Who is responsible

[Beav]

Who is responsible for keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and how?

 

[BerettaNut92]

For repeat offenders that just don't learn...the judge? Why we letting these clowns out so quick?

 

[Hkmp5sd]

The criminal is responsible.

It is each person's responsibility to obey the constitutionally correct laws of this nation. If a person breaks into my house and steals a gun, he is a criminal and is responsible. If a person breaks into a National Guard Armory and steals a truck load of machineguns, he is a criminal and is responsible. If an unqualified person uses false identification to purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer, he is a criminal and responsible.

The laws of the land prohibit a criminal from acquiring guns. It is the responsibility of the criminal to obey those laws. By definition, a criminal is not going to obey those laws, so it is the responsibility of the legal system to apprehend and punish the criminal for violating the law. If the criminal repeatedly violates these laws, it is the responsibility of the legal system to permanently remove this criminal from society because he is a threat to public safety.

 

[Beav]

The laws of the land prohibit a criminal from acquiring guns. It is the responsibility of the criminal to obey those laws. By definition, a criminal is not going to obey those laws, so it is the responsibility of the legal system to apprehend and punish the criminal for violating the law. If the criminal repeatedly violates these laws, it is the responsibility of the legal system to permanently remove this criminal from society because he is a threat to public safety.

So should the legal system proactively try to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms?
Can they without infringing on our rights?

 

[blades67]

So should the legal system proactively try to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms?

No.

Can they without infringing on our rights?

They're already infringing on our rights. Don't think so? Try getting on an aircarrier's aircraft without surrendering your Fourth Amendment Right, and your fingernail clipper.

 

[TexasVet]

The founders obviously never considered someone who had served his time as losing his gun rights. Anybody see "High Noon"? Guy gets out of prison, straps on the gun that his friends brought and rides off to shoot the sheriff.
Those "no gun if you are an ex-felon" laws are 20th century inventions.

 

[Matthew Courtney]

Criminals getting guns would not be an issue if they were in prison where they belong. There is nothing wrong with "guns on the street". The problem is with criminals on the street.

 

[Beav]

So should the legal system proactively try to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms? NO

Why? Is it not a problem? Is the related loss acceptable? Is it just not feasible, a waste of time and money?
I'm curious because as long as the responsible citizens are still able to own firearms and its harder for criminals to obtain them, then I fail to see a problem?


As far as the airline searches and the fourth amendment, I would like further input as to the definition of "unreasonable" as stated in the Fourth Amendment and how it applies to a post 9/11 America?

Thanks

 

[LiquidTension]

Since most violent criminals are repeat offenders, it is the fault of "the system." If someone breaks into a house and steals a gun that is NOT SECURED PROPERLY, it is partially the fault of the homeowner, but definitely the criminal's fault. On the other hand, if someone breaks into my house and steals my gun safe, that is in no way my fault. If a criminal buys a gun from another criminal, I'll bet my hard earned money that either or both of them has committed a crime before, and probably a serious one.

In the end, the only way to solve major social problems like this one is to make me dictator of the country. A benevolent dictatorship is actually one of the better forms of government. Think about it - someone with the good of the people at heart, and no one to oppose him. I might start this discussion in a new thread....

- LT

 

[ENC]

As someone smarter than me once said, "Power, corrupts and absolute power, corrupts absolutly."

History has taught us that any benevolent dictatorship will only remain so for a short period of time. Not to mention the fact that you can't please everyone.





Beav. Just think about how things might have been different if there was just one person legally carrying a handgun on any one of those planes on that fateful day.

 

[NewShooter78]

As far as the airline searches and the fourth amendment, I would like further input as to the definition of "unreasonable" as stated in the Fourth Amendment and how it applies to a post 9/11 America?

I think making an 80 year old person subject to a search of their person is unreasonable.

The problem with all the background check systems is that they can't stop straw purchases. You can buy a bunch of guns over time for other people, and then just say they were stolen, and then there were perfectly legal guns bought in a legal manner by a criminal accomplice. No matter what proactive ways you come up with, criminals find ways around them. And in the end the law abiding citizens are the ones made to suffer.

If someone breaks into a house and steals a gun that is NOT SECURED PROPERLY, it is partially the fault of the homeowner, but definitely the criminal's fault.

So if my car is stolen and a criminal runs over someone with it, is it my fault because I didn't have a steering wheel lock, or break pedal lock on it? That logic only hurts our 2nd amendment rights more. Why should I lock up my handgun when I live by myself. Using your logic if you have a safe, and don't bolt it to the ground or secure it to the wall then if it gets stolen then it is still partially your fault.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

It's a waste of time and money.

