My experience with Amtrak Agent

[Sans Authoritas]

Okay. You agree that it's morally wrong to sell an M16 to a 10 year-old or to a mentally disturbed person. But your previous post indicated that you didn't think it should be LEGALLY wrong to do so. Most of English common law, and many of our present-day statutes have their basis in MORAL and RELIGIOUS laws and edicts. The crime of murder is legally so serious because the MORAL prohibition of murder has always been so.

Yes. Prior restraint is an unwise concept. I simply believe that you should be accountable for the consequences of your actions. Just as I don't believe you should have your tongue cut out if you go into a movie theater to keep you from screaming "fire" and causing people to die, but you should be held responsible if you actually harm people.

I agree with you that many of our present-day gun laws are oppressive, unconstitutional, and just plain wrong. But that doesn't mean that we should allow ANYone, at ANY age, with ANY background, to own a firearm. The National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Brady Act, and others which I have neglected to mention, are all total bull*****. I know that as well as you do. But there are gun laws on the books that DO make sense. You can't throw the baby out with the bathwater here. I realize that when many politicians talk about "reasonable gun laws", what they really mean are laws that would require all guns to be melted down and made into man-hole covers. But you surely realize that there has to be some way of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and mental incompetants without infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Yes. If the criminal or mentally incompentent person is a danger, he should be in dead or in confinement. Period. Such a measure does not infringe on the rights of peaceful (forget "law-abiding:" obeying laws and being peaceful are are not synonymous) people.

And by the way: When I spoke of the many shades of grey, I wasn't talking about "moral relativity". But I'm sure you already knew that.

You were talking about laws, taxation and the reason and morality behind their creation and implementation, were you not? Government? That pertains to morality. Likewise, there are ideas that are true to human nature, (good) and ideas that are contrary to human nature. (Goodness is lacking.) Coercion of innocent, just men is contrary to human nature. (Any true coercion is contrary to human nature, but punishment for a crime is a result of someone who has forfeited his right to a particular thing is not truly coercion, as it was accepted by the offender in the commission of the act. For example: a man who initiates aggression and tries to kill another man has forfeited his life by the action.)

Taxation is nothing else but the initiation of aggression against men who have done nothing but live in peaceful society, and voluntarily interact with other men. I forfeit nothing by living peacefully with other men. We all benefit by our peaceful interactions. When we start choosing how to spend each other's money, problems arise. When we make a claim to a "right" to do so, that is where true blindness enters into the picture.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[bigjohnson]

I'm not sure if you realize this, but prohibiting the sale of a firearm to a convicted criminal is a lot different from cutting someone's tungue out because of what they "might" yell. Maybe they're both examples of prior restraint, but the tungue-cutting is a pretty poor example. I thought you could do better than that.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

I'm disappointed in me, too, Big. Here's a more "reasonable" prior restraint: how about clapping someone in branks before they go into a theater? We both know that you can have someone kicked out of a theater for talking: why not prevent it in the first place?

That's right: because it is unjust and inconvenient to those who know how to keep their mouths shut while in the theater. It punishes everyone instead of the offender.

As a superior alternative to prior restraint for everyone, how about ensuring that the "wrong hands" are either cold and dead, or holding onto prison bars instead of firearms, so the rest of us don't have to worry about them ignoring the rights of others, as we all know they do anyway, whether they use a firearm, knife, bat or boot?

-Sans Authoritas

 

[bigjohnson]

So the only punishment for a felony is going to be life without parole? And you're going to institutionalize all mental patients for their entire lives? Who's going to PAY for all that if there are no taxes?

 

[Autolycus]

Said by Sans Authoritas: As a superior alternative to prior restraint for everyone, how about ensuring that the "wrong hands" are either cold and dead, or holding onto prison bars instead of firearms, so the rest of us don't have to worry about them ignoring the rights of others, as we all know they do anyway, whether they use a firearm, knife, bat or boot?

So you would punish the mentally ill for being ill?

So convicted felons cannot rehabilitate themselves? Where in the Bill of Rights does it say that people who are not in prison (prisoners obviously have no rights but the state takes on the responsibility of being their ward) have to lose their rights? Do they not pay taxes when they are forced to do prison labor?

 

[Sans Authoritas]

So the only punishment for a felony is going to be life without parole? And you're going to institutionalize all mental patients for their entire lives?

If someone is a danger to other people, do you think he should he be out on the streets, whether or not he can "legally" obtain a firearm or not? That's my only question.

Who's going to PAY for all that if there are no taxes?

Dangerous mentally unstable people should be under sane supervision at all times, do you disagree? If this is the case, how are they going to get ahold of a firearm, legally or otherwise?

As for how these things would be paid for? The same way it was before the government was our Mommy and our Daddy. The individuals' families would look after these people, or they would be taken in by charitable institutions funded voluntarily (and imagine how much money people could donate if they didn't have to sink it into the money pit of government "charities.") This includes church institutions and other secular institutions.

As for undoubtedly violent criminals such as rapists (repeat and otherwise,) etc? They have proven they are a threat to human beings. Execution is inexpensive. If you can use lethal force to defend yourself from a forcible rape, and someone has proven that they have and likely will rape again, execute them. As it is, rapists spend an average of about 7 years in prison leeching off the taxpayer.

And imagine how much money would be saved by legalizing the victimless acts that ended up causing perhaps 40% of the prison population.

Yes: such things can be funded in ways other than by gunpoint.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Sans Authoritas]

So you would punish the mentally ill for being ill?

Is keeping people safe from dangerous people "punishing" the mentally ill for being mentally ill? I did not say we should execute the mentally ill. We should not. But we should keep them from harming other people. It would be preferable to have their family members do that, but sometimes, it is not possible. This is where voluntarily-funded charitable institutions come in.

So convicted felons cannot rehabilitate themselves? Where in the Bill of Rights does it say that people who are not in prison (prisoners obviously have no rights but the state takes on the responsibility of being their ward) have to lose their rights?

Surely convicted felons can rehabilitate themselves. It's happened. But I didn't see how those two animals in Connecticut rehabilitated themselves after 27 break-in convictions, right before they raped a man's wife and two daughters, then burnt them alive. Why were they out? And would having had a prohibition against their purchasing firearms helped at all? No. No, it would not have helped.

I'm all in favor of anyone who is out on the streets being able to purchase firearms. But if someone is dangerous, he should be in prison. There's no happy middle ground to the infringement of rights.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

I'm all in favor of anyone who is out on the streets being able to purchase firearms. But if someone is dangerous, he should be in prison. There's no happy middle ground to the infringement of rights.


so how does lew rockwell tell you you can accomplish this

 

[bigjohnson]

So prisons should be funded by "voluntary contributions"? You can't really believe this.

And how about putting "dangerous" people in prison? Who decides which among us is "dangerous"? And how does that person who makes the decision get paid for his time?

What about families who refuse to believe that one of their members is mentally ill. and therefor refuse to keep him/her confined? Do you and your vigilante friends shoot them?

Lastly, what would happen if I and my friends decided that YOU were "dangerous", and had YOU put in one of OUR "voluntarily-funded charitable institutions", behind bars? Since there would be no court system for you to appeal to, (how could there be one, since there would be no taxes to pay for such a thing?), how would you ever get out? Who would look after YOUR rights?