I want to make a solid argument against background checks beyond the basic infringement on our rights dealio. Most of us here agree felons and insane people should be banned from owning guns. But what good is that law if its not executable. I know they can get guns through other means, but what good is banning felons from getting guns if they could walk into a store and buy one. Can anybody help me argue that point beyond background checks are infringements?
Help me with this gun control argument
- Thread starter cbrgator
- Start date
- Status
hadmanysons
Member
It sounds like to me that an instant background check would be the only way to enforce such law. Short of a gun owners ID card or tattooing a convicted felon. And those are horrible ideas. There is no real way to identify a felon/insane person without such a system. I don't like the idea myself but if it keeps guns out of the hands of known psychos then it is a sacrifice I'm willing to make. That's just me though.
Captain Kyle
Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2009
- Messages
- 71
I think if the felons are still dangerous people, leave them in prison. Otherwise they should be allowed to have guns.
He is not a gun owner. He is a gun control advocate, but not a radical one. He doesn't advocate outright bans, just what he deems actual "common sense" measures. He doesn't mean Eric Holder's view of common sense measures, but what he thinks are legitimate like background checks and waiting periods.
I've pretty much said that before but he argues that speech is not a deadly weapon, guns are. I retorted with the fundamental freedom argument but I'm just looking for more, if there IS more.
The whole concept of restricting what people can have/purchase flys in the face of personal freedoms.
There are a lot of people convicted of felony charges that are no more dangerous than the local Paster , Rabbi, or Nun .
Laws should deal with behavior - not objects. If a person has demonstrated they are a danger to others, then they should be locked up, or disposed of, depending on the level of their threat to others. To ban objects in an attempt to prevent bad behavior is just plain going down the wrong road.
There are a lot of people convicted of felony charges that are no more dangerous than the local Paster , Rabbi, or Nun .
Laws should deal with behavior - not objects. If a person has demonstrated they are a danger to others, then they should be locked up, or disposed of, depending on the level of their threat to others. To ban objects in an attempt to prevent bad behavior is just plain going down the wrong road.
Ok gentlemen...and ladies
Heres my take, I work in jail here in VA and I am in contact with convicted felons on a near daily basis. I feel that if these men and women have done their time, they have payed their debt to society and should be given their freedoms back just the same as you and me. The whole no voting or gun buying is a scare tactic imposed on the public to control us by our near socialist government. I wont lie to you and say that these men and women in jail/prison are saints by any means but it has been my experience that most of them are people that have made a mistake in life, got caught and are paying back the rest of us for what they did. And I am sorry to bring this into the thread but what the heck is the deal with not being allowed to buy more than one handgun a month?? I mean if I can afford two does that not help the economy more? I dont know I am losing my mind over this Liberal nonsense that we see everyday. Who are these people going to come crying to when the country does collapse? Well, I will stop at that.
Heres my take, I work in jail here in VA and I am in contact with convicted felons on a near daily basis. I feel that if these men and women have done their time, they have payed their debt to society and should be given their freedoms back just the same as you and me. The whole no voting or gun buying is a scare tactic imposed on the public to control us by our near socialist government. I wont lie to you and say that these men and women in jail/prison are saints by any means but it has been my experience that most of them are people that have made a mistake in life, got caught and are paying back the rest of us for what they did. And I am sorry to bring this into the thread but what the heck is the deal with not being allowed to buy more than one handgun a month?? I mean if I can afford two does that not help the economy more? I dont know I am losing my mind over this Liberal nonsense that we see everyday. Who are these people going to come crying to when the country does collapse? Well, I will stop at that.
Kind of Blued
Member
If they are inherently dangerous individuals, why are they out of prison? Even if they are released under the auspice of the Eighth Amendment, surely there were some identifiable aggravating factors which could have incapacitated a specific individual for a longer period of time. If we shouldn't trust them with a gun, should we trust them with a car? a kitchen knife?
The same questions could apply to the mentally ill.
Individuals who have served their sentence, or those who have been deemed to be rehabilitated and let out on parole, should be allowed to own guns for the same reasons the rest of us are, all lawful purposes.
Even if pure statistics show that allowing these individuals to own guns is a bad idea, guns still aren't the problem. The problem would be that the parole board doesn't know what they're doing, or that the sentences that we impose do not have the appropriate deterent or rehabilitative effect.
The same questions could apply to the mentally ill.
