truth is very important – and very easily forgotten. If we believe whatever we are told without testing its veracity, we are surely asking for trouble. Most of us probably think we are much more sensible than that. But, if you watch your own mind carefully, I think you will sometimes notice a belief you cannot account for.

If a belief is clearly false, but is not shaken by evidence to that effect, it is commonly called a delusion. In a person who is not mentally ill, such a delusion might be the result of self-deception, or deception by a third party, or sometimes a combination of the two.

ilbob
July 1, 2009, 12:15 PM
What is interesting is that many THR posters and others who call themselves "pro gun" are OK with many of the things in the article.
I have made my peace with the many restrictions on the RTKBA. I can't do much personally about them, so I accept they are there and that is about it.

Thats does not mean I think they are a good idea, or constitutional. Just that they exist, and I have little choice but to abide by them.

yokel
July 1, 2009, 12:38 PM
Feelings of powerlessness and isolation lead to cynicism, which further subjects us to the very forces that control our lives. We begin to accept our enslavement as just the way things are and there’s nothing a person can do about it. By adopting an attitude that “this is just the way things are and can’t be changed,” we further enslave ourselves. And we fail to take action to change the system.

Vern Humphrey
July 1, 2009, 12:48 PM
I'm an old skydiver -- I started jumping in the early '60s, when we used military surplus parachutes with panels cut out for steerability. Most jumps were from light aircraft -- we'd remove the right door, the right seat and controls, and seat two jumpers in back and one on the floor by the open door.

Now I won't deny that it's scary to sit flat on the floor beside that open door, while the plane rocks and shakes it's way into the air. How do you deal with that?

I used to sit there and watch the altimeter strapped to my chest parachute and wait for the needle to pass the thousand foot mark. Then I'd tell myself, "I'm ok now. The engine can quit, the wings fall off, or old Thud Wilson in the pilot's seat can have a hebephrenic fit -- I can get down by myself."

And that's how I look at life. I want to be in control of my own fate. Come what may, I want to rely on myself, not on the government, not on some police department that may or may not respond, but on myself. And I want the tools I'll need when the chips are down.

Mohawk
July 1, 2009, 01:39 PM
I guess I'm stirring the pot again - :evil: but something that Mohawk said early in this thread is true: SCOTUS has said that "reasonable restrictions" will be permitted. Do most of us agree with this? NO! But right now, this is the way it is. SCOTUS has spoken. What I took from Mohawk's posts was that if we don't go on the offensive, trying to make our own views of "reasonable restrictions" the predominantly accepted views, we'll lose a lot more because then the Bradys will be the only ones trying to define what "reasonable" means.

Here are facts for all of you people wanting facts: The Second Amendment says what it says - it's in black and white text, so what's the problem, right? Pro gunners believe that "shall not be infringed" means just that - NO infringements. Anti gunners STILL believe, even post-Heller (eg, Ted Kennedy), that it's tied to the militia, and that there is no individual right. The FACT is, both sides will never agree. The FACT is, SCOTUS has made a binding interpretation - for good and bad. The FACT is, we are stuck with "reasonable restrictions" until another SCOTUS court changes that. I'm willing to bet that won't be anytime in our lifetimes. The FACT is, Scalia's Reasonable Restrictions include persons and places. We can dig our heels in all we want, pound our chests and scream "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" until we turn blue. We can be right as rain, but it doesn't change the FACT that there WILL BE restrictions. I would much rather concede "no guns in courthouses / no guns for violent felons" - to get SCOTUS to agree with us and end it there.
Thank God! Somebody actually read and got my posts. I stopped posting in this thread about page 3 because the absolutists slid out the soapboxes and it turned into another "preach to the choir session" and "If you don't agree with me, you are a Brady bunch, anti 2nd, troll."
Remaining consistant with my previous posts, I reiterate. I an not for any new restrictions on firearm ownership. I feel that most restrictions currently in place are unreasonable. But the concept of absolutely NO restrictions is a fantasy that will never be acheived. Just like the banning of all firearms by the absolutists on the left is fantasy.
To counter the arguement of the "no restrictions, ever are acceptable" crowd I used the example of private property rights verses the right to carry, anology as a reasonable restriction. The sterile courtroom scenario is another good example of a "reasonable restriction". You can't ignore the 800 pound elephant in the room. That is that society will never accept mentally deficient, small children and violent/pedophile, criminals have unlimited access to guns. Although I do agree with the arguements that none of the restrictions concerning guns are gun problems but are society's problem you have to take into account the fact that society demands a background check even though it is a feel good measure that has no impact on crime, statisticly. So, those who proclaim loudly that no restrictions of any sort are acceptable, even after evaluating the private property issue/courtroom issue paint our cause into a corner. IMHO
We as a group must identify what restrictions are reasonable and fight to overturn the ones that are not and do it as a unified group. We need to own the debate concerning reasonable restrictions. Right now the left own the debate because we are so intractable in our stance. Once we define what is reasonable from our point of view then we can attack the rest of the restrictions as nanny state feel good measures that do not have their intended purpose.

Anyone reading the Heller decision will come away with the overall impression that the SC has declared that the ownership of firearms is an individual right, not to be infringed but subject to reasonable restrictions.(I'm sure the internet lawyers will cite some minutae locked away in small print and interpreted to disprove this impression). I would expect many lawsuits springing from this decision challenging various federal and local laws as being unreasonable using the same arguements that Texas Rifleman and Vern have used in this thread. This is a good thing and how we do things in America. The arguements are all valid and provide a good base to legally fight the many restrictions in place.
But until we stand together and acknowledge that, "yes there are some cases where reasonable restriction applies" we will never win the fight against antis. The gun banners will own the debate. It will be death by 1000 knfe cuts.

christcorp
July 1, 2009, 01:59 PM
Vern; I agree with you 1000%. The only problem is; we don't live on an island by ourselves. So how do you control other people wanting to be in control of their own fate when their journey crosses your journey and there is a conflict. We live in a world/society that can't be as simply as "Common Sense". In theory it could; but in reality it can't. That is the "Main" reason for laws. Is because at one time or another; 2 or more people had a conflict where 1 person believed a certain action by another person was infringing on their right to control their fate/life. And the other person believed that they were in control of their fate and wasn't affecting the other person. Well, once upon a time; this would be resolved by the 2 different people duking it out. Even countries went to war because of differences of opinions and view points. That is the whole reason for rules, laws, cooperation, etc... It doesn't mean one side gives up their rights. It means that the 2 or more sides find a DEFINITION that they both agree upon and can live within.

Granted; the bad guys/criminals will never care what the "Accepted Definition" of what's right/wrong/acceptable/etc... is. They will react strictly off of self greed. But the accepted laws/rules/policies/etc... are so that the majority of individual can agree upon the definition. Will all sides ALWAYS agree? Probably not. But without rules (Laws); there's anarchy. Even the simplest of games must have rules. You can't have a game of soccer where one person picks up a ball with their hands and starts running down the field and throws the ball in the goal. Not unless both teams agree on that behavior as being acceptable.

The 2nd amendment unfortunately happens to be the one main right/tool that can't seem to be agreed upon by enough people on the meaning and how to apply it. If there was a consensus, we'd have the same meaning throughout the country. Just about all other "Rights"/amendments in the constitution are somewhat universally accepted throughout the country. Religion, free speech, search and seizure, etc... are all pretty much understood and treated the same from Maine to Florida and Georgia to California. But the 2nd amendment seems to have too many different meanings and positions on. I believe that the majority of the country believes the same as to the meaning that the citizens have the right to Keep and bear arms. The conflict seems to be with

WHO: criminal, law abiding, 12 year old, 21 year old, sane, mentally disturbed, etc... And if we finally DO agree on who; how do we determine the eligibility?

WHERE: Many individuals/states believe that on your PRIVATE PROPERTY you have the right to keep and bear arms. But on Public Propert, you are not 100% the property owner. Therefor, the OTHER property owners have a stake and a vote on whether or not you should be allowed to keep and bear arms on "Shared Property - Public Property".

WHEN: The WHEN combines the Who and the Where. WHEN you reach a certain age??? When you are on your private property or property that is permitted? When there is No-Other means of provided security? What about when there's a conflict such as in the work place, where the individual believes there is no satisfactory level of safety for themselves, so they want to provide their OWN security; yet the business owner believes because it's THEIR property, they should have the say.

This is the reason there are laws, rules, policies, etc... Yes, we have rights. But we are not alone on the planet. There are many other people who also have rights. And their pursuit of happiness may not be on the same track as your pursuit. You being in control of your destiny is great; but it WILL cross the destiny of someone else eventually. It has to. I.e. entering private property that doesn't allow firearms, dogs, pets, etc... E.g. Renting an apartment that doesn't allow pets. Pets may be part of your PURSUIT of HAPPINESS. Why should the landlord restrict or infringe on that. Anyway; your Rights are going to cross over to other people's rights. And because of this, we have to have laws, rules, and policies that are acceptable to the mass. If not, then we go back to the days of duels, vigilante justice, mob violence, etc... And the people will believe THEY ARE RIGHT because it's "THEIR RIGHT". But the moment you have a 2nd person who believes their right is being affected by your right, there HAS to be a means of either compromising both parties or clarifying a definitive RIGHT AND WRONG.

That's why the most important thing we need to do first is "DEFINE THE RULES". The "GAME" (Bill of Rights - In this case the 2nd amendment); has already been agreed upon. However, the "Rules" aren't the same. We have different rules in different towns and states. Just like the EXERCISING of freedom of religion or speech is pretty much accepted the SAME all over the country; we need to have the EXERCISING of the right to Keep and Bear Arms to be accepted the SAME all over the country. Maybe the purpose of a CCW permit is to "Assure" the public that you ARE TRUSTWORTHY according to local, state, and federal agencies and aren't some convicted rapist or mental case with 12 split personalities and talks to gophers in the morning. Just like you don't need a license or permit to drive a car ON YOUR PROPERTY; but you need one when in public and "Potentially" at risk to others. This is just an example. But my point is; until the 2nd amendment; rather the EXERCISING of the 2nd amendment is defined the same in ALL states, we'll never get past where we're at. I don't we'll ever be able to have a time where there are NO background checks; NO form of identification required to purchase a weapon; or numerous other requirements. Why? Because even though you may disagree; there WILL be those that believe that IN PUBLIC; guns, carrying, and the use of, DOES AFFECT THEM. And the minute it is accepted that a certain action, belief, or similar has an affect on another individual; there MUST be some sort of rule, law, or policy in place that is acceptable to the mass on what is considered acceptable exercise. This isn't the GOVERNMENT infringing; it's the CITIZENS demanding. There's a BIG DIFFERENCE there. Anyway; it's a moot point until we get all 50 states to define and understand the 2nd amendment the same; and that all 50 states agree on the acceptable EXERCISE of that amendment.

CoRoMo
July 1, 2009, 02:03 PM
So how do you control other people wanting to be in control of their own fate...

:barf::barf::barf:

christcorp
July 1, 2009, 02:11 PM
Barf all you want. But my rights, your rights, other's rights, etc... are NO MORE IMPORTANT than each others. Yours isn't more important than mine or anyone elses. SO; what happens when you controlling your own destiny and pursuing your happiness crosses paths with me trying to control my own destiny??? This is the problem. You can't have the attitude of "Screw everyone else; It's my RIGHT". That doesn't fly.

