The Logic Behind The RKBA And Government Power

[WinchesterAA]

christcorp

the benefit of the doubt goes to the citizen

The citizen should NOT be denied even temporarily from being allowed to exercise their rights because the government/state is INEFFICIENT.

I don't want it to be some stupid pollster giving the government advice.

I don't want some Washington D.C. flunky advisor trying to tell congress what they think.

These quotes illustrate what I was getting at with the poor service we receive today.

However, this quote confuses me some..

Because there's not 1 person here on this forum or on the planet that has never come across a situation where someone did or said something that you didn't like; and it is society's laws/rules that deter and prevent you from kicking the crap out of or killing that individual.

I've been around people who said stupid things, terrible things even, and have performed some of the most heinous acts I can imagine by man. Violence was rarely even considered. 9 times out of 10, it's a miscommunication that started all the ruckus in the first place. OTOH, if violence was required, society and laws had nothing to do with it.

People are gunna do what they're gunna do, and short of murder, thievery, and treason I'd find it pretty hard to find a reason not to forgive that person for his/her asshattery. (Clarification on thievery - I don't mean by necessity. I would never take someone's hand for stealing bread because at that moment there was nothing else that seemed as likely to accomplish that very important goal of eating. OTOH, if your career interests are looting the resources of everyone else, you should be aware that there are counter-careers to yours, and you might want to reconsider.)

Everything else, if you make it illegal, you're only serving to alienate and criminalize a part of your countries population.

 

[christcorp]

You happen to be a more "Mature" individual. However; history has proven (Since the beginning of time); that without laws/rules agreed upon by consensus of the population; that anarchy does and will exist. Even in the simplest of times, communities have laws/rules. I've lived/worked in 15 countries. Some of these were 3rd world in nature. Some were even tribal (Natives in the Amazon). There has to be laws/rules. They don't have to be physically written on paper, but they have to be laws/rules that are understood and accepted by consensus. Sometimes not everyone agrees or likes the rules; but they all live by them.

You may not have been inclined to beat the crap out of someone or kill them; however there WOULD BE SOMEONE out there that would indeed do such a thing if there was no deterrence to such an action. And this keeps going back to where people argue certain laws/rules; especially concerning weapons; because they claim the "Criminals won't follow the laws anyway". That's true; but the majority of laws are not written with the criminal in mind. They are written as guidelines and limits to maintain social order. Some laws are written up for criminals as a means of being able to sentence. I.e. You can't charge someone with murder, and sentence them, if there is no law that says murder is wrong and the person committing murder will be punished. But most laws are not written for the criminal. They are written so that the average citizen has guidelines to live within so as to maintain social order and individuals don't infringe on other's rights while exercising their own rights. The fine line is when the laws written take power away from the citizen and give additional power to the government; or when the law is written in such a way that it prohibits unnecessarily a person's ability to exercise their rights. And that's what needs to be corrected. Not laws themselves; those are necessary. It's how they're written and the restraints they put on the citizens that need correcting.

 

[WinchesterAA]

Yes, sir, I agree with all of that.

Alternatively, what if people were educated to consider themselves as other people?

Example - What if society had a habit of imagining what it would be like to be the person they're talking to, and the person they're talking to is themselves.


If I were you, would I appreciate the way you're talking to me? In your case, christcorp, yes I would.

 

[christcorp]

That would be nice. However; reality says that there would still be those in society that are too self centered. In our society; how many drive the speed limit because it's safer for everyone else, and how many drive it because of the deterrence that they don't want to get a ticket? We can list hundreds of laws/rules/etc... that if they weren't in place, someone would abuse "Their Right" and either risk another individual or infringe on their rights. I wish that we didn't need laws/rules. But human nature dictates that there must be such things for a society to function somewhat civilized.

 

[WinchesterAA]

There's a lot I can say to the engineers responsible for my cities transportation infrastructure. A little more foresight would have been nice, however they did manage to accomplish an incredible goal.. Allowing 2 million people to all hit the streets at the same time, and get somewhere fairly quickly. The approach .gov takes on enforcing the speedlimit doesn't enforce the speedlimit.

Instead of a speedlimit that represents the maximum safe speed for travel, we're told of the horrors of babies dying, and drunk craziness, road rage, and what's the difference between a same-direction traffic collision at 65 and 75mph? 65 being the maximum speedlimit inside of Houston, and 75mph being the realistic speedlimit between the hours of 2PM and 4PM on interstate 45, <2PM is a mix between early morning rush, mid morning rush, or lunch break rush, so it's either packed or empty. Everyone's in the right lane because they're only moving a block away. 5PM to 6:30PM it's a parkinglot, and after that depends entirely on the day of the week.

