Who is responsible


PDA

Beav
January 28, 2003, 09:39 PM
Who is responsible for keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and how?

If you enjoyed reading about "Who is responsible" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
BerettaNut92
January 28, 2003, 09:41 PM
For repeat offenders that just don't learn...the judge? Why we letting these clowns out so quick?

Hkmp5sd
January 28, 2003, 09:54 PM
It is each person's responsibility to obey the constitutionally correct laws of this nation. If a person breaks into my house and steals a gun, he is a criminal and is responsible. If a person breaks into a National Guard Armory and steals a truck load of machineguns, he is a criminal and is responsible. If an unqualified person uses false identification to purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer, he is a criminal and responsible.

The laws of the land prohibit a criminal from acquiring guns. It is the responsibility of the criminal to obey those laws. By definition, a criminal is not going to obey those laws, so it is the responsibility of the legal system to apprehend and punish the criminal for violating the law. If the criminal repeatedly violates these laws, it is the responsibility of the legal system to permanently remove this criminal from society because he is a threat to public safety.

Beav
January 28, 2003, 10:07 PM
The laws of the land prohibit a criminal from acquiring guns. It is the responsibility of the criminal to obey those laws. By definition, a criminal is not going to obey those laws, so it is the responsibility of the legal system to apprehend and punish the criminal for violating the law. If the criminal repeatedly violates these laws, it is the responsibility of the legal system to permanently remove this criminal from society because he is a threat to public safety.

So should the legal system proactively try to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms?
Can they without infringing on our rights?

blades67
January 28, 2003, 10:25 PM
So should the legal system proactively try to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms?

No.

Can they without infringing on our rights?

They're already infringing on our rights. Don't think so? Try getting on an aircarrier's aircraft without surrendering your Fourth Amendment Right, and your fingernail clipper.

TexasVet
January 28, 2003, 10:29 PM
The founders obviously never considered someone who had served his time as losing his gun rights. Anybody see "High Noon"? Guy gets out of prison, straps on the gun that his friends brought and rides off to shoot the sheriff.
Those "no gun if you are an ex-felon" laws are 20th century inventions.

Matthew Courtney
January 28, 2003, 10:46 PM
Criminals getting guns would not be an issue if they were in prison where they belong. There is nothing wrong with "guns on the street". The problem is with criminals on the street.

Beav
January 28, 2003, 10:55 PM
So should the legal system proactively try to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms? NO

Why? Is it not a problem? Is the related loss acceptable? Is it just not feasible, a waste of time and money?
I'm curious because as long as the responsible citizens are still able to own firearms and its harder for criminals to obtain them, then I fail to see a problem?


As far as the airline searches and the fourth amendment, I would like further input as to the definition of "unreasonable" as stated in the Fourth Amendment and how it applies to a post 9/11 America?

Thanks

LiquidTension
January 28, 2003, 11:01 PM
Since most violent criminals are repeat offenders, it is the fault of "the system." If someone breaks into a house and steals a gun that is NOT SECURED PROPERLY, it is partially the fault of the homeowner, but definitely the criminal's fault. On the other hand, if someone breaks into my house and steals my gun safe, that is in no way my fault. If a criminal buys a gun from another criminal, I'll bet my hard earned money that either or both of them has committed a crime before, and probably a serious one.

In the end, the only way to solve major social problems like this one is to make me dictator of the country. :D A benevolent dictatorship is actually one of the better forms of government. Think about it - someone with the good of the people at heart, and no one to oppose him. I might start this discussion in a new thread....

- LT

ENC
January 28, 2003, 11:08 PM
As someone smarter than me once said, "Power, corrupts and absolute power, corrupts absolutly."

History has taught us that any benevolent dictatorship will only remain so for a short period of time. Not to mention the fact that you can't please everyone.





Beav. Just think about how things might have been different if there was just one person legally carrying a handgun on any one of those planes on that fateful day.

NewShooter78
January 28, 2003, 11:10 PM
As far as the airline searches and the fourth amendment, I would like further input as to the definition of "unreasonable" as stated in the Fourth Amendment and how it applies to a post 9/11 America?

I think making an 80 year old person subject to a search of their person is unreasonable.

The problem with all the background check systems is that they can't stop straw purchases. You can buy a bunch of guns over time for other people, and then just say they were stolen, and then there were perfectly legal guns bought in a legal manner by a criminal accomplice. No matter what proactive ways you come up with, criminals find ways around them. And in the end the law abiding citizens are the ones made to suffer.