CoRoMo
July 1, 2009, 02:14 PM
Yours, is the statement that stinks of elitism. I made no statement revealing a desirous itch to control my fellow man.

ArfinGreebly
July 1, 2009, 02:47 PM
BTW, in case it escaped anyone's notice, in the (admittedly flawed) example I gave of a possible "reasonable restriction" you will note that I did not propose or acknowledge background checks as reasonable.

Background checks are part of the pretense that gun control is about crime.

As others have observed, they are ineffective, intrusive, open the door to illegal government record-keeping, and serve as nothing but an impediment to the ownership of arms.

NICS is a "barrier to entry" -- a speed bump if you will -- to add "just a little more" inconvenience and cost to the process.

A little inconvenience here, a little barrier there, eventually the hassle and frustration will discourage people from acquiring more guns without actually having to ban them.

Every such barrier is an encroachment in the name of reasonability and "fighting crime."

If I'm the guy trying to take your guns, I will pay close attention to how much inconvenience you'll tolerate. Once I think you're "okay" with one barrier, I'll introduce another "reasonable" barrier. I'll wait while you howl about how awful it is, watch to see how seriously you really resist it and, once you've accepted it, I'll start work on the next barrier -- a reasonable one, of course.

And somewhere in America -- probably not far from you -- there's a guy who looks at the ever-increasing infringements and says, "ain't nuthin' I kin do about it, ain't nuthin' nobody kin do about it."

Don't be that guy.

christcorp
July 1, 2009, 03:02 PM
CoRoMo: Maybe using the word CONTROL twice in the same sentence was a mistake. But if I am controlling MY OWN FATE; and YOU are controlling YOUR OWN FATE; how do we MANAGE (Replace the word control) these 2 individuals when THEIR control of THEIR OWN FATE crosses paths with each other and there is a conflict. That is what laws are all about. It has nothing to do with elitism. As beings, we interact with other beings at least 50% of our lives. This includes the time when you are sleeping or vegging in front of the television by yourself. But you "Freedom of Speech" obviously affects other people. Your "Freedom of Religion" affects other people. Does it affect others ALL THE TIME? No, it doesn't. But there can/will be times where your words or actions will have an affect on another person. Should you be ALLOWED to continue your words and actions without ANY rules/laws/etc... What happens when another person believes that your words or actions is "Infringing" on their right to "Control their own fate"? It would be nice if we could all be respectful and considerate of each other and we would alter/refrain/temper/etc... our words and/or actions to be considerate of another person's right to control their fate. Unfortunately; there WILL be times when the 2 sides are passionate about their position and a conflict arises. And the purpose of rules/laws/policies is to put in place definitives to "Reduce the Conflict". Because if there is no means of arbitrating a conflict, the conflict will be allowed to turn into anarchy. And that's one of the things that separate us from other beings; is that we no longer just "Fight it out" and kill each other and believing that it's the "Survival of the fittest".

Mohawk
July 1, 2009, 04:28 PM
For the record, I don't believe that the NICs check does any good in crime prevention, keeping guns out of the wrong hands or limiting criminal acts with a gun; even marginally. What it does do is, assuming there are 80 million gun owners out there is make the other 220 million people feel that the government is doing something to prevent crime with guns, (which is pure fantasy). For this reason the NICs check will not go away in my lifetime. We don't have to like it or agree with it but we do have to live with it. If this country were not a majority rule society we could dictate what we want concerning gun restrictions. Until we have the power to dictate our agenda we will have to succeed by promoting our position to society one step at a time, with clear, well measured arguments.

Vern Humphrey
July 1, 2009, 04:39 PM
We don't have to like it or agree with it but we do have to live with it.
There is nothing in this that says we can't disagree with it loudly and point out what a waste of time and money it is. Nor are we prohibited from showing again and again how an end-run around the 2nd Amendment is an end-run around all our rights.

Ruggles
July 1, 2009, 04:40 PM
"For the record, I don't believe that the NICs check does any good in crime prevention, keeping guns out of the wrong hands or limiting criminal acts with a gun; even marginally."

That statement would be a hard sell at best to most folks. I am not saying that guns are not easily obtainable outside of NCIs but no doubt it has stopped a number of folks who have no business with firearms in society from obtaining them. Like any preventive measure in anything it is not foolproof, but to call it a failure because there are ways around it would be akin to saying the age limits on tobacco and alcohol are pointless.


The counter point would be that there is no way to measure it success as there is no way to determine how many folks who know they can not pass do not try to pass. If you have an issue with NICs you would be better off attacking it from a infringement of your privacy rights than as being as ineffective as you make it sound.

For the record I have no issues with NICs as I feel it is a reasonable requirement that does not infringe upon my 2nd A rights. But I know I am vastly outnumbered on this forums in that view.

ArfinGreebly
July 1, 2009, 04:42 PM
You may not realize it, christcorp, but you are arguing in favor of both prior restraint and group think.

Neither of these plays out well.

Regulating what we fear someone may do, subjecting people to scrutiny before the fact, is prior restraint. It's a bad idea.

The other thing and, in my view, the greater hazard, is consensus.

Consensus is not vision. Consensus is not principle. Consensus is not law. Consensus is the lowest common denominator of agreement in a group, not the highest.

The constitution was not written by the population at large, nor could it have been.

It is a distillation of principle unprecedented in human history, written by men who risked everything to obtain the opportunity to found a nation in liberty.

Sorry if that sounds dramatic, but I believe it's an accurate assessment of the facts.

It even required amending to obtain a consensus of the states -- not the populace at large, the individual states' leaderships.

Had it required a popular vote, it might never have been ratified.

It happens that the larger the group, the less likely any kind of principled agreement will be reached. Any agreement reached in a large group will at best be a serious compromise, at worst be an abandonment of principle in favor of baser motives.

It isn't consensus that is needed, it is accurate observance of the law -- not just any law -- the Constitution.

To imagine that there can be any kind of meaningful consensus among a population of millions in regard to a concrete principle is sheer folly.

We can't even get a consensus among the mere dozens participating in this discussion.

The compromise of principle is always detrimental, but often needed to accomplish something of value. We all know the saying, "politics is the art of the possible."

However, every effort must be made to concede as little principled ground as possible.

To begin with the assumption that the principle is unsupportable and that we're gonna have to take what we can get is to concede the debate to the rabble rouser with the loudest voice and the biggest mob.

That's a spectacularly bad idea.

We've been conceding ground in this fashion for decades, and it's time to push back.

Stand by the principle. Stand firm.

Make them sweat and hurt and bleed for every inch.

We can win.

If we stick with it, we will win.

Vern Humphrey
July 1, 2009, 04:44 PM
I am not saying that guns are not easily obtainable outside of NCIs but no doubt it has stopped a number of folks who have no business with firearms in society from obtaining them.
How many people? Give us their names.

The fact that you have no doubt doesn't mean it's true.

Old Fuff
July 1, 2009, 05:15 PM
I'll ask a question that never gets ask...

What happens to the buyer when a sale is declined?

The answer is nothing, unless they file an appeal, or the question isn't resolved within 3 business days.

So if the buyer who was turned down - be it because they are a prohibited person, straw buyer, or an ordinary law-abiding citizen caught up in an honest mistake - can simply walk away, and the bad guys (and girls) can still get a weapon - probably from an illegal source.

So the background checks aren't really doing anything more then causing a delay.

Like other gun control statutes, it makes some people feel warm and fuzzy, but in a context of keeping guns out of the wrong hands it has little effect.

.gov can tell you how many sales were declined, but they have no numbers concerning how many of the individuals involved simply went elsewhere.

christcorp
July 1, 2009, 05:28 PM
I simply do not believe that this is a "Black and White" and extremist topic and some people want to believe it is. If it WAS black and white and ever so clear; then we wouldn't have 50 states with 50 different positions on gun ownership and use. And, as long as there are going to be at least 2 people who disagree with each other on the possession and use of guns; BOTH believing that "Their Rights" are being violated; then we will HAVE to have some sort of arbitration and rules/laws/policies on the subject. This can't be argued; it is human nature. Until ALL 50 STATES HAVE THE SAME REQUIREMENTS or whatever term you want use for the legal possession, carry, and use of guns; it is impossible for either side to say "WE ARE RIGHT".

I know there are extremists who believe that is a liberal point of view. It's not; and I am able to overlook people's passion that sometimes blinds them from seeing OTHER people's rights and passions. But the fact, yes FACT, remains; that the entire country, including the courts, don't interpret the 2nd amendment and the exercise of, the same way that you do. And until we can get the entire nation to interpret the 2nd amendment similarly like they do the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th amendment; we won't be able to get beyond the arguments we are at currently.

It's a matter of perspective. If you are from a state like Vermont, Wyoming, Montana, etc... then you probably don't see a lot of problems. Instant checks are exactly what they say. Instant. The burden of proof is on the state. if they can't find reason not to let you buy a gun, then you get to buy a gun. However; if you're from New Jersey or California; your perspective can be a lot more cynical. You would believe that the entire country goes through the same crap that you do. But that's your perspective.

None of this has anything to do with making laws because of what a person MIGHT DO. It has to do with that our 3 RIGHTS; to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" is defined differently between people. And while you believe that the 2nd amendment is a tool that you are afforded to protect those 3 rights; there are some citizens that don't view it that way. And the courts have NEVER defined that issue. The closest was Heller (Which doesn't apply to states because D.C. ISN'T a state and sets NO PRECEDENCE). But even that case said that it was an INDIVIDUAL'S right and not a STATE'S right to keep and bear arms. But at no time did the court ever say that the states didn't retain the power to determine the "PROCESS" in which the individual was exercising their 2nd amendment right. So as I said previously; until we get ALL 50 STATES to see the 2nd amendment the same way; and make the process the same among all states; we'll never get beyond where we are. And until then, there will always be at least 2 people who will disagree on a definition or usage of the words. And as such, laws/rules/policies will have to stay in place as a means of arbitration. That is the whole purpose of laws/rules/policies. Arbitration as an acceptable decision; to prevent anarchy and vigilante justice.

Vern Humphrey
July 1, 2009, 05:28 PM
ATF was once asked about this -- how come you brag about how many "dangerous criminals" were thwarted, but such a miniscule number prosecuted?

They finally came up with an "answer" -- they told of an elderly Black gentleman who was turned down because he had prison record. It seems when he was a young lad, years ago, he was caught with a pack of playing cards that had pictures of naked white women on the backs.

Gee, they must be proud of enforcing Jim Crow laws after all these years.

Dave Workman
July 1, 2009, 05:38 PM
This debate/discussion is pretty much over. IMHO

Evidently not!

CoRoMo
July 1, 2009, 05:40 PM
If it WAS black and white and ever so clear; then we wouldn't have 50 states with 50 different positions on gun ownership and use.

This makes absolutely no sense at all. Just because different groups of people have come to different conclusions doesn't mean they are all somehow correct because it is a gray area. A lot of people are wrong, period.