You know what I see in Pasadena, Tx? There's a sharp turn on Burke Road between Pasadena blvd, and cherrybrook lane. It's a narrow lane 4 lane road with a speedlimit of 35mph. I've taken the turn at 35mph and kept my vehicle within the lanes just fine, but it's not normal driving to do that, and a lot of people don't realize that...

I am TERRIFIED of that turn, because people go the speedlimit there, but they swerve all over the place. I almost had a headon collision yesterday at that very same spot. Someone narrowly avoids it every couple of minutes I would imagine. Everytime I go there I see some terrible terrible vehicle control, but not speeding..

Speedlimits don't promote safety anymore than a seatbelt does. It's a persons understanding of what he/she is actually doing. Do you realize what you're doing when you're driving? You, a mammal, hop into a device your species built from the dirt much the same way as you were built. This device weighs a lot more than you do, in most cases, and whether you know it or not, this device introduces many new ways for you to be seriously injured or killed. It's not something you should approach lazily, and without interest.

In contrast, imagine you're in a vehicle, and someone else is too. Do you hope that as you come around a sharp corner that the person in the oncoming lane right next to you is PLEASE.. GOD.. COMPETENT ENOUGH to keep his vehicle straight so I don't have to make the decision between smashing the vehicle on my right, or smashing the vehicle on my left.

On the interstate however, most people do behave very well. There are exceptions, and these people I've observed that are less common, but are portrayed as omnipotent are these 30 year old kids that never grew up.. I seriously don't get what happened to them. I know a lot of people who are just about the same age, and grew up in different areas around Houston, and they all do the same dumb stuff, like drunk driving at 4AM, racing in residential neighborhoods, and a whole host of other non transportation related monkey shines.

I've called em on it, too, and I get the same line each time.. "F**k the police".

Large wrap sheets for these folks. Degrees in philosophy, sociology, and human resources. Teachers, mechanics, heroin junkies, BBBS/tour guide workers.

I've seen younger and older people speed, and I break the limit when not doing so impedes the flow of traffic, don't get me wrong, but the largest group of people who do dangerous things in a vehicle that I know are right around 30 right now. Dunno if there's anything to that, but I think the speedlimits suck first and foremost, but the ones who express that by excessively speeding aren't that common.

Seriously. It's BS down here. The speedlimit on 45 is determined by time of day, not by any signs or police cars. It doesn't go past 75 though, unless it's a perfect day.


SMART traffic.. not REGULATED traffic.

 

[Rockwell1]

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

There, right there, is the logic behind the RKBA and the source of the government's power.

Read the words

 

[Ruggles]

If we are talking about injustice this is it! Well maybe a small one but......

I ordered a Rock River Arms BCG & charging handle from PK Firearms last week. These are the last 2 pieces I need to fully complete my AR15 build. The US Postal Service trys to deliver them on Friday but no one is at home. They leave a slip to come to the post office and pick up the package. I am working Saturday so I ask my wife to go pick it up as the local post office which is open until noon on Saturdays. She informs me "uhh it's the 4th of July they are closed today bonehead". Now I have to wait until Monday to finish putting the rifle together! Agghhh!

If we are going revolution 1776 style I am going to have to wait and join in on Monday now......

 

[Mohawk]

Constitutional Cowboy, I want you to know that I was sincere in my praise of your excellent piece on the relationship between our constitution and how it applies to gun laws. My post was to provide an extreme example of how one would react if living to the letter of your excellent post. It was meant as the entertainment you asked for and as an example of the “Theater of the Absurd”.

I and many others in my state are members of local and regional gun rights organizations who I consider to be “in the trenches” of the fight for preserving ours and all society’s rights. We educate our fellow citizens on a local level, we form plans of action concerning pending and current legislation and submit them to our state representatives in an effort to communicate to our government what the grass roots people want concerning gun rights. We have been careful to maintain a first name basis with our local and state representitives. We periodically go to all the local desert shooting ranges and remove all the old refrigerators, old stoves and computer monitors and haul them off to the various sites that will take them at our own expense. We provide classes at our local high school, educating young people into responsible gun ownership and the shooting skills. Many of the kids I taught in 10th grade are now adults and a large percentage have CCW cards and I see them at the local range on many occasions.