If someone breaks into a house and steals a gun that is NOT SECURED PROPERLY, it is partially the fault of the homeowner, but definitely the criminal's fault.

So if my car is stolen and a criminal runs over someone with it, is it my fault because I didn't have a steering wheel lock, or break pedal lock on it? That logic only hurts our 2nd amendment rights more. Why should I lock up my handgun when I live by myself. Using your logic if you have a safe, and don't bolt it to the ground or secure it to the wall then if it gets stolen then it is still partially your fault.

Hkmp5sd
January 28, 2003, 11:11 PM
It's a waste of time and money.

Here's an easy example. Cocaine is illegal in this country. Illegal to buy, sell, manufacture, import and possess. We have an entire law enforcement agency, the DEA, along with countless other federal, state and local law enforcement agencies that do nothing but try to prevent this drug from getting to the user. Responsible citizens do not use cocaine, therefore they have no constitutional rights being violated by the most draconian restrictions on this drug.

With all of this proactive effort to keep cocaine off the streets of this nation, do think you would have any problem in acquring some cocaine right now if you wanted to buy some?

The government could ban every firearm in this country. Confiscate and destroy every firearm in this country. Pass laws to prevent the manufacture and importation of firearms in this country. They could take every law enforcement officer currently working in narcotics and have them do nothing but look for guns. And this would still not stop a criminal from getting a gun any more than the "war on drugs" has kept anyone from buying dope.

Rangerover
January 28, 2003, 11:11 PM
If someone breaks into a house and steals a gun that is NOT SECURED PROPERLY, it is partially the fault of the homeowner,
Uhhhhh...no offense, but I don't follow the logic here. If someone breaks into my house and steals my television, is it partially my fault because it wasn't "secured properly"? What if someone breaks in and rapes my girlfriend? Should I have "secured her properly"? Am I supposed to lock all my belongings up in a cave before I leave the house so as to not be "partially responsible" for criminal behavior?

It's not "partially my fault" for ANYTHING if someone breaks into my house.

Beav
January 28, 2003, 11:20 PM
I agree with everyone that we need to be harder on criminals and they need to serve their time or be put away if they repeat. None of this early out garbage unless they've been wrongfully accused. None of this overcrowded or reformed bull.

I started this question with background checks in mind and the opposition to them from several of the members here. I guess I'm trying to understand why they are a problem with so many of us? I'm still able to buy firearms and hopefully it will keep a few firearms out of the hands of criminals. It surely isn't the most effective means but does that mean it shouldn't be done?

Thanks

Beav
January 28, 2003, 11:49 PM
It's a waste of time and money.

Here's an easy example. Cocaine is illegal in this country. Illegal to buy, sell, manufacture, import and possess. We have an entire law enforcement agency, the DEA, along with countless other federal, state and local law enforcement agencies that do nothing but try to prevent this drug from getting to the user. Responsible citizens do not use cocaine, therefore they have no constitutional rights being violated by the most draconian restrictions on this drug.

With all of this proactive effort to keep cocaine off the streets of this nation, do think you would have any problem in acquring some cocaine right now if you wanted to buy some?

The government could ban every firearm in this country. Confiscate and destroy every firearm in this country. Pass laws to prevent the manufacture and importation of firearms in this country. They could take every law enforcement officer currently working in narcotics and have them do nothing but look for guns. And this would still not stop a criminal from getting a gun any more than the "war on drugs" has kept anyone from buying dope..

I'm sure I would have no problem at all finding almost any drug I wanted. I agree the war on drugs is a joke and if there was ever a war on guns they would be just as ineffective. But even if it is futile and a waste of money, should they just give up and legalize drugs? Should they just ditch background checks so felons can walk into any gunstore and buy a gun?

Beav. Just think about how things might have been different if there was just one person legally carrying a handgun on any one of those planes on that fateful day.

I agree things might have been different and thousands of people might have been saved.

I think making an 80 year old person subject to a search of their person is unreasonable.

The problem with all the background check systems is that they can't stop straw purchases. You can buy a bunch of guns over time for other people, and then just say they were stolen, and then there were perfectly legal guns bought in a legal manner by a criminal accomplice. No matter what proactive ways you come up with, criminals find ways around them. And in the end the law abiding citizens are the ones made to suffer.


I agree but then again, if they are going to do it to anyone randomly I don't think anyone should be excluded. What does a terrorist look like anyway? Sounds rediculous, true, but I wouldn't underestimate them.

Straw purchases, certainly will happen, but I still don't think we should allow felons to walk right into any shop and buy a gun, it just shouldn't be that easy.