The reason states have different positions, on gun ownership and use, is because the elected elites, who would love nothing more than to disarm you and me, are slowly but surely chipping away at our individual liberties. Unfortunately for them, this nation is divided up into at least 50 different venues in which this chipping away must be done separately. They would greatly prefer to do this in large decisive swipes at the federal level. Therefore, we have 50 different examples of infringement, in varied states of "progress", depending on which side of the gun taking you find yourself.

Laws are not erected to deter crime. Laws are erected to control the law abiding, who need no control.

It never ceases to amaze me how many of 'us' beg to be controlled, or are all too eager to control a free and law abiding citizenry.

TheFallGuy
July 1, 2009, 06:08 PM
I feel that certain gun control measures need to be in place. I have no problem with a background check or the like. Heck I would even support a mental health screening before one is legally able to obtain a firearm.

I am trying to figure out why a shotgun with a 12 in barrel is illegal when an 18 inch barrel is legal. I doubt a SBS is more dangerous. If it is the ability to conceal, I can conceal a handgun much more easily.

I don't understand some states making .50 cal's illegal. I have yet to hear of a crime where one has been used. I am sure crimes have been committed with them, but crimes have also been committed with Toyota Priuses. I realize a .50 bmg round will penetrate body armor, but I think my .308 deer rifle could do the same with appropriate loads.

I don't understand why a regular guy can't own a full auto made after 1986. I wouldn't buy one because I can't afford to feed one but they are fun.

I don't understand why I can't own a suppressor for my .22 lr (I live in MN where they are illegal). Sure I could commit a crime with because it is stealthy, but my knife is pretty quiet too.

I think reasonable gun laws end at firearms safety training and background checks. I would be reasonably happy if gun laws stayed the same (as it is unlikely they will change for the better).

Vern Humphrey
July 1, 2009, 06:14 PM
This:
I feel that certain gun control measures need to be in place. I have no problem with a background check or the like. Heck I would even support a mental health screening before one is legally able to obtain a firearm.
Results in this:
I am trying to figure out why a shotgun with a 12 in barrel is illegal when an 18 inch barrel is legal. I doubt a SBS is more dangerous. If it is the ability to conceal, I can conceal a handgun much more easily.
Accept one nonsense gun control measure at face value, without ever questioning if it works -- if it's worth giving up you rights to accomplish nothing at all -- and you're stuck with accepting other nonsense measures.

Strings
July 1, 2009, 06:15 PM
>I feel that certain gun control measures need to be in place. I have no problem with a background check or the like. Heck I would even support a mental health screening before one is legally able to obtain a firearm.<

Ahhh... but who decides what is "just cause" to bar you? That bar can be lowered steadily, until nobody but government goons can have guns...

CoRoMo
July 1, 2009, 06:19 PM
...the pretense that gun control is about crime.

Far too many people believe this fallacy.

TheFallGuy
July 1, 2009, 06:38 PM
>I feel that certain gun control measures need to be in place. I have no problem with a background check or the like. Heck I would even support a mental health screening before one is legally able to obtain a firearm.<

Ahhh... but who decides what is "just cause" to bar you? That bar can be lowered steadily, until nobody but government goons can have guns...
Well I think we can agree that the majority of mass shootings were committed by mentally disturbed people. The requirements (in my dream world, and yes I realize it is a dream to have gun control that can't be bastardized by anti gun nut jobs) would be people that have been institutionalized for more then 72 hours, or are on prescription medication for severe depression, or to control hallucinations, or schizophrenia, and the like. Of course I would allow these requirements to be lifted if a QUALIFIED psychologist would sign off stating that a "questionable" person is stable. Again-note that is said that this is a pipe dream and would of course not work. If it could work, I would support it.

christcorp
July 1, 2009, 06:43 PM
This makes absolutely no sense at all. Just because different groups of people have come to different conclusions doesn't mean they are all somehow correct because it is a gray area. A lot of people are wrong, period.

Hey, lets see how much we can distort what was said....

It was never said that ALL these people were correct because it was "GRAY". Matter of fact; each of these groups.... Including YOU AND YOURS.... believes that they are correct and that it's NOT GRAY. And you might believe that a LOT of people are wrong. Period. But I think that you are wrong. Period. Rights are nothing more than words, with meaning, that must be respected in order for it to be a right. In other words; you can say that you have the RIGHT to free speech all you want; but if NO ONE respects that right, and every time you open your mouth they tell you to SHUT UP; then your right means absolutely nothing. A right isn't a right if you can't exercise it. And you can only exercise a right if others respect it and ALLOW you to exercise it. Same with laws, rules, or anything else written on paper.

Laws are not erected to deter crime. Laws are erected to control the law abiding, who need no control.

Sorry, but this too is not correct. Law abiding people DO NEED control; and that is the whole PURPOSE of laws. Those who don't respect the law will not abide by it anyway, so the law really doesn't apply to them. But for the law abiding person, it is a set of boundaries or rules so that the masses are all "Playing on the same field" with the same set of rules. You have the right to free speech.... So why does this forum set up rules that don't allow you to get personal with your speech? Why aren't you permitted from making personal verbal attacks? You're a "Law Abiding Citizen", you don't need control. Well obviously you do. Because we ALL have a different opinion, we need "Rules"; aka LAWS; to set ground rules so that there is an acceptable playing field that all those involved are playing by the same rules. That is why LAWS exist. And the only difference between "LAWS" and "Rules/Policies/etc.." is that laws are designed to punish the infraction as a means of deterrence. I.e. My store can have a POLICY that says "NO PETS". You either choose to respect or not to respect that policy/rule. If you don't respect it and enter my establishment; then I will ask you to leave. That is MY right. If you refuse; then you've broken the "LAW" of illegal trespassing in which you can be punished for. And that's because you infringed on MY RIGHTS of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Based on your perception, we don't need ANY LAWS for ANY REASON because "Criminals won't respect or abide by them anyway ----- and Law Abiding people DON'T NEED any control." So tell me; why do we have ANY LAWS?

Kwanger
July 1, 2009, 07:06 PM
I see this has unsurprisingly devolved into the usual ranty-rantedness.

I think it all pretty much boils down to this at the end of the day:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

I will say, however, that some people on here (the most vehement of supporters, no less...) often seem to completely forget the first 13 words don't apply; and especially the first 4. Nothing well regulated about sitting about ranting about the last half of it.

And before anyone pipes up, I am well aware that "well regulated" does not mean "regulation"....but I'd like to believe it means that some sort of competency is required to perform such a duty - which again is something that some people think need not apply in their selective reading of the 2nd Amendment.

TexasRifleman
July 1, 2009, 07:12 PM
And before anyone pipes up, I am well aware that "well regulated" does not mean "regulation"....but I'd like to believe it means that some sort of competency is required to perform such a duty - which again is something that some people think need not apply in their selective reading of the 2nd Amendment.

So what you are saying is that the Supreme Court doesn't know what it's talking about in Heller?

Because they said flat out that the first half puts no burden or duty or requirement on those protected by the right, that it's merely a reasoning for the right to exist in the first place.

Seriously, you can't possibly still try to make the argument post Heller that some "competency" as you put it is a requirement for the right to exist.

That argument is settled.

Reasonable restrictions is what Scalia said, and he listed them. You really should read the Heller ruling.

TheFallGuy
July 1, 2009, 07:14 PM
Kwanger- I like the way you said that, competency. I could not agree with you more. I would just like that competency to extend to being mentally stable.

ArfinGreebly
July 1, 2009, 07:54 PM
Talked to a pediatrician lately?

Nurses?

Various doctors?

There's a line being foisted on the medical community that "guns are dangerous" and that an "obsession" with guns is "unhealthy."

Some doctors even have gun-access questions on their new patient questionnaires.

It's been discussed on THR a number of times.

Proposing that prospective gun owners submit to some sort of mental evaluation is a losing strategy when the default medical position is that wanting a gun means there's something wrong with you. Guns are dangerous, therefore the people who want them or have them are dangerous.

Look, a number of you keep forgetting something very, very important: gun registration, licensed gun dealers, background checks, all of that didn't exist before 1968. I grew up in that environment. Crime of all kinds was lower then.

There was no problem to solve.

Legislators solved it anyway.

That's horribly broken.

The idea that a nation just assumes that, because lawmakers create a piece of legislation, there must be a good reason for it . . . that's very wrong-headed.

I would recommend that we stop looking for ways to justify the indignity and injustice that has been done to us and start pushing back hard.

Do you get that?

There.
Was.
No.
Problem.

And yet . . .

They passed a law to fix it.

Those of you who feel that good people need to be controlled and that everyone needs a background check ('cuz you never know who might be a criminal) and that we don't have rights until everyone agrees on them (okay, that's just weird) need to step back and contemplate that.

They fixed what wasn't broke. And they've been "fixing" it ever since.

Don't assume that because they keep "fixing" that there's anything broken.

It wasn't then, it isn't now.

bigione
July 1, 2009, 08:13 PM
There is a penalty for libel or slander. There is a penalty for murder or man slaughter. You can do either and face the consequences. The restrictions on the 2nd are as unacceptal as they are for the 1st. Your rights end where mine begine.

Kwanger
July 1, 2009, 08:14 PM
So what you are saying is that the Supreme Court doesn't know what it's talking about in Heller?

Because they said flat out that the first half puts no burden or duty or requirement on those protected by the right, that it's merely a reasoning for the right to exist in the first place.

Seriously, you can't possibly still try to make the argument post Heller that some "competency" as you put it is a requirement for the right to exist.

That argument is settled.

Reasonable restrictions is what Scalia said, and he listed them. You really should read the Heller ruling.
Fair enough, and I'm not arguing against it, merely pointing out that some people get carried away with the latter part of the amendment, sometimes to an extreme.

If we are going to be completely pro 2A, we need to always consider the entirety of it, Heller ruling or not. Selective picking of it in an extreme pro sense is just as bad as being selective for the other side of the fence.

t165
July 1, 2009, 09:00 PM
This seems like a good place to raise this question again. I have never gotten a good answer in the past when I raised it. I'll try and word it a little different this time.

I read on gun forums all the time individuals stating to leave the 2nd Amendment alone. Some individuals (like Ted Nugent) believe it gives them unrestricted firearm posession rights. However, after the founding fathers signed the 2nd Amendment they traveled back to their respected states which had many gun restriction laws restricting vast segments of the population. There was gun ownership/posession laws in place before and after the 2nd Amendment. It seems to me the founding fathers did not want the firearms laws/restrictions resting with the federal government. However, they had no problem with restricting gun ownership/possession at the state level.

There has always been gun control law in our country. When Colombus first arrived do you really think all the sailors with him were permitted to own/carry firearms at will? While I have not done an exhaustive study on firearm laws prior to and after the adoption of the 2nd Amendment it is clear that restricting gun laws were in place both before and after. Remember the wild, wild, west...some of our most famous lawmen routinely took firearms from individuals. Thats right...many gripe about Chicago and their gun laws (which I do not agree with) but what about Tombstone, Arizona and Wyatt Earp. Didn't he enforce no gun carry laws through Arizona state laws regardless of what the 2nd Amendment states? I guess we should add Mr. Earp and several other oldtime lawmen to the "Brady Bunch".