Periodically, we’ll have a new member come to our meetings and stand up and give a speech very similar in context to your excellent post. It’s always about "no laws or restrictions relating to the right of the people concerning gun ownership are acceptable" to them. We listen politely while they get their 15 minutes on the soap box because we have heard it all before. From there, we ask the prospective member how would they like to help. Join a committee we’ve formed? Pick up the garbage at the range? Act as a range officer while we take the kids shooting? Very few are interested in any of these activities and they generally disappear after the first meeting they attend. It appears that anything short of total rollback of all gun laws, immediately, does not fit their agenda. So we go on about the business of day to day defense of our citizen’s gun rights and the mundane work of redefining the current legislation to reflect more reasonable restrictions.

In all honestly there have been times when I and others have sat across the table of some smug, self righteous gun control advocates and would have loved to shove your excellent treatise in their face and say “Take IT Or Leave It” and walk out the door. But having been involved for 25 plus years I know this will provide our side with negative traction. As an example, this is the forth time we have redrafted the bill to allow CCW in restaurants and we’ve finally got the inside track to get it passed. It is a done deal. But to get there we had to remove bars from the mix and work on signage issues among other refinements.

From where I sit, I hope the anti-gun crowd never read your post, for if they ever get the idea that we as responsible gun owners as a group have no compromise but stand fast on the total repeal of all gun laws then they will paint us as such to society. An image we in the trenches do not want to be tagged with. By the same token if the anti gun crowd ever pick up on the theory that all gun laws are useless and don’t work then they’re only recourse is to agree with that premise and their only platform will be to ban all firearms, period. Meanwhile, us guys who man the gun rights trenches will go on fighting the good fight and continue to take the abuse from the various soap box patriots on this and various other gun boards.

You asked me what I really felt.
I hope I’ve made my position very clear.

 

[Cohibra45]

You happen to be a more "Mature" individual. However; history has proven (Since the beginning of time); that without laws/rules agreed upon by consensus of the population; that anarchy does and will exist. Even in the simplest of times, communities have laws/rules. I've lived/worked in 15 countries. Some of these were 3rd world in nature. Some were even tribal (Natives in the Amazon). There has to be laws/rules. They don't have to be physically written on paper, but they have to be laws/rules that are understood and accepted by consensus. Sometimes not everyone agrees or likes the rules; but they all live by them.

You may not have been inclined to beat the crap out of someone or kill them; however there WOULD BE SOMEONE out there that would indeed do such a thing if there was no deterrence to such an action. And this keeps going back to where people argue certain laws/rules; especially concerning weapons; because they claim the "Criminals won't follow the laws anyway". That's true; but the majority of laws are not written with the criminal in mind. They are written as guidelines and limits to maintain social order. Some laws are written up for criminals as a means of being able to sentence. I.e. You can't charge someone with murder, and sentence them, if there is no law that says murder is wrong and the person committing murder will be punished. But most laws are not written for the criminal. They are written so that the average citizen has guidelines to live within so as to maintain social order and individuals don't infringe on other's rights while exercising their own rights. The fine line is when the laws written take power away from the citizen and give additional power to the government; or when the law is written in such a way that it prohibits unnecessarily a person's ability to exercise their rights. And that's what needs to be corrected. Not laws themselves; those are necessary. It's how they're written and the restraints they put on the citizens that need correcting.

christcorp,

I happen to disagree with your analogy of laws and society and here is my main concern with how it pertains to arms:

When a person commits a murder with a gun, any gun, you seem to suggest that the law should be changed so that particular gun should be 'banned'. So the murderer says, I can't use that 'gun' so I will just grab the proverbial baseball bat. Now society makes another law saying that baseball bats should be 'banned'. Now that we have gotten rid of guns and baseball bats, the murderer says, I'll just grab a hammer, screw driver, wrench, etc. and society just makes another law to say what can or cannot be used by the murderer to kill.

Now those examples are 'silly' as you call us simple minded people, but, it seems to me that if and when the murderer gets put away for life or put to death gets rid of the main problem. That gets rid of the problem, at least it makes it difficult for that same person to commit another murder. Then we law abiding citizens aren't effected by the acts of criminals and are free to actually use said guns, ANY GUN, to protect us and our families. Just because you or someone else doesn't like how a particular tool (GUN) looks, works, or 'can/might be used' shouldn't enter into any debates. Laws are guidelines true, but they have consequences and that is how they are suppose to work. We (Americans) have many (and I do mean many) 'laws' already on the books concerning the use of said tools. We still allow the judges to let people out that commit crimes again and again. It's not right that We have to put up with that. Most new laws don't do anything but put handcuffs on the law abiding and don't do anything to the criminal.