Thanks

NewShooter78
January 29, 2003, 12:05 AM
Straw purchases, certainly will happen, but I still don't think we should allow felons to walk right into any shop and buy a gun, it just shouldn't be that easy.

I agree that I don't thing that felons should be able to buy guns that easily, but most felons can get the same guns we buy leagally, cheaper on the street. And, most states don't agree on one level or another of what a felonious act is. And a violent felon is in a pure philsophic level not the same as say a white collar felon. So, if I don't pay my taxes for a political reason, then I become a felon. I'm no harm to anyone, in terms of past illegal actions, with or without the right to own a gun.

I am not hastled when I walk into my local gunshop when they run the instant check on me. The phone call last no longer than the time it takes for me to fill out the yellow form. And I still walk out that day with my gun. But on a wider level it does nothing to prevent criminals, by and large, from buying a gun.

I used to think the same way about background checks as you seem to until people better than I can to you, showed me some logic over on TFL as to why background checks are not a good way to curb illegal gun ownership.

ENC
January 29, 2003, 12:06 AM
You asked what a terrorist looks like

Well at the risk of being ridiculed. I believe that far and away most terrorists are middle aged men. With the large majority of these men being muslim extremists as well.

Don't get me wrong I am against racial profiling but at the same time there are some obvious exclusions.

Chris Rhines
January 29, 2003, 12:11 AM
Who is responsible for keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and how? No one.

So should the legal system proactively try to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms? No.

Can they without infringing on our rights? 'Proactive' implies that the law takes action prior to the bad act. This in and of itself would be a violation of one's individual rights.

Why? Is it not a problem? Is the related loss acceptable? Is it just not feasible, a waste of time and money? The idea that 'criminals' should be prevented from owning a particular type of property is immoral.

But even if it is futile and a waste of money, should they just give up and legalize drugs? Yes, but not for the reason that you think. Drug possession and use should be legalized, not because prohibition has been an abject failure, but because legalization is the morally right thing to do.

Should they just ditch background checks so felons can walk into any gunstore and buy a gun? Yes. Same reason as above.

...I still don't think we should allow felons to walk right into any shop and buy a gun... Why not?

- Chris

Beav
January 29, 2003, 06:15 AM
I agree that I don't thing that felons should be able to buy guns that easily, but most felons can get the same guns we buy leagally, cheaper on the street.

Indeed, sounds like a lose-lose situation for the government. They either enforce background checks which are ineffective or they do nothing and felons are then able to legally buy firearms. Would they if they could?... probably not since they can obtain firearms cheaper on the streets. But all it takes is one that does and the media has a field day and most of America is asking why was this felon able to buy this gun legally. Its good CYA for the government if anything.


You asked what a terrorist looks like

Well at the risk of being ridiculed. I believe that far and away most terrorists are middle aged men. With the large majority of these men being muslim extremists as well.

Don't get me wrong I am against racial profiling but at the same time there are some obvious exclusions.

I agree an 80 year old man is up there and very unlikely, but I also think the Airline industry is doing what they have to do to show that they are capable of providing security and leave nothing to question or chance. I would bet that its in their procedure not to exclude anyone, regardless. More CYA?

Chris-So if I understand you correctly, you consider background checks are a violation of ones rights. If so in contrast I don't believe it is immoral to deny the rights of convicted felons.

faustulus
January 29, 2003, 06:41 AM
proactive
Think about the logical definition to the word and you will never use it again.

It is not the job of laws to prevent crime, it is to punish the ciminal AFTER the crime has been committed, our entire justice system is predicated on the belief that all men are innocent. Only after guilt has been proved can one be a criminal. After time has been served for the crime it would be immoral to use past sins against him. Hence it would be wrong to prevent him from owning a gun.

I would like further input as to the definition of "unreasonable" as stated in the Fourth Amendment and how it applies to a post 9/11 America?

There isn't a difference. The lives of 3,000 nor 30,000 are worth the loss of any freedom. Life is not the greatest thing in the world. See Patrick Henry.

A free society is a dangerous place, therefore we go armed.

I guess I'm trying to understand why they are a problem with so many of us?
Do you give your credit card number to anyone? If not why?

should they just give up and legalize drugs?
yes, because you do not have the right to say what i can or cannot do with my body in my home.

most of America is asking why was this felon able to buy this gun legally
That is why we are a republic. This is not mob rule, just because a majority want something doesn't make it right. See Slavery.