Oh...my question. If the 2nd Amendment grants unrestricted firearm ownership/posession then why has gun restriction/ownership laws always been in existence both before and after the 2nd Amendment was adopted?

I own firearms. I shoot and hunt. But I do not want meth-head joe-blow six blocks over having a firearm. I do not want mentally ill anarchist-Andy running around his yard with an AR, hiding in the bushes, and yelling about the voices in his head telling him to shoot somebody, to have access to firearms. Personally I find restricting firearms to these types "reasonable" and I have personally taken their firearms away from them. Now, the meth-head Joe and looney-tune anarchist Andy types will disagree but too bad...the vast majority of Americans agree with me and that...as they say...is the way it is!

TexasRifleman
July 1, 2009, 09:07 PM
Oh...my question. If the 2nd Amendment grants unrestricted firearm ownership/posession then why has gun restriction/ownership laws always been in existence both before and after the 2nd Amendment was adopted?

If you will look closely you will see that it was almost 100% race/class based.

The belief at the time was that the Bill of Rights was for "free men" and not everyone fell into that category. Race or income level could exclude one from "free men". Thankfully we have risen above those beliefs for the most part and now realize that just by virtue of being born human one is a "free man".

There were very few if any restrictions on what "free men" did with firearms.

As for what Columbus did that's just a silly comparison. The government of Spain ruled Columbus' decisions first of all, and second of all Columbus would have been on a "military mission" in modern equivalent, being on a mission for the Government of Spain.

In modern times US citizens in the military subject themselves, voluntarily for the moment, to a different set of rules and restrictions called the Uniform Code of Military Justice and they do in fact give up temporarily some of the protections of the Bill of Rights.

Those sound like reasonable answers?

ConstitutionCowboy
July 1, 2009, 09:39 PM
In DC v. Heller. at 54, Scalia wrote:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

This excerpt contains "purpose" which the Second Amendment does not protect. It is also pertinent to note that it doesn't make much difference whether the right secured by the Second Amendment should be unlimited or not. The Founding Fathers secured the right as if it is unlimited. I, for one, believe it is unlimited as did the Founding Fathers. How else could We the People grant unlimited power to the Union to defend us if we didn't have that unlimited power ourselves?

Further along at 54 and 55, Scalia wrote:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

(Note the footnote #26 which we'll get to in a minute.) Scalia did not say all the longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms are sacrosanct or are "reasonable restrictions". He wrote that they didn't do a complete analysis of the scope of the Second Amendment and could not say those "restrictions" were in doubt without a complete analysis. He left it wide open for a future analysis to make such a definitive call. All he said was that such a call wasn't made in this deliberation(DC v. Heller).

Now I'll address Footnote 26 in which Scalia wrote:

26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

What can we glean from this? That his list of restrictions was incomplete? Yes, but more important is the inclusion of the phrase "presumptively lawful". The opinion of the Court is only PRESUMING these regulatory measures("reasonable restrictions") are constitutional. That's twice Scalia made that point. This is the Court passing the buck on to the next case to come along that would address the issue of the constitutionality of all of these presumptively - for the time being - lawful regulatory measures.

There is a reason the issue of these presumptively lawful regulatory measures was not addressed. My guess would be to secure a fifth concurrence, and I would further guess that the fifth concurrence would be that of Justice Kennedy.

It can be said of Justice Antonin Scalia that he artfully crafted the majority opinion in DC v. Heller and secured the fact that the Second Amendment protects a right of the individual, and made it clear that this is just the beginning of the denouement.

Woody

TexasRifleman
July 1, 2009, 09:52 PM
Fantastic post!!!

AKElroy
July 1, 2009, 10:05 PM
Since reading numerous posts by both ContitutionCowboy and TexasRifleman, I will refrain from adding anything other than this; I would like to fully associate myself with their comments. I bow to your collective superior wordsmithyness. Well done--

christcorp
July 1, 2009, 10:46 PM
There is a penalty for libel or slander. There is a penalty for murder or man slaughter. You can do either and face the consequences. The restrictions on the 2nd are as unacceptal as they are for the 1st. Your rights end where mine begine.

So, based on this logic; if a person commits a crime and shoots someone; after they serve their time and are released from prison; they should not be restricted and should be allowed to possess guns again? And after the child molester is convicted and serves their time in prison and is released; there should be no problem with them working at the pre-school? Yes, my rights end where yours starts; but yours ALSO ends where mine starts.

Look, a number of you keep forgetting something very, very important: gun registration, licensed gun dealers, background checks, all of that didn't exist before 1968. I grew up in that environment. Crime of all kinds was lower then.

This argument doesn't hold any water. You're trying to argue that less gun laws reduce crime; and therefor the reason we have more crime today, is because we have more gun laws. Guns are a tool. A tool used to "Defend ourselves" against crime. The guns themselves don't commit crimes; nor do they stop crimes. Remember: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". Crime in the 60's compared to today has to do with numerous social variables and not guns. I wouldn't be surprised if per capita, there were MORE guns in our country today than in the 60's. And based on your theory; we should have less crime. I personally don't believe that our crime rate is any higher or lower because of requiring a permit for a CCW; or doing a 45 second background check.

rbernie
July 1, 2009, 10:57 PM
So, based on this logic; if a person commits a crime and shoots someone; after they serve their time and are released from prison; they should not be restricted and should be allowed to possess guns again? And after the child molester is convicted and serves their time in prison and is released; there should be no problem with them working at the pre-school? If they cannot be trusted to mingle unfettered in free society, then they dang well should not have been let out.

t165
July 1, 2009, 11:00 PM
Okay TexasRifleman...I got you to admit the meaning of the 2nd Amendment has been amended over it's short life. You admitted it was flawed at inception. While you offered admissions the flaws were based upon race/class you still avoided the fact millions of white citizens were denied posession/carry rights based solely on geographics absent of social standing. A fact that was realized before the 2nd Amendment was written and adopted, and which will continue well past our lifetimes. Regardless of where the citizens of the original colonies migrated from they brought their culture/firearm restrictions with them. NEVER...NEVER in the history of this country have there not been restricting firearm laws. Before arguments can be taken seriously in support of the 2nd Amendment history has to be addressed. All too many citizens think there was a time when there were no laws which fettered firearm ownership, possession, or rights to carry them. That is a false assumption. I cringe everytime someone rants gun control is some new fad created just to upset them and take their rights away. The roots of gun control run deep, and yes, the writers of the 2nd Amendment also wrote, passed, and practiced gun control legislation at the state level.

And the UCMJ was not mentioned by me...you did use it to try and avoid the question I asked as to prevailing firearm restrictions prior to the adoption of the 2nd Amendment. I'll let you off the hook on that one. However, after the 2nd Amendment was firmly in place, when cities and towns were cropping up all over the United States of America over the last couple of centuries why did citizens have to relinquish their right to carry/own firearms? If the 2nd Amendment has always given American citizens the "right" of ownership/possession/carry concerning firearms then why all throughout the history of our nation have we had gun control? Nobody will give me a straight answer because nobody has a straight answer! Show me one period in America's history when there was not gun control before or after the 2nd Amendment was created.

You can't! Because there has always been and always will be gun control. I do not want to live in California. Illinois or similar jurisdictions. I do not agree with their draconian firearm restriction laws which punish the law abiding citizen due to the actions of common criminals. But arguing the 2nd Amendment gives absolute firearm rights to all citizens is simply foolish. Again, show me at anytime in America's history the 2nd Amendment actually accomplished that.

TexasRifleman
July 1, 2009, 11:02 PM
No, the Second Amendment itself was never flawed, it was a flawed belief of the times that "free men" was a limited class.

That is now rectified. The Second Amendment itself has never changed and was never mistaken. The entire Constitution is written around the assumption that "free men" are protected. It's not just a 2A thing.


Show me one period in America's history when there was not gun control before or after the 2nd Amendment was created.

And as I said early in the thread, gun control is simply an admission that other social programs have failed.

You're proud of that?

And the UCMJ was not mentioned by me...you did use it to try and avoid the question I asked as to prevailing firearm restrictions prior to the adoption of the 2nd Amendment. I'll let you off the hook on that one.

No, you suggested that Christopher Columbus' crew was not given Second Amendment rights. I state that being in the military in the US removes one from Second Amendment protections as well, but that is a voluntary submission to the UCMJ upon enlistment, nothing forced. Also that Columbus crew preexisted the Constitution.

But arguing the 2nd Amendment gives absolute firearm rights to all citizens is simply foolish. Again, show me at anytime in America's history the 2nd Amendment actually accomplished that.

The Second Amendment does not say "citizens". Not sure where you read that.

The Bill of Rights has always been applied to "free men" and thankfully that definition has been changed over the years to no longer exclude minorities or income brackets but it never said "citizens".

You need to read some more.

And, in the end, your post is the what I talk about all the time. You will claim to be pro gun, pro 2A, yet you gleefully post when you think you have me on some technicality about how the Second Amendment is broken or flawed.

Wow

Ruggles
July 1, 2009, 11:21 PM
"Quote:
I am not saying that guns are not easily obtainable outside of NCIs but no doubt it has stopped a number of folks who have no business with firearms in society from obtaining them.
How many people? Give us their names.

The fact that you have no doubt doesn't mean it's true."


And you really believe that crimes involving firearms have never been prevented because of a NICs check? Never?

I think that you know that is not true. As I said how could I give names of folks who never tried to pass NICs because they knew they could not? Thus if they did not try to pass the NICs and obtain a firearm legally because they knew they could not the law was successful was it not? No way to prove or disprove it's success based on that alone.

Again if you do not like NICs base you disagreement on facts other than it's success or failure. Neither it's success or it's failure can be proven statistically.

TexasRifleman
July 1, 2009, 11:31 PM
And you really believe that crimes involving firearms have never been prevented because of a NICs check? Never?

I think that you know that is not true.

So the thing you are missing is that the Second Amendment names a specifically protected right.
If you want to insist on restrictions you need to be able to PROVE that the restrictions help society.

You can't go on "I think the restrictions probably help". You need to be able to show that the good to society far outweighs the bad.

Can you show the data for NICS to back that up?

Again if you do not like NICs base you disagreement on facts other than it's success or failure. Neither it's success or it's failure can be proven statistically.

And you admit that it's good for society cannot be proven, yet you are happy that it's there.

Again, I don't know what to say other than ...... Wow.

At the end of the day it is absolutely proven that the crime rate did not change when the NICS check was implemented by Brady.

The crime rate now is about the same as it was before Brady.

If it helps so much how do you explain that? You can't.

Ruggles
July 1, 2009, 11:43 PM
"And, in the end, your post is the what I talk about all the time. You will claim to be pro gun, pro 2A, yet you gleefully post when you think you have me on some technicality about how the Second Amendment is broken or flawed."

And you try to present yourself as some type of expert on the 2nd A that should not or can not be questioned when you give your view on it. His point was valid, seconds after the ink was dry on the 2nd A there were many excluded by it living in America. There have also been many in the years since. Your attempt to try and divert the blame for this away from the 2nd A onto the very men who wrote the 2nd A is silly. The 2nd A is nothing more than these men's views and beliefs on the subject and had they wanted or intended it to include everyone they could have easily worded it to do so.

