The battle over "reasonable" gun regulations

Status
Not open for further replies.
Barf all you want. But my rights, your rights, other's rights, etc... are NO MORE IMPORTANT than each others. Yours isn't more important than mine or anyone elses. SO; what happens when you controlling your own destiny and pursuing your happiness crosses paths with me trying to control my own destiny??? This is the problem. You can't have the attitude of "Screw everyone else; It's my RIGHT". That doesn't fly.
 
Background Checks

BTW, in case it escaped anyone's notice, in the (admittedly flawed) example I gave of a possible "reasonable restriction" you will note that I did not propose or acknowledge background checks as reasonable.

Background checks are part of the pretense that gun control is about crime.

As others have observed, they are ineffective, intrusive, open the door to illegal government record-keeping, and serve as nothing but an impediment to the ownership of arms.

NICS is a "barrier to entry" -- a speed bump if you will -- to add "just a little more" inconvenience and cost to the process.

A little inconvenience here, a little barrier there, eventually the hassle and frustration will discourage people from acquiring more guns without actually having to ban them.

Every such barrier is an encroachment in the name of reasonability and "fighting crime."

If I'm the guy trying to take your guns, I will pay close attention to how much inconvenience you'll tolerate. Once I think you're "okay" with one barrier, I'll introduce another "reasonable" barrier. I'll wait while you howl about how awful it is, watch to see how seriously you really resist it and, once you've accepted it, I'll start work on the next barrier -- a reasonable one, of course.

And somewhere in America -- probably not far from you -- there's a guy who looks at the ever-increasing infringements and says, "ain't nuthin' I kin do about it, ain't nuthin' nobody kin do about it."

Don't be that guy.

 
CoRoMo: Maybe using the word CONTROL twice in the same sentence was a mistake. But if I am controlling MY OWN FATE; and YOU are controlling YOUR OWN FATE; how do we MANAGE (Replace the word control) these 2 individuals when THEIR control of THEIR OWN FATE crosses paths with each other and there is a conflict. That is what laws are all about. It has nothing to do with elitism. As beings, we interact with other beings at least 50% of our lives. This includes the time when you are sleeping or vegging in front of the television by yourself. But you "Freedom of Speech" obviously affects other people. Your "Freedom of Religion" affects other people. Does it affect others ALL THE TIME? No, it doesn't. But there can/will be times where your words or actions will have an affect on another person. Should you be ALLOWED to continue your words and actions without ANY rules/laws/etc... What happens when another person believes that your words or actions is "Infringing" on their right to "Control their own fate"? It would be nice if we could all be respectful and considerate of each other and we would alter/refrain/temper/etc... our words and/or actions to be considerate of another person's right to control their fate. Unfortunately; there WILL be times when the 2 sides are passionate about their position and a conflict arises. And the purpose of rules/laws/policies is to put in place definitives to "Reduce the Conflict". Because if there is no means of arbitrating a conflict, the conflict will be allowed to turn into anarchy. And that's one of the things that separate us from other beings; is that we no longer just "Fight it out" and kill each other and believing that it's the "Survival of the fittest".
 
For the record, I don't believe that the NICs check does any good in crime prevention, keeping guns out of the wrong hands or limiting criminal acts with a gun; even marginally. What it does do is, assuming there are 80 million gun owners out there is make the other 220 million people feel that the government is doing something to prevent crime with guns, (which is pure fantasy). For this reason the NICs check will not go away in my lifetime. We don't have to like it or agree with it but we do have to live with it. If this country were not a majority rule society we could dictate what we want concerning gun restrictions. Until we have the power to dictate our agenda we will have to succeed by promoting our position to society one step at a time, with clear, well measured arguments.
 
Last edited:
We don't have to like it or agree with it but we do have to live with it.
Click to expand...
There is nothing in this that says we can't disagree with it loudly and point out what a waste of time and money it is. Nor are we prohibited from showing again and again how an end-run around the 2nd Amendment is an end-run around all our rights.
 
