Who should be able to have guns?

[JN01]

ctdonath said:

The question can only be taken seriously by those who subscribe to socialist/communist/dictatorial principles. Those whose core principles are freedom and liberty cannot seriously answer the question, as it violates basic values.

I have always been a strong supporter of the RKBA. Over the years, I've contributed to gun rights organizations. I've written countless letters to elected officals and letters to the editor. I hope that Vermont type carry laws spread throughout the nation. "Stand Your Ground" is the way it should have always been. Repealing 99.9% of gun laws would be a good thing. I promised my life in defense of my country in the armed forces. But because I think armed criminals are a bad thing, now I'm a commie? Yeah, OK.

 

[Derby FALs]

Closet gun grabber. Maybe a commie.

 

[ctdonath]

But because I think armed criminals are a bad thing, now I'm a commie? Yeah, OK.

Did I say that? Seriously, did I say exactly that? You missed a critical nuance.

Is your axiom that society at large can generally tell non-incarcerated individuals what they can and cannot do? that's socialsim/communism.

Is your axiom that someone who has not been convicted of a crime, or who has served their time & fulfilled their punishment, is free & at liberty to behave as they desire so long as others are not harmed?

It's easy to start with "armed criminals are bad so let's not allow them to have guns." Unfortunately, that requires presumptions and sets precidents that have awful consequences. One must start by defining basic principles, THEN apply them to the problem of "armed criminals".

Starting with "armed criminals are bad so let's not allow them to have guns" establishes:
- "we" have arbitrary power over "them" (commie)
- natural rights can be revoked without due process (anti-liberty)
- simple declaration makes it so, as in: legislating "criminals can't have guns" makes it so (dumb)
- people who wilfully violate greater prohibitions will comply with lesser prohibitions (dumb)
- no guns => no crime, as if "weapons" are a well-defined category (ignorant)
etc.

Armed criminals are a fact of life. So long as there are rocks & sticks, no law will realistically disarm them outside of prison walls. The only way to achieve the goal of disarming criminals is either
1. Incarcerate them until deemed safe enough to let out into a world awash in weapons.
2. Severely infringe on the rights of non-criminals (general prohibition, registration, licensing, etc.).
Since you're likely not interested in option #1, the only way to achieve your goal is #2 - which makes you a commie.

 

[DRMMR02]

Make a decision, do we release dangerous people upon the public or don't we?

hmmmmm you make a good point. My gut reaction is to say "people who have been convicted of _____ even when they are released. They have shown they can't be trusted with such a dangerous tool". But then why release them at all? You don't need a gun to be dangerous or to kill. It's not like taking away the gun shuts off the crazy-switch in their minds. If they can't be trusted with a gun in the real world, they shouldn't be in the real world.

 

[up_onus]

the law states....

soooooo, felons SHOULDNT be able to. Its too hard to differentiate which felon DOES and which felon DOESNT. Nothing against felons...but MOST (IMO) probably arent the smartest people. So, tell your children you can have one, you cant, you can, you can, you cant.... how does that work?

If the law changes to allow felons to have guns, more power to them! Just means Im going to get me a back up gun!

 

[progunner1957]

How about we turn the tables?

No guns for politicians!

 

[Mr. James]

QED, ctdonath! Huzzah!

 

[romma]

How Many

Current politicians that implement legislation are convicted felons? Admitted substance abusers? Or Convicted of misdemeanor disqualifiers that prevent them from owning or possession of firearms? What business do these people have passing, or being involved in any legislation that pertains to firearms? It seems to me, there would be a serious basis for bias.

 

[JN01]

Armed criminals are a fact of life. So long as there are rocks & sticks, no law will realistically disarm them outside of prison walls. The only way to achieve the goal of disarming criminals is either
1. Incarcerate them until deemed safe enough to let out into a world awash in weapons.
2. Severely infringe on the rights of non-criminals (general prohibition, registration, licensing, etc.).
Since you're likely not interested in option #1, the only way to achieve your goal is #2 - which makes you a commie.