I don't believe it is immoral to deny the rights of convicted felons.
Is this after they have paid their price to society? If so then should not the son be also held accountable for what crime the father comments. Saying he has no rights once he has paid his price makes it seem like we were just imprisoning him for our own amusement. Why did we let him out if he is not to be trusted in society?

AR-10
January 29, 2003, 07:33 AM
The word FELON is being thrown around a lot in this thread. Some of us need to stop and realize a few facts regarding felons.

We on this board are all potential felons. The difference between most of us and the average convicted felon is...we have not been convicted. The number of laws that carry felony punishments grows larger every year. If you think you have never commited a felony in your life, you are probably wrong. You have just not been caught.

When you talk about felons you are talking about murderers, rapists, armed robbers. You are also talking about people who drove 86mph in a 65mph zone, hired the wrong accountant to cheat on their taxes, got railroaded by the BATF on trumped up gun charges, picked the wrong marriage partner, failed to read all 20,000 plus gun regulations. There are hundreds of ways to become a convicted felon without robbing a bank.

In 1990 there were 829,344 persons convicted of felony offenses.
In 1998 there were 929,717 persons convicted.

The yearly totals from 1990 to 1998 vary, but the general trend is a steady rise. It is safe to say that from 1990 to today over 10 million people in the United States have become convicted felons.

The average number of convicted felons that received a sentence involving prison time hovers around 48%. The average prison sentence was five years, average actual time served was two years. The average percentage of felons sentenced to prison who actually served any time was around 40%. Less than one felon out of four went to prison.

How many of these people are too violent or dangerous to interact in society? If they are too dangerous to own a firearm, why are they living among us? If they are not a threat to us, why do they not deserve the same basic right we all have regarding self defense?

JPM70535
January 29, 2003, 07:34 AM
If I may, I would like to throw in my 2 cents worth.

While it should not be LEs (government) responsibility to proactively engage in activities that infringe on a citizens rights, I fail to see how background checks fall into that category. The Law Abiding citizen has nothing to fear from a background check. As has been stated here several times, the check takes less time than filling out the yellow form. BTW I am totally opposed to filling out any form as a prerequisite to purchasing a firearm. It is also true that most Criminals do not purchase their handguns legally, if there were no background check there surely would be a few who would. If the background check does nothing more than make it more difficult for criminals to obtain guns, then I say it is doing its job.

Another theme that seems to crop up regularly in the responses to this thread is the legalization of drugs. The reasoning for this is that since the WAR ON DRUGS is unwinable LE should just give up. The consequences of legalizing drugs would result IMO in an increase in crime if for no other reason than there would be more addicts. It just stands to reason that if drugs were legal, more people would try them. Among those who try drugs, a certain percentage will become addicts, who,being unable to work due to their addiction, will turn to crime to pay for their habit. If the war on drugs prevents even one person from becoming an addict, it is a worthwhile undertaking.

Should I as a firearms owner be held partially responsible for crimes committed with a firearm stolen from my home because I failed to secure it? Absolutely not with one exception, that being, if I have small children and through my failure to secure the firearm, the child hurts himself or another, then I bear the blame.
The sole responsibility for any crime committed by a criminal rests solely with the criminal. The attempt to shift the responsibility to anyone other than the criminal is totally assinine.




GOD MADE MAN, SAM COLT MADE THEM ALL EQUAL!!!!

Hkmp5sd
January 29, 2003, 08:00 AM
The problem isn't filling out a 4473 or an instant background check. The problem is that they are not effective. Therefore, someone is always adding a few more prerequisites, after all, "law abiding citizens shouldn't worry."

Let see, maybe we should make that instant check are few days so they can check with all the cities without computerized records. Oh, we need a few more days to check with INS to make sure you are not an illegal alien. Better include a certificate of training. Don't want any accidental shootings and honest citizens won't mind. Could be a mental defect there, better include a visit and approval by a shrink. We should also get rid of all these non-sporting, evil, drug dealer prefered weapons. Honest citizens don't need a 15 round magazine or a rifle that can be used to shoot down aircraft. Gotta protect the children, so let's add a state approved gun lock mandatory with each firearm. Don't forget the beltway sniper! Better include ballistic fingerprinting. Everyone knows it doesn't work but if it manages to catch one single killer, it's worth it, eh? Shouldn't let any of our citizens be classified as war criminals, so we better get rid of all those exotic bullets designed to cause larger wounds. FMJ is good enough for the army, it's good enough for everyone else. You know, them handguns are just too easy to conceal. They aren't all that accurate either. Might as well ban handguns. Only criminals and police need them. Shotguns and rifles are really all that honest homeowners need for protection.