"For the record, I don't believe that the NICs check does any good in crime prevention, keeping guns out of the wrong hands or limiting criminal acts with a gun; even marginally."

That statement would be a hard sell at best to most folks. I am not saying that guns are not easily obtainable outside of NCIs but no doubt it has stopped a number of folks who have no business with firearms in society from obtaining them. Like any preventive measure in anything it is not foolproof, but to call it a failure because there are ways around it would be akin to saying the age limits on tobacco and alcohol are pointless.


The counter point would be that there is no way to measure it success as there is no way to determine how many folks who know they can not pass do not try to pass. If you have an issue with NICs you would be better off attacking it from a infringement of your privacy rights than as being as ineffective as you make it sound.

For the record I have no issues with NICs as I feel it is a reasonable requirement that does not infringe upon my 2nd A rights. But I know I am vastly outnumbered on this forums in that view.
 
Consensus

You may not realize it, christcorp, but you are arguing in favor of both prior restraint and group think.

Neither of these plays out well.

Regulating what we fear someone may do, subjecting people to scrutiny before the fact, is prior restraint. It's a bad idea.

The other thing and, in my view, the greater hazard, is consensus.

Consensus is not vision. Consensus is not principle. Consensus is not law. Consensus is the lowest common denominator of agreement in a group, not the highest.

The constitution was not written by the population at large, nor could it have been.

It is a distillation of principle unprecedented in human history, written by men who risked everything to obtain the opportunity to found a nation in liberty.

Sorry if that sounds dramatic, but I believe it's an accurate assessment of the facts.

It even required amending to obtain a consensus of the states -- not the populace at large, the individual states' leaderships.

Had it required a popular vote, it might never have been ratified.

It happens that the larger the group, the less likely any kind of principled agreement will be reached. Any agreement reached in a large group will at best be a serious compromise, at worst be an abandonment of principle in favor of baser motives.

It isn't consensus that is needed, it is accurate observance of the law -- not just any law -- the Constitution.

To imagine that there can be any kind of meaningful consensus among a population of millions in regard to a concrete principle is sheer folly.

We can't even get a consensus among the mere dozens participating in this discussion.

The compromise of principle is always detrimental, but often needed to accomplish something of value. We all know the saying, "politics is the art of the possible."

However, every effort must be made to concede as little principled ground as possible.

To begin with the assumption that the principle is unsupportable and that we're gonna have to take what we can get is to concede the debate to the rabble rouser with the loudest voice and the biggest mob.

That's a spectacularly bad idea.

We've been conceding ground in this fashion for decades, and it's time to push back.

Stand by the principle. Stand firm.

Make them sweat and hurt and bleed for every inch.

We can win.

If we stick with it, we will win.

 
I am not saying that guns are not easily obtainable outside of NCIs but no doubt it has stopped a number of folks who have no business with firearms in society from obtaining them.
Click to expand...
How many people? Give us their names.

The fact that you have no doubt doesn't mean it's true.
 
I'll ask a question that never gets ask...

What happens to the buyer when a sale is declined?

The answer is nothing, unless they file an appeal, or the question isn't resolved within 3 business days.

So if the buyer who was turned down - be it because they are a prohibited person, straw buyer, or an ordinary law-abiding citizen caught up in an honest mistake - can simply walk away, and the bad guys (and girls) can still get a weapon - probably from an illegal source.

So the background checks aren't really doing anything more then causing a delay.

Like other gun control statutes, it makes some people feel warm and fuzzy, but in a context of keeping guns out of the wrong hands it has little effect.

.gov can tell you how many sales were declined, but they have no numbers concerning how many of the individuals involved simply went elsewhere.
 
I simply do not believe that this is a "Black and White" and extremist topic and some people want to believe it is. If it WAS black and white and ever so clear; then we wouldn't have 50 states with 50 different positions on gun ownership and use. And, as long as there are going to be at least 2 people who disagree with each other on the possession and use of guns; BOTH believing that "Their Rights" are being violated; then we will HAVE to have some sort of arbitration and rules/laws/policies on the subject. This can't be argued; it is human nature. Until ALL 50 STATES HAVE THE SAME REQUIREMENTS or whatever term you want use for the legal possession, carry, and use of guns; it is impossible for either side to say "WE ARE RIGHT".

