Are background checks necessary?

Since I have a much clearer idea where Larry is coming from, maybe I can pose a relevant question.

If we agree that further regulation and legislation is not the solution, why push for something just to say we did something? Wouldn't it be better to delve deeper into the question and attempt to strike at the root cause, rather than a symptom?

So I again pose my unanswered question: What is the root problem you seek to solve?

If we agree that further regulation and legislation is not the solution, why push for something just to say we did something? Wouldn't it be better to delve deeper into the question and attempt to strike at the root cause, rather than a symptom?

Click to expand...

This is the double edged sword. We can't come to a solution because there is no definable problem. Therefore, while we decide to determine the root cause, our foes will come up with a solution to a problem that they feel exists... too many guns on the street, too easy to get ahold of one.

So, we stand by our principals and truly try to stop these assaults with research and finding root causes while the antis take advantage of the open wounds and pound legislation down our throats. That is why I am so worked up over this. We don't have time to do it the right way. If we pause, they'll attack. What are our options?

The root cause is mentally ill young men, known beforehand to be a danger, and allowed to continue unaddressed by the current system.

We have two options. We can either beat the drum for identifying the real problem and dealing with a long term solution, or we can sell our rights down the sewer for nothing in return and solve nothing.

Suppose we agree to some sort of legislation (that we agree solves nothing) in response to these recent events. We lose a little more freedom, gain nothing and solve nothing. Then another mass murder, mall shooting or nut job with another type of firearm happens. Where do we go from there? Give away more freedom for nothing?

That is the problem. If we give up anything now, we lose now and later. If we do nothing now they will say we are not trying to solve anything so we get forced legislation.

We can't offer a solution like we need to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally infirm because they'll want to have a psyche sign-off to get a permit.

We can't give in to any legislation that includes a back door registration because that gives them future options they don't have today.

All I can think of is severe penalties to the laws on the books now. Add 10 years to any crime when a weapon is used or illegally possessed or make it a higher class felony. Make the penalty to any illegal possession of a firearm a minimum of 10 years with no reduction of the time served for good behavior and do not allow any firearm related penalty to run concurrent with any other sentence. Make having/using a firearm in any crime a serious issue and maybe there will be some reduction in violence during crimes. Do not allow any plea bargaining with firearm related penalties. It's 10 years for the firearm related part of the sentencing. If they get 6 months probation for the crime then it's 10 years served and 6 months probation, no early release.

This is not an ideal answer but it shows we wish to help control the use of firearms obtained illegally. It shows we wish to come up with a solution without giving up any more rights. It shows that we care when right now it shows that we don't care one bit. It shows honest movement on our part that we wish to be a part of the solution. It does not give up any more rights and it actually forces them to enforce the laws already in place instead of making new, useless laws. The laws are already there, just enforce them to the fullest extent. This is just one example of trying to solve an issue without giving up any more rights. I'm sure there are other solutions. That is what we need to do; find solutions without giving up rights.

If someone is bent on killing a bunch of people and then himself, no law will prevent that. Those crimes will always occur because there is no way to know when and where a nut job will lose it. Society does not understand that these crimes do happen when you have 300 million people in a country. However, their answer is to eradicate every gun there is yet we know that won't stop the mass murderer from killing, he'll just find a different way. They don't see that right now because of the recent events.

larryh1108 said:

That is the problem. If we give up anything now, we lose now and later. If we do nothing now they will say we are not trying to solve anything so we get forced legislation.

We can't offer a solution like we need to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally infirm because they'll want to have a psyche sign-off to get a permit.

We can't give in to any legislation that includes a back door registration because that gives them future options they don't have today.

All I can think of is severe penalties to the laws on the books now. Add 10 years to any crime when a weapon is used or illegally possessed or make it a higher class felony. Make the penalty to any illegal possession of a firearm a minimum of 10 years with no reduction of the time served for good behavior and do not allow any firearm related penalty to run concurrent with any other sentence. Make having/using a firearm in any crime a serious issue and maybe there will be some reduction in violence during crimes. Do not allow any plea bargaining with firearm related penalties. It's 10 years for the firearm related part of the sentencing. If they get 6 months probation for the crime then it's 10 years served and 6 months probation, no early release.

This is not an ideal answer but it shows we wish to help control the use of firearms obtained illegally. It shows we wish to come up with a solution without giving up any more rights. It shows that we care when right now it shows that we don't care one bit. It shows honest movement on our part that we wish to be a part of the solution. It does not give up any more rights and it actually forces them to enforce the laws already in place instead of making new, useless laws. The laws are already there, just enforce them to the fullest extent. This is just one example of trying to solve an issue without giving up any more rights. I'm sure there are other solutions. That is what we need to do; find solutions without giving up rights.

