-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Who should be prevented from buying a firearm?
- Thread starter JimmyR
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
I may not have understood you clearly. In the event he walks into the gun shop s**tfaced drunk and wants to buy a gun I would expect the proprietor to kick him out!
People with active warrants for violent crimes
Foreign Nationals illegally in the country
People who are intoxicated on drugs or alcohol, etc
The extremely mentally ill
Adolescents (up to 12?)
rebuttals?
I could agree with one and two on your list...
#3, Though while I can see the reasons behind your choosing it. I've found if you allow persons freedom of action and swift severe punishment for harming others. They will generally Police themselves. Shame Our system no longer works that way...
#4, Once again it falls onto who decides what n Extreme Mental Illness is, and who suffers from them....
#5, Why restrict adolescents?!
- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
Well, there is that guy whose name rhymes with 'Ron'. Still, punishment for actual misdeeds rather than truncating rights in response to 'pre-crimes' is still the approach which works in the context of a free society.
So punish the Shop Owner for the Crime and hammer him so hard they build a new jail around him.
Ive been convicted of DUI, twice, and MJ, once. Ive been told by the doctor that Im bipolar. I guess that means I shouldnt have a gun. Then again, Ive also been through training to fix and fabricate firearms. Maybe I shouldnt have lathes, mills, or welding equipment, either. Maybe they should give me a lobotomy or electro-shock so I forget these things, since knowledge of how to fix or build a firearm constitutes intent to build one and kill someone with it.
Know what Ive noticed after doing gunshows? You guys have all seen Indiana felons. Youve seen them at all the gun shows, youve seen them on the street, youve seen them in stores. Its easy to get yourself on the governments s#1t list and have your rights taken away. Its easy for them to make life a royal pain in the ass for you, even if you never lifted a finger to hurt anyone else (aside from high school fights and such, which are also coming into play now). Point being, Ive seen a lot of felons. I havent seen a lot of them who would kill someone if they could buy a gun in a store. Actually, your life is such a pain in the ass after getting convicted of anything higher than a traffic ticket, that most felons wont have the money, or time, to get a gun from anyone but a guy who stole it anyway. This is mostly because you cant get a job ANYWHERE if youve been convicted of a felony, or a MJ misdemeanor.(found this out the hard way). Second point being, felons by whose standards? What if they banned the tobacco you smoke and dip? Youd be hooked on an illegal substance, thats what.
Bottom line, as most of the opponents to governmental regulation have been saying here, is a bad person is a bad person. Or, bad behavior is bad behavior. Bad behavior, is doing something that knowingly harms another person. (Basic definition. This is not an argument against self defense.)
Know what Ive noticed after doing gunshows? You guys have all seen Indiana felons. Youve seen them at all the gun shows, youve seen them on the street, youve seen them in stores. Its easy to get yourself on the governments s#1t list and have your rights taken away. Its easy for them to make life a royal pain in the ass for you, even if you never lifted a finger to hurt anyone else (aside from high school fights and such, which are also coming into play now). Point being, Ive seen a lot of felons. I havent seen a lot of them who would kill someone if they could buy a gun in a store. Actually, your life is such a pain in the ass after getting convicted of anything higher than a traffic ticket, that most felons wont have the money, or time, to get a gun from anyone but a guy who stole it anyway. This is mostly because you cant get a job ANYWHERE if youve been convicted of a felony, or a MJ misdemeanor.(found this out the hard way). Second point being, felons by whose standards? What if they banned the tobacco you smoke and dip? Youd be hooked on an illegal substance, thats what.
Bottom line, as most of the opponents to governmental regulation have been saying here, is a bad person is a bad person. Or, bad behavior is bad behavior. Bad behavior, is doing something that knowingly harms another person. (Basic definition. This is not an argument against self defense.)
To All,
I think the hard part for many people to accept is that NO Right is 100% absolute. None. Including the 2nd Amendment.
I have the right to "freedom of speech", but this does NOT mean I can come into your neighborhood and scream at you and your neighbors at 0200 hours on a 200dbl speaker about the evils of the President. There is a limit.
I have the right to be be "secure in their persons, houses, papers..." can be overridden with exigent circumstances, say if the police see me stabbing someone to death through my front window. Nope, not 100%.
Freedom of Religion. Until my religion tells me to perform human sacrifices, then Nope, not 100%. Not allowed. Sorry...
Right to travel. Sure, unless I want to walk across your property. Then, your property rights may trump my right to take the shortest distance to work, play etc.