I know there are extremists who believe that is a liberal point of view. It's not; and I am able to overlook people's passion that sometimes blinds them from seeing OTHER people's rights and passions. But the fact, yes FACT, remains; that the entire country, including the courts, don't interpret the 2nd amendment and the exercise of, the same way that you do. And until we can get the entire nation to interpret the 2nd amendment similarly like they do the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th amendment; we won't be able to get beyond the arguments we are at currently.

It's a matter of perspective. If you are from a state like Vermont, Wyoming, Montana, etc... then you probably don't see a lot of problems. Instant checks are exactly what they say. Instant. The burden of proof is on the state. if they can't find reason not to let you buy a gun, then you get to buy a gun. However; if you're from New Jersey or California; your perspective can be a lot more cynical. You would believe that the entire country goes through the same crap that you do. But that's your perspective.

None of this has anything to do with making laws because of what a person MIGHT DO. It has to do with that our 3 RIGHTS; to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" is defined differently between people. And while you believe that the 2nd amendment is a tool that you are afforded to protect those 3 rights; there are some citizens that don't view it that way. And the courts have NEVER defined that issue. The closest was Heller (Which doesn't apply to states because D.C. ISN'T a state and sets NO PRECEDENCE). But even that case said that it was an INDIVIDUAL'S right and not a STATE'S right to keep and bear arms. But at no time did the court ever say that the states didn't retain the power to determine the "PROCESS" in which the individual was exercising their 2nd amendment right. So as I said previously; until we get ALL 50 STATES to see the 2nd amendment the same way; and make the process the same among all states; we'll never get beyond where we are. And until then, there will always be at least 2 people who will disagree on a definition or usage of the words. And as such, laws/rules/policies will have to stay in place as a means of arbitration. That is the whole purpose of laws/rules/policies. Arbitration as an acceptable decision; to prevent anarchy and vigilante justice.
 
ATF was once asked about this -- how come you brag about how many "dangerous criminals" were thwarted, but such a miniscule number prosecuted?

They finally came up with an "answer" -- they told of an elderly Black gentleman who was turned down because he had prison record. It seems when he was a young lad, years ago, he was caught with a pack of playing cards that had pictures of naked white women on the backs.

Gee, they must be proud of enforcing Jim Crow laws after all these years.
 
If it WAS black and white and ever so clear; then we wouldn't have 50 states with 50 different positions on gun ownership and use.
Click to expand...

This makes absolutely no sense at all. Just because different groups of people have come to different conclusions doesn't mean they are all somehow correct because it is a gray area. A lot of people are wrong, period.

The reason states have different positions, on gun ownership and use, is because the elected elites, who would love nothing more than to disarm you and me, are slowly but surely chipping away at our individual liberties. Unfortunately for them, this nation is divided up into at least 50 different venues in which this chipping away must be done separately. They would greatly prefer to do this in large decisive swipes at the federal level. Therefore, we have 50 different examples of infringement, in varied states of "progress", depending on which side of the gun taking you find yourself.

Laws are not erected to deter crime. Laws are erected to control the law abiding, who need no control.

It never ceases to amaze me how many of 'us' beg to be controlled, or are all too eager to control a free and law abiding citizenry.
 
I feel that certain gun control measures need to be in place. I have no problem with a background check or the like. Heck I would even support a mental health screening before one is legally able to obtain a firearm.

I am trying to figure out why a shotgun with a 12 in barrel is illegal when an 18 inch barrel is legal. I doubt a SBS is more dangerous. If it is the ability to conceal, I can conceal a handgun much more easily.

I don't understand some states making .50 cal's illegal. I have yet to hear of a crime where one has been used. I am sure crimes have been committed with them, but crimes have also been committed with Toyota Priuses. I realize a .50 bmg round will penetrate body armor, but I think my .308 deer rifle could do the same with appropriate loads.