If someone is bent on killing a bunch of people and then himself, no law will prevent that. Those crimes will always occur because there is no way to know when and where a nut job will lose it. Society does not understand that these crimes do happen when you have 300 million people in a country. However, their answer is to eradicate every gun there is yet we know that won't stop the mass murderer from killing, he'll just find a different way. They don't see that right now because of the recent events.

Click to expand...

Bull feces.

larryh, you couldn't be more mistaken

No. Anyone who commits a violent felony should have life-long consequences from it. The Constitution states that no man shall be deprived of his rights without due process of law. Convicted felons have (literally) had their day in court.

Click to expand...

I think this is meant that people can be deprived of their Constitutional rights pursuant to effecting "punishment" like prison. I don't believe the framers of the constitution meant people should be permanently deprived of their Constitutional Rights for LIFE. Why don't they just use deprivation of rights as a punishment? If a reporter breaks the law you can remove their right to free speech for life, you can remove someone's rights to freedom of religion or right to assemble if you think they are part of a harmful religion, or remove their right to due process so you don't even need to take them to court for punishment. None of those things would hold up in court but you are so quick to dismiss oppressing a person's 2nd Amendment rights. The deprivation of rights is NOT a punishment in its self and oppressing their rights is something that is taken way too lightly if you ask me. PRISON is the punishment. If you think his rights should be oppressed because he is a danger he should be in prison. If he is living peacefully by the law he is a citizen and deserves all the rights given to him as a human being. I fully support the repression of his rights while he is in prison or under government supervision but after that he shouldn't have the beg the nanny state for his rights back. The nanny state should have to prove why they have the right to oppress them. THAT is due process.

jon_in_wv said:

I think this is meant that people can be deprived of their Constitutional rights pursuant to effecting "punishment" like prison. I don't believe the framers of the constitution meant people should be permanently deprived of their Constitutional Rights for LIFE. Why don't they just use deprivation of rights as a punishment? If a reporter breaks the law you can remove their right to free speech for life, you can remove someone's rights to freedom of religion or right to assemble if you think they are part of a harmful religion, or remove their right to due process so you don't even need to take them to court for punishment. None of those things would hold up in court but you are so quick to dismiss oppressing a person's 2nd Amendment rights. The deprivation of rights is NOT a punishment in its self and oppressing their rights is something that is taken way too lightly if you ask me. PRISON is the punishment. If you think his rights should be oppressed because he is a danger he should be in prison. If he is living peacefully by the law he is a citizen and deserves all the rights given to him as a human being. I fully support the repression of his rights while he is in prison or under government supervision but after that he shouldn't have the beg the nanny state for his rights back. The nanny state should have to prove why they have the right to oppress them. THAT is due process.

Click to expand...

Well said.

Bull feces.

larryh, you couldn't be more mistaken

Click to expand...

Excellent reply,
I especially like the part where you state what you disagree with.
I also enjoyed your suggestions on how to confront this issue.

Thanks to the contribution.
I guess you'll just accept what the antis push thru and then decide what to do.

larryh1108 said:

Excellent reply,
I especially like the part where you state what you disagree with.
I also enjoyed your suggestions on how to confront this issue.

Thanks to the contribution.
I guess you'll just accept what the antis push thru and then decide what to do.

Click to expand...

Giving up infringements upon our Rights simply as a lip service to appease the gun banners, even though the infringements are both unconstitutional and destined to be ineffective at increasing safety, is a stupid 'strategy' that leads down a very bad road.

PRISON is the punishment. If you think his rights should be oppressed because he is a danger he should be in prison. If he is living peacefully by the law he is a citizen and deserves all the rights given to him as a human being. I fully support the repression of his rights while he is in prison or under government supervision but after that he shouldn't have the beg the nanny state for his rights back. The nanny state should have to prove why they have the right to oppress them. THAT is due process.

Click to expand...

First, where did I mention anything about rights after his release? I stated we add 10 years to his sentence as punishment for his crime. Did you just add that to my post or did you read that in what I wrote?

Since YOU brought up the topic of after the release of a felon let's look at that. You state that once he does his time he is eligible for every right we all have because if he shouldn't be allowed them then he should just rot in jail.

Well, part of his punishment, and he knows this up front, is he loses his right to own firearms and he loses his right to vote. That is also part of his sentence. If he is going to do the crime, he is going to do the time and suffer all the consequences that goes with him robbing the gas station, assaulting someone for their cash or doing a car jacking.

Many here feel non-violent felons deserve a different "sentence". I'll disagree. If it's serious enough to be considered a felony by law and he knows this when he does his crime then he accepts the consequences.