Right to own property. Sure, but if we, as a community, need to build a road we can force a person to sell through eminent domain. This doesn't mean ED isn't regularly abused, but the right to private property is NOT 100%.
Or, can I buy up all the property around you in 360 degrees, thus not allowing you on or off your property? Nope, you may always have a way on and off your own property.
The right to keep and bear arms is NO more nor less important than other rights. They are all critical to our freedom and liberty but must be limited to a minimal degree to allow for maximum liberty.
So, what limit would I place on the RTKBA?
First, I don't think it would be unreasonable to say that "If I can't control it, I can't have it." Therefore, I may not make an airborne version of Ebola because IF I lost control then it could ravage tens of millions of people. The same could be said of some chemical weapons. This would still allow for an awful lot of latitude in the "I can own it category," just not 100%
Second, to be able to control any weapon you must be competent or at least able to maintain competency on your own. Thus, any person who is subject, through no fault of their own, to mental disease or disability may have their right limited. This would have to be done naturally on a case by case basis, so that someone who is subject to psychotic episodes may be allowed to bear arms while another person with a similar but more debilitating condition may not be allowed to keep and bear arms.
That is about it. I would not worry about prior criminal history because if they have served their time then they have paid their debt to society and should be returned to full and equal status. That said, someone out on probation is still not done paying their debt and may have limits.
Think about it this way. Presume that my right to freedom of speech is 100%. I can say anything I want to anyone I want at any time I want. Free is free under the "no limits" concept.
Now, with that in mind you get a telephone call at work and it goes something like this, "You don't know me but you cut me off in traffic a week ago and that really made me mad and will bother me forever. So, in return I am going to slaughter your entire family. Maybe not today, maybe not this week but I know where you live and I have seen where your children play and where grandma and grandpa live. Someday you will have funerals to attend and I will not stop."
Would this upset you? Would you call the police? Why? The person making the call hasn't physically harmed anyone. They are will within their "right" of free speech. Under the "no limits" concept nothing could or should be done unless the caller acts on their threat. Of course, by then we could be measuring a coffin...
Fortunately such is not the case. You also have a right to some degree of peaceful society and peace of mind. The making of such threats could break laws and the caller could, if/when found, be punished.
No right is, nor should it be, 100%. That said, we want to come as close as possible to 100% with all of the rights we have, and thus need to find a balance to limit them all to a slight degree in order to maximize liberty and freedom for all.
Regards,
Doug
I think the hard part for many people to accept is that NO Right is 100% absolute. None. Including the 2nd Amendment.
I have the right to "freedom of speech", but this does NOT mean I can come into your neighborhood and scream at you and your neighbors at 0200 hours on a 200dbl speaker about the evils of the President. There is a limit.
I have the right to be be "secure in their persons, houses, papers..." can be overridden with exigent circumstances, say if the police see me stabbing someone to death through my front window. Nope, not 100%.
Freedom of Religion. Until my religion tells me to perform human sacrifices, then Nope, not 100%. Not allowed. Sorry...
Right to travel. Sure, unless I want to walk across your property. Then, your property rights may trump my right to take the shortest distance to work, play etc.
Right to own property. Sure, but if we, as a community, need to build a road we can force a person to sell through eminent domain. This doesn't mean ED isn't regularly abused, but the right to private property is NOT 100%.
Or, can I buy up all the property around you in 360 degrees, thus not allowing you on or off your property? Nope, you may always have a way on and off your own property.
The right to keep and bear arms is NO more nor less important than other rights. They are all critical to our freedom and liberty but must be limited to a minimal degree to allow for maximum liberty.
So, what limit would I place on the RTKBA?
First, I don't think it would be unreasonable to say that "If I can't control it, I can't have it." Therefore, I may not make an airborne version of Ebola because IF I lost control then it could ravage tens of millions of people. The same could be said of some chemical weapons. This would still allow for an awful lot of latitude in the "I can own it category," just not 100%
Second, to be able to control any weapon you must be competent or at least able to maintain competency on your own. Thus, any person who is subject, through no fault of their own, to mental disease or disability may have their right limited. This would have to be done naturally on a case by case basis, so that someone who is subject to psychotic episodes may be allowed to bear arms while another person with a similar but more debilitating condition may not be allowed to keep and bear arms.
That is about it. I would not worry about prior criminal history because if they have served their time then they have paid their debt to society and should be returned to full and equal status. That said, someone out on probation is still not done paying their debt and may have limits.
Think about it this way. Presume that my right to freedom of speech is 100%. I can say anything I want to anyone I want at any time I want. Free is free under the "no limits" concept.