Is the 2nd A flawed? I would say that if it did not have it's flaws it would not be the subject of so much debate, it would be clear beyond any legal reproach. That does not make it a failure, just flawed like everything created by man is. Minds much greater versed on legal and historical matters than any on this forum have debated this subject for decades, and have yet to reach a conclusion.

Your attempt at elitism is boring at best. Because someone does not fully agree with you on the exact meaning of the 2nd A does not make them anti 2nd A or anti gun. Your view and attempt to label someone is pretty shallow on that matter IMO.

WOW back at ya.

t165
July 1, 2009, 11:50 PM
You're avoiding the question TexasRifleman! You are waffling...semantics. Offering only your interperation of the 2nd Amendment. Show me one period in American history, actual reality, when gun control was not practiced in America. Not some make believe land far, far, away! You can't...because it never happened. It never will happen in America. The 2nd Amendment never granted absolute firearm rights in the history of America. And you can never prove it did.

Of course the 2nd Amendment was flawed. If it meant one thing then and now means another then it was flawed! Period! The 2nd Amendment was written by men. Law means more than just mere words. The nexus of the words and intentions absolutely necessitates the 2nd Amendment was flawed at inception.

And social programs. Are you a liberal? Maybe we should just throw money at programs to teach criminals to be good people and give them all firearms so we don't violate their rights. Good Grief! I'm glad you are in the small minority with the social programs you seem to champion. Criminal use firearms to break laws and injure/kill their fellow man. Are you so narcissistic to believe a criminal is actually going to listen to you and start behaving? Not!

The laws of America were gleaned from the laws which the original settlers brought with them. There were gun control laws both prior to and after the 2nd Amendment was adopted. I challenge you to prove otherwise. And the founding fathers were adopting and practicing these gun control laws. I challenge you to prove otherwise...even though I know you can't.

I'm not going to tell you to read some more. I will try to encourage you to open your closed mind and understand. Try and understand your interperation of the 2nd amendment is not based on reality. It has never been and will never be what you wish it to be. I have challenged you to prove a single point in time in America's history either prior to or after the adoption of the 2nd Amendment gun control was not practiced in America. I will challenge you again to prove it...even though I know you can't! :)

My observations are based upon fact, reality. If you can prove me wrong then I'll concede. Your argumenst are not based upon fact. They are based on personal interperation and what you want to believe. Except for individuals who have proven themselves untrustworthy by violent criminal actions or mental unstability I think all mature individuals should be able to own and carry firearms. These are my personal feeling and I respect others who's opinions differ even though I may disagree.

But I will not jump on the false bandwagon which trys to make the case the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution grants unfettered gun rights when history proves it never has. Particularly when the very authors of the 2nd Amendment were passing and practicing gun control laws at the same time they were adopting the 2nd Amendment. The facts are the facts. Everything else is BS!

Ruggles
July 1, 2009, 11:55 PM
"Quote:
And you really believe that crimes involving firearms have never been prevented because of a NICs check? Never?

I think that you know that is not true.
So the thing you are missing is that the Second Amendment names a specifically protected right.
If you want to insist on restrictions you need to be able to PROVE that the restrictions help society.

You can't go on "I think the restrictions probably help". You need to be able to show that the good to society far outweighs the bad.

Can you show the data for NICS to back that up?

Quote:
Again if you do not like NICs base you disagreement on facts other than it's success or failure. Neither it's success or it's failure can be proven statistically.
And you admit that it's good for society cannot be proven, yet you are happy that it's there.

Again, I don't know what to say other than ...... Wow.

At the end of the day it is absolutely proven that the crime rate did not change when the NICS check was implemented by Brady.

The crime rate now is about the same as it was before Brady.

If it helps so much how do you explain that? You can't."


Why is it always people from Dallas / Ft. Worth that always think they are the elite of Texas? Newsflash your metroplex stinks to high Heaven and your traffic sucks almost as bad as your football team!

As to the rest of your points......

I really can not (nor do I care to for that matter) break it down any more for you than what I have already said. You attempt to cherish facts above emotions, I would suggest to you that you are posting on a wee bit more emotion than you would like to admit.

I can tell you one fact, no one is going to change their minds on this matter based on this or any other thread.

Old Fuff
July 1, 2009, 11:56 PM
Again if you do not like NICs base you disagreement on facts other than it's success or failure. Neither it's success or it's failure can be proven statistically.

It is also true that it cannot be proven, statistically or otherwise, how many NICS rejects don't later obtain firearms through sources other then an FFL dealer.

There is also no correlation between the number of NICS rejections and levels – up or down – of crimes committed with firearms.

The reasons are fairly obvious. Criminals and other prohibited persons do not have to obtain firearms from licensed dealers, and when they do a straw buyer is usually used. If the straw buyer themselves are not prohibited from buying or owning firearms it is highly unlikely that a background check will be effective in stopping the transaction. Some prohibited persons are cleaver enough to use forged identification, and again the background check is unlikely to block the sale.

Statutes that cannot be effectively enforced against those that they are supposed to control are useless for they’re intended purpose. That they control the behavior of others makes no meaningful difference except to waste money and resources.

Ruggles
July 1, 2009, 11:58 PM
"The facts are the facts. Everything else is BS!"

Only when they are his facts from what I can read into his post, anybody else's facts do not seem to carry any weight he can not explain away in his mind. I would love to help you keep tearing this egotistical fella down a bit but I have to work in the morning. Keep it up he seems to be on the ropes now.

Ruggles
July 2, 2009, 12:03 AM
"It is also true that it cannot be proven, statistically or otherwise, how many NICS rejects don't later obtain firearms through sources other then an FFL dealer."

I agree, if fact that is what I said.

"Statutes that cannot be effectively enforced against those that they are supposed to control are useless for they’re intended purpose. That they control the behavior of others makes no meaningful difference except to waste money and resources."


I am glad we agree that NICs is not one of these then. As we both seem to agree that we can not determine it's success or failure there is no need to do away with it. Nor for that matter is it unconstitutional so there is no 2nd A grounds to argue against it.

:neener:

TexasRifleman
July 2, 2009, 12:07 AM
Only when they are his facts from what I can read into his post, anybody else's facts do not seem to carry any weight he can not explain away in his mind. I would love to help you keep tearing this egotistical fella down a bit but I have to work in the morning. Keep it up he seems to be on the ropes now.

Again, I keep seeing this "facts speak for themselves" etc.

Show facts, provably so, where gun laws have made society safer.

That's all I have ever asked. That's all.

Not ego, not being a smart ass, just asking someone to show statistical evidence of a gun law making a long term difference in the gun crime rate.

You guys keep insisting restrictions have always been there, so show where they have helped.

You attack me personally, you attack the things I say, but you never offer any evidence of gun laws helping society.

It should be simple to do if the things you claim are correct.

I am glad we agree that NICs is not one of these then. As we both seem to agree that we can not determine it's success or failure there is no need to do away with it. Nor for that matter is it unconstitutional so there is no 2nd A grounds to argue against it.

And you are OK with this? A law exists that you admit has no provable benefit but you are very happy to keep it in place.

I have asked for an explanation of why and I get personal attacks.

I'll try again.

Why do you justify the existence of a law that you admit has no provable benefit to society?

lions
July 2, 2009, 12:11 AM
t165:
Show me one period in American history, actual reality, when gun control was not practiced in America.

Just because there has never been a period without gun control does not make gun control right. Pretty simple to me.

waterhouse
July 2, 2009, 12:29 AM
I can tell you one fact, no one is going to change their minds on this matter based on this or any other thread.

I can tell you with absolute certainty that this is not a fact. As I stated earlier in this thread, I sent a friend a link to the last time we discussed this (a few months ago). After reading it, he changed his opinion on the NICS issue.

The actual debaters may not change each others minds, but the fence sitters get to read both sides of the argument and decide for themselves. My friend, who doesn't own one gun, went from thinking every single sale should have a background check to thinking that background checks are a waste of tax dollars. That's a pretty big turn around, all thanks to these types of discussions.

ConstitutionCowboy
July 2, 2009, 12:32 AM
... If the 2nd Amendment has always given American citizens the "right" of ownership/possession/carry concerning firearms then why all throughout the history of our nation have we had gun control? Nobody will give me a straight answer because nobody has a straight answer!...

To begin with, the Second Amendment doesn't give anyone anything. It cannot be genuinely discussed in those terms. The Second Amendment prohibits government to infringe the right. We've had gun control because enough of us who are in government have disobeyed the Second Amendment for any number of fallacious reasons. That is the straight answer. It is just that simple.

Any infringements upon the right to keep and bear arms prior to the Second Amendment are irrelevant.

And you really believe that crimes involving firearms have never been prevented because of a NICs check? Never?

A NICS check will never stop a crime. If ever a crime is committed, it is committed regardless of any law whatsoever (unless the law itself is criminal to begin with - meaning unconstitutional).

Again(,) if you do not like NICs(,) base you disagreement on facts other than it's success or failure. Neither it's success or it's failure can be proven statistically.

Fact: The NICS is unconstitutional. The only success that can be documented on the success or failure - depending upon your your view of the goal of the NICS - is that it infringed upon the right of everyone who bought a gun from a dealer since its inception.

The 2nd A is nothing more than these men's views and beliefs on the subject and had they wanted or intended it to include everyone they could have easily worded it to do so.

Again, your argument is fallacious. The Second Amendment prohibits government to infringe the right; it doesn't grant the right to anyone in particular or in general. Any and all infringements upon this right of any and all individuals is a result of unconstitutional government infringements upon the right.

Is the 2nd A flawed? I would say that if it did not have it's flaws it would not be the subject of so much debate, it would be clear beyond any legal reproach. That does not make it a failure, just flawed like everything created by man is. Minds much greater versed on legal and historical matters than any on this forum have debated this subject for decades, and have yet to reach a conclusion.

The Second Amendment is perfect. Unscrupulous people in government are to blame for any discrepancies you perceive in the Second Amendment. Some of those greater minds you speak of were/are disingenuous and bent on an agenda.

I am glad we agree that NICs is not one of these then. As we both seem to agree that we can not determine it's success or failure there is no need to do away with it. Nor for that matter is it unconstitutional so there is no 2nd A grounds to argue against it.

A person must be subjected to a NICS check before a person can buy a gun from a dealer. That IS and infringement. A NICS check is a hurdle that comes between you and your gun. If government places ANYTHING between you and your keeping and bearing of arms, government has infringed your right and is in violation of the Second Amendment.

Woody

AKElroy
July 2, 2009, 12:39 AM
And you really believe that crimes involving firearms have never been prevented because of a NICs check? Never?

