The battle over "reasonable" gun regulations

[Vern Humphrey]

Because the intentions of the law are more important than its effectiveness? That's a purely emotional stance. What's silly is holding dear to ineffective laws for no logical reason. Continuing to do the same thing over and over, while expecting different outcomes is silly.

What harm to society did the NICS check undo?

Point to the proof of its wisdom.

Please, please show us what massive evidence justifies that system.

The antis expect us to believe -- based on no evidence whatsoever -- that their "reasonable" infringements on the Bill of Rights "work." If we don't believe, we are "unreasonable." If we show positive evidence that they don't work, we're heretics.

 

[christcorp]

No matter how reasonable or effective you want it to be; there would HAVE to be some sort of background check. If not, there's no way to determine if the person wanting to buy a gun is in the category that everyone else agrees on 100% as the "Accepted" and "Effective" means. So, no matter what that effective or acceptable means is; some sort of background check has to be down.

As for the PRIVATE Property owner; They have and SHOULD have complete say over what happens on their property; so long as those "Allowed" on said property are "FREE TO LEAVE" at any time if they don't agree with any rules or policies set forth by the Property Owner. And if the "Visitor" refuses to comply with said rules/policies; and then refuses to leave said "Private Property"; that person should be arrest and put in jail for trespassing. So; if I the owner of a piece of property says "No Guns" or "No Hats" or "No Pets" or "ANYTHING"; then YOU as the VISITOR who physical presence there is a "PRIVILEGE" and NOT a "RIGHT"; must decide whether to abide by my rules/policies, or decide to NOT come onto my property. That is a very simple and logical position based on a private property owner's RIGHTS. The ONLY RIGHT that you as a Visitor has on someone else's PRIVATE PROPERTY, is the RIGHT TO LEAVE. ANYTHING else there is a PRIVILEGE.

The ONLY RIGHTS we have are the right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". All amendments in the Bill of Rights are simply boundaries to PROHIBIT the government from interfering with the common natural and basic principles that allow us to live our lives within our right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". In other words, the Bill of Rights is how we exercise our right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". We exercise these 3 rights by being allowed to defend ourselves. By being able to worship and speak as we wish. By not having our private property illegally searched and taken away from us. And so on. The Bill of Rights are the tools we use to be free to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuing Happiness". But it's a common and ACCEPTED FACT; that you can not deprive another person of their RIGHT to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" by claiming YOU have rights. Your happiness which for you includes freedom of Religion, doesn't mean you get to walk onto your neighbor's yard and sacrifice his dog. Your freedom of LIBERTY doesn't mean you are allowed to trespass another person's private property without their consent just because YOU believe that you have the right to liberty to come and go wherever you want to. That is why you DON'T have ANY say so on someone else's private property; other than to be allowed to LEAVE.

This premise also means if you use some of the tools of the Bill of Rights to transgress someone else's rights; and you are found guilty by your peers; then it is totally acceptable to NOT ALLOW you to use some of the tools of your freedom via the Bill of Rights, in the future. I.e. It is acceptable that a convicted child abuser; even though they have served "X" amount of years, can have their punishment include being on community lists stating you are a convicted child abuser. Forced to wear a locater bracelet. And other means. It might mean that your RIGHT to LIBERTY is being limited; but that is acceptable. And if you abused someone else's right happiness, life, and liberty by raping; murder; assault; robbery; etc... then it is totally acceptable to limit this person's arsenal of tools; via the bill of rights. They can still have their RIGHT to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness; but they will have to find a way to do so without the use of a firearm; allowed to pursue certain employment; or possibly a number of other tools in their PURSUIT of happiness. There is NOTHING unreasonable with this frame of thought. A convicted criminal; after paying their debt; also has the RIGHT to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. But they shouldn't be allowed the same tools that the law abiding citizens enjoy through the Bill of Rights. They will have to pursue their happiness with a Limited amount of tools.

And the only way to determine who/what/where/when is to do some sort of background check. That is reasonable; so long as it's instant and free. And those who are free to use the 2nd amendment as a tool in their pursuit of happiness; protecting their life; and maintaining their liberty; should be allowed to do so totally unobstructed. ANYONE legally possessing a gun should be allowed to carry it concealed or open without permits. They shouldn't be limited to what type of gun, how many, where purchased, state lines, etc... If you are free to use the 2nd amendment as a tool to your Rights; it should be 100% unobstructed.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

No matter how reasonable or effective you want it to be; there would HAVE to be some sort of background check.