Individuals who have served their sentence, or those who have been deemed to be rehabilitated and let out on parole, should be allowed to own guns for the same reasons the rest of us are, all lawful purposes.
Even if pure statistics show that allowing these individuals to own guns is a bad idea, guns still aren't the problem. The problem would be that the parole board doesn't know what they're doing, or that the sentences that we impose do not have the appropriate deterent or rehabilitative effect.
tasco 74
Member
it's my understanding that most felons or ex cons get their guns from the street a private sales or some way other than going through the paperwork to get a registered gun..... if a guy wants a gun bad enough he can get it...... if the guns are banned or outlawed there will a whole nother blackmarket pop up where a guy can get a gun or other weapon.... the background check is an infringment in my eyes too but you'll never be able to convince a staunch anti gunner of anything..........
"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
the 2nd amendment was never about hunting.................................
"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
the 2nd amendment was never about hunting.................................
Harve Curry
Member
Kind of Blued,
You probaly know but that is the way it used to be, if you served your sentence you came out a free man. Some famous ones were Frank James, and John Wesley Hardin.
You probaly know but that is the way it used to be, if you served your sentence you came out a free man. Some famous ones were Frank James, and John Wesley Hardin.
We just had fifty some odd pages of debate over just this issue. I remember reading one post in which a person actually said that their mind had been changed ( to anti-background check) by the debate.
Some people are not going to change their minds no matter what. And, since this is the internet, some people will refuse to change their minds just to get your goat.
Hardin passed the bar after prison and was (nominally) working as a lawyer in El Paso when John Selman killed him.
Some people are not going to change their minds no matter what. And, since this is the internet, some people will refuse to change their minds just to get your goat.
Hardin passed the bar after prison and was (nominally) working as a lawyer in El Paso when John Selman killed him.
CoRoMo
Member
Here is the argument IN FAVOR OF this type of gun control...
I don’t see how that makes any sense, but there you have it.
I FEEL that free men, with felony records, shouldn’t be allowed to defend themselves from armed attackers, by way of using the most effective modern weapon that equalizes such encounters. Also, their family members, their children and spouse, should have thought twice before being born into that family or loving that person, because if they think they can rely on that felon for protection of their family home, think again. I don't believe any single felon ever changed their ways. All felons are the same. Those people are dangerous, tax cheats, postal frauds, rapists; they're all the same to me. Call me prejudice, bigoted, intolerant, or narrow-minded; I’m happy to wear those labels. I feel that those people’s 2nd Amendment right should be permanently criminalized by our government regardless of the fact that none of our founding documents grant our government that level of power or authority. I’d happily hand over my liberty to an inept and ineffective government for a small portion of perceived security. The founders were wrong, the Constitution shouldn’t limit our government, rather, it should empower IT to limit US.
People don’t kill people, guns do.
People don’t kill people, guns do.
I don’t see how that makes any sense, but there you have it.
Last edited:
Any free man ought to be able to buy, possess, bear, transfer, sell a firearm. Any person deemed "not fit", or "a danger to the public" needs to be;
a) under 24 hr supervision
b) incarcerated
d) six feet under
Anything else, regardless of the excuses and "explanations" is extending the prison yard into society.
Yes, it is that simple.
a) under 24 hr supervision
b) incarcerated
d) six feet under
Anything else, regardless of the excuses and "explanations" is extending the prison yard into society.
Yes, it is that simple.
GojuBrian
Member
A violent person bent on bad things will do bad things, laws or no laws.
To put things in perspective, I never forget our Founding Fathers were violent, treasonous terrorists.
They never, ever would have removed their own right to bear arms. Nor asked any free man to do the same.
Pulse
Member
isen't that exactly the problem?
no matter where you look at in the world, the Prison system can not keep up with the 'dangerous' people.
conditional prison sentences or let out on Poarole way before the end of there sentence.
currently the Prison system sucks and way to many people that are no danger to the public are in there and way to many that ruin the society are not/no longer in there.
yes, peoples that want guns will get them on the blackmarket.
but contray to popular believe, the Blackmarket is not a building with a gunshop inside that just does not 'play by the rules'.
they can not go in there and choose the gun that fits them best with top of the line self defense ammo, they have to take what bobby down at the corner has right now... and that is more often then not a Lorcine in 25ACP with half a mag of old FMJ ammo.
CoRoMo
Member
Added the logic to your delusion.