I know it hasn't happened here in America, but suppose congress did write a law saying all guns were illegal. It has happened in the recent past so this really isn't that far fetched. Now would you turn in your guns or would you keep them??? Simple question, but a fair one. On the one hand, if you turn in your guns, you are complying with the law but leaving you and your family open to criminals that didn't turn in theirs. Remember, the police don't have an obligation to protect anyone. At least that is what the Supreme Court ruled a few years ago. On the other hand, if you don't turn them in, you are committing a crime and as such are outside the law.......a criminal and whatever you do from then on, are subject to punishment by said 'society'.

It's just that simple...................laws passed to prevent a law abiding citizen from attaining a tool (gun, weapon, etc.) for whatever lawful purpose they want to use it , don't do anything to prevent criminals from committing crimes.

Laws are just rules (set down by God in the first place, at least the first written ones) for people to live by. In biblical times of Moses, most of the time, people were punished by killing them. I'm not advocating killing everyone, but making sure that they don't commit the crime again is paramount. There are and should be consequences when breaking the laws. Laws don't prevent people from committing crimes, they just say that you will be punished if and when you are caught.

The bottom line is that there is evil and good in this world and you can't fight evil by trying to contain it or box it in. You have to kill it wherever raises it's ugly head.........period. Laws don't protect anyone, they set guidelines and consequences. Again, laws don't protect anyone, people do. At least laws concerning guns and the ability to own and use them.

 

[rainbowbob]

Meanwhile, us guys who man the gun rights trenches will go on fighting the good fight and continue to take the abuse from the various soap box patriots on this and various other gun boards.

You asked me what I really felt.
I hope I’ve made my position very clear.

Mohawk:

Thanks for doing the REAL work that most of us shun.

There is Idealism - which allows us to imagine what might be. That's important.

And there is Realism - which allows us to deal with what is. That's even more important.

Dealing with realty is more work.

Thanks again for your service.

...short of murder, thievery, and treason I'd find it pretty hard to find a reason not to forgive that person for his/her asshattery...

Winchester:

Did you just coin a new word? I hadn't heard that one before. I like it.

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."

There, right there, is the logic behind the RKBA and the source of the government's power.

Rockwell1:

You get the cigar for nailing the answer to the title of the OP.

 

[christcorp]

Cohibra; sorry; but I really didn't believe that my comments that you quoted could be twisted so erratically. Which only proves why laws are sometimes required. I can honestly say that based on your baseball bat analogy; that nothing I say is going to get you to think along the lines of an orderly society. But I will briefly try. (Normally I am never Brief, but something tells be this isn't going to be productive).

When the "PRIMARY USE" of an item directly impacts the lives of fellow citizens; then boundaries must be set. Automobile, Gun, etc.... When the "PRIMARY USE" of an item does not directly impact a fellow citizen; then boundaries don't have to be set for the item. However; additional boundaries can be set on the individual. The PRIMARY USE of a gun is to KILL LIVING CREATURES. That is a fact. If you can't agree to that, then don't waste your time discussing it with me because I won't discuss it. We have to agree on that first. If we can't, then lets not wast our time. The primary use of a hammer is to put to items together with the use of a nail. This is common sense.

And how in the world you could ever come up with the interpretation that I believe that "CERTAIN GUNS" should be banned is preposterous. I never said or implied any such thing. I think it would be better if you asked me specific questions, because obviously you do not understand what I wrote at all. And you don't understand normal societal functioning which has existed since the dawn of mankind.

 

[yokel]

One can typically peg this clique of Brady and VPC interlopers by their use of pejorative terms such as "extremist", "anarchist", and "insurrectionist".

May their outsiders be speedily detected and effectually banished from our midst...

 

[t165]

I keep reading similar threads as this one. The threads are usually visited and argued by the same people. myself included lately. I have it pretty good here in Indiana and I cannot find much to gripe about. Other states impose more restrictions. I would hate to live in Illinois or California...ect. The "only' legal recourse for individuals to change gun laws is through politics. Certainly not through paragraph after paragraph on THR.

Some who visit these threads are buttonholed as "extremists"and "Loons". The ugly stepchildren of the 2A movement that keep popping out of the closet. They live and breath the 2nd Amendment and regardless what the vast majority of Americans think they keep preaching their 2nd Amendment religion. Since we also have a 1st Amendment they are allowed to voice their opinion without fear of arrest or beheading. Even if they are ignored.

If anyone here does not like the current gun laws and simply cannot live unless they are changed then become political. Run for political office. Become a player instead of a cheerleader! Become active in a gun-rights political movement which is consistent with your beliefs. The 2nd Amendment was born out of politics...the figment of the imagination of men who lived over 200 hundred ago.