Why does there HAVE to be some sort of background check? What purpose does it serve? And can you demonstrate with facts that it actually has served that purpose?

 

[TexasRifleman]

No matter how reasonable or effective you want it to be; there would HAVE to be some sort of background check.

This one always is so interesting to me. People absolutely insisting there needs to be some background check in place but they always forget:

1) 95% (varies depending on the source) of guns used in crimes are stolen and

2) private party transactions require no background checks.

So what exactly is it about background checks that makes you feel better?

Seriously, why do they make you "feel good"? I don't get it.


The other thing that is always fun is this whole private property thing. I read many guys just going off about private property rights this, private property rights that. Yet, with the background check you are saying that you believe the government should put restrictions on your buying and selling of personal private property.

Gives me a headache trying to rationalize some of the thinking I read here.

 

[eqfan592]

Texas, you do make a good point, though I don't think it's a politically viable position to hold right now (EDIT:this is in reference to getting rid of the background check requirement). However, pointing out the "illegally possessed" gun fact is still a good way to help defend against further gun laws.

Honestly, to me, gun control advocates are distracting from the REAL issues that cause the majority of crime in this nation, such as poor education and poverty (IMHO at least). That's what gets me mad at them the most. They force us to waste our time with this crap, and they distract from the real issues. It's a divisive argument that makes it hard for people to "reach across the isle" to work together on these issues.

Anyway, sorry for the mini-rant. Thanks for the input

 

[TexasRifleman]

Honestly, to me, gun control advocates are distracting from the REAL issues that cause the majority of crime in this nation, such as poor education and poverty (IMHO at least). That's what gets me mad at them the most. They force us to waste our time with this crap, and they distract from the real issues. It's a divisive argument that makes it hard for people to "reach across the isle" to work together on these issues.

I think you pretty much nailed it there.

Gun control is where politicians turn when their social programs have failed so that they can claim they are "doing something" and get re-elected.

That's all gun control laws are and all they have ever been.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Honestly, to me, gun control advocates are distracting from the REAL issues that cause the majority of crime in this nation, such as poor education and poverty (IMHO at least).

Those two are one and the same thing -- poor education begets poverty.

But liberals don't like what you said -- because education is the responsibility of government. Read your state constitution, and I will bet a dollar it contains words to the effect that it is the responsibility of the state to educate the children.

And of all the socialist programs in the country, the Public School system is the closest to Marx' ideal -- the goverment owns the means of production (the buildings, computers, books, etc.) The government hires and pays the workers (teachers, administrators, bus drivers, etc.) The government totally controls the system.

And the system has completely failed.

Now some liberal will jump up and say, "Well my child's school is okay." And I'll say, "What's your state and district?" And go to the state Report Card site and find that there's another district within a few miles that has an abismal record. I'll find that minority children score far lower than majority children.

And that is the shame of our system -- in the rich, liberal enclaves, the schools aren't so bad. It's in the poor areas that they fail. And the liberals don't care -- they've got their schools, and the devil with anyone else's kids.

It's a heck of a lot easier to blame guns than it is to admit that the failure of liberal programs is responsible for crime and poverty.

 

[christcorp]

An instant background check doesn't stop or hinder any law abiding citizen from obtaining a weapon if they want it. It does take away the convenience of a felon from picking up a gun instantly. Can they still get a gun? Yes; but it will take them going through their inner circle to get one illegally; or from a private sale which isn't always as readily available. Obviously; if a criminal was allowed to walk into a pawn shop or gun shop and buy any gun within minutes; then they probably would be able to commit their crime immediately. If it's a financial issue; they'll still steal the weapons. But there's a lot of crimes committed that are done without the use of a gun. Making a gun instantly available to a criminal makes no sense. And again; no one's rights or ability to own a gun is impaired by an instant background check. The check is normally completed faster than you can fill out the paper work to buy the gun.

But I do believe that the rules need to be national. If the 2nd amendment is suppose to mean the same thing for all Americans in every state; then one state shouldn't require a permit while another doesn't. A person legal to buy a gun should be allowed to buy anything they want and carry it anyway they want. And all without permit. But there are NO NEGATIVES to an instant background check. None at all.