ETC.ETC.ETC.ETC.ETC.

Chris Rhines
January 29, 2003, 08:36 AM
Chris-So if I understand you correctly, you consider background checks are a violation of ones rights. I don't 'consider.' Background checks are a violation of one's rights.

If so in contrast I don't believe it is immoral to deny the rights of convicted felons. Then you are wrong.

- Chris

Tamara
January 29, 2003, 08:46 AM
I started this question with background checks in mind and the opposition to them from several of the members here. I guess I'm trying to understand why they are a problem with so many of us? I'm still able to buy firearms and hopefully it will keep a few firearms out of the hands of criminals. It surely isn't the most effective means but does that mean it shouldn't be done?

Let me turn this around: Why don't you tell me what you feel gives any agency or authority the right to run a background check on you and grant you permission to purchase a gun?

El Tejon
January 29, 2003, 08:49 AM
I'll take this one, THE COMMERCE CLAUSE!:D

A clause for the cause of unlimited government.

Monte Harrison
January 29, 2003, 08:53 AM
Back to the original question for a moment:
Who is responsible for keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and how?It is not anyone's responsibility to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. It is the responsibility of the free citizen to not be a criminal.
Also:
If someone breaks into a house and steals a gun that is NOT SECURED PROPERLY, it is partially the fault of the homeowner..I don't care if I left a gun out in the middle of my front yard in plain sight. If someone comes and steals it, that is still 100% the fault of the thief. This whole notion of blaming the victim of a gun theft because they didn't have a gun safe is analagous to blaming a rape victim because she was wearing a low-cut dress. Crimes are 100% the fault and responsibility of the criminal.

Tamara
January 29, 2003, 08:59 AM
Can I get an "Amen"?

Kahr carrier
January 29, 2003, 09:03 AM
YEP AMEN:) :neener:

Beav
January 29, 2003, 04:44 PM
[QUOTE]Let me turn this around: Why don't you tell me what you feel gives any agency or authority the right to run a background check on you and grant you permission to purchase a gun?
/QUOTE]

If I was a violent felon I would face the consequences of my actions. Since I am not there is no reason I would be denied from owning or purchasing a firearm.

Drjones
January 29, 2003, 05:51 PM
If someone breaks into a house and steals a gun that is NOT SECURED PROPERLY, it is partially the fault of the homeowner, but definitely the criminal's fault. On the other hand, if someone breaks into my house and steals my gun safe, that is in no way my fault.

:rolleyes:

Guns, but not the safe? Are you for real?

What if they dropped that safe onto someone, killing them? Is it your responsibility then?

What if one of the criminals is killed or injured by the safe falling on them while they are trying to steal it? You liable then? Even a little?

What if they steal your car and kill someone with it?

Knives? Those can kill people!

Since you feel "partially responsible" for the actions of others, if someone did steal a gun from you and killed someone with it, would you be willing to serve some time right next to them?

Why or why not?

Blackhawk
January 29, 2003, 06:27 PM
I agree with Chris Rhines.

Is there hope for me...? :D

Chris Rhines
January 29, 2003, 06:34 PM
(Chris falls over in a dead faint.)

- Chris

TallPine
January 29, 2003, 06:59 PM
I guess I'm trying to understand why they [background checks] are a problem with so many of us?

Background checks = registration (eventually, in a round about way, when the store goes out of business, or when the Feds "drop in" to investigate some crime, as in the DC Sniper case)

Registration = confiscation ... ALWAYS


Damn right I got a problem with that.

citizen
January 29, 2003, 07:21 PM
IMHO; Best Thread Yet on THR on the issue.:cool:

Tamara
January 29, 2003, 09:28 PM
If I was a violent felon I would face the consequences of my actions. Since I am not there is no reason I would be denied from owning or purchasing a firearm.

That doesn't answer my question.

Since you are not a violent felon, tell me what you feel gives any agency or authority the right to run a background check on you and grant you permission to purchase a gun?

Why do you feel the need to ask anyone's permission to buy a gun?

Beav
January 29, 2003, 09:53 PM
Why do you feel the need to ask anyone's permission to buy a gun?

On behalf of my fellow citizens to ensure that I am a law-abiding citizen capable of responsible gun ownership. I am showing that I am a citizen in good standing and I'm doing my part to keep felons from obtaining arms in the same manner.

Its no different than getting my driver's license.

Selfdfenz
January 29, 2003, 10:19 PM
"Who is responsible for keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and how?"

