How about a federal permit to purchase?

[BullfrogKen]

You're contradicting yourself. If the law, in some cases can even persuade, then it can stop evil people from doing evil things, at least in some cases. If you don't agree that laws can influence a person's behavior, then that throws into question much bigger things. If laws are ineffective, why have them at all? Do we even need a gov't at that point? I think that's a bit absurd. Laws obviously DO have some effect

No I'm not.

As in the traffic light analogy. The law stating that I must stop at a red light doesn't make me stop. I chose to comply.

The law persuades people to obey the speed limit (or more likely not exceed it too much). The penalties for speeding persuades most drivers to obey the law. But sometimes you'll see someone blow by you doing 90 in a 55.

The law didn't stop him. The most the law can do is punish him. He still drove 90 mph down the highway. He's done it before, and he may do it again if he thinks he might not get caught.

In it's most basic form the law exists to keep people within a civilization from pursuing their own "justice" when they - or their loved ones - are wronged. You see evidence of a lack of the rule of law when people involved in criminal enterprise exact justice on those who broke a contract, or didn't pay their bill, or did any number of things the court system will not use the law to bring someone to justice.

Don't pay my bill when I remodel your house? I'll serve you a summons to appear in civil court.

Sexually assault my daughter? The DA will charge you with a felony and prosecute.

Don't pay me for the drugs I fronted you to sell? I can't serve you to appear in civil court.


The law can only punish what society deems unacceptable behavior. It can never prevent it. Otherwise we'd have no rapes, or robberies, or murders now, would we?

 

[0to60]

The law can only punish what society deems unacceptable behavior. It can never prevent it. Otherwise we'd have no rapes, or robberies, or murders now, would we?

You've gone off on a semantical tangent. I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to say, or how it applies to the topic of gun control. It seems like you're saying laws are ineffective when it comes to making the world a safer place. If that's how you feel, there isn't anything left to discuss.

 

[BullfrogKen]

If you feel a law against murder keeps people from committing murder, yup. There isn't much left to discuss.

 

[ngnrd]

What, then, do we do about red lights? In your example, it didn't prevent THAT tragedy. But, it prevented LOTS of others.

First, we mourn the loss of the children on the bus. Then, we do what we always do: we get up and drive to work the next morning. Then, we provide the traffic engineers the resources needed to determine if this was a random event, or if it is part of a statistically significant and preventable trend.

If it's just a random event, we do NOTHING. If it's a preventable trend, then the engineers need to determine the best way to mitigate either the number or severity of occurrences, or both, with as little impact to drivers as possible.

In other words, we need to allow the professionals to do their jobs. Obviously, banning cars isn't the solution. Neither is banning buses, or reducing the speed limit to 3mph everywhere. Nor is installing stop lights every 50 feet. Each of these ideas would certainly be effective in keeping buses from getting t-boned. But, the impact on the rest of the drivers is simply too burdensome.

The same way that your proposed "quick-fix" 20-minute psyche screening would be too burdensome on those that have not actually, and would likely never, commit violence simply because they aren't exactly what you might consider to be the perfect mental specimen.

Background checks (insofar as preventing violent criminals from buying guns) would absolutely be effective. Would these people still get guns? Sure...

Do you even hear yourself? If BC's would be "absolutely effective" insofar as preventing violent criminals from buying guns, how exactly would they still get guns?

 

[silicosys4]

You've gone off on a semantical tangent. I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to say, or how it applies to the topic of gun control. It seems like you're saying laws are ineffective when it comes to making the world a safer place. If that's how you feel, there isn't anything left to discuss.

You are missing the point here.
Laws are boundaries by which we measure whether state or federally mandated consequences have been earned, and to what degree. They are a measuring stick for determining whether someone should be prosecuted.

You have all sorts of laws on the books now prohibiting felons from obtaining and using weapons, prohibiting straw man purchases, etc. However, there are very little consequences to breaking those laws, as they are NOT enforced and people who break them are not being prosecuted.

Laws don't stop people who would otherwise do something if it weren't for the CONSEQUENCES. Those consequences do.

When we don't prosecute gun laws already on the books, we aren't providing any negative CONSEQUENCES.

We don't need more laws that have dire CONSEQUENCES for law abiding citizens, but no CONSEQUENCES for those who break them.

Laws don't stop people who are bent on being bad people. If anything stops them, it is the consequences of their actions, and how those consequences affect them personally. Like being shot in self defense, or locked in an unpleasant place for a long time

 

[ngnrd]

You're dodging the question.

Should a person with a history of violent crime be able to legally buy and own guns?