Mental hospitals are full of the insane who actually believe they are sane. This forum has members who think they know the 2nd Amendment better than the majority of Americans. They "know" what the founding fathers really meant. And I always ask why, if the 2nd Amendment was meant to abolish all firearm restrictions, "shall not be infringed", has there always been gun control laws in america, both prior and after the adoption of the 2nd Amendment? Why did the founding fathers pass gun control laws "infringement" into effect which on their face seems to conflict with the 2nd Amendment? I have never received an intelligent answer even though many have tried.

Become political. Offer yourself up for examination! See if you can gain a following to place your gun-rights belief into law. That is unless you are a felon...then you cannot even do that! I wonder how many members of this forum/thread are felons ranting against America and her laws governing firearms?

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Logic Filter

However; [blah blah blah]. And yet, as a society, we AGREE that not all human are able or responsible enough to exercise these rights at birth. I.e. You don't allow your 7 year old child the RIGHT of "Free Speech". You don't Allow him/her to say: "F You Dad". You don't allow your 12 year old; in "THEIR PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS" rent a car and drive 100 miles an hour down the street. You also wouldn't allow your 8 year old to go to the Pawn Shop and buy the 9mm pistol with their Birthday Money. But [blah blah blah]

Red Herring

We're not talking about minors having unfettered access to anything. The matter of children having inappropriate access is not a 2A issue.

So, if you are a Responsible and mature individual; and the government has no reason in the world to deny you purchasing a gun; and to ensure that society as a whole is allowed their Life, Liberty, and THEIR Pursuit of Happiness; please tell me how doing an INSTANT background check is infringing on your right to Keep and Bear arms???

Prior Restraint and assumption of guilt.

You are making law-abiding people prove they're not criminals. That's unconstitutional and contrary to the principles of free society.

[snip]

But there are those here trying to say that there SHOULDN'T be ANY LAWS concerning our RIGHT to Keep and Bear arms. The problem with this way of thinking is that it would have to apply also to the first amendment. That means people would be ALLOWED to verbally abuse you with racial slurs and slander. They would be ALLOWED to walk into a theater and yell FIRE just to see people panic. They would be ALLOWED to say their religion allows them rape and beat their wives; sacrifice stray animals and hang them in the public square; and KILL any non-believer in their Religion.

Straw Man

We have laws against libel and slander. Those are harmful acts against a person or persons. We have laws against rape, battery, and murder. The instrument of assault or murder is not relevant. It's illegal to murder people. To specify special punishments for the use of one instrument over another or because of the excuse used by the murderer is absurd.

The problem is that people insist on over looking this fact. You can't say that the "Society" can't have laws, rules, policies, etc... for the 2nd amendment; YET they CAN have laws, rules, policies, etc... for the 1st amendment. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. The moment the Declaration said: "ONE PEOPLE" and the constitution said: "We the People"; it is "Self Evident" that there would have to be Rules, Laws, Policies, etc.... to maintain order with all the numerous opinions and positions on life.

Interesting, if flawed, reasoning.

I don't know what school of thought it is to which one must subscribe to conclude that if it involves people, it's got to have laws.

Sorry. I can't buy that reasoning at all.

This doesn't mean you are giving up any rights. You have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. But you DON'T have the RIGHT to walk down the street and shoot every stray animal, every street sign, every person, etc.... that you see. When you do, you are depriving others of their RIGHT to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. And because people WILL have differing opinions on where the line is on "Other People's Rights"; rules, laws, policies, etc.... are required.

More Straw Man

Ownership of arms does not imply murdering pets and people. Neither does owning a chain saw.

And sorry, but to believe otherwise than that a society MUST have laws, rules, and often times compromises in exercising Rights, can't be argued.

I'll take that bet.

It isn't the exercise of a right being compromised when laws against murder are passed and enforced. You don't pass a law specifying that people can't be murdered with rakes, hoes, saws, axes, broom handles, electric cords, broken glass, drain cleaner, large rocks, and so on and so on ad nauseum. You just specify that murder is unlawful and leave it at that.

Six-year-old children are superb budding lawyers. You tell them "no rough-housing" and they want specifics. So you give them examples. Later, when you holler at them for jumping on the couch, they declare (correctly) that couch jumping wasn't one of your examples, and therefore not subject to the prohibition.

Don't fall into that trap. Any murder is wrong. Murder with a special object isn't more wrong. And murder is not the exercise of a right, so enjoining it isn't "compromising" anyone's rights.