Blackbeard
Member
I'm probably in the minority here but I don't have a problem with felons losing their 2A rights. They already lose voting rights. I'd prefer if it were only violent felons, but hey - it was their choice to commit a felony. They have to live with the consequences.
All of the people saying that they should be kept in prison are just not being practical. We can't afford to keep everyone in prison until they're no longer dangerous. Besides, who is going to decide when you're no longer dangerous? Do you know how much bureaucracy that would take? The fact is that dangerous people get released all the time, and will continue to do so.
Pursuasion [sic] makes a good point that the definition of "insane" is subjective at best. It could easily be politicized to dramatically expand the list of prohibited persons. See the definition of "unsafe gun" in California.
All of the people saying that they should be kept in prison are just not being practical. We can't afford to keep everyone in prison until they're no longer dangerous. Besides, who is going to decide when you're no longer dangerous? Do you know how much bureaucracy that would take? The fact is that dangerous people get released all the time, and will continue to do so.
Pursuasion [sic] makes a good point that the definition of "insane" is subjective at best. It could easily be politicized to dramatically expand the list of prohibited persons. See the definition of "unsafe gun" in California.
chuckusaret
member
Thanks for the link, never saw it before.
I don't like making blanket statements, but with the recidivism rates as high as they are for convicted felons I am unsure that I could support returning their 2ND Amendment Rights to them.
See: http://www.cor.state.pa.us/stats/lib/stats/BJS Recidivism Study.pdf
See: http://www.cor.state.pa.us/stats/lib/stats/BJS Recidivism Study.pdf
gbw
Member
(Just one unpopular opinion; I've seen some very good arguments on the other side here as well.)
I don't have any particular heartburn either with a background check, and/or required training / certification, nor with denial to felons.
The problem is that some of us would like to lump all 'rights' into the same box of risk / reward to the others around us. Common sense says it doesn't wash.
While true that speech, religion, the press, and other rights can be and are misused, none of them are immediately fatal in the same way guns are, and none of them are capable the instant and irreversible damage guns can cause. With those others there is normally a chance to intervene, and time to respond. It is fact, and clear to everyone, that guns are inherently immediately dangerous in ways those other rights are not.
Other people aren't stupid, they know this. It's foolish and insulting to try persueding them that this difference doesn't exist, and to me such arguments make us look either stupid, or fanatical, or both.
It follows then, at least to me, that it's reasonable for them to require those who choose to exercise the more dangerous right be required to demonstrate at least minimal competence and a history of mental and social responsibility before allowing it, and we should be helping, not hindering. It may be annoying at worst, but there are plenty of ways to do it and still prevent abuse. As such it is not an infringement.
Felons, well, they made their own choices. It's a sadness that some of these people do change and would be fine with a gun, and it's a fact that too many do not and should never have one. And often impossible to tell the difference, and I'm not sure there is any particular benefit in forcing the rest of us to try. The costs of felony crimes are no secret, and anyone who neglects to calculate in advance should be prepared to pay them. Can it be made perfectly fair? No. Nor can anything else.
I don't have any particular heartburn either with a background check, and/or required training / certification, nor with denial to felons.
The problem is that some of us would like to lump all 'rights' into the same box of risk / reward to the others around us. Common sense says it doesn't wash.
While true that speech, religion, the press, and other rights can be and are misused, none of them are immediately fatal in the same way guns are, and none of them are capable the instant and irreversible damage guns can cause. With those others there is normally a chance to intervene, and time to respond. It is fact, and clear to everyone, that guns are inherently immediately dangerous in ways those other rights are not.
Other people aren't stupid, they know this. It's foolish and insulting to try persueding them that this difference doesn't exist, and to me such arguments make us look either stupid, or fanatical, or both.
It follows then, at least to me, that it's reasonable for them to require those who choose to exercise the more dangerous right be required to demonstrate at least minimal competence and a history of mental and social responsibility before allowing it, and we should be helping, not hindering. It may be annoying at worst, but there are plenty of ways to do it and still prevent abuse. As such it is not an infringement.
Felons, well, they made their own choices. It's a sadness that some of these people do change and would be fine with a gun, and it's a fact that too many do not and should never have one. And often impossible to tell the difference, and I'm not sure there is any particular benefit in forcing the rest of us to try. The costs of felony crimes are no secret, and anyone who neglects to calculate in advance should be prepared to pay them. Can it be made perfectly fair? No. Nor can anything else.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