And I believe that Private property is a no brainer. If it's MY property, then I have complete say so on what happens on it. If you don't like it, you are free to leave or free to not even enter it. You have no "RIGHTS" on my private property. You only have privileges. And it may sound arrogant, but I won't compromise that belief. There is absolutely nothing that can be said that will make me change my position on that. I KNOW I'm right about that. There is nothing anyone can tell me that will convince me that another person should be allowed to tell me what I can or can't do on my property. As long as I am not deceiving people and making them come onto my property by false pretense; then they have the ultimate decision on whether to come onto my property or not to. But to believe you have RIGHTS on my property is absurd. You don't even have the right to free speech. I can tell you to shut the hell up, and if you don't like it, you are free to leave. That is the ONLY right you have. The right to leave. I don't have the right to detain you. But other than that; no way in hell do you have ANY rights. Only privileges.

 

[General Geoff]

An instant background check doesn't stop or hinder any law abiding citizen from obtaining a weapon if they want it.

Thousands of people who have been held up for various anomalies and records discrepancies would tell you otherwise.

But there are NO NEGATIVES to an instant background check. None at all.

That would only be true if the instant background check system operated on a "proceed with sale UNLESS we find definitive proof of a felony conviction" basis. As of right now, you can be denied or delayed for numerous reasons, which makes the system broken.

And even if it DID operate on that basis, who's paying for this instant background check system? Such a scheme obviously costs a lot of money to keep running. Money that could be put to better use elsewhere. Since NICS does not statistically prevent or reduce crime in any way, I think we'd all be better off if it were abolished, along with the rest of the 1968 GCA and 1934 NFA.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Obviously; if a criminal was allowed to walk into a pawn shop or gun shop and buy any gun within minutes; then they probably would be able to commit their crime immediately.

So the problem with your line of reasoning here is that we have very recent history to look at. The Brady law and it's background check have only been in place since 1993.

Before 1993, the things you warn about didn't happen, they just didn't.

What exactly then is the point of the background checks? They didn't exist before 1993, they still don't apply to private transactions, and 90 something plus percent of guns used in crimes are stolen.

And again; no one's rights or ability to own a gun is impaired by an instant background check. The check is normally completed faster than you can fill out the paper work to buy the gun.

Depending on who you source the info from there are as many as 20,000 false NICS rejects every year. You're going to tell me there is no impairment of rights in those cases?

But there are NO NEGATIVES to an instant background check. None at all.

Which is provably false, but even if we pretend you are right, and there are no negatives, what are the positives? Again, provably none since the crime rate didn't go down after 1993.

So you are in favor of laws that cost a ton of taxpayer money to administrate, have no positive benefits at all, and cause at least 20,000 problems a year for law abiding citizens?

Wow.

 

[christcorp]

Yea; and my Ford Mustang sometimes breaks down too. That doesn't mean I throw it away in the garbage. Nothing is perfect. There are a lot of rules/laws/policies that can and should be fixed. So, we fix it. But you don't just throw it in the garbage because a small minority of consumers are being inconvenienced.

Just like I should be able to carry a gun to and from ANY state in the country. That needs to be fixed. I should be able to buy a weapon online or over the phone WITHOUT it having to go through an FFL dealer. I should be able to have it delivered to my house via the post office. That needs to be fixed. There are a lot of laws concerning guns that need to be fixed. But the answer isn't to be a lawless society living in our paranoid compounds. I LOVE the fact that the government knows that there's 80 million gun owners. I WANT the government to know that there are 150 million gun owners. And I want them to know that if they took every military, police, DEA, FBI, CIA, Sheriff, HS, or deputized any other type of law enforcement; that there is no way in hell that they would have enough fire power to stop the people from maintaining control of the political process. The problem is; as a PEOPLE; we aren't very well organized. That's because we have some radicals and some complacent sheep. But the one thing I definitely learned and came to appreciate after 21 years in the military; is that no organization or society can be successful if there isn't discipline. A discipline means certain rules.

The problem isn't gun laws. The laws are fine. The problem is that many people don't RESPECT the laws. And the reason they don't respect the laws, is because there is no mandatory sentencing with any of our laws. If a criminal knew for a fact that a certain crime would result in a guaranteed sentence if caught; there would be some second thoughts. But as it stands, between plea bargain, state's evidence, and good behavior; a criminal with a 10 year sentence can get out in 3. For them; crime pays.

 

[General Geoff]

But you don't just throw it in the garbage because a small minority of consumers are being inconvenienced.