OK, Maybe I will dive in. Regarding the above quote, so what if it did? I can name numerous unconstitutional infringements on many enumerated rights that might well save lives. A free press certainly spools up crazies to action, freedom of religion has certainly stirred its share of occasionally violent passions, freedom of speech/assembly/redress can certainly become violent and lead to injury & death. Maybe it would be best to do away with all of it. That way we can all live in a nice, quiet, safe...prison. There is an expense for freedom. Some are willing to pay it, some, like you apparently, are willing to trade some of it for more perceived security. False security in my view, but an invalid justification even if that security were realized. We do not have to ask permission to exercise any other enumerated right; why should we be forced to do so through NICS? The very existance of NICS presumes the RKBA is the governments' right to distribute. It is not. People have rights. Our government is charged with recognizing and protecting these pre-existing rights, not distributing them.

t165
July 2, 2009, 01:15 AM
I think this is a good discussion and I am listening to others viewpoints. I may not agree and I will probably not change anyones mind...but I am tyring to plant some seeds for thought.

RUGGLES... "egotistical fella" probably some truth to that but aren't we all guilty to some degree? If expressing my opinion and wanting proof to back up statements then I will admit to that flaw! The opinions of meek individuals do not interest me. They usually do not speak their mind.

LIONS... There has never been anything simple about gun control! This thread is proof of that.

Constitutional Cowboy... If not the Constitution then where did your "right" to keep and bear arms come from? Some in the past have stated it's from their religion. That is between an individual and their god. Which also means individuals who's religious beliefs are anti-gun are just as valid. There is no way to argue against a persons religion and expect to make headway. I will not try...even I'm not that egotistical. :)

And TexasRifleman...I'm not trying to attack you personally. This is a bit of a hot topic and I can be sarcastic. The discussion I am having with you about gun control is one I lost several years ago. I was arguing your side that day. A college professor made it clear to me that reality proves Americans have never enjoyed the absolute right to keep and bear arms. Regardless of one's interpretation or belief the facts prove otherwise. The 2nd Amendment is government document. A man made document. And man, through process, can change it at will.

There is the far "left" on this issue which does not want gun control. They want gun elimination. There is the far "right". They do not want or respect any laws concerning firearms. Toss out these extremist and there is the vast majority of citizens who have to find a peaceful compromise which relate to gun control. This is done through politics, anger, arguing, discussion. I glad we have less restrictive gun control laws than most other countries but we will never be devoid of them. The argument simply will not hold water! The majority of Americans want some forms of gun control.

Harve Curry
July 2, 2009, 01:17 AM
All I can say is we need to follow the original laws layed down to run this country. That is how we prospered and grew strong. Everytime we deviate or allow compromise from the Constitution we get weaker and poorer.
So what part of shall not be infringed is not understood?

t165
July 2, 2009, 01:39 AM
I have to ask this. Harve Curry...why did the founding fathers...the framers of the Constitution of the United States...the 2nd Amendment, infringe upon the 2nd Amendment? Why did they pass and practice gun control laws before and after the 2nd Amendment was adopted. Why were they so hypocritical? Did they not want the federal government regulating firearms? Was gun control the legal and exclusive domain of state government at that time? They did pass gun control laws at the state level back then. If the politicians of that time wanted unrestricted gun laws why did they ignore the 2nd Amendment. Why has it been ignored all through the history of the United States? I know this does not sit well with many but it is the truth. I'm just attempting to get factual answers.

waterhouse
July 2, 2009, 01:43 AM
Conctitutional Cowboy... If not the Constitution then where did your "right" to keep and bear arms come from?

Generally they are referred to as Natural Rights. John Locke was a big proponent of the concept, and Madison mentioned it in his speech to the 1st Congress when he was presenting the Bill of Rights.

In other words, in the minds of the Founding Fathers, we had certain natural rights just because we were humans walking the earth. The Bill of Rights did not grant us anything, it merely set limitation on what the government could do.

AKElroy
July 2, 2009, 01:44 AM
Cool! My 500th post. Much less wordy than my 499th.

christcorp
July 2, 2009, 01:55 AM
If they cannot be trusted to mingle unfettered in free society, then they dang well should not have been let out.

rbernie: In theory, this would be really nice; but the truth is: There are no guarantees that a criminal that has paid their debt to society will be rehabilitated. So there is no way you can determine whether to keep them in prison or not. They are sentenced at the time of their trial. You can't have a punishment that says: 15 years...... Unless we don't think you're rehabilitated. So, the question goes back to you. A person robs a liquor store. In cold blood, he shoots and kills 6 people. He is convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison. He comes out of prison and he wants to go to the pawn shop and buy a gun. You're saying this is OK. The same with the man convicted of child molestation. Sentenced to 10 years. While in prison, he gets a college degree in education. Do you let him take a job at the local pre-school or elementary school?

Show facts, provably so, where gun laws have made society safer.


Considering that there's never been a time in our country's history where there wasn't some restrictions on the use of guns; this is a question that is purely a setup and can't be answered. Just like you can't say a time when there were no gun laws; so you can't claim that having no gun laws makes society safer.

Again; laws are not made in their own right just to make society safer. Many times, laws are made because there are differences of opinions between people on specific actions; and how these actions may affect them. So laws are also made as a means of setting rules and guidelines so all parties stay within them and reduce question as to who is right or wrong. Rules apply to everyone, but only law abiding people are expected to follow them. Criminals are expected to break laws; and they will be dealt with accordingly. The law abiding citizens use laws to maintain order and not allow anarchy.

As long as there are 2 or more people that have a different opinion or perspective about any action or expression that another individual does; then there will ALWAYS be a need for certain rules/guidelines/laws/policies concerning said actions or expressions. Maybe in a Rodney king world where "We all get along", we wouldn't need laws. But in the "Real World", laws are required to maintain order.

But this thread is about the battle over "Reasonable" gun regulations. While the Brady followers are definitely EXTREMISTS in their opinion; the Pro-2A side also has their EXTREMISTS. To believe that the 2nd amendment is absolute in it's meaning and that no laws or regulations need to be developed whatsoever; means the following examples are legitimate:
1. A 10 year old kid is allowed to walk into a pawn shop and buy a gun and ammunition.
2. A convicted killer or went into a high school and shot 15 students and teachers; and spent 20 years in prison, and was released; is allowed to go into a pawn shop and buy a gun.
3. A person who was admitted into a mental hospital because their wife left him with the kids; and he tried to kill himself and his ex-wife and their 5 year old daughter; is now released from the hospital. Should he be allowed to go buy a hand gun?

And you can't talk about what SHOULD happen to a convicted criminal going to prison for child molestation or murder. Because while they SHOULD stay in prison for life, many don't. Many are eventually allowed back out into society. And I don't think that they should automatically be allowed to own a weapon. They may break the law and get one on the black market; but that doesn't mean we should willingly allow them to have it.

t165
July 2, 2009, 02:09 AM
AKElory..I'm at 218 now. Before this thread is done I might make 500. Reports of me being on the ropes were fallacious! :D

John Locke...some do follow this philosopher's writings. IIRC correctly Locke preached the ideas of the common man rising up against tyranny. I can see why the founding fathers would read his work seeing as to how that is exactly what they did.

I've also heard the argument that the instinct of self preservation is related to the 2nd Amendment. To each their own. After all of the arguing is done it always seems to come down to the SCOTUS to tell us what "rights", if any, we have as far as the laws of man describe.

General Geoff
July 2, 2009, 02:23 AM
Just like you can't say a time when there were no gun laws; so you can't claim that having no gun laws makes society safer.

Pretty much every single gun law in this country was written after 1865. There were a few laws written before then that barred blacks (whether slaves or not) from owning or carrying weapons.

ArfinGreebly
July 2, 2009, 03:09 AM
by Me

Look, a number of you keep forgetting something very, very important: gun registration, licensed gun dealers, background checks, all of that didn't exist before 1968. I grew up in that environment. Crime of all kinds was lower then.

by christcorp

This argument doesn't hold any water. You're trying to argue that less gun laws reduce crime; and therefor the reason we have more crime today, is because we have more gun laws.

That's a profound analysis failure.

The "argument" is a simple statement of fact.

You seem bent on finding a plausible way of ignoring the elephant on the coffee table.

In 1968 Congress enacted legislation to solve a problem that didn't exist.

It didn't exist.

It was an imaginary problem.

You're trying to argue that less gun laws reduce crime; and therefor the reason we have more crime today, is because we have more gun laws.

I am? FAIL.

I'm arguing nothing of the sort. I'm trying to tell you, and anyone who will understand the simplicity of this: in 1968 we didn't have a problem to solve.

Congress solved it anyway. That's flawed, broken, stupid, dishonest, . . . shall I go on? I'ts WRONG.

Can you not understand that you don't pass laws to deal with nonexistent problems?

The 1968 GCA was a false solution to a problem that didn't exist.

Now, you may not believe me. You may firmly believe that "gun crime" was rife in 1968. I can tell you with certainty it wasn't. I was there.

Gun control doesn't prevent crime. It never has.

It impairs the ability of the honest man to provide for his own defense.

It's never been about controlling crime.

It is now and has been about disarmament of the public.

nelson133
July 2, 2009, 07:43 AM
"Gun crime" increases as gun control laws increase because the criminal element gains an advantage when the honest citizen is disarmed. If the numbers from here don't convince you, just look at what has happened and is happening in Great Britain.
The citizenry is almost totally disarmed and the right of self defense doesn't exist, yet with each tightening of the gun laws, the gun crime rate has increased. The figures are published and are not refutable.
The profound stupidity of the idea that those who's living is made by breaking laws and treating their fellow citizens as livestock to be used for whatever strikes their fancy will somehow obey a law that makes it harder for them to do as they wish, is incomprehensible to me. Criminals don't obey laws, what could be plainer?

Ruggles
July 2, 2009, 09:05 AM
It's pretty clear that some believe that the proper answer would be to abolish most if not all existing firearm legislation and let human nature take it's course.

Absurd and shallow minded at best IMO. Thank God we live in a society that as a whole displays more real world common sense than that. The positions a number of you take do great harm to the gun rights of the rest of us when it comes to the debate with those who would like to outlaw all firearms.

Trying to push 40 year old statistics and laws is not going to move the gun debate one inch in our favor. The world of 40 years ago is so vastly different than our they have no relevance today in the real world. Using them as a example is silly and in fact counter productive as it tends to say we have nothing modern which to debate with.

TexasRifleman
July 2, 2009, 09:19 AM
I have to ask this. Harve Curry...why did the founding fathers...the framers of the Constitution of the United States...the 2nd Amendment, infringe upon the 2nd Amendment? Why did they pass and practice gun control laws before and after the 2nd Amendment was adopted. Why were they so hypocritical? Did they not want the federal government regulating firearms? Was gun control the legal and exclusive domain of state government at that time? They did pass gun control laws at the state level back then. If the politicians of that time wanted unrestricted gun laws why did they ignore the 2nd Amendment. Why has it been ignored all through the history of the United States? I know this does not sit well with many but it is the truth. I'm just attempting to get factual answers.

Because they were racists and classist elitist snobs.

They might have been very smart men in many ways but they believed that though all "men" were created equal that not all humans were men.

They did not believe that Blacks were men, that non property owners were men, or that women were "men" in the category of being created equal.

These same groups of people could not vote either. They were denied many rights back then.

But that does not make the fundamental argument of the Second Amendment wrong, it makes the people that wrote it bigots.

The fact that there have been gun laws in this country since it's founding is another argument I don't quite get the point of. What does that have to do with anything?