I don't understand why a regular guy can't own a full auto made after 1986. I wouldn't buy one because I can't afford to feed one but they are fun.

I don't understand why I can't own a suppressor for my .22 lr (I live in MN where they are illegal). Sure I could commit a crime with because it is stealthy, but my knife is pretty quiet too.

I think reasonable gun laws end at firearms safety training and background checks. I would be reasonably happy if gun laws stayed the same (as it is unlikely they will change for the better).
 
This:
I feel that certain gun control measures need to be in place. I have no problem with a background check or the like. Heck I would even support a mental health screening before one is legally able to obtain a firearm.
Click to expand...
Results in this:
I am trying to figure out why a shotgun with a 12 in barrel is illegal when an 18 inch barrel is legal. I doubt a SBS is more dangerous. If it is the ability to conceal, I can conceal a handgun much more easily.
Click to expand...
Accept one nonsense gun control measure at face value, without ever questioning if it works -- if it's worth giving up you rights to accomplish nothing at all -- and you're stuck with accepting other nonsense measures.
 
>I feel that certain gun control measures need to be in place. I have no problem with a background check or the like. Heck I would even support a mental health screening before one is legally able to obtain a firearm.<

Ahhh... but who decides what is "just cause" to bar you? That bar can be lowered steadily, until nobody but government goons can have guns...
 
Strings said:
>I feel that certain gun control measures need to be in place. I have no problem with a background check or the like. Heck I would even support a mental health screening before one is legally able to obtain a firearm.<

Ahhh... but who decides what is "just cause" to bar you? That bar can be lowered steadily, until nobody but government goons can have guns...
Click to expand...
Well I think we can agree that the majority of mass shootings were committed by mentally disturbed people. The requirements (in my dream world, and yes I realize it is a dream to have gun control that can't be bastardized by anti gun nut jobs) would be people that have been institutionalized for more then 72 hours, or are on prescription medication for severe depression, or to control hallucinations, or schizophrenia, and the like. Of course I would allow these requirements to be lifted if a QUALIFIED psychologist would sign off stating that a "questionable" person is stable. Again-note that is said that this is a pipe dream and would of course not work. If it could work, I would support it.
 
This makes absolutely no sense at all. Just because different groups of people have come to different conclusions doesn't mean they are all somehow correct because it is a gray area. A lot of people are wrong, period.
Click to expand...

Hey, lets see how much we can distort what was said....

It was never said that ALL these people were correct because it was "GRAY". Matter of fact; each of these groups.... Including YOU AND YOURS.... believes that they are correct and that it's NOT GRAY. And you might believe that a LOT of people are wrong. Period. But I think that you are wrong. Period. Rights are nothing more than words, with meaning, that must be respected in order for it to be a right. In other words; you can say that you have the RIGHT to free speech all you want; but if NO ONE respects that right, and every time you open your mouth they tell you to SHUT UP; then your right means absolutely nothing. A right isn't a right if you can't exercise it. And you can only exercise a right if others respect it and ALLOW you to exercise it. Same with laws, rules, or anything else written on paper.

Laws are not erected to deter crime. Laws are erected to control the law abiding, who need no control.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but this too is not correct. Law abiding people DO NEED control; and that is the whole PURPOSE of laws. Those who don't respect the law will not abide by it anyway, so the law really doesn't apply to them. But for the law abiding person, it is a set of boundaries or rules so that the masses are all "Playing on the same field" with the same set of rules. You have the right to free speech.... So why does this forum set up rules that don't allow you to get personal with your speech? Why aren't you permitted from making personal verbal attacks? You're a "Law Abiding Citizen", you don't need control. Well obviously you do. Because we ALL have a different opinion, we need "Rules"; aka LAWS; to set ground rules so that there is an acceptable playing field that all those involved are playing by the same rules. That is why LAWS exist. And the only difference between "LAWS" and "Rules/Policies/etc.." is that laws are designed to punish the infraction as a means of deterrence. I.e. My store can have a POLICY that says "NO PETS". You either choose to respect or not to respect that policy/rule. If you don't respect it and enter my establishment; then I will ask you to leave. That is MY right. If you refuse; then you've broken the "LAW" of illegal trespassing in which you can be punished for. And that's because you infringed on MY RIGHTS of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Based on your perception, we don't need ANY LAWS for ANY REASON because "Criminals won't respect or abide by them anyway ----- and Law Abiding people DON'T NEED any control." So tell me; why do we have ANY LAWS?
 