I'm not dodging. I've answered the question. Abuse of a right is an appropriate reason to strip a person of that right.

However, your abuse of a right is not an appropriate reason to strip me of my rights. If a person is so dangerous that they shouldn't be around guns, they also shouldn't be around screwdrivers, cars, bricks, bats, knives, or other deadly weapons, and therefore should be removed from society. No early release, no hall pass, no recidivism.

Does that clarify my position enough?

 

[0to60]

If it's just a random event, we do NOTHING. If it's a preventable trend, then the engineers need to determine the best way to mitigate either the number or severity of occurrences, or both, with as little impact to drivers as possible.

Exactly. And it is the opinion of many people that there might be some "preventableness" to some of these mass shootings that we've seen.

I didn't propose it. I asked IF there were such a thing, would you be in favor of implementing it?

A background check could be like that, and it would DEFINITELY flag violent criminals. So in the spirit of preventing preventable trends, why not explore these things? People around here are steadfast against ANYTHING like this. I just don't get it.

Do you even hear yourself? If BC's would be "absolutely effective" insofar as preventing violent criminals from buying guns, how exactly would they still get guns?

I said "absolutely be effective", not "absolutely effective". They're not the same. Background checks would NOT prevent violent criminals from ever getting guns. Background checks WOULD make it a lot harder for them to do so. Why are we so against background checks? I don't see the downside.

 

[0to60]

I'm not dodging. I've answered the question. Abuse of a right is an appropriate reason to strip a person of that right.

However, your abuse of a right is not an appropriate reason to strip me of my rights. If a person is so dangerous that they shouldn't be around guns, they also shouldn't be around screwdrivers, cars, bricks, bats, knives, or other deadly weapons, and therefore should be removed from society. No early release, no hall pass, no recidivism.

Does that clarify my position enough?

Yes, that's perfectly clear. So how do we deny that right to that person without somehow finding out about them? How do we do this without a background check?

And don't respond by saying "that person should be in jail already". That's an entirely different issue, and one we likely agree 100% on. I'm ONLY talking about restrictions on gun transactions.

 

[ngnrd]

Why are we so against background checks? I don't see the downside.

And this is what the discussion always boils down to... I don't see how it would have any negative impact on my life, so it can't be a bad thing, right?

Well, let me ask you this...

Would you see a downside to needing to ask permission and pay a fee to buy a religious text?

Maybe you would be OK with petitioning the court and paying a fee to get a fair and speedy jury trial?

How could there possibly be a downside for a woman needing to ask permission and pay a fee before she is allowed to vote? Or for a black man to drink from the same water fountain as a white man? Or to prevent search without warrant? Or, or, or, or.....

Or, is it just the Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms for which you think this requirement is OK?

 

[ngnrd]

So how do we deny that right to that person without somehow finding out about them? How do we do this without a background check?

I'm ONLY talking about restrictions on gun transactions.

That's the simplicity of the penal system. If they have already proven that they are dangerous, we already know who they are. And if they are dangerous, we keep them separated from dangerous weapons. It's really not as difficult as you are making it out to be.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Why are we so against background checks? I don't see the downside.

Because you can't envision the Federal government abusing a person's civil rights.

That's why.


Until you come to the realization that the Bill of Rights was put in place because the Founders expected that would occur - because that's the natural tendency of those who hold power - you'll never understand why civil rights advocates oppose giving government yet more power.

Even if it's for a good thing.

Even if it's something you think no one would ever abuse.


We don't have to look to foreign shores to see the abuse of civil rights. Our very own country provides sufficient history. From American Indians, to the blacks, to the Irish and Italians and Scots, to the Chinese, then the Japanese . . . you get the idea?

We must be very careful not to trust those in power. Their nature is to abuse it and lord over us.

 

[0to60]

And this is what the discussion always boils down to... I don't see how it would have any negative impact on my life, so it can't be a bad thing, right?

Well, let me ask you this...

Would you see a downside to needing to ask permission and pay a fee to buy a religious text?

Maybe you would be OK with petitioning the court and paying a fee to get a fair and speedy jury trial?

How could there possibly be a downside for a woman needing to ask permission and pay a fee before she is allowed to vote? Or for a black man to drink from the same water fountain as a white man? Or to prevent search without warrant? Or, or, or, or.....

Or, is it just the Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms for which you think this requirement is OK?

I would see downsides to the above, but I don't think those examples compare well with gun ownership. The fact that guns are weapons brings up a public safety issue that sets it apart from those items.