Some say almost half of the people serving felonies are for non-violent or "victimless" crimes. Possession of pot has been mentioned. Possession of controlled substances. White collar crimes. Stupid mistakes by stupid kids, etc. Well, from what I've seen, first offenses are usually bargained down to less than felony convictions. Repeat offenders know the consequences and decide to commit their crime anyways.

What about non-violent criminals who steal identities and empty a bank account. No gun was used, no violence, no one really got hurt if they had insurance, etc. Do these guys deserve to get back their freedoms back after serving their sentence? They did non-violent crimes, right?

How about the guys who prey on the older, retired people and sell them air for their life savings. No big deal, it was just a scam. No one got hurt, shot, stabbed or beaten. How about guys like Madoff? He didn't do anyting violent. All he did was steal millions and millions of dollars from people like you and me. No one was physically hurt, right?

Robbery. I rob you and show you a gun in my belt. Non-violent but a threat of violence.
Burglary. I come in when you are away and steal your belongings including your guns.
I did not carry any weapon of any type. Non-violent. You weren't even home. I'm a nice guy! I don't want to hurt anybody. I steal, I don't hurt people.

These guys deserve to get out of prison and get their rights back?

Nope, they deserve what they earned. They deserve to never be able to own a firearm because they committed what the law says are felonies and once you are convicted of a felony you cannot have the rights the law says you will lose if you do the crime.

Criminals know up front that they can lose their rights if they commit the act they are planning. It is full disclosure. When they show you the gun in their belt they are choosing to give up the right to carry a weapon. Period. It's their choice. It's their life. They chose to lose their rights. No one took them from them.

So, even though my earlier post did not suggest anything your reply did, this post now does. You can agree or disagree but the law is on my side in this one. It is not an opinion, it is a fact. You do the crime, you do the time AND you lose your rights, 2nd amendment or not. The 2nd amendment didn't give us the right to use our firearms to rob others of their property.

Giving up infringements upon our Rights simply as a lip service to appease the gun banners, even though the infringements are both unconstitutional and destined to be ineffective at increasing safety, is a stupid 'strategy' that leads down a very bad road.

Click to expand...

What infringements on what rights did I say we should give up? Asking for a harsher sentence for a conviction is not giving up a single thing. It is enforcing the laws already in place. What am I missing here? What are you missing here?

larryh1108 said:

What infringements on what rights did I say we should give up? Asking for a harsher sentence for a conviction is not giving up a single thing. It is enforcing the laws already in place. What am I missing here? What are you missing here?

Click to expand...

Denying people their 2A rights seems like an infringement to me.

I'm sorry. It's obvious you have trouble comprehending sentences. I think I'll let you keep your tin foil hat and go merrily on my way. It's hard to have a discussion with someone who cannot comprehend the written word.

larryh1108 said:

Well, part of his punishment, and he knows this up front, is he loses his right to own firearms and he loses his right to vote. That is also part of his sentence. If he is going to do the crime, he is going to do the time and suffer all the consequences that goes with him robbing the gas station, assaulting someone for their cash or doing a car jacking.

Click to expand...

So you only support a lifetime of disarmament for violent felonies? Other felons get all of their Rights when they are released from prison?

Larry, applying statist logic in a libertarian discussion is the cause of your frustration. The foundational principles diverge at such a basic level, you'll never see eye to eye.
You believe the state can revoke natural rights for behaviors the state itself defines, we do not.

larryh1108 said:

I'm sorry. It's obvious you have trouble comprehending sentences. I think I'll let you keep your tin foil hat and go merrily on my way. It's hard to have a discussion with someone who cannot comprehend the written word.

Click to expand...

No worries, your response was clear and well-thought out. Had some very good points. An inability to refute them does not reflect on you.

larryh1108 said:

Many here feel non-violent felons deserve a different "sentence". I'll disagree. If it's serious enough to be considered a felony by law and he knows this when he does his crime then he accepts the consequences.

Click to expand...

This is absolute ridiculous.

Here is a THR example: Until somewhat recently it was a felony in Georgia to possess a gun within a "reasonable distance" of a bus stop. It is legal to have a gun in your car without a license, and we are shall issue. Do you REALLY believe that a person who walks down a sidewalk legally carrying a gun with a Firearms License should be subject to a lifetime of disarmament for coming within a "reasonable distance" of the bus stop on the street corner?

Really? Do you honestly believe that?

BD got it right! Also, the mental health records are sealed pretty much.In the case of bad teachers, the principals cannot call ahead to the next school to warn them.Same with mental health issues.That's wrong.Period

Here is a THR example: Until somewhat recently it was a felony in Georgia to possess a gun within a "reasonable distance" of a bus stop. It is legal to have a gun in your car without a license, and we are shall issue. Do you REALLY believe that a person who walks down a sidewalk legally carrying a gun with a Firearms License should be subject to a lifetime of disarmament for coming within a "reasonable distance" of the bus stop on the street corner?