If all federal, state and local laws were written single spaced on double sided sheets of paper the stack would be several feet high.
Add all the policy(s) that carry the weight of law passed by the EPA, OSHA etc etc and you are working on yard and yards.

Violation of lots of that stuff will cause you to be deemed a criminal.
Much of that "law" is BS. (sorry Oleg)

If someone in Cali runs over a protected gopher while mowing his or her pasture they may be a criminal if they loose in federal court BUT they should be entitled to own firearms. Period.

I guess I'm having problems with your original question. Defining the term criminal is not so simple these days. Many of the responses seem to be considering violent crime, which is not clear in your question.
No flame intended.

S-

AR-10
January 29, 2003, 10:27 PM
You don't seem to grasp the concept that being a Felon and being a dangerous criminal are two entirely different things.

Dangerous criminals should be arrested and imprisoned until such time as they are rehabilitated or die.

The rest of us should be assumed innocent until proven guilty. I don't feel any need to ask permission to exercise a right or prove I am not a psychopathic killer.

Your idea of being "responsible" is a feelgood thing that works for you as long as you "qualify". The day may come when you do not. Will it still be moral and just then? Will society be safer after you have been denied ownership of firearms because you got in a bar fight twenty years ago? Or took advantage of psychiatric counseling after suffering from PTSD? Or had a restraining order slapped on you? Or got a ticket for twenty one over because some radar detector went belly up? Or bought an illegally configured firearm because the dealer said that brake was BATF approved?

G-Raptor
January 29, 2003, 10:38 PM
When you figure out who is responsible for criminals becoming criminals, then you'll know who's responsible for keeping guns out of their hands.

BTW, the felon in possession law is stupid and an infringement on the rights of citizens. :p

Beav
January 29, 2003, 10:41 PM
Yes I meant violent felons, apologies for not being specific. And yes I agree that the system needs an overhaul.
After all, I agree background checks wouldn't be a big issue if the system did work and violent felons stayed in prison.

So why are felons getting out early and what needs to be done to prevent it? Is it an overcrowding issue, a tax issue, or is it a reform issue?

Thanks

AR-10
January 29, 2003, 10:43 PM
It's an "Everyone's a Felon" issue.

Drjones
January 29, 2003, 10:52 PM
On behalf of my fellow citizens to ensure that I am a law-abiding citizen capable of responsible gun ownership. I am showing that I am a citizen in good standing and I'm doing my part to keep felons from obtaining arms in the same manner.

Its no different than getting my driver's license.

:what:

Driving is a PRIVILEGE, NOT a right.

Owning firearms is a RIGHT, NOT a privilege.

Do you understand the difference?

I'm not so sure you do...

1) Why do you take the stance of guilty until proven innocent?

That's what all background checks do: they assume everyone is a criminal, until you prove otherwise.

You don't have a problem with being assumed guilty and having to PROVE your innocence?


2) May I ask if you would support a background check to buy cars?

I mean, wouldn't it be AWFUL if a criminal bought a car and used it as a getaway vehicle in a crime, or used it to kill someone?

Beav
January 29, 2003, 10:59 PM
Yes I know the difference between a right and a privilege. But just as privileges get revoked so can your rights.
When you earn your DL, you have shown that you are capable or driving.
When you go through a BGC, you show that you are a responsible gun owner.

No need to have background checks for vehicles, you have a driver's license already and a driving record.

Hkmp5sd
January 29, 2003, 11:01 PM
You know, the comments on how to proactively prevent BG's from buying guns instead of punishing them when they do in fact break the law, have brought to mind the proactive measures Nazi Germany and the USSR used where they put potential criminals in concentration camps to ensure everyone's safety.

It seems to be the same thing only on a very much smaller level.

Beav
January 29, 2003, 11:03 PM
I admit the use of the word proactive was in error, for violent felons that have been denied their right to bear arms are still paying for the crimes they have already commited.

Drjones
January 29, 2003, 11:07 PM
Yes I know the difference between a right and a privilege. But just as privileges get revoked so can your rights.
When you earn your DL, you have shown that you are capable or driving.
When you go through a BGC, you show that you are a responsible gun owner.

No, I don't think you do understand.

You do not need ANYONE'S permission to exercise a right.

You DO need permission (license, etc.) to excercise a privilege.

By your logic, you would support some form of licensing before a person could speak, right?

And a BGC does NOT mean you are responsible; it can only check for criminal activity.

No need to have background checks for vehicles, you have a driver's license already and a driving record.

No, you don't get my point.

Car dealerships do NOT look at your driving record to determine if you are a "good driver" before you buy a car.