The bottom line is that public safety often does present a bit of an inconvenience. There are speed limits (and bumps, let's not forget about speed bumps), there are TONS of safety things built into cars that push up the price, I can't bring a bunch of gel for my 'do on a plane, and I have to wait in a long line to get through security. AND, I am subject to those millimeter scanners, and taking my shoes off. And your red lights, I have to stop at those in the name of safety. School buses, they have to stop at railroad tracks and open the door, to the dismay of all the cars behind them.

Yes, all those things are inconveniences, but what can you do? Safety is an inconvenience, you could say. Restricting violent criminals from easy access to guns is a public safety thing, so a bit of inconvenience is to be expected. UBCs are a LOT less inconvenient than red lights!

I ask you again: what's the downside?

 

[0to60]

Because you can't envision the Federal government abusing a person's civil rights.

That's why.

Until you come to the realization that the Bill of Rights was put in place because the Founders expected that would occur - because that's the natural tendency of those who hold power - you'll never understand why civil rights advocates oppose giving government yet more power.

Even if it's for a good thing.

Even is it's something you think no one would ever abuse.

Then why make ANY laws? Why have them at all? If you believe that each law is just the beginning of the end of your liberties, where do you go from there? Your distrust of the gov't is a bit paranoid. Our country is the free-est mankind has to offer. If you distrust THIS one, then you're pretty much screwed.

What direction have our gun rights gone over the last 50 years, more restrictive or less restrictive? Check out this link, it shows the progression of carry laws over the last 20 years: http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php

We in IL are FINALLY getting a carry law. Folks in Chicago can FINALLY buy handguns. From where I sit, I have more gun freedom today than at any point prior. I hear a lot about how the gov't is sending in the black helos to take my liberties away, but I'm not actually seeing it.

We don't have to look to foreign shores to see the abuse of civil rights. Our very own country provides sufficient history. From American Indians, to the blacks, to the Irish and Italians and Scots, to the Chinese, then the Japanese . . . you get the idea?

This has NOTHING to do with a gov't stealing liberties from people, and EVERYTHING to do with the general evolution of society towards more fairness and freedoms.

We must be very careful not to trust those in power. Their nature is to abuse it and lord over us.

No, their nature is to cater to us, the voters. Everything they do is in the name of reelection. We're the ones in charge here, not them.

 

[silicosys4]

Oto:
I'm having a hard time buying the argument that my rights should be restricted, because you feel that way.

"we are the ones in charge here, not them"

That is the way the system is designed, but them you have people that are trying to explain how we should work to give up the biggest incentive the Govt. has to stay that way....private firearm ownership.

 

[JockeyShifter]

Say NO to Federal Permits

States should regulate their own permits, Federal permits would put everything into the Ilk of California and NY

 

[ngnrd]

The fact that guns are weapons brings up a public safety issue that sets it apart from those items.

Would you also advocate that people should be forced to submit to a background check to buy lighters just because arsonists regularly walk among us?

Would you advocate that anybody assembling in a group pass a background check because people are sometimes killed in riots?

Should we not allow the free sales of baseball bats or knives because they are often used in the commission of violent crime?

Or, again, is it just BC's for the Constitutionally protected natural right to keep and bear arms that you insist is OK to burden otherwise law abiding people with?

 

[Carl N. Brown]

The powers that be in Chicago are still dragging their feet in the aftermath of the SCOTUS MacDonald 2010 decision overturning the Chicago handgun ban and applying 2A RKBA gun rights to the states. They are throwing up as many roadblocks as possible to legal handgun ownership in Chicago. Obama is from Chicago and supported the Chicago ban.

The hoodlums in my neighborhood when I was growing up got their guns illegally. So I do not see restrictions on legal purchase and ownership doing much good. I have seen that legal restrictions apply primarily to the lawabiding and are ignored by criminals.

The National Institute of Justice "Armed and Considered Dangerous Survey" found the majority of armed criminals got their guns from what the researchers called hard to regulate sources in hard to regulate manners, mostly from unorganized black marketeers: fences, burglars, drug dealers, fellow criminals, and other traffickers in contraband, plus 12% said they stole guns for person use while 40% said they had stolen guns (implying theft for illegal sale).

The Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of state inmates asked those who had guns where they got them, got much the same response. Retail sources breakdown of the BJS survey were:
13.9% Retail Sources:
8.3% Retail store
3.8% Pawnshop
1.0% Flea market
0.7% Gun show
Legal retail sources of firearms are minor sources for criminals. Criminals who use legal sources also tend to have a friend, lover or relative with no criminal record make the buy for them.