The Second Amendment, as does the rest of the Bill of Rights, does not describe things the government gives away. It describes a belief that certain things are given by nature/God/Universe/Whatever to men born on Earth and says that this new government will respect those pre-existing rights.

Certainly all of them have been infringed on at one time or another, but that doesn't make it OK. The document itself is not flawed, the ideas themselves are not flawed.

If that same government has a flawed definition of "men" then it doesn't work.

Over time that definition changed to one that made more sense. Today that definition of "men" still doesn't include non-citizens for the most part. The rights exist for non-citizens but it is the policy of this government not to recognize most of those rights.

None of that changes the fact that the right of one to preserve one's own life by tools such as firearms is inherent in being born human and the Second Amendment recognizes that.


Just like you can't say a time when there were no gun laws; so you can't claim that having no gun laws makes society safer.


This is another quote that doesn't seem to make any sense.

If you believe that these rights exist simply being human then there has to be some weight on a government to have a very good reason to infringe those rights.

One way that is done is to require a government to prove the necessity of the infringement.

Just because a government "feels like" gun laws help doesn't mean it's true.

If you want to pass a law restricting a natural right you should have to prove that the good far outweighs the bad. That is not the case with gun laws.

It's a well proven fact that gun crime hasn't significantly changed with the passing of all these laws.

This quote says "you can't claim that having no gun laws makes society safer". No, you can't claim that, but it doesn't matter. The burden is on the government to prove that HAVING gun laws makes us safer. If they cannot prove that, then the laws should not be there.

This is very similar to the idea of being innocent until proven guilty. You're arguing for the reverse by saying that gun laws don't have to prove their value to exist, that it's OK to pass laws based on "gut feelings".

ETA:

Trying to push 40 year old statistics and laws is not going to move the gun debate one inch in our favor. The world of 40 years ago is so vastly different than our they have no relevance today in the real world. Using them as a example is silly and in fact counter productive as it tends to say we have nothing modern which to debate with.

Thank you for making my point. Gun laws exist and become more necessary when other society programs have failed.

Your statement that we need gun laws more now because "the world is different" is exactly the problem. Focusing on gun laws does not fix the real problem.
All the 40 year old statistics show is that a 40 year old gun law didn't have much impact so let's not pass any more.

That is what we're saying here. No one is lobbying Congress to get rid of all gun laws, we know that's not going to happen. What we are saying here is that with all the gun laws in place we still have a crime rate that's basically unchanged so stop passing more gun laws and look into fixing the actual problem.

The gun is not the problem and more gun laws don't solve anything.

waterhouse
July 2, 2009, 10:58 AM
You can't have a punishment that says: 15 years...... Unless we don't think you're rehabilitated. So, the question goes back to you. A person robs a liquor store. In cold blood, he shoots and kills 6 people. He is convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison.

You can't have a punishment of 15 years and make it longer, but why can't you have an initial sentence that is longer. If a person robs a liquor store and kills 6 people in cold blood, there is no reason why he should ever be free again. He can remain in jail until he dies of natural causes, or in some states he could be given the death penalty.

I think what TR is getting at is that your example shows a flaw in the crime and punishment area, not the gun area. Due to too few jail cells and too many spaces being taken up for mandatory sentences for non violent drug crimes (and a slew of other reasons) we are letting violent people out of prison. This should not be a gun issue. The issue is letting murderers and rapists and child molesters out of prison. Fix that issue.

Considering that there's never been a time in our country's history where there wasn't some restrictions on the use of guns; this is a question that is purely a setup and can't be answered. Just like you can't say a time when there were no gun laws; so you can't claim that having no gun laws makes society safer.

The question is not purely a setup. Imagine in 1776 there were 100 gun laws. Then in the 1870s there were 500 gun laws. Then in 1934 and 1968 they threw in a bunch more gun laws, and now today there are many thousands of gun laws. Each of these laws was in theory aimed at making society safer.

It doesn't matter how many we started with, each new set of laws was supposed to make society safer. He asked you to:

Show facts, provably so, where gun laws have made society safer.

You can't say that we've always had some restrictions and therefore the question is unanswerable. We now have many more restrictions. Either crime rates have increased, decreased, or stayed the same since those new restrictions were added. He asked you to prove that the crime rates have decreased. That's all.

Just like you can't say a time when there were no gun laws; so you can't claim that having no gun laws makes society safer.

I'd have to reread, but I don't think anyone said no laws makes society safer. I think they said that the laws in place have not made society safer, and therefore they serve no purpose but to waste tax dollars and make people feel good without actually accomplishing anything. There need to be real, valid reasons for any laws to be enacted, and certainly even more scrutiny for laws that counter freedoms guaranteed in our founding documents. If the laws are not making society safer, and they are infringing on guaranteed rights, does it not make sense to do away with them?

christcorp
July 2, 2009, 11:34 AM
Just not buying it. The "Natural Rights" are "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". The Bill of rights is simply the limitations on the government in how they interact with us in our exercising of our rights. But that isn't what's important. What is important is that ALL ACTIONS that mankind has engaged in while interacting within a society, has ALWAYS had a set of rules. This has been true since the beginning of time. And that's because a society of people must have boundaries in the actions and expression when interacting inside of a society. There are rules/laws concerning every "Right" you want to speak of. They've existed forever. Some were written and some were implied. And whenever there's been a conflict between the actions or expressions of 2 or more individuals, it's been these rules/laws that maintained social order.

To believe that a person can interact in a society with actions and expressions without boundaries is naive. It can't happen, and it has NEVER happened. Whether it was firearms, speech, religion, property, etc... they all have and have always had boundaries. In one side of the argument, people mention that those who break laws and go to prison should be allowed all their rights back after serving their sentence. And if they aren't trustworthy enough to get their rights back, then they aren't worthy enough to be released from prison. Yet in order to have been tried and sent to prison, the individual must have violate the laws or socially accepted norms of society. Which IS a set of rules/laws.

However; the same people argue that there don't need to be rules/laws concerning guns. And the main argument is that there should be laws/rules for the actions, but not for the tool used. And then the argument goes on to use examples that there aren't laws concerning the purchase of a hammer, length of chain, and other common items that are also used to commit crimes. I understand and appreciate the concept of criminalizing the act and the person committing the act; and not criminalizing the tool used. I can definitely appreciate that rational. The problem however is that inanimate objects that have or potentially have an impact on the society and the safety of, as a whole, have had and do have such restrictions, laws, and limitations on their use. The PRIMARY use of a hammer, piece of chain, piece of pipe, etc... are uses that do not effect the safety of society. However; a gun's PRIMARY use is to cause death. There may be a lot of other uses; but it's primary use is to cause death. There are also many other objects who's primary use also directly impacts society and it's citizens. Automobiles, alcohol, airplanes, medication/drugs, uranium, etc.... These all have different types of limitations, rules, laws, etc... attached to their use. The ONLY argument people can truly make is that because firearms are specifically mentioned in the 2nd amendment of the constitution as an area where the government can not forbid the citizens from keeping and bearing; that it's a protected inanimate object that shouldn't have any rules/laws in it's use of.

This argument could hold water except that the same people arguing this point, don't seem to have a problem with there being rules/laws assigned to the 1st amendment. And yes, you DO accept certain laws/rules on the 1st amendment as being legitimate. You DON'T accept a person using the "N" word when referring to black individuals. You DON'T accept a church being able to sacrifice animals they see on the street and hanging them up in the trees in the city park. And I'm sure that we all agree that a 10 year old shouldn't be allowed to walk into a liquor store and purchase a bottle of whiskey or a pack of cigarettes for their own consumption without permission of their parents.

So, the ONLY reason people argue about any rules/laws being set upon guns, is because it's personal to them and they have a passion for it. Just like a smoker will have a different perspective on rules/laws concerning smoking compared to a non-smoker; so will a gun owner/user have a different perspective compared to a non-gun user. Having a "RIGHT" doesn't mean that the particular "Right" is 100% unmonitored and free to the recipient. That just isn't true. It NEVER has been; nor will it EVER BE. All rights come with responsibilities. Some times these responsibilities are written down; and some times they are implied. But they do exist. And guns/2nd amendment is no different. The 2nd amendment simply says the government will not infringe on your being allowed to keep and bear arms. In that context, it means that without logical reason; the government basically can't say NO if you want to keep and bear arms in the defense of your life or property against civil crime or tyranny. But no where in the 2nd amendment does it say that the Keeping and Bearing of arms can't be regulated to ensure public safety and the rights of others. Just like the 1st amendment and every other amendment has certain rules/laws/regulation/policies/etc... in their exercise of; so does the 2nd amendment.

Now; if you don't agree; which I doubt some of you will, with this argument; then my question is quite simple. Why should some "Rights" such as the 1st amendment be allowed to have limitations, restrictions, rules, guidelines, boundaries, etc.... and others such as the 2nd amendment shouldn't????

Unless of course your argument is that NONE of the amendments should have any regulations, rules, restrictions, guidelines, etc... assigned to them. In which case, you wouldn't have any problem with people being allowed to publicly slander, use obscenities, use racial slurs, etc....? You wouldn't have any problem with the local church sacrificing a dog or cat once a week and hanging it on the tree at city hall? Remember; the bill of rights isn't 10 rights the people have. Matter of fact, only the first 2 can the citizens physical make an action with. 3-10 are simply limitations on the government. (As is the 1st two). But I think it's obvious. All rights, privileges, actions, etc.... require a set of rules/laws/policies/etc... that set boundaries in exercising said actions. Without a set of "Rules", individuals would be free to invade other people's right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness". And the lame cliche of "Your Rights end where Mine Begin" is indeed lame. But as lame as it is; that is the WHOLE REASON for having rules/laws/policies/etc.... in our actions and expressions. So that there is a clearer line of where the 2 people's rights meet. Again; you can't argue for no rules/laws/etc... for the 2nd amendment when you support rules/laws/etc.... for the 1st amendment and others.

christcorp
July 2, 2009, 11:44 AM
Because of overlap: I wanted to say that I definitely agree that we have too many laws. Many of these laws restate what other laws state. I definitely believe many of these laws are unnecessary. But as I've already mentioned; in order to fix this or any other problems with the system, we need the 2nd amendment to MEAN the same thing in all 50 states. We need a supreme court decision that is precedent for all 50 states. (No, Heller didn't do that, because Washington D.C. is NOT a state, and therefor it isn't precedent. In other words, the 50 states don't have to follow the ruling. States are given certain powers. Washington D.C. is NOT given certain powers. That's why the Supreme court had to get involved).

Anyway; until I can buy, sell, use, carry, etc... a firearm the same in Wyoming that I can in Florida, Texas, New Jersey, and Arizona; we won't be able to fix and eliminate many of the excess laws on the books.

However; there is a contingent in this thread that believe that the 2nd amendment SHOULDN'T have ANY rules/laws. That's a totally different argument. I agree; there are way too many laws. Many are redundant. Many are simply micro-management. They need to be fixed. But to say there shouldn't be ANY laws/rules is ridiculous.

ConstitutionCowboy
July 2, 2009, 11:56 AM
To those who think it's OK to infringe upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in disregard to the Constitution: How can you expect us to obey laws you create or support in disregard of the Constitution? To disrespect the Constitution is to think little of We the People. Don't forget: We the People wrote and ratified the Constitution.