Now, with that in mind you get a telephone call at work and it goes something like this, "You don't know me but you cut me off in traffic a week ago and that really made me mad and will bother me forever. So, in return I am going to slaughter your entire family. Maybe not today, maybe not this week but I know where you live and I have seen where your children play and where grandma and grandpa live. Someday you will have funerals to attend and I will not stop."
Would this upset you? Would you call the police? Why? The person making the call hasn't physically harmed anyone. They are will within their "right" of free speech. Under the "no limits" concept nothing could or should be done unless the caller acts on their threat. Of course, by then we could be measuring a coffin...
Fortunately such is not the case. You also have a right to some degree of peaceful society and peace of mind. The making of such threats could break laws and the caller could, if/when found, be punished.
No right is, nor should it be, 100%. That said, we want to come as close as possible to 100% with all of the rights we have, and thus need to find a balance to limit them all to a slight degree in order to maximize liberty and freedom for all.
Regards,
Doug
Last edited:
- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
Perhaps, but what I believe he fails to get is that as soon as you start allowing 'reasonable restrictions' you keep getting more 'reasonable restrictions' until you don't have any such right left. Consequently, I will not voluntarily give an inch!
People with active warrants for violent crimes
Foreign Nationals illegally in the country
People who are intoxicated on drugs or alcohol, etc
The extremely mentally ill
Adolescents (up to 12?)
rebuttals?
1. Disagree. They should be locked up.
2. Disagree. Its a natural right.
3. Disagree. If they do something irresponsible, throw the book at them so others think twice. Make it hurt.
4. Disagree. Who gets to decide? If they are that bad, then they shouldn't be roaming around.
5. Disagree. I had guns in my room at eight years old. My nine year old does. I will decide if my child is mature enough. I don't need any input from the government on how to raise my children.
Classic Liberal
Sharpshooter
- Apr 12, 2012
- 716
- 18
Right.
You are either free and have rights, or you are a subject and have restrictions.
Classic Liberal
Sharpshooter
- Apr 12, 2012
- 716
- 18
^^^ so does he. 
Bunnykid68
Grandmaster
Doug, I think a lot of your points make sense. I think they would make even more sense if as in you example about yelling outside someones home at 0200 you addressed it as violating one persons rights with their alleged rights.
Once you start violating someone elses rights you cease to be exercising yours.
Point of order: The militiamen in Colonial times were not handed a gun by anyone, and they chose their own leaders. They provided their own guns and the rest of their own equipment as well. They were paid for their service, not for their equipment.
And if everyone has access to those things, they cease to be the bugaboo you seem to be making them out to be. Put another way, if you and I both have flamethrowers, you cease to be a valid threat to me. "If the enemy is in range, so are you."
And without a law forcing him to do so.
Doug, as usual, you have the right idea, but I see you missing an important point. The limitation on your rights is emplaced at a level far above that of our legislative bodies. My rights are sacrosanct, as are yours, meaning that where mine exist, yours cannot override, and vice versa. Put another way, if by action on your part and mere existence on my part, my rights are infringed, you are in the wrong. The guy driving in traffic cut another driver off, and perhaps that was a violation of the other man's rights, but there is no doubt that a phone call of the sort you described violates the recipient's rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, et al.
I do like your idea about control of the tool you use being part of the "test", though I'm not sure about who has the authority to administer that test.
Blessings,
Bill
To All,
I think I need to clarify a bit.
Hypothetically, one person alone on an island (aka Tom Hanks, Castaway) has unlimited rights. He/she may do anything they want at anytime they want. If they find a nuclear weapon and want to have special fireworks on the other side of the island, so be it.
However, when you add another human being into the mix then we add in the conflict of competing "rights." When that occurs the government, a tool created by the people to perform a task, will inevitably be used to place limits on each right so that the maximum enjoyment of liberty is achieved with the minimal impact on each individual right.
Let us presume someone lives in Indianapolis that owns a .50 caliber fully automatic machine gun. This person has a right to do so and breaks no laws and does not have their right to possession infringed. Let us also presume that this chap loves to feed the birds and just HATES it when those darn squirrels steal the bird food. You can see where this is going. Reasonable people would agree that although we may concede that you can shoot the evil squirrels with a weapon you may not let the .50 fully automatic machine gun rip away with 3 or 4 belts of ammo to get the nasty little thieves. The risk of causing serious harm to either a person or property would be extremely high in a densely populated area.