Your Ford Mustang provides a legitimate function. NICS does not.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

An instant background check doesn't stop or hinder any law abiding citizen from obtaining a weapon if they want it. It does take away the convenience of a felon from picking up a gun instantly.

Don't give us your opinion, give us evidence. Show actual data proving the instant background check has resulted in a reduction of violent crime.

 

[TexasRifleman]

But you don't just throw it in the garbage because a small minority of consumers are being inconvenienced.

Wait. You just said there were no negatives to the background checks.

First it was "there are no negatives". Now it's "well there are a few but so what".

This is the criteria now for passing laws in this country? And you're OK with that?

Again ignoring the fact that the crime rate before and after 1993 didn't change?

A discipline means certain rules.

Discpline means rules that have a positive impact, not just rules for the sake of rules.

You cannot show where the NICS has a positive impact.

I've been asking for years for you guys that are OK with Brady to show where it's had a positive impact. I'm still waiting.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

But you don't just throw it in the garbage because a small minority of consumers are being inconvenienced.

No, you throw it in the garbage because:

1. It doesn't work.
2. It costs a lot of money.
3. It inconveniences a lot of people.

And:

4. It violates the Constitution.

 

[christcorp]

I guess I'm mostly curious about what texas and vern believes then is the RIGHT answer???? Because no matter how many people comment; their answer seems to always be the same. No rules at all; no background checks at all; no restrictions at all; and so on. Sort of reminds me of some ignorant people that's attitude was: "Well, the teens are going to have sex anyway; so we should be providing them with condoms". In other words, they don't believe they can make any change or have any impact on the behavior of teens. So therefor, why even try. Just give them condoms and HOPE they don't get pregnant or get aids. We don't need to teach kids NOT to have sex, because they're going to do it anyway.

Well I guess that rules, background checks, restrictions, etc... have no affect whatsoever. Therefor, we shouldn't try and make it work. We should just open up the availability to every single person in the country; law abiding or criminal, legal or illegal immigrant, sane or mentally disturbed, etc... Because restrictions, rules, checks, etc... don't work anyway. Then we'll just punish those who misuse the guns. Damn; Texas and Vern, you sound so much like a far left Rodney King liberal that it's scary. "Can't we all just get along"?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I guess I'm mostly curious about what texas and vern believes then is the RIGHT answer????

The right answer is simple -- follow the Constitution.

Do not attempt to circumvent the Bill of Rights. Do not attempt to foist off on us approaches that don't work and violate the Bill of Rights.

And if you've been following the thread -- work on the real problem, the failed education system. Build a fire under local and state government and demand that all children get a first class education -- after all, to condemn some children to bad public schools violates their 14th Amendment right to equal protection under the law.

 

[rbernie]

Because no matter how many people comment; their answer seems to always be the same. No rules at all; no background checks at all; no restrictions at all; and so on.

Pre-1968 would be just fine, thankyouverymuch.

Sort of reminds me of some ignorant people that's attitude was: "Well, the teens are going to have sex anyway; so we should be providing them with condoms". In other words, they don't believe they can make any change or have any impact on the behavior of teens. So therefor, why even try. Just give them condoms and HOPE they don't get pregnant or get aids. We don't need to teach kids NOT to have sex, because they're going to do it anyway.

Let's accept this analogy as true.

My approach would be to TEACH folk to not have sex, but also teach them how to deal with it responsibly. If they misused their, uh, tackle, there would be social penalties to pay. That is how things went WRT firearms prior to 1968 or so.

Your approach would be akin to having the government lock each and every teen into a chastity belt and only allow them to remove it occasionally when they pass whatever you define as a background/character check.

Which sounds more insane?

 

[General Geoff]

Well I guess that rules, background checks, restrictions, etc... have no affect whatsoever. Therefor, we shouldn't try and make it work. We should just open up the availability to every single person in the country; law abiding or criminal, legal or illegal immigrant, sane or mentally disturbed, etc... Because restrictions, rules, checks, etc... don't work anyway. Then we'll just punish those who misuse the guns.

That's exactly what we're saying.

Ownership of a gun has no victim; thus it should not be a crime, regardless of who owns it. Guns are no different than power tools. When's the last time you needed a background check and a form 4473 to buy a circular saw?

 

[Jamie C.]