And a license again does NOT mean you are a responsible driver either.

For all the dealer knows, you could habitually DUI. You could've just walked out of the slammer from a DUI conviction and go buy a car.

You could have a grippe of accidents.

In short, you could be ANYTHING BUT a "responsible" driver for all the dealer knows.

Yet you can still buy a car without a background or record check of any form. Get it???

Drjones
January 29, 2003, 11:11 PM
Furthermore, determining "responsibility" is a very slippery slope.

What is a "responsible" gun owner? Tell me, Beav.

Someone who can field strip, clean, and reassemble their gun blindfolded in under a minute?

Someone who can get 1in. groups at 50 yards?

Someone who can just hit the paper everytime?

Someone who knows which end of the gun to point at the bad guy?


You see Beav, when you try to establish a "basic level of competency", it is all downhill from there.

AR-10
January 29, 2003, 11:14 PM
I admit the use of the word proactive was in error, for violent felons that have been denied their right to bear arms are still paying for the crimes they have already commited.

So are all the felons that commited ridiculously minor offenses. Or committed no offense.

Your act of passing a background check has no bearing on your qualification of being responsible. "Responsible" is a term, when used in conjunction with firearms ownership, that varies from state to state. The BGC, if you pass it, only means they can't find you in their database.

Blackhawk
January 29, 2003, 11:17 PM
Beav, Drjones is right!

You apparently don't know the difference between a right and a privilege. :(

Beav
January 29, 2003, 11:17 PM
You do not need ANYONE'S permission to exercise a right.

Unless of course you're a felon.

[QUOTE]Car dealerships do NOT look at your driving record to determine if you are a "good driver" before you buy a car.
And a license again does NOT mean you are a responsible driver either.
For all the dealer knows, you could habitually DUI. You could've just walked out of the slammer from a DUI conviction and go buy a car.
You could have a grippe of accidents.
In short, you could be ANYTHING BUT a "responsible" driver for all the dealer knows.
QUOTE]

No they don't look at your driving record but that often determines whether or not you still have a license. I agree a license does not mean you are a responsible driver and the system isn't perfect.

Beav
January 29, 2003, 11:35 PM
Responsible as opposed to being a felon. Yes its vague but I thought it was understood.

"So are all the felons that commited ridiculously minor offenses. Or committed no offense."

I guess you missed my other post, I meant violent felons.

Drjones
January 29, 2003, 11:37 PM
Unless of course you're a felon.

NO, not even then!!!

The ONLY time you might need "permission" to exercise a RIGHT is while you are in PRISON. (Or boot camp! :p )

Again, Beav, PLEASE answer me this:

If we are SO afraid of what a felon might do once released, WHY IS HE BEING RELEASED IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Furthermore, why shouldn't we assume the same about you: that you might act irresponsibly with a gun?

Why are you ok with having to:

a) Prove you are "capable" or "responsible" enough to exercise your RIGHTS

b) Asking PERMISSION to exercise your rights

Why?

Again, you would support a "license" for speech?

Drjones
January 29, 2003, 11:39 PM
No they don't look at your driving record but that often determines whether or not you still have a license. I agree a license does not mean you are a responsible driver and the system isn't perfect.

Your whole argument just fell apart.

Would you support background checks for purchasing cars?

Why or why not?

NewShooter78
January 29, 2003, 11:40 PM
I'll chime in again on this one. The BGC system doesn't work because it only can identify criminal that have been CONVICTED. I know there are plenty of gun owners who are in violation of both federal and local laws where they live all the time when it comes to gun ownership. If they ever get caught they'll be screwed. But whose to say those laws are even just? Most of us don't agree with many if any gun laws.

And if even a violent felon has been released from jail, especially if they were paroled, then that means that they have paid back society for their crimes according to legaleese. So why shouldn't they have their rights reinstated? The last time I checked most felons can't vote, but they sure as hell can pay taxes! So they are constantly paying for their crime. The same goes with gun ownership. Violent felons, especially those who perpetrated their felonious deeds while using a firearm, should have to pay harder dues to society. But instead they are let out of state prisons, while some unlucky dead head gets busted by the feds rots away for the rest of his life because he smoke a lot of weed and buys it in bulk. Its a bad example, but so is our criminal justice system.

Background checks don't work. They imply guilt on everyone. So does filling out a federal form which just equals an unofficial registration system. A background check means that we have to ask for our right to buy a firearm, when no right should need permision in order to exercise it. I don't remember being forced by law to ask permission to speak out in public. Now what I say might get me in trouble, but I'm free to say it first.