Perhaps you didn't read my posts carefully enough. I never suggested that a prohibition on felons legally possessing weapons would prevent them from obtaining them, in fact, I believe I stated that it wouldn't. The benefit of such a law is that if the criminal is acting in such a manner that LE believes that he may be attempting/engaging in criminal activity and the LE stops him and finds the weapon, it is another means of putting him out of circulation for a while.

The main disagreement seems to be the issue of "trustworthiness". If I understand correctly, you feel that anyone who is released from prison is kind of a "born again virgin" in a legal sense and should be treated like anyone else.

My view is that by their actions they have proven themselves irresponsible (after having the benefit of due process), and in a practical sense can't be trusted. That is why I brought up the (admittedly over the top) example of a pedophile working at a school. While you might think he should be able to start over with a clean slate in a legal sense, most people (and I would hope, you as well) would say, OH HELL NO!, to that situation. Because people do make judgements. Society does, in a way, place limits on ex-offenders. Anybody CAN change but most DON'T change.

As for your solutions to disarming criminals:

1. Incarcerate them until deemed safe enough to let out

- Sounds great to me. Of course for many that means a life sentence. And if you do let them out, you are leaving that decision to the government who you deem incapable of determining what "untrustworthy" is. Also, if you do lock them up for life, you realize that you are denying or severely infringing on most of his rights, not just one or two.

2. Severely infringe on the rights of non-criminals (general prohibition, registration, licensing, etc.).

- Again, as I never suggested disarming criminals per se, none of this is necessary. You could repeal every single gun control law and replace it with one: Anyone found in possession of a deadly weapon (as defined in Appendix X) who has been previously convicted of a violent offense (as defined in Appendix Y) will be sent to prison for a mandatory sentence of (take your pick) years. THAT PARTICULAR criminal would then be disarmed and safely tucked away where he is no longer a threat to the population at large, no one else's rights are infringed.

Since you're likely not interested in option #1

,
I am.

the only way to achieve your goal is #2

Not true, as explained above.

- which makes you a commie.

Can I burn my copy of Das Kapital now?

 

[The Drew]

The answer is simple... Children under the age of 18 should not be able to purchase firearms.

Beyond that the 2nd amendment and the PA constitution pretty much spell out that everyone has a right to firearms.

 

[solareclipse]

Everybody should have guns (including my enemies!) except

- mental people for obvious reasons
- repeat offenders

I do not feel that just because someone screwed once in their life, payed their debt to society, they should be banished for life from enjoying certain benefits they were born into. Some feel that once you screw up, that's it, but I cannot advocate this and tell you it is how i really feel about it.

 

[Sistema1927]

The answer is simple... Children under the age of 18 should not be able to purchase firearms.

Balderdash!

There was a time, in the memory of some of us, when children could purchase firearms via mail order or plunk down their cash on the counter of any gun store in America. Most of us kept our doors unlocked during those days. I owned guns before age 18, I even took them to school, with the full knowledge and blessing of the authorities.

The only people who should be denied possession of firearms are those who are too dangerous to walk the streets. If you aren't incarcerated, you should be able to exercise your God given right to self-defense.

 

[ctdonath]

While you might think he should be able to start over with a clean slate in a legal sense, most people (and I would hope, you as well) would say, OH HELL NO!

If "hell no" is the reaction to letting 'em out on a clean slate, then don't.

 

[Twycross]

Truly, we are our own worst enemy. A good many here will gladly support the abolition of our civil rights, just as long as they are exempt.


This is just feeding the cyclops and hoping that he will eat you last.

 

[The Drew]

There was a time, in the memory of some of us, when children could purchase firearms via mail order or plunk down their cash on the counter of any gun store in America. Most of us kept our doors unlocked during those days. I owned guns before age 18, I even took them to school, with the full knowledge and blessing of the authorities.

The only people who should be denied possession of firearms are those who are too dangerous to walk the streets. If you aren't incarcerated, you should be able to exercise your God given right to self-defense.