The problem isn't gun laws. The laws are fine. The problem is that many people don't RESPECT the laws. And the reason they don't respect the laws, is because there is no mandatory sentencing with any of our laws. If a criminal knew for a fact that a certain crime would result in a guaranteed sentence if caught; there would be some second thoughts. But as it stands, between plea bargain, state's evidence, and good behavior; a criminal with a 10 year sentence can get out in 3. For them; crime pays.

You're contradicting yourself here.

One, the laws aren't "fine" if the people who commit crimes aren't obeying them, irregardless of the reason for it.

Two, if the people who commit crimes aren't obeying them any way... why add more to the stack?

And since you mention sentencing and punishment, why not take the route of enforcing the laws that would keep firearms from being a problem in the first place? You know... the ones regarding rape, robbery, murder, and all those other violent crimes? There's plenty of those on the books already, y'know.

Seems to me that if that were done, and the laws actually had some "teeth", then any law concerning weapons of any kind would be pointless and redundant.

So, by your own logic, making the punishment severe enough for committing the act it's self... and actually implementing it... should completely eliminate the need or desire to ban or control the tools or objects used in the process. No?



J.C.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

One, the laws aren't "fine" if the people who commit crimes aren't obeying them, irregardless of the reason for it.

Two, if the people who commit crimes aren't obeying them any way... why add more to the stack?

The first test of fairness is fidelity to purpose. A law that doesn't work is unfair to everyone -- because the rights of honest people are restricted for no payback.

 

[eqfan592]

Well, with all do respect Vern, speaking as what would be classified as a "liberal", I can tell you that myself, nor anybody else that I know, would say that the current education system is a success.

The problem with privatizing schools is that most (if not all) voucher or privatized systems do not make much in the way of allowances for "troubled" children, nor for children with disabilities. Voucher schools tend to pick the cream of the crop, and avoid the others like the black death. This has the affect of making them appear to be an amazing success, but that success is only skin deep.

Now, if you want to put forward a plan for privatized schools where ALL children are included, then you will certainly have my ear (and I'm serious about this).

But this is getting off topic I think, and this is such an amazing complex issue (education) that we could spend days discussing and debating the problems and their causes. The only thing I HAVE learned is that there really are no simple solutions to these problems.

 

[CoRoMo]

Sort of reminds me of some ignorant people that's attitude was: "Well, the teens are going to have sex anyway; so we should be providing them with condoms". In other words, they don't believe they can make any change or have any impact on the behavior of teens. So therefor, why even try. Just give them condoms and HOPE they don't get pregnant or get aids. We don't need to teach kids NOT to have sex, because they're going to do it anyway.

You prescribed your analogy to the wrong side of this argument. We're not the ones throwing up our hands in compromise by accepting a second wrong to make a right.

The failures of our correctional system, immigration system, etc. aren't made right by an ineffective gun law. Those laws were couched with certain intended goals, but none of them have achieved a whit of their purpose.

Then we'll just punish those who misuse the guns.

Now, there's the wisdom. If we only did that, and did it right, what would we have to argue about?

 

[TexasRifleman]

We should just open up the availability to every single person in the country; law abiding or criminal, legal or illegal immigrant, sane or mentally disturbed, etc... Because restrictions, rules, checks, etc... don't work anyway. Then we'll just punish those who misuse the guns.

This was how it was done before 1968 and the gun crime rate wasn't appreciably different between then and now.

Do you see anything at all in that fact that makes you question the laws that have been passed since then to "protect us"?

The crime rate involving firearms is the same today as it was in 1973. That's a fact. Given that, what exactly is your point?

 

[springmom]

Sort of reminds me of some ignorant people that's attitude was: "Well, the teens are going to have sex anyway; so we should be providing them with condoms". In other words, they don't believe they can make any change or have any impact on the behavior of teens. So therefor, why even try. Just give them condoms and HOPE they don't get pregnant or get aids. We don't need to teach kids NOT to have sex, because they're going to do it anyway.

No. It's the equivalent to saying "we're not going to make them a prescription item and hide them behind the pharmacy counter anymore." In other words, it is a matter of individual freedom, not someone exercising control over someone else.

NICS accomplishes nothing. Zero. Zip. Nada. And it costs a lot to accomplish that nothing. It. Doesn't. Work.

If you can prove....note that word, prove....that it has limited crime, then show us the evidence. But you can't, because it hasn't. It's a stupid impediment that Congresscritters could point to and say "see how tough on crime we are? re-elect us!" That's it.

Jan