Here's an easy example. Cocaine is illegal in this country. Illegal to buy, sell, manufacture, import and possess. We have an entire law enforcement agency, the DEA, along with countless other federal, state and local law enforcement agencies that do nothing but try to prevent this drug from getting to the user. Responsible citizens do not use cocaine, therefore they have no constitutional rights being violated by the most draconian restrictions on this drug.

With all of this proactive effort to keep cocaine off the streets of this nation, do think you would have any problem in acquring some cocaine right now if you wanted to buy some?

The government could ban every firearm in this country. Confiscate and destroy every firearm in this country. Pass laws to prevent the manufacture and importation of firearms in this country. They could take every law enforcement officer currently working in narcotics and have them do nothing but look for guns. And this would still not stop a criminal from getting a gun any more than the "war on drugs" has kept anyone from buying dope.

 

[Rangerover]

If someone breaks into a house and steals a gun that is NOT SECURED PROPERLY, it is partially the fault of the homeowner,

Uhhhhh...no offense, but I don't follow the logic here. If someone breaks into my house and steals my television, is it partially my fault because it wasn't "secured properly"? What if someone breaks in and rapes my girlfriend? Should I have "secured her properly"? Am I supposed to lock all my belongings up in a cave before I leave the house so as to not be "partially responsible" for criminal behavior?

It's not "partially my fault" for ANYTHING if someone breaks into my house.

 

[Beav]

I agree with everyone that we need to be harder on criminals and they need to serve their time or be put away if they repeat. None of this early out garbage unless they've been wrongfully accused. None of this overcrowded or reformed bull.

I started this question with background checks in mind and the opposition to them from several of the members here. I guess I'm trying to understand why they are a problem with so many of us? I'm still able to buy firearms and hopefully it will keep a few firearms out of the hands of criminals. It surely isn't the most effective means but does that mean it shouldn't be done?

Thanks

 

[Beav]

It's a waste of time and money.

Here's an easy example. Cocaine is illegal in this country. Illegal to buy, sell, manufacture, import and possess. We have an entire law enforcement agency, the DEA, along with countless other federal, state and local law enforcement agencies that do nothing but try to prevent this drug from getting to the user. Responsible citizens do not use cocaine, therefore they have no constitutional rights being violated by the most draconian restrictions on this drug.

With all of this proactive effort to keep cocaine off the streets of this nation, do think you would have any problem in acquring some cocaine right now if you wanted to buy some?

The government could ban every firearm in this country. Confiscate and destroy every firearm in this country. Pass laws to prevent the manufacture and importation of firearms in this country. They could take every law enforcement officer currently working in narcotics and have them do nothing but look for guns. And this would still not stop a criminal from getting a gun any more than the "war on drugs" has kept anyone from buying dope..

I'm sure I would have no problem at all finding almost any drug I wanted. I agree the war on drugs is a joke and if there was ever a war on guns they would be just as ineffective. But even if it is futile and a waste of money, should they just give up and legalize drugs? Should they just ditch background checks so felons can walk into any gunstore and buy a gun?

Beav. Just think about how things might have been different if there was just one person legally carrying a handgun on any one of those planes on that fateful day.

I agree things might have been different and thousands of people might have been saved.

I think making an 80 year old person subject to a search of their person is unreasonable.

The problem with all the background check systems is that they can't stop straw purchases. You can buy a bunch of guns over time for other people, and then just say they were stolen, and then there were perfectly legal guns bought in a legal manner by a criminal accomplice. No matter what proactive ways you come up with, criminals find ways around them. And in the end the law abiding citizens are the ones made to suffer.

I agree but then again, if they are going to do it to anyone randomly I don't think anyone should be excluded. What does a terrorist look like anyway? Sounds rediculous, true, but I wouldn't underestimate them.

Straw purchases, certainly will happen, but I still don't think we should allow felons to walk right into any shop and buy a gun, it just shouldn't be that easy.

Thanks

 

[NewShooter78]

Straw purchases, certainly will happen, but I still don't think we should allow felons to walk right into any shop and buy a gun, it just shouldn't be that easy.

I agree that I don't thing that felons should be able to buy guns that easily, but most felons can get the same guns we buy leagally, cheaper on the street. And, most states don't agree on one level or another of what a felonious act is. And a violent felon is in a pure philsophic level not the same as say a white collar felon. So, if I don't pay my taxes for a political reason, then I become a felon. I'm no harm to anyone, in terms of past illegal actions, with or without the right to own a gun.