Because there's not 1 person here on this forum or on the planet that has never come across a situation where someone did or said something that you didn't like; and it is society's laws/rules that deter and prevent you from kicking the crap out of or killing that individual. Without the laws/rules/etc... there would be complete anarchy. That is human nature and natural law.

"True because I said so."

I think I can make a case for "begging the question" there, but the circular logic is incomplete.

And the founding fathers probably didn't mention this because they too knew it to be self evident. If you notice, the declaration and constitution don't really speak of Citizens vs Citizens. That is self evident. They speak of Citizens vs Government. They didn't want a government making laws/rules/etc... that gave the government more power and took power AWAY from the citizens.

I don't think this leads anywhere.

Making laws/rules/policies such as an instant background check; being a certain age to own a gun; being mentally stable; not being a felon; etc... are NOT LAWS THAT GIVE THE GOVERNMENT POWER OR TAKE POWER AWAY FROM THE CITIZENS.

Ahh, the heart of the matter.

And here you are, in fact, simply wrong. Passing a law the creates your goons as the gatekeepers with the power to bar access to the exercise of a right does, in point of fact, "take power away" from the citizens: it denies them the right of commerce and of choice and of ownership. When you, as the government, get to decide what is a felony and what defines mental stability, you have the power to deny access arbitrarily.

These are societal laws. The fact that you CAN Keep and Bear arms means that you have RETAINED the power to resist the government if need be. The laws associated with the guns do not stop you from Keeping and Bearing arms. They simply ensure that the rest of society is allowed to their right of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Laws that exercise prior restraint and assume guilt establish barriers. Such laws impede ownership and do, in fact, deny citizens their right to self defense.

[Blah blah blah . . . equivocation and opinion . . .]

It is NOT the responsibility of the citizen to PROVE THEY ARE WORTHY. It's the responsibility of the STATE to PROVE the citizen is NOT WORTHY. And if they can't do it instantly, then they better work on an IMPROVED SYSTEM. But until then, the benefit of the doubt goes to the citizen.

And the current system violates this.

This is what the supreme court needs to address and rule on. The state can decide all the procedures they want for legally disqualifying an individual from being allowed to exercising their right to keep and bear arms. This could be felony offenses where a GUN was used in the crime. It could be drug addiction. It could be mental instability. Whatever the disqualification is; assuming THE PEOPLE vote and agree to it; that would be legal. However; if the state can't do this process instantly, then the citizen should be able to walk out the door of the gun shop immediately after paying for the gun. And if they want some type of "License" so police, hospitals, dealers, private sellers, etc.... have some sort of proof that the person is qualified; then that's fine too as long as it's INSTANT. The citizen should NOT be denied even temporarily from being allowed to exercise their rights because the government/state is INEFFICIENT.

Only the "right" people should have access . . . the government should somehow magically manage this and get it right . . . but government is inefficient?

Once again we assume that ownership is crime for the "wrong" people. There is no tort in ownership, and criminalizing it is wrong.

And you seem to be obsessed with allowing felons to roam loose on the streets. How odd.

Please confine your lawmaking to actual tort.

Prior restraint always sounds so plausible, I mean after all, isn't it better to prevent a crime rather than solve one?

And the right answer is, in fact, no. You don't enact legislation to restrain people based on what you worry they might do.

Laws that propose to restrict the ownership of arms, regardless of how plausible the reason sounds, act to disarm a population.

Please don't try to extrapolate a bunch of silly sophistry from what I've said here.

Don't keep trying to make me prove I'm sane and prove I'm not a felon before I can make a simple purchase.

Simple rule: the ones that can't be trusted with tools and weapons don't get released.

To do otherwise is to encumber the rest of the population with the burden of proving they're not the bad guys.

It doesn't matter how frantically or fervently you believe that we have to have laws and processes to prevent bad behavior, or how much you believe that denying people access somehow doesn't infringe their rights.

Prior restraint is bad. It does deprive people of their rights.

And allowing government to define "crazy" as it applies to denying a right . . . that's a truly bad idea.

 

[rainbowbob]

I always ask why, if the 2nd Amendment was meant to abolish all firearm restrictions...has there always been gun control laws in america, both prior and after the adoption of the 2nd Amendment? Why did the founding fathers pass gun control laws...into effect which on their face seems to conflict with the 2nd Amendment? I have never received an intelligent answer even though many have tried.

t165:

I have never read this question asked or answered. In fact, I've never heard of gun control laws enacted by the founders.

I'm not suggesting it didn't happen - just that I am unaware of it.

I would be very interested in learning more about gun control laws in 18th century America. Can you please cite specific examples?

After researching the citations and examples you hopefully will provide, perhaps I - or someone smarter - can attempt to provide you with the intelligent answer you have found to be so elusive.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Appeal To Tradition . . .

