Stop it with the car/driver license analogies!

[crazysquirrel]

quite interesting.

It begs to ask this:

How does one 'opt out' of ll this government madness so we can have gun freedom like it was written and intended?

 

[Sam1911]

Opt out?



Uh, not sure if you're serious or just flappin' your gums for yukks, but ok...

1) Opt out of civil society. Become a criminal. Do whatever you want whenever you want to whomever you want however you want with whatever possessions you want, for as long as you can until you run afoul of someone who can stop you.

2) Move to some other country with laws which do not bind you the way ours do. Good luck finding some country like that ... trust me, folks have looked the world over without result.

3) Die.



Otherwise, you're born into a world, and a nation, and a country, and a society, and a social stratum, etc. that has laws of physics, laws of civil society, criminal laws, social norms, mores, traditions, that will all constrain your freedom of action. Good luck opting out.

 

[crazysquirrel]

Most states follow federal guidelines and such. I think I read that under federal law, felons permanently lose their gun rights unless pardoned.

Of course that applies to federal felonies, not state felonies.

In one state, Kansas, you could have your (gun) rights restored after a certain time lapse and sometimes other conditions met for State felonies.

It seems there are too many rules in too many different places.

 

[crazysquirrel]

LOL I am not now or ever wanted to be a criminal.

I wondered if there was a way to 'opt-out' of all these government rules and regulations so freedom can be restored.

Let's say I wanted to buy a new gun. Let's say I didn't have a particular ID for the state I want to buy it in (like a gun show or great sale across a state border).

Technically I cannot buy one because I do not have that particular state's ID. And getting someone to buy it for me (so I can enjoy that great deal) is illegal so I cannot do that either.

A lot of this seems unnecessary. And appears to have a money motive involved.

FYI: there is no country as you mentioned where one has the freedom from all these gun regulations.

 

[Sam1911]

Most states follow federal guidelines and such. I think I read that under federal law, felons permanently lose their gun rights unless pardoned.

Yes.

Of course that applies to federal felonies, not state felonies.

No. That applies to any felony convictions, period.

In one state, Kansas, you could have your (gun) rights restored after a certain time lapse and sometimes other conditions met for State felonies.

In any state it is possible to apply for restitution of rights. Long and difficult process, but it does happen.

It seems there are too many rules in too many different places.

Did your high school have civics class? Do you understand how federalism works?

Read this really helpful page. There's a whole lot of great reading on that site:
http://wwnorton.com/college/polisci/american-government12/brief/ch/03/outline.aspx

 

[crazysquirrel]

PS I would prefer to follow natural law instead of compulsory political/social laws.

Natural law generally means do no harm unless there is no alternative.

This would imply that if I wanted to CC or get guns, there would be no interference by anyone.

The ATF should be a convenient store not a government agency!

 

[Sam1911]

I wondered if there was a way to 'opt-out' of all these government rules and regulations so freedom can be restored.

Eh... ok, look, ask a pot smoker. Ask someone who wants to be married to three or four women. Ask someone who feels that private property is unnatural and s/he should have equal access to anyone else's possessions or lands. Ask someone who thinks they should be able to kill another person who tries to take their possessions. Ask someone who likes to drink beer while driving. Ask someone who's a stock broker and feels they should be able to call a friend in industry and get some tips on when to sell or buy. Ask someone who wants to fly their unregistered drone around, or doesn't like anyone in the government knowing they own a dog. Ask someone who feels compelled to eat other people (stick to corpses...no harm to another living person, right?).

Ask any of them if they've found a way to "opt out" and "have their freedom restored."

Let's say I wanted to buy a new gun. Let's say I didn't have a particular ID for the state I want to buy it in (like a gun show or great sale across a state border).

Technically I cannot buy one because I do not have that particular state's ID.

Ok, so technically you can't buy because you are not a RESIDENT of that state, not actually because of the ID. IDs just make proving it a little easier. And that only applies to handguns. Long gun sales, from a dealer, are perfectly legal across state lines. AND, if it is a handgun you can still buy it and have it sent to your local dealer in your state to do the transfer. But anyway...

And getting someone to buy it for me (so I can enjoy that great deal) is illegal so I cannot do that either.
A lot of this seems unnecessary. And appears to have a money motive involved.

It seems unnecessary to you because it IS largely unnecessary from a practical viewpoint, for the vast majority of folks who would do those transfers.

However, the people of the country, via their legislative representatives, decided back in 1968 that it would be an acceptable restriction on freedom to make sales like that go through a system of federally licensed firearms dealers -- the point being that it would catch some folks who were trying to buy guns when society had decided they shouldn't have them.

People voted, legislators made laws. Here we are. Every law, ever, is a trade of somebody's freedom to do something in exchange for the promise of something else.

FYI: there is no country as you mentioned where one has the freedom from all these gun regulations.

Oh, there are places where you can, at least practically speaking and maybe legally too, be free from our style of firearms laws, but they all seem to be the sorts of places no sane person with any choice in the matter would want to ... or dare to ... live.

 

[Sam1911]

PS I would prefer to follow natural law instead of compulsory political/social laws.

Natural law generally means do no harm unless there is no alternative.

This would imply that if I wanted to CC or get guns, there would be no interference by anyone.

Uh, sure. Wouldn't we all? So?

 

[crazysquirrel]

indeed I remember some of the civics from HS.

Up until 1937 states took care of governing (as your site mentioned). But then things changed and we enjoyed more government overreach and loss of gun rights among other rights.

Still nothing in there says I have to agree or even follow those government mandates.

When this country was created they founders felt that nothing should bind future generations to the then existing system (hence the incorporation of constitutional amendments for that end).