So, getting mad at not being able to utilize his favorite toy this chap moves out into Podunk Indiana. His is now the farthest house out on the edge of the city. Now he can rip away all he wants EXCEPT that they will not let him tear loose at 2AM with his night vision goggles into the nearby evil squirrel nest.
Angered yet again at this violation of his rights our determined chap moves to Utah, converts to Mormonism, marries three wives, and buys a 100,000 acre ranch in the middle of nowhere (ie. Utah = nowhere). He has one wife to bring the ammo, one to act as a spotter, and the third to fire up the barbie. Now, finally, our diligent hero can blast away at any squirrel he wants, in any direction he wants, at any time he wants. Except that now he is in the middle of Utah/Nowhere and there are NO squirrels to shoot...
Our rights become limited by our desire to live in peace with our neighbors is greater than our desire to allow everyone to be an dip
all the time. As such, we bite our tongues, don't shoot before 9AM, and refrain from calling out every exceedingly minor violation a mountain when in reality it is just a molehill.
All that said I do agree that we must remain ever vigilant against the government, well meaning though it may be, overstepping the absolute minimal need to oppress some of our rights to achieve the maximum benefit to a working society.
Yet, in a society we do live and as such must not be astounded at the idea of some oppression of rights be good or reasonable.
Regards,
Doug
I think I need to clarify a bit.
Hypothetically, one person alone on an island (aka Tom Hanks, Castaway) has unlimited rights. He/she may do anything they want at anytime they want. If they find a nuclear weapon and want to have special fireworks on the other side of the island, so be it.
However, when you add another human being into the mix then we add in the conflict of competing "rights." When that occurs the government, a tool created by the people to perform a task, will inevitably be used to place limits on each right so that the maximum enjoyment of liberty is achieved with the minimal impact on each individual right.
Let us presume someone lives in Indianapolis that owns a .50 caliber fully automatic machine gun. This person has a right to do so and breaks no laws and does not have their right to possession infringed. Let us also presume that this chap loves to feed the birds and just HATES it when those darn squirrels steal the bird food. You can see where this is going. Reasonable people would agree that although we may concede that you can shoot the evil squirrels with a weapon you may not let the .50 fully automatic machine gun rip away with 3 or 4 belts of ammo to get the nasty little thieves. The risk of causing serious harm to either a person or property would be extremely high in a densely populated area.
So, getting mad at not being able to utilize his favorite toy this chap moves out into Podunk Indiana. His is now the farthest house out on the edge of the city. Now he can rip away all he wants EXCEPT that they will not let him tear loose at 2AM with his night vision goggles into the nearby evil squirrel nest.
Angered yet again at this violation of his rights our determined chap moves to Utah, converts to Mormonism, marries three wives, and buys a 100,000 acre ranch in the middle of nowhere (ie. Utah = nowhere). He has one wife to bring the ammo, one to act as a spotter, and the third to fire up the barbie. Now, finally, our diligent hero can blast away at any squirrel he wants, in any direction he wants, at any time he wants. Except that now he is in the middle of Utah/Nowhere and there are NO squirrels to shoot...
Our rights become limited by our desire to live in peace with our neighbors is greater than our desire to allow everyone to be an dip
all the time. As such, we bite our tongues, don't shoot before 9AM, and refrain from calling out every exceedingly minor violation a mountain when in reality it is just a molehill.All that said I do agree that we must remain ever vigilant against the government, well meaning though it may be, overstepping the absolute minimal need to oppress some of our rights to achieve the maximum benefit to a working society.
Yet, in a society we do live and as such must not be astounded at the idea of some oppression of rights be good or reasonable.
Regards,
Doug
Site Supporter
Members online
- DoggyDaddy
- TheSpookyCat
- partyboy6686
- GLC3
- Mas86
- BeDome
- 63PGP
- Firehawk
- Brandon
- SouthernStar25
- KJQ6945
- 357 Terms
- Cavman
- simpleman44
- opus1776
- Mackeryd
- Knight Rider
- Nemo3000
- 22LRFan
- jedi
- 223 Gunner
- mcapo
- tv1217
- led4thehed2
- Jndturner317
- bigz82
- oze
- indyartisan
- AndyF
- Talkinghalls
- KG1
- BrentTheBoat
- DDadams
- abraham743
- slims2002
- LokhXIV
- Midwestjimbo
- BigJDC04
- joncon
- MarylandTacomaRider
- jcj54
- Mgderf
- GUNS&MOPAR
- El Conquistador
- Averygc
- NHT3
- jbm1521
- edwea
- junglerogue
- Dirty Steve