I didn't say anything about posession, I said purchase... Children are not adults in the eyes of the law, they cannot vote nor can they purchase many other things or do many other things that have adult consequences or responsibilities... Once you are 18 and legally an adult, you should be able to own and carry firearms, unless of course you are enlisted at an earlier age. (in which case Uncle Sam is now your custodian, not your parents)

 

[ReadyontheRight]

I think we should legally prohibit any felons from driving, becoming doctors or owning swimming pools. Because all of these kill more people than guns every year.

Here's a better idea -- A. Make prisons affordable to taxpayers B. Separate prisoners convicted of violent offenses from prisoners convicted of non-violent offenses C. KEEP VIOLENT CRIMINALS IN PRISON FOR A VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY LONG TIME.

If you are deemed unfit for society and the right to bear arms, why are you released and allowed to drive a 2000 pound car around in society?

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

Who should be able to have guns?
Or rather, who shouldnt be able to have guns? In your opinion.

The entire thread is flawed. That statement implies that Rights can be taken away from people. They cannot. That's a horrible line of thinking. It is also dangerous and destructive.

"Who should be able" is a statement that implies PERMISSION. That question not only creates a requirement for permission, but it then creates the question of WHO is the authority by which Rights are given or taken? Who decides who should and shouldn't have a gun? Furthermore, why should anyone even decide that in the first place? It isn't anyone's Right to be able to do that in the first place.

Once you remove Rights from their status as inalienable and inherent, to privilege status where they are like a piece of property that can be traded around, taken away, given up, changed etc...you set forth an entire ideology of manipulation and rearrangement of our fundamental system of liberty.

Sure, we can suspend someone's rights while they are serving a punishment for a crime because they are a threat to other people's RIGHT TO LIFE, but I don't believe felons should lose their rights after serving their time.

That is a de-facto way of continuing their punishment. Either you punished them in full, or you didn't (in prison). To consider them a danger where they are banned from owning guns implies that prison didn't serve its purpose. Either they have been punished or rehabilitated or deterred for life from committing another crime, or they are still a threat to society, by which they should remain locked up until they are no longer a threat.

Anyway, Rights are Rights. They aren't GIVEN nor TAKEN AWAY. They aren't yours to give away and they aren't yours to take away. You're born with them. God, the creator, or nature (whatever you believe) made us with these inalienable and inherent Rights.


Guys, when you think like that, you're just giving the government the power to be able to strip away your rights. Today, it might not be possible, but the justifications might exist tomorrow....


It is these types of arguments, this type of thinking that allows the power-mongers, the goverment, the JBT's, the gun grabbers, and the statists to WIN the debate, because, by default, they got YOU to agree to restriction, prohibition or licensing. Same with concealed carry and licenses and other nonsense. We LOSE the debate because we agree to this garbage.

 

[JN01]

Either you punished them in full, or you didn't (in prison). To consider them a danger where they are banned from owning guns implies that prison didn't serve its purpose. Either they have been punished or rehabilitated or deterred for life from committing another crime, or they are still a threat to society, by which they should remain locked up until they are no longer a threat.

Does anybody honestly believe that violent criminals have been rehabilitated by the time they are released? There is no program that can sucessfully force rehabilitation, and most of them don't want to be rehabilitated.

If a dangerous person is locked up, they are incapacitated from harming the general public. In this sense, prisons serve their purpose quite well. The problem is keeping those dangerous people locked up for as long as they need to be. For the most part, doesn't happen, never will.

In the future, I will try to be more sensitive to criminals when posting on this board. If any criminals have been harmed in the making of this thread, I apologize.

 

[LAK]

Who should be able to have guns?]

Any man or woman aged 18 or over who is not under 24hr/7day supervision, incarcerated - or six feet under.

Children are another matter; I think parents (who are not one of the above) ought to be able to gift firearms to, or purchase them for their children over a certain age for use on private property etc according to the laws of the applicable state.