Binding people to agreements made centuries ago is like buying a house and saying that your kids can never sell it or must live in it is practically doing the same thing. You would bind future generations to your decisions.

How this applies to guns is this:

We have the 2nd amendment. No subsequent amendment modifying that amendment exists. Such an amendment requires consent of the people (today) via elected officials/representatives.

So rights enumerated come from our creator, not the government unless an Amendment is made.

Guns are to ensure liberty (initially) and for other legal situations.

IMHO everyone should be armed and trained as the 2nd purports that we should be doing all along.

You cannot be armed, carry, etc if there are laws infringing on that duty and right.

Why do we need background checks anyway? They are not necessary as criminals get guns anyway.

Why do we need 'permission' from the government (aka a CC license) to have and carry guns?
You own the item. You paid taxes on it, right?

 

[Sam1911]

Yeah...ok then. Sure. We hear people say all of these things all of the time. And yet, here we are. You say you aren't a criminal and don't ever want to be one. Yet...

Still nothing in there says I have to agree or even follow those government mandates.

Don't follow the laws passed by your representatives in government (and the representatives of all the OTHER people who want all sorts of different things than you do), and guess what? You're a criminal.

So, what does that do for ya?

 

[Spats McGee]

. . . .Still nothing in there says I have to agree or even follow those government mandates.

Umm, if you don't follow "those government mandates," you become a criminal. From that point, things go downhill.

When this country was created they founders felt that nothing should bind future generations to the then existing system (hence the incorporation of constitutional amendments for that end).

Do you have a source for that claim? I have a pretty strong hunch that the founding fathers felt that overthrow of the government should be: (a) possible, and (b) a last resort. I have a hard time with the idea that they felt that "nothing should bind future generations to the then existing system."

Binding people to agreements made centuries ago is like buying a house and saying that your kids can never sell it or must live in it is practically doing the same thing. You would bind future generations to your decisions.

No, establishing a government to "bind" future generations bears very little resemblance to real estate transactions.

Besides, even in real estate, conditions frequently "run with the land" so as to bind future owners.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Still nothing in there says I have to agree or even follow those government mandates....

Except if you don't in the real world there are some (often nasty) consequences.

1. What you believe to be true is not necessarily what actually is true in real life in the real world. And what you believe to be true won't change what actually is true in real life in the real world.
   
   
2. Some people understand reality to be what actually goes on in real life in the real world. Others confuse what goes on in their heads for reality, and those folks tend to have a much harder time dealing with real life in the real world.

...When this country was created they founders felt that nothing should bind future generations to the then existing system (hence the incorporation of constitutional amendments for that end).

Binding people to agreements made centuries ago is like buying a house and saying that your kids can never sell it or must live in it is practically doing the same thing. You would bind future generations to your decisions.....

You might believe that, but, as noted above, that doesn't make it true. What is your evidence for those contentions.

On the other hand, the Founding Fathers provided in the Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2):

...This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.....

That is not limited in time. It doesn't say "the supreme law of the land this week (or for the next two/ten/one hundred years)."

...IMHO everyone should be armed and trained as the 2nd purports that we should be doing all along....

But, to be blunt, no one really cares what your opinion is -- at least with regard to what goes on in the real world. Your opinion will not change how things are actually done in the real world, and everyone will continue about their business without regard to you opinions.

...Why do we need 'permission' from the government (aka a CC license) to have and carry guns? You own the item. You paid taxes on it, right?

The short answer is because that's what the laws are at present. Now you can join with others and try to get those laws change through political action, or you could try to talk a judge into overturning those laws, or you could be a criminal and violate those laws (and suffer the consequences if you are caught).

At the end of the day this sort of meandering through alternate realities really doesn't accomplish anything (unless some folks find it entertaining). We live in the real world, not any of those alternate realities.

 

[tdstout]

Eh... ok, look, ask a pot smoker. Ask someone who wants to be married to three or four women. Ask someone who feels that private property is unnatural and s/he should have equal access to anyone else's possessions or lands. Ask someone who thinks they should be able to kill another person who tries to take their possessions. Ask someone who likes to drink beer while driving. Ask someone who's a stock broker and feels they should be able to call a friend in industry and get some tips on when to sell or buy. Ask someone who wants to fly their unregistered drone around, or doesn't like anyone in the government knowing they own a dog. Ask someone who feels compelled to eat other people (stick to corpses...no harm to another living person, right?).

Not to derail the conversation here, but since when have we had to report owning a dog?

 

[Sam1911]

Not to derail the conversation here, but since when have we had to report owning a dog?

There are plenty of places in this country where having a dog license is mandatory if you keep one as a pet. You can break that law, and may get away with it, but it is the law. Your freedom to not report and register that animal only exists insofar as you're willing to break the law. (Or move to some other place, of course.)

 

[TfflHndn]

Well, my county has a licensing requirement for dogs. And cats. Same thing, isn't it?

 

[P5 Guy]

Banning backyard pools would do more for saving innocent toddlers from drowning.

 

[Lost Sheep]

Banning backyard pools would do more for saving innocent toddlers from drowning.

To take that analogy one increment further, note that backyard pools allow for toddlers to learn how to swim, just as having guns around allow children to learn gun safety.

I recognize that my extension of the analogy is more than labored, it is largely inappropriate. So, stop it with the swimming pool/car analogies.

I also recognize that we will not be able to ban all analogies used well or used badly (just as we will not be able to ban all weapons, or their uses).

So, I suggest we learn to point out (particularly when involved in a debate) where analogies have been extended beyond their applicability, and to do so persuasively. In this way, analogies become a useful tool to sway the undecided to see the truth.

Lost Sheep

p,s, Is the pool/car analogy analogous to the car/gun analogy? Or to the gun/pool analogy?