I see this has unsurprisingly devolved into the usual ranty-rantedness.

I think it all pretty much boils down to this at the end of the day:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

I will say, however, that some people on here (the most vehement of supporters, no less...) often seem to completely forget the first 13 words don't apply; and especially the first 4. Nothing well regulated about sitting about ranting about the last half of it.

And before anyone pipes up, I am well aware that "well regulated" does not mean "regulation"....but I'd like to believe it means that some sort of competency is required to perform such a duty - which again is something that some people think need not apply in their selective reading of the 2nd Amendment.
 
And before anyone pipes up, I am well aware that "well regulated" does not mean "regulation"....but I'd like to believe it means that some sort of competency is required to perform such a duty - which again is something that some people think need not apply in their selective reading of the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that the Supreme Court doesn't know what it's talking about in Heller?

Because they said flat out that the first half puts no burden or duty or requirement on those protected by the right, that it's merely a reasoning for the right to exist in the first place.

Seriously, you can't possibly still try to make the argument post Heller that some "competency" as you put it is a requirement for the right to exist.

That argument is settled.

Reasonable restrictions is what Scalia said, and he listed them. You really should read the Heller ruling.
 
Kwanger- I like the way you said that, competency. I could not agree with you more. I would just like that competency to extend to being mentally stable.
 
Mentally Stable?

Talked to a pediatrician lately?

Nurses?

Various doctors?

There's a line being foisted on the medical community that "guns are dangerous" and that an "obsession" with guns is "unhealthy."

Some doctors even have gun-access questions on their new patient questionnaires.

It's been discussed on THR a number of times.

Proposing that prospective gun owners submit to some sort of mental evaluation is a losing strategy when the default medical position is that wanting a gun means there's something wrong with you. Guns are dangerous, therefore the people who want them or have them are dangerous.

Look, a number of you keep forgetting something very, very important: gun registration, licensed gun dealers, background checks, all of that didn't exist before 1968. I grew up in that environment. Crime of all kinds was lower then.

There was no problem to solve.

Legislators solved it anyway.

That's horribly broken.

The idea that a nation just assumes that, because lawmakers create a piece of legislation, there must be a good reason for it . . . that's very wrong-headed.

I would recommend that we stop looking for ways to justify the indignity and injustice that has been done to us and start pushing back hard.

Do you get that?

There.
Was.
No.
Problem.​

And yet . . .

They passed a law to fix it.

Those of you who feel that good people need to be controlled and that everyone needs a background check ('cuz you never know who might be a criminal) and that we don't have rights until everyone agrees on them (okay, that's just weird) need to step back and contemplate that.

They fixed what wasn't broke. And they've been "fixing" it ever since.

Don't assume that because they keep "fixing" that there's anything broken.

It wasn't then, it isn't now.

 
There is a penalty for libel or slander. There is a penalty for murder or man slaughter. You can do either and face the consequences. The restrictions on the 2nd are as unacceptal as they are for the 1st. Your rights end where mine begine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Gun owners are now 'insurrectionists'
2 3
Replies
56
Views
4K
sophijo
S
D
  • Locked
Slob shooters spoil it for everybody
Replies
19
Views
1K
Avenger
A
D
  • Locked
The Heller Ruling: One Year Later
Replies
6
Views
1K
rmmoore
R
D
  • Locked
Gun rights, gun slobs and sloppy reporting
Replies
2
Views
433
CoRoMo
CoRoMo
D
  • Locked
Gun rights leaders say 'NO' to Sotomayor nomination
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
rbernie
rbernie
Back
Top