-----------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[JaxNovice]

Are people implying that if someone commits a felony with a firearm, once they get out of jail they should legally be allowed to own a gun? This makes as much sense as (but not limited to):

Letting a habitual DUI offender be allowed to drive right out of jail
Allowing child molesters to live next a nursey school
Allowing computer hackers to access the web right out of jail

I could go on and on.....

What people sometimes fail to understand is that not one of our constitutional rights is absolute and be taken away in a second.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Oh, Really?

Are people implying that if someone commits a felony with a firearm, once they get out of jail they should legally be allowed to own a gun?

"Legally" has nothing to do with it. It's their right. If said individual can't be trusted with a gun, why is that person not still in prison?

This makes as much sense as (but not limited to):

Letting a habitual DUI offender be allowed to drive right out of jail

Allowing child molesters to live next a nursey school

Allowing computer hackers to access the web right out of jail

What are these people doing out of prison? These people should never be let out! Making the rest of us suffer for their bad behavior is intolerable. We elect officials to contain or dispose of these people. If those people are going to be released back upon us, we may need to dispose of them ourselves. It's called "self defense".

Woody

"The power of those in government to use common sense shall not be infringed. It is first, however, imperative to elect people to those positions of power who possess common sense. Remember that at the next election." B.E.Wood

 

[JaxNovice]

How are you suffering by convicted felons being denied guns?

You claim it is your Right to have a gun, but what about the right of a computer hacker, for example, to avoid cruel and unusual punishment? According to you he should have a life sentence.

What are these people doing out of prison? These people should never be let out!

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Simple Answer

You claim it is your Right to have a gun, but what about the right of a computer hacker, for example, to avoid cruel and unusual punishment? According to you he should have a life sentence.

When the computer hacker can be trusted not to hack he can be let out.


As for this:

How are you suffering by convicted felons being denied guns?

ANY infringement upon the right leads to to the next infringement.

I suffer the infringement of a background check being conducted upon me, without just cause, without warrant, and I am being treated as if I were a felon. It is an assumption of guilt, and that assumption of guilt comes without due process. I can refuse to sign any such authorization - not being guilty - and the unconstitutional law forbids me to purchase an arm. That is a bold-faced infringement.

These background checks forced to be accomplished by gun dealers is not right, either. That is the job of law enforcement. Do these gun dealers get paid to accomplish this law enforcement task? Are they even sworn law enforcement officials as required by Article VI, Clause (3)? No, and no!

There isn't one thing that is proper with denying anyone their Right to Keep and Bear Arms, or requiring anyone to jump through hoops to exercise the right.

Woody

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the 'High Powers' delegated directly to the citizen by the United States Constitution, Amendment II....A law cannot be passed to infringe upon it or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the law-making power." - Texas Supreme Court Decision, Cockrum vs State of Texas, ---- 1859. Don't tell me that the states never considered the Second Amendment applicable to them. And at this point in time, there was no Fourteenth Amendment!

.

 

[JaxNovice]

You raise a very interesting point. However, as has been stated before (regardless of the Texas Supreme Court) no citizen has any absolute rights. Any consitutional right can be recinded legally. The Texas Supreme court has jurisdiction in Texas and is it not the sole intrepreter or the constitution.

Based on your "presumption of guilt" arguement (which I think is a very good one) you would never be forced to produce any identification at any time to a government official without probable cause. Do airport security procedures make you flip out because they are presuming that you are a terrorist? When you show your ID to the TSA official why dont you assert your presumption of innonce? Why don't you place your copy of the consittution on the gate agents counter when she asks the FAA mandated questions about who packed your bags?

The consitution does not state that provisions cannot be made in the aquiring of arms. It states,in short, that a citizen can bear arms. If you are going to be a literalist then be one. The federal government can introduce any set of protocols it wishes and still adhere to the letter of the ammendment.

I'll finish with a question. You state that when a hacker has proven they wont hack they can be let out. Would this be your sentencing guidelines if you were a criminal judge? Prove you are no longer a threat and we will let you out. Great idea...Very practical too.

 

[Derby FALs]

Rights aren't rescinded. Exercise of rights can be punished by law. I for one don't believe the SCOTUS has the last word on our rights.