Looks like we have a fan of "since we have always had laws about XX, it's obvious that such laws are needed and clearly a good idea."

That's called "appeal to tradition" and is a logical fallacy.

Some who visit these threads are buttonholed as "extremists"and "Loons". The ugly stepchildren of the 2A movement that keep popping out of the closet. They live and breath the 2nd Amendment and regardless what the vast majority of Americans think they keep preaching their 2nd Amendment religion. Since we also have a 1st Amendment they are allowed to voice their opinion without fear of arrest or beheading. Even if they are ignored.

I'm not sure who you're trying to slander here. Perhaps you could clarify?

Mental hospitals are full of the insane who actually believe they are sane. This forum has members who think they know the 2nd Amendment better than the majority of Americans. They "know" what the founding fathers really meant.

Yeah, it's a literacy thing. You know, like from reading extensively what the founders actually wrote. We have a few such scholars here. Using obtuse language to suggest that Second Amendment advocates are crazy isn't going to win you any points.

And I always ask why, if the 2nd Amendment was meant to abolish all firearm restrictions, "shall not be infringed", has there always been gun control laws in America, both prior and after the adoption of the 2nd Amendment?

Interesting assertion. Any "gun control" laws in force prior to the enactment of the Constitution would be clearly irrelevant.

Why did the founding fathers pass gun control laws "infringement" into effect which on their face seems to conflict with the 2nd Amendment? I have never received an intelligent answer even though many have tried.

You have some example of this, I trust? Which founding father, exactly, passed which infringing gun control laws, exactly?

I wonder how many members of this forum/thread are felons ranting against America and her laws governing firearms?

Nice trolling. You might not want to pursue this line of argumentation.


You know, in my earlier post, where I mentioned that we strive for civility here, I don't believe I suggested that veiled insults constitute civility.

Consider your words.

 

[Ruggles]

It is very clear that a number of posters here believe that the US Govt took a misstep with background checks. I am not one of those. I am interested in what those who do believe that a misstep was taken think will happen regarding this. Please notice I said what will happen not what should happen in your view.


What will background checks (if there are any) look like 10 years from now? 20 years?

I would suggest they are here to stay, I see no realistic reason they would be removed. Believing this I choose to focus my efforts on preventing a new AWB from passing. Some would say this makes me weak in my 2nd A stance, I say it makes me realistic to base my efforts where they can do some good. I do not believe railing against restriction on full auto, having to have a state issued permit to conceal carry or on background checks makes and real sense.

I am really interested in how those who do not agree with me see their efforts bearing any worthwhile fruit. I mean that in a respectful way.

 

[General Geoff]

It is very clear that a number of posters here believe that the US Govt took a misstep with background checks.

Damn right it did.

I am interested in what those who do believe that a misstep was taken think will happen regarding this.

If we push enough, background checks CAN be abolished. It's not likely to happen though, without a radical shift in political ideology in Washington. It is our job to make that shift happen.

 

[Ruggles]

"I wonder how many members of this forum/thread are felons ranting against America and her laws governing firearms?
Nice trolling. You might not want to pursue this line of argumentation.


You know, in my earlier post, where I mentioned that we strive for civility here, I don't believe I suggested that veiled insults constitute civility.

Consider your words."

I have to say I would agree that some folks who rail against that particular piece of law are indeed felons. I am sure there are many felons who feel they have "served their time" and therefore should not be restricted from anything. I have no ideal what the poster was implying in that particular post but I do think in general it's a valid point.

BTW I agree felons should not be able to own firearms. The jail time served is only part of their overall punishment to me. The stigma of being a convicted felons and all the negativity that carries is yet one more part of their sentence. Same thing as a dishonorable discharge from the armed services IMO, follows you wherever you go.

 

[Ruggles]

"If we push enough, background checks CAN be abolished. It's not likely to happen though, without a radical shift in political ideology in Washington. It is our job to make that shift happen."

As I said IMO it is never going to happen. I simply can not see the American people ever supporting that in any significant majority. If that is true there is never going to be enough political capital to get it removed.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Cruelty

BTW I agree felons should not be able to own firearms. The jail time served is only part of their overall punishment to me.

You evidently do not subscribe to the idea the people can change or that actual redemption is possible.

Pray tell, then, why would you ever let someone who clearly can't be rehabilitated back out on the streets, only to dog them the rest of their lives with reminders of what they may not do -- while at the same time forcing every honest man who wants a gun to prove he's not one of the felons you've let loose in the streets.