I think the net result of more and more restrictions on legal retail sources and on legal retail purchasers will rapidly reach the point of negative returns, if only from shifting police focus from 400,000 or so gun crimes to over-regulating 80 million American gunowners.

My home state constitution guarantees the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms; state court rulings and attorney general rulings say this covers all traditional lawful uses of firearms. The state reserves the power to regulate with a view to prevent crime; regulations must be designed to prevent crime, and cannot unduly affect traditional, lawful uses of firearms.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Then why make ANY laws? Why have them at all? If you believe that each law is just the beginning of the end of your liberties, where do you go from there?

I think I covered that in post #101.

Your distrust of the gov't is a bit paranoid. Our country is the free-est mankind has to offer. If you distrust THIS one, then you're pretty much screwed.

Hey, those aren't just my thoughts. Those are the thoughts of the people who sat in a hot room one summer in Philadelphia and drafted our Constitution. As you read it, really read it, you should come to the conclusion those guys were shackling themselves pretty hard. And in the Federalist Papers they debate over and over with the public how unrestrained governments suppressed civil rights.

They went so far as to guarantee certain enumerated rights.

It would be a whole lot easier if we could just take the police at their word when they say they caught someone red-handed in a crime, wouldn't it? But we don't. We don't let the police pronounce someone guilty.

And in the courts, we don't let a judge pronounce someone guilty. We have the right to a trial of a jury by our peers. It would be a whole lot easier if we let the judge, the judicial expert decide guilt, wouldn't it? But we don't.

And we have a right to counsel, paid for by the state if we can't afford it. We are innocent until proven guilty. The state has to make it's case; we don't have to make ours.

Wow, sure sounds like those guys were pretty damn paranoid, huh? Distrusting the cops and the judges, and even the whole court system itself weighing the scales pretty heavily to the accused with this whole "presumption of innocence" nonsense.


Civil liberties are precious things. We tamper with them at our peril.

 

[BullfrogKen]

We're the ones in charge here, not them.

We are, are we?


So, when we rounded up thousands of peacable Japanese and held them in internment camps through the duration of WWII, your parents? grandparents? they were in charge of that, were they?


The entirety of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and Western law is designed from the premise that government is at best a harsh master that should be questioned frequently, and at its worst the most horrid abuser of human rights.

 

[oneounceload]

What, then, do we do about red lights? In your example, it didn't prevent THAT tragedy. But, it prevented LOTS of others.

Perhaps you haven't heard about the study being done in Europe where they have eliminated EVERY traffic control device, including the basic lines - they put a daycare in a roundabout in the middle of the road - all with no issues....why? Because without all of the BS signage and laws, folks normally just slowed down and were careful - so your analogy doesn't wash.

Laws only do ONE thing - they restrict the freedoms of individuals. Are there a few that are deemed necessary? yes for some semblance of order....are there thousands of gun control laws that do nothing to stop crime or keep criminals behind bars? yep to that too

 

[kwguy]

Federal permit, really? What is the point. I admit, I came in late to this thread, but how could that solve anything? What would be the point, aside from some nanny state swinging at the 'good idea pinata' that does no good.

 

[ngnrd]

Federal permit, really? What is the point. I admit, I came in late to this thread, but how could that solve anything? What would be the point, aside from some nanny state swinging at the 'good idea pinata' that does no good.

That made me laugh... and reminded me of the saying: Never swing at a pinata that has hornets coming out of it!

 

[oneounceload]

If you truly believe that a Fed permit will solve things, then I want a Fed permit to vote, Fed permit (for tracking purposes) for those who post letters to the editor, a federal permit to worship at the altar of your choice, a federal permit to go to bathroom in a public restroom, a federal permit to fly on a plane, a federal permit to purchase a car

and on and on goes the stupidity and insanity of such a process

Sure do wish they taught CIVICS in school - most of these threads would disappear

 

[beatledog7]

Backgrounds checks don't stop violent criminals from getting guns--perpetual incarceration does.

Backgrounds checks don't the dangerously mentally ill from getting guns--perpetual institutionalization does.

Apply those principles, and we don't need background checks because everyone they're designed to stop from buying a gun has already been stopped.

Anybody want to make it more complicated than that?

 

[splattergun]

'Permits' are issued for 'priveleges' granted by the state and are revocable. Such as a driver license.
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a Right. It is inalienable. Just like the right to free speech. Just like the right to due process. You are born with it. No government 'issues' a right. But it can be surrendered. Just as the citizens of Minnesota and other states have surrendered their rights.

Keep your "purchase permit". Free people don't need it.