More tonight.

Woody

texas bulldog
July 2, 2009, 12:11 PM
Since reading numerous posts by both ContitutionCowboy and TexasRifleman, I will refrain from adding anything other than this; I would like to fully associate myself with their comments. I bow to your collective superior wordsmithyness. Well done--

i'll concur with that. i've been reading this thread for days now without posting. (each morning, i expect it to be locked, BTW, though i'm glad it isn't.) i've wanted to add to it, but anything i would have said is already well-covered by TXrifleman, constitution cowboy, arfin, and rbernie. keep up the good work, fellas.

I can tell you one fact, no one is going to change their minds on this matter based on this or any other thread.

FALSE. a few years ago, i would have argued in favor of restrictions on ownership for felons, mentally ill, and so forth. my reading on THR has convinced me otherwise. the fact that these restrictions have no provable benefit and that they are actually ineffective ways of trying to resolve the failure of our criminal justice and education systems has convinced me that they are not now and never were needed.

frankly, i get disappointed when i read the words of some here on THR...

TexasRifleman
July 2, 2009, 12:12 PM
Now; if you don't agree; which I doubt some of you will, with this argument; then my question is quite simple. Why should some "Rights" such as the 1st amendment be allowed to have limitations, restrictions, rules, guidelines, boundaries, etc.... and others such as the 2nd amendment shouldn't????

Apparently you're just not reading all the posts.

No one is arguing for the revoking of all gun laws. That's simply not going to happen. We are saying that out of all the gun laws currently in place not a single one has had a provable benefit to society.

If that is the case, and provably true, why should we tolerate ANY more gun laws?

And, if we can identify a few laws that are particularly "overboard" we should fight to get those removed as well. Heller left the door wide open for many of those, including returning machine guns to the market.

That has been the fundamental question and none of you guys want to answer it, you want to go off on tangent discussions about how there have always been laws, about how the founding fathers didn't really believe what they wrote etc.

None of that matters.

Here we are in 2009 with literally thousands and thousands of gun laws, none of which have a provable benefit for society.

Do we really need any more?

I've seen many in this thread suggest just that, that another law here or there will make things "better". It's never happened before, what makes you think it will start now?

Old Fuff
July 2, 2009, 12:27 PM
But we still come back to the question, what does the language in the 2nd. Amendment, "shall not be infringed,” mean, or what was it meant to mean?

It should be noted that no other article or amendment in the constitution specifically imposes what would seem to be such an absolute restriction on what the government can do.

If in these modern times we reject what would seem to have been the framer’s clear intent, and impose statutes designed to deliberately infringe, it would seem reasonable to inquire as to how affective the restrictions are in achieving the intended purpose – supposedly barring criminals and other prohibited persons from obtaining arms. Clearly the problem is not the machine, but the way some people use them. Therefore should not the focus be on the user and not the device? :scrutiny:

Would requiring teetotalers to undergo background checks before they could obtain a drivers license have any impact on drunk driving? Should we presume that drunken driving would become a thing of the past if those that imbibe couldn’t get a drivers license? Since lesser measures haven’t seemed to solve the problem I propose a constitutional amendment that would absolutely outlaw beverages that contain an alcoholic content. Pussyfooting around doesn’t work! :rolleyes:

SuperNaut
July 2, 2009, 12:29 PM
Exactly TR and OF.

I mentioned this very thing on page one of this thread. What is the number and combination of gun laws that will suddenly, magically cause criminals to obey? 10? 100? 1000? 10,000? 100,000? Maybe if we pass forty laws that say the same thing it will be way, way, more seriouser. All the hypothetical scenarios one can dream up fail in the face of the stark reality that criminals, by definition, do not obey the law. To believe that we are going to stumble upon the magic combination of words on paper that cause criminals to suddenly say "gosh, I better obey those words" is pure fantasy.

That people "feel" that these laws are needed doesn't mean jack. You want to feel good? Go get a massage.

DHJenkins
July 2, 2009, 12:51 PM
Making the punishments harsher for those who steal, straw-buy or unlawfully possess would work better than more regulations - no matter how reasonable.

Right now, as far as I'm aware, guns are simply treated as property. You steal one, it's not that big of a deal. You get caught unlawfully possessing one, it's no big deal unless you're on parole or probation.

Now, I know, criminals don't obey the laws, but for the most part it's because there's really no reason to. It's like vehicle break-ins. Unless someone steals $5k worth of stuff out of your car, the police don't even come out; it's all handled over the phone. Basically, there's no investigation, so there's absolutely no deterrent to the people who are doing the break-ins; what's in your vehicle is pretty much "free stuff" for anyone who's got a car, a brick and 30 seconds.

I think if stealing/etc... firearms were somehow placed into a seperate category of crime, with say - mandatory prison time, it would remove guns from a lot of the "because I can get away with it" crowd of criminals. Obviously I'd want this sort of legislation at the state level to keep the BATFE out of the picture, but you get the idea.

Lou McGopher
July 2, 2009, 01:21 PM
But we still come back to the question, what does the language in the 2nd. Amendment, "shall not be infringed,” mean, or what was it meant to mean?

It means what it says. It's plain English, and the meaning of those words have not changed since they were written.

If you have any other questions on the meaning of other parts of the Second Amendment, a good analysis was done by English usage expert Roy Copperud, here: http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html

Should there be any laws concerning guns?
I don't think so. But I'm one of those people who believes one should be allowed to do as one pleases, so long as one does not harm anyone else.

Mohawk
July 2, 2009, 01:28 PM
Bingo! I think we have a winner! All those arguing on the side of reasonable restrictions seem to agree that no new restrictions are needed and that many restrictions in place should be overturned. Those who argue that any gun law does not address the real problems, have stated that they are not lobbying for a total rollback of every restriction. (See Texas Rifleman’s post just above this one). Constitutional Cowboy has posted the actual wording by Justice Scalia which specifically mentions “reasonable restrictions” concerning mentally deficient, violent criminals and children. He passed the buck and left these issues for future court actions to decide on the veracity of these situations. I think we are all on the same page here. (at least reading the same book) We just don’t see it because we are sitting in opposite corners of the same room; so to speak.

So what is the solution? The next step is to identify which gun laws are reasonable considering the guarantees afforded by the 2nd. And actively fight for the overturn of the rest using the legal system that Scalia pointed us to. As I’ve stated earlier, “We need to own the reasonable restriction debate” to achieve our aims of minimal gun control and stricter adherence to the 2nd By Federal, state and local governments. This is the most important challenge and task we as organized gun owners have; post Heller decision. The path has been clearly laid out by the SC and whether we realize it or not we are basically in agreement as far as reasonable restriction is concerned. Best I can tell, nobody on the far right of this debate wants total anarchy and nobody on the left of this argument want more restrictions or even acceptance of most restrictions already in place.

Boy oh boy, Dave Workman sure got his money’s worth with this thread. Great thread by the way. If nothing else it shows how diverse elements of gun owners are all united in principal but divided by perspective.

CoRoMo
July 2, 2009, 02:13 PM
Again if you do not like NICs base you disagreement on facts other than it's success or failure. Neither it's success or it's failure can be proven statistically.

It's quite obvious facts won't enlighten you one way or another. If ever there were a topic handily proven with facts, statistics and the like, the ineffectiveness, failure, and uselessness of NICS is it. You either have not read enough about that proof, or you obtusely choose to disregard it. That's a shame.

What is perpetually lacking is any whit of evidence contrary to the following statements.

...out of all the gun laws currently in place not a single one has had a provable benefit to society....the fact [is] that these restrictions have no provable benefit and that they are actually ineffective ways of trying to resolve the failure of our criminal justice and education systems has convinced me that they are not now and never were needed.

You never have, and you never will have anything you can submit that could possibly refute this.

christcorp
July 2, 2009, 02:33 PM
No one is arguing for the revoking of all gun laws. That's simply not going to happen. We are saying that out of all the gun laws currently in place not a single one has had a provable benefit to society.

What the heck does this mean. If ALL THE GUN LAWS CURRENTLY IN PLACE don't have a provable benefit; then that means you ARE IN FAVOR OF REVOKING ALL GUN LAWS. How can you say that you aren't in favor of revoking all gun laws, and then state that NOT ONE current law is of benefit.

I've already said that I believe that there are quite a few useless gun laws. That there's currently many that are redundant. I would have no problem with cleaning up the laws and better enforcement of those that are left. Unfortunately, there are PLENTY of people here who are arguing that ANY LAW is an infringement on their 2nd amendment right. But as I also mentioned earlier, I don't believe that we can clean up many of the gun laws until we all agree on what the 2nd amendment SAYS and what it MEANS. And people need to stop giving the canned cliche answer of:
It means what it says. It's plain English, and the meaning of those words have not changed since they were written.
It obviously DOESN'T means exactly what it says. Because there are too many people with too many interpretations of what it says. This is starting to sound like the Far Religious Right who "THINK" that the Bible is very clear in what IT says.

This is all a matter of perspective. In my state, I don't believe that the "Majority" of gun laws is restrictive or an infringement on my 2nd amendment right. I bet the same can be said by most people from Vermont. However; there are a lot of people from New Jersey or California who will differ. Yes, the 2nd amendment is very clear. But the 10th amendment is also clear; at least to SOME people; that the states have the right "Manage" the exercise of the 2nd amendment by it's citizens. As long as they don't say "NO" to the "Keeping and Bearing of Arms" by the people without cause; there is room for argument that the state reserves the right to manage the exercise of that right. Which could include permits, license, etc... (I'm not saying I AGREE with this; just that a strong argument can be made for the STATE to have the constitutional power to MANAGE the activities). The same as the 1st amendment is managed so that the citizens can't have total unobstructed "Freedom of Speech" or "Religion".

Now, if you want to back peddle and list SPECIFIC laws (Which are more than likely a STATE LAW) that needs to be gotten rid of; and list OTHER LAWS that are GOOD but need to be revamped; then that is probably an area that most people here could agree on. But it is quite clear by contextual comments in some posts, that there is indeed some people that believe that ANY LAW CONCERNING GUNS is an infringement on their 2nd amendment right and should be abolished.

Vern Humphrey
July 2, 2009, 03:05 PM
For decades, the Left has claimed to own the word "fair." Everything they like is "fair" or "more fair." Everything they oppose is "not fair."

So I got into the habit of asking them to define "fair." Give us an objective test we can apply to determine if something is "fair" or not. And guess what? They can't do it.

So I went out on a limb. The first (not the only. but the first) test of fairness is "fidelity to purpose." If something (like a law) does not accomplish its purpose, then it cannot be fair. If there is a law, for example, that says you have to wear a fur coat in August to keep from catching cold -- and people wearing fur coats catch cold at the same rate as people not wearing them, then that law is unfair. People are being forced to do something that doesn't achieve its purpose.

"Gun control" fails the First Test of Fairness.

Sheldon J
July 2, 2009, 03:06 PM
See now here is the problem there is no such thing as 'Reasonable gun regulations"

If you enjoyed reading about "The battle over "reasonable" gun regulations" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!