You incarcerate someone in the "Department of Corrections" knowing they'll never be corrected, then you tease them by letting them out in society while denying their redemption and restoration of rights, and use that as an excuse to apply the "prove you're a good guy" filter to millions of folks who have committed no crime.

I thought "cruel and unusual" punishment was unconstitutional?

Wouldn't it be kinder to simply execute them, rather than making them spend the rest of their lives being told, "you can never be normal, you can never be whole again, you're a loser, you're a bad person, we can never ever trust you, and we want to make sure you suffer for eternity for what you did."

You give them nothing to lose.

How is that humane or just?

 

[Mohawk]

Concerning convicted/released violent felons and guns, here are some factual statistics to mull over.

In the United States during 1997, there were 15,289 murders. Of these, 10,369 were committed with firearms. (2)
* In the United States during 1997, there were approximately 7,927,000 violent crimes. Of these, 691,000 were committed with firearms. (12)
* As of 1992, for every 14 violent crimes (murder, rape, etc…) committed in the United States, one person is sentenced to prison. (62)
* As of 1992, average length of imprisonment for:
Murder
10.0 years
Rape
7.6 years
Aggravated Assault
3.4 years
* In the early/mid 1990's, criminals on parole or early release from prison committed about 5,000 murders, 17,000 rapes, and 200,000 robberies a year. (3)
* Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year. This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times. (16b)
* In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim." (16c)
* Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%. (1)

All statistics are sourced through the link.
This site is the internet poster's secret weapon. You can get facts for any subject you need. www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

 

[Ruggles]

"You evidently do not subscribe to the idea the people can change or that actual redemption is possible.

Pray tell, then, why would you ever let someone who clearly can't be rehabilitated back out on the streets, only to dog them the rest of their lives with reminders of what they may not do -- while at the same time forcing every honest man who wants a gun to prove he's not one of the felons you've let loose in the streets.

You incarcerate someone in the "Department of Corrections" knowing they'll never be corrected, then you tease them by letting them out in society while denying their redemption and restoration of rights, and use that as an excuse to apply the "prove you're a good guy" filter to millions of folks who have committed no crime.

I thought "cruel and unusual" punishment was unconstitutional?

Wouldn't it be kinder to simply execute them, rather than making them spend the rest of their lives being told, "you can never be normal, you can never be whole again, you're a loser, you're a bad person, we can never ever trust you, and we want to make sure you suffer for eternity for what you did."

You give them nothing to lose.

How is that humane or just?"


Sorry you must have not fully understood what I was trying to say.

I never said that they could not be rehabilitated, I certainly did not mean to imply it either. They can be released from prison fully rehabilitated but not be done with their payment to society IMO.

The prison sentence is only part of their payment to society for their crime. The many negatives coming from being a convicted felons is as much part of their payment for their crimes as was their prison sentence. I do not think those negatives have to end at the prison gate. Everyone knows that life as a convicted felon sucks even after prison, it is not as if i am suggesting some "secret" extra punishment for them. I would think someone considering armed robbery should know that even if they are caught and released after 5-6 years from prison their life would still suck. I would see that as a extra deterrent to committing the crime in the first place.

That is not "cruel and unusual punishment" IMO in anyway. I think society has the right to hold people accountable for their actions. I personally have little to no compassion for felons and I am sure that we disagree on that which would explain our vastly different views on this subject. No big deal really we just see things differently.

I am interested in knowing do you think some felons should be able to own firearms? All felons? I find it interesting to know where you would draw the line as I draw it at all felons.

 

[Ruggles]

" As of 1992, average length of imprisonment for:
Murder
10.0 years
Rape
7.6 years
Aggravated Assault
3.4 years"

Yet more reasons I am for much longer terms (i.e. life) forms of punishment. None and I mean none of the folks convicted of the crimes above should ever be allowed to be treated as "full" citizens in society again IMO.

 

[AKElroy]

I did not read the entire thread, but the OP seems to be making a fundamental argument for who is the boss in this REPUBLIC of ours; to wit---

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

They exist to serve OUR interest, using power WE gave them. They ARE us. We did not institute a governement to limit or protect us FROM these enumerated rights, rather we insured through our founding documents that these rights would be protected FROM the propencity of governments to feed on those that gave them power. Given the abuses of the crown, this was the PRIMARY worry of our founders. The only discussion here should be regarding what power we are willing to let the GOVERNMENT hold over us; with regard to RKBA, none is the right answer unless I have done something that warrants my rights being infringed; and even then, it is the perview of the states to determine to what extent a felon may have surrendered 2A protections as part of the disposition of his particular case.