Really? Do you honestly believe that?

Click to expand...

Do I think this is right or fair?
No, of course not.
This looks like a case for lawyers to fight because "a reasonable distance" is vague and subject to interpretation. If it was a first offense I could guess that it would be considered in a different light. Key word is guess.

There are many laws on the books that have been there for many years and are not enforced because they are outdated. This sounds like a case to have the law challenged, not whether a felon has the right to own firearms. It is a law that anyone convicted of a felony loses his right to vote and to bear arms. I personally feel that 99% of the laws considered felonies are just because the only system we have in place also feels that way. If a law needs to be reviewed because of the time passed since it's inception, then that's the way to go. I am not comfortable allowing convicted felons having the right to bear arms. It is not something I am offering to the antis. It's already in place.

I stated we should add an additional 10 years to any sentence if there is a firearm available during the commission of a crime. That is throwing away the 2nd amendment? Hardly. I'd say there is as much of a chance of someone being convicted of a felony like the one you mentioned as there is in being killed by a mass murderer.

Should 99.9997% of the felons who didn't get convicted of some stupid law get a free pass? If you say yes then that is exactly what the antis are trying to do to our 2nd amendment rights because of a handful of mass killings. That's called double standards.

larryh1108 said:

Do I think this is right or fair?
No, of course not.

Click to expand...

But it's a felony. According to you he knew by the very nature of the crime that he risked losing his Rights for life. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, you said.

larryh1108 said:

I stated we should add an additional 10 years to any sentence if there is a firearm available during the commission of a crime.

Click to expand...

Holy crap, so not only should he be a felon and give up Rights for life, but he should be in prison for 10 or more years?

You have go to be kidding me.

And just for the sake of argument, pretend that he actually walked through the "bus stop" on the sidewalk, so the whole "what is a reasonable distance" thing is a moot point.

larryh1108 said:

Should 99.9997% of the felons who didn't get convicted of some stupid law get a free pass? If you say yes then that is exactly what the antis are trying to do to our 2nd amendment rights because of a handful of mass killings. That's called double standards.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

What I am and have been saying is that making it illegal for people who are free in society, to be armed, is just plain dumb, and is no more than 'feel good' legislation that is every bit as (in)effective as "gun free" school zones.

Larry: Given the recent broaching from FBI statistics that more people have been killed through the illegal use of hammers or clubs than from the use of rifles what would you propose to do to eliminate the slaughter from those weapons? Arguing about a nonsolution to a nonproblem which is kept front and center by the press and politicians in order to divert our attention from the fact that the Titanic (the United States as a Constitutional Republic) is sinking is not going to draw converts to the cause of the Second Amendment. As I have stated elsewhere, the Constitution is not a buffet line, we either have it all or we have none.

As I have stated elsewhere, the Constitution is not a buffet line, we either have it all or we have none.

Click to expand...

What I am and have been saying is that making it illegal for people who are free in society, to be armed, is just plain dumb,

Click to expand...

We can agree to disagree.

I do not feel that somebody who chooses to rape, kill, rob, molest or any number of crimes against humanity has any rights if he is convicted. We all have a right to bear arms from our 2nd amendment. We also have the right to not be raped, beaten, murdered, robbed or molested by an even higher amendment.

You choose to give up your rights when you choose to do the crime. It is a conscious choice. No one took your rights, you gave them up voluntarily.

Forgive me for I am dumb. What relationship does your answer have to my quotation about the Constitution? My point is that the Constitution is a protector of itself against tyrants and dictators if it is followed. You give up any of the rights guaranteed the citizens by the Bill of Rights the remainder of the protections in the Constitution become mere sound bites. I think that unbiased observers of our government have been able to see the deterioration since about 1910. The licensing of the Second Amendment will guarantee this republic will never see a 300 year anniversary.

So, please refresh me as to why you disagree with my statement or why you may think I am a knuckle dragging throwback.

As I have stated elsewhere, the Constitution is not a buffet line, we either have it all or we have none.

Click to expand...

So, please refresh me as to why you disagree with my statement or why you may think I am a knuckle dragging throwback.

Click to expand...

I never said you were a knuckledragging throwback. I never insulted you or called you any name at all.

I took your quote to read either we have all of our constitutional rights or we have none of them, no matter what.

My response stated that I feel some people (felons) do not have all of their constitutional rights. I stated they renounced their right to bear arms and their right to vote when they chose to commit a felony. So, I feel it is not all or nothing because some people don't have all by their own doing. We just disagree. No name calling here.