I am not hastled when I walk into my local gunshop when they run the instant check on me. The phone call last no longer than the time it takes for me to fill out the yellow form. And I still walk out that day with my gun. But on a wider level it does nothing to prevent criminals, by and large, from buying a gun.

I used to think the same way about background checks as you seem to until people better than I can to you, showed me some logic over on TFL as to why background checks are not a good way to curb illegal gun ownership.

 

[ENC]

You asked what a terrorist looks like

Well at the risk of being ridiculed. I believe that far and away most terrorists are middle aged men. With the large majority of these men being muslim extremists as well.

Don't get me wrong I am against racial profiling but at the same time there are some obvious exclusions.

 

[Chris Rhines]

Who is responsible for keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and how?

No one.

So should the legal system proactively try to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms?

No.

Can they without infringing on our rights?

'Proactive' implies that the law takes action prior to the bad act. This in and of itself would be a violation of one's individual rights.

Why? Is it not a problem? Is the related loss acceptable? Is it just not feasible, a waste of time and money?

The idea that 'criminals' should be prevented from owning a particular type of property is immoral.

But even if it is futile and a waste of money, should they just give up and legalize drugs?

Yes, but not for the reason that you think. Drug possession and use should be legalized, not because prohibition has been an abject failure, but because legalization is the morally right thing to do.

Should they just ditch background checks so felons can walk into any gunstore and buy a gun?

Yes. Same reason as above.

...I still don't think we should allow felons to walk right into any shop and buy a gun...

Why not?

- Chris

 

[Beav]

I agree that I don't thing that felons should be able to buy guns that easily, but most felons can get the same guns we buy leagally, cheaper on the street.

Indeed, sounds like a lose-lose situation for the government. They either enforce background checks which are ineffective or they do nothing and felons are then able to legally buy firearms. Would they if they could?... probably not since they can obtain firearms cheaper on the streets. But all it takes is one that does and the media has a field day and most of America is asking why was this felon able to buy this gun legally. Its good CYA for the government if anything.

You asked what a terrorist looks like

Well at the risk of being ridiculed. I believe that far and away most terrorists are middle aged men. With the large majority of these men being muslim extremists as well.

Don't get me wrong I am against racial profiling but at the same time there are some obvious exclusions.

I agree an 80 year old man is up there and very unlikely, but I also think the Airline industry is doing what they have to do to show that they are capable of providing security and leave nothing to question or chance. I would bet that its in their procedure not to exclude anyone, regardless. More CYA?

Chris-So if I understand you correctly, you consider background checks are a violation of ones rights. If so in contrast I don't believe it is immoral to deny the rights of convicted felons.

 

[faustulus]

proactive

Think about the logical definition to the word and you will never use it again.

It is not the job of laws to prevent crime, it is to punish the ciminal AFTER the crime has been committed, our entire justice system is predicated on the belief that all men are innocent. Only after guilt has been proved can one be a criminal. After time has been served for the crime it would be immoral to use past sins against him. Hence it would be wrong to prevent him from owning a gun.

I would like further input as to the definition of "unreasonable" as stated in the Fourth Amendment and how it applies to a post 9/11 America?

There isn't a difference. The lives of 3,000 nor 30,000 are worth the loss of any freedom. Life is not the greatest thing in the world. See Patrick Henry.

A free society is a dangerous place, therefore we go armed.

I guess I'm trying to understand why they are a problem with so many of us?

Do you give your credit card number to anyone? If not why?

should they just give up and legalize drugs?

yes, because you do not have the right to say what i can or cannot do with my body in my home.

most of America is asking why was this felon able to buy this gun legally

That is why we are a republic. This is not mob rule, just because a majority want something doesn't make it right. See Slavery.

I don't believe it is immoral to deny the rights of convicted felons.

Is this after they have paid their price to society? If so then should not the son be also held accountable for what crime the father comments. Saying he has no rights once he has paid his price makes it seem like we were just imprisoning him for our own amusement. Why did we let him out if he is not to be trusted in society?

 

[AR-10]

The word FELON is being thrown around a lot in this thread. Some of us need to stop and realize a few facts regarding felons.

We on this board are all potential felons. The difference between most of us and the average convicted felon is...we have not been convicted. The number of laws that carry felony punishments grows larger every year. If you think you have never commited a felony in your life, you are probably wrong. You have just not been caught.