Gun registration, and background checks, and federal forms all amount to prior restraint. The gov't sees fit to make us ask for permission, and at a price a lot of times for BGC's, to purchase a firearm, which is a Constitutionally protected RIGHT.

NewShooter78
January 29, 2003, 11:43 PM
If we all had the right to CCW, without the need of a permit, then a lot more criminals would think twice about what crimes they were going to commit. And we'd have a lot let violent criminals clogging up the prison system, and judicial system.

Drjones
January 29, 2003, 11:45 PM
especially those who perpetrated their felonious deeds while using a firearm, should have to pay harder dues to society

NO.

Because that lays blame on the TOOL used, NOT on the PERSON, where ALL of the blame belongs.

AR-10
January 29, 2003, 11:46 PM
I guess you missed my other post, I meant violent felons.

The fact that you meant "violent felons" does not change the fact that millions of people are denied the right to protect themselves because they are labeled for life as a felon.

you seem to feel that you are better than them and safer because the government has torn their copy of the Constitution to shreds and discarded it. Your copy is no better protected than theirs.

Mr. James
January 29, 2003, 11:56 PM
I love this place.

I was going to post vitriolic response to the Beav...

I don't have to.

Thank you, Oleg, ad infinitem, God bless you all.

Hey, Beav, hang around. Like me, you will learn much.

faustulus
January 30, 2003, 01:06 AM
JPM70535

The Law Abiding citizen has nothing to fear from a background check.
Either you don't have a very good imagination or you have never studied history. Or you are lucky enough to be white and not live in the delta country of Mississippi after the Civil War. Following that logic you wouldn't mind random searches of your house or person. After all if you've nothing to hide...

It just stands to reason that if drugs were legal, more people would try them
See Prohibition

If the war on drugs prevents even one person from becoming an addict, it is a worthwhile undertaking
If banning guns... If abolishing religion... If murdering children...
I assume you see the fault in that logic.
It is not society's place to protect you from you. Again follow the logic, because some people are addicted to videogames, caffine, sex, internet bulletin boards we should ban all of the above. Do you really believe that?

Blackhawk
January 30, 2003, 01:30 AM
Because that lays blame on the TOOL used, NOT on the PERSON, where ALL of the blame belongs.I'm not sure I agree with you there, Drjones.

The firearm greatly escalates the danger to the victim, and the criminal is deliberately doing that by bringing a gun into a crime.

Maybe it's like having a Chihuahua at the side of a mugger as opposed to a Pit Bull snarling at the victim with teeth bared and NO leash. I wouldn't be worried about the Taco seller attacking me, but the pit bull would really cause me some concern. I really would be madder about being threatened with a gun or a pit bull than a fist or a Chihuahua. At least in the latter case I've got a chance of escaping. So I'd definitely want any mugger using scary weapons on me punished harder.

And that wouldn't be blaming the dog or gun. It would be punishing the criminal for the greater assault of intimidation putting me in fear of my life. In addition to the robbery, I'd want the mugger punished for assault just for having those weapons present. If he used either one, I'd want him to suffer the same consequences he intended for me, but I'd be willing to settle for him receiving a lethal injection.

Beav
January 30, 2003, 03:15 AM
Well shoot...I had a fairly long reply and somehow got logged out and lost it all.

:cuss:

Anyway, I feel the BGCs are a necessary evil. I think they'll be here until the government can find an effective way to reform prisoners before letting them back on the streets. Its a work-around/stopgap for a failing system. There's no doubt that the root issue needs to be addressed and in the meantime BGCs and 1202a need to be refined.

I think I'm all done with this thread. I doubt my view will change much more but I have learned a few things and my perspective has changed.
Thanks for those who contributed and for keeping it civil. :D

Tamara
January 30, 2003, 06:55 AM
Thanks to you, too.

Stick around, I'm about to lay into young Drjones for having bought into the State's whole "Driving is a privilege" baloney. ;)

Bainx
January 30, 2003, 07:02 AM
Certainly not me.
If I spill hot coffee on my crotch, it's somebody else's fault
If I have an accident, it's somebody else's fault
If I didn't get the job, it's somebody else's fault
If I get fat eating McDonalds, it's somebody else's fault
If I go bankrupt, you got it, it's somebody else's fault ;)

Drjones
January 30, 2003, 11:25 PM
Stick around, I'm about to lay into young Drjones for having bought into the State's whole "Driving is a privilege" baloney.

Oh REALLY, fool?!

:D

Proceed....

If you enjoyed reading about "Who is responsible" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!