When you talk about felons you are talking about murderers, rapists, armed robbers. You are also talking about people who drove 86mph in a 65mph zone, hired the wrong accountant to cheat on their taxes, got railroaded by the BATF on trumped up gun charges, picked the wrong marriage partner, failed to read all 20,000 plus gun regulations. There are hundreds of ways to become a convicted felon without robbing a bank.

In 1990 there were 829,344 persons convicted of felony offenses.
In 1998 there were 929,717 persons convicted.

The yearly totals from 1990 to 1998 vary, but the general trend is a steady rise. It is safe to say that from 1990 to today over 10 million people in the United States have become convicted felons.

The average number of convicted felons that received a sentence involving prison time hovers around 48%. The average prison sentence was five years, average actual time served was two years. The average percentage of felons sentenced to prison who actually served any time was around 40%. Less than one felon out of four went to prison.

How many of these people are too violent or dangerous to interact in society? If they are too dangerous to own a firearm, why are they living among us? If they are not a threat to us, why do they not deserve the same basic right we all have regarding self defense?

 

[JPM70535]

If I may, I would like to throw in my 2 cents worth.

While it should not be LEs (government) responsibility to proactively engage in activities that infringe on a citizens rights, I fail to see how background checks fall into that category. The Law Abiding citizen has nothing to fear from a background check. As has been stated here several times, the check takes less time than filling out the yellow form. BTW I am totally opposed to filling out any form as a prerequisite to purchasing a firearm. It is also true that most Criminals do not purchase their handguns legally, if there were no background check there surely would be a few who would. If the background check does nothing more than make it more difficult for criminals to obtain guns, then I say it is doing its job.

Another theme that seems to crop up regularly in the responses to this thread is the legalization of drugs. The reasoning for this is that since the WAR ON DRUGS is unwinable LE should just give up. The consequences of legalizing drugs would result IMO in an increase in crime if for no other reason than there would be more addicts. It just stands to reason that if drugs were legal, more people would try them. Among those who try drugs, a certain percentage will become addicts, who,being unable to work due to their addiction, will turn to crime to pay for their habit. If the war on drugs prevents even one person from becoming an addict, it is a worthwhile undertaking.

Should I as a firearms owner be held partially responsible for crimes committed with a firearm stolen from my home because I failed to secure it? Absolutely not with one exception, that being, if I have small children and through my failure to secure the firearm, the child hurts himself or another, then I bear the blame.
The sole responsibility for any crime committed by a criminal rests solely with the criminal. The attempt to shift the responsibility to anyone other than the criminal is totally assinine.




GOD MADE MAN, SAM COLT MADE THEM ALL EQUAL!!!!

 

[Hkmp5sd]

The problem isn't filling out a 4473 or an instant background check. The problem is that they are not effective. Therefore, someone is always adding a few more prerequisites, after all, "law abiding citizens shouldn't worry."

Let see, maybe we should make that instant check are few days so they can check with all the cities without computerized records. Oh, we need a few more days to check with INS to make sure you are not an illegal alien. Better include a certificate of training. Don't want any accidental shootings and honest citizens won't mind. Could be a mental defect there, better include a visit and approval by a shrink. We should also get rid of all these non-sporting, evil, drug dealer prefered weapons. Honest citizens don't need a 15 round magazine or a rifle that can be used to shoot down aircraft. Gotta protect the children, so let's add a state approved gun lock mandatory with each firearm. Don't forget the beltway sniper! Better include ballistic fingerprinting. Everyone knows it doesn't work but if it manages to catch one single killer, it's worth it, eh? Shouldn't let any of our citizens be classified as war criminals, so we better get rid of all those exotic bullets designed to cause larger wounds. FMJ is good enough for the army, it's good enough for everyone else. You know, them handguns are just too easy to conceal. They aren't all that accurate either. Might as well ban handguns. Only criminals and police need them. Shotguns and rifles are really all that honest homeowners need for protection.

ETC.ETC.ETC.ETC.ETC.

 

[Chris Rhines]

Chris-So if I understand you correctly, you consider background checks are a violation of ones rights.

I don't 'consider.' Background checks are a violation of one's rights.

If so in contrast I don't believe it is immoral to deny the rights of convicted felons.

Then you are wrong.

- Chris

 

[Tamara]

Beav,

I started this question with background checks in mind and the opposition to them from several of the members here. I guess I'm trying to understand why they are a problem with so many of us? I'm still able to buy firearms and hopefully it will keep a few firearms out of the hands of criminals. It surely isn't the most effective means but does that mean it shouldn't be done?

Let me turn this around: Why don't you tell me what you feel gives any agency or authority the right to run a background check on you and grant you permission to purchase a gun?