Who should be prevented from buying a firearm?

[Blackhawk2001]

Seems to me that all the arguments starting: "so-and-so, if allowed to be armed, will go out and kill others just because he can." These types of argument totally disregard the armed presence of others; why would we think that someone attempting to commit murder would be allowed to escape the consequences by other bystanders? Whether the perpetrator be criminal, mentally ill, or whatever, the proper response to such acts would be for an armed citizenry to react - at that time or as soon thereafter as possible - to neutralize the threat by lethal or non-lethal application of the use of force. Lethal use of force to counter the threat or application of unlawful use of force against the citizenry would be akin to evolution; the unfit would be eliminated from society's "gene pool". As far as criminals imprisoned, why should they not have the same rights as other citizens once their imprisonment is ended? As others have said, if they are too evil to be trusted with the means of self-defense, they are too evil to be released into society again. Perhaps it would be kinder to execute certain evil people than to imprison them where they can spread their evil around on others without the means to defend themselves.

I agree with others' expressed opinions here: everyone has the right to defend themselves against those who would, without cause, harm them. No one should have that right rescinded in any way other than temporarily for determining their guilt or innocence of criminal activity. No one, upon completion of their assigned punishment for crimes committed, should be barred from the means of self-defense.

 

[NYFelon]

felons

Yeah, because we all know how dangerous tax evaders and guys that keep lobsters that are too short can be to all of society.

Are you even remotely aware of just how many felonies exist in the United States today? You probably committed three this week. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Right?

 

[NYFelon]

Fixed it for ya...

I don't actually have an issue saying a 12 year old can't BUY a gun. But own and possess? You bet.

 

[theweakerbrother]

No one should be barred. When there were no such limits, murder rates were lower. Prohibitions merely affect those inclined to follow them, not those with an evil intent. If someone is too dangerous to have a gun then they are too dangerous to have kitchen knives and baseball bats and gasoline. Those are the people you execute or lock up forever.

Ding ding. Winner from the first page.

 

[Ted]

Yeah, because we all know how dangerous tax evaders and guys that keep lobsters that are too short can be to all of society.

Are you even remotely aware of just how many felonies exist in the United States today? You probably committed three this week. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Right?

How about convicted murderers, rapists, robbers, burglars, kidnappers, hijackers, paper hangers, and so on and so forth?

 

[jbombelli]

How about convicted murderers, rapists, robbers, burglars, kidnappers, hijackers, paper hangers, and so on and so forth?

No free man shall be debarred the use of arms.

Once you let them out, they're free men.

 

[CarmelHP]

Uh, not all states belong to the DL compact. So again, what does the compact have to do with anything regarding this argument about FF&C......again, please?

Why don't you just explain to everyone what you believe what FF&C actually is applicable.....because according to you, it really doesn't mean a thing.

Forget it, Ted. It's been explained. Don't be obtuse just because you're butthurt at being corrected. I'll leave you with two final examples:

Hawaii says that they gave a birth certificate to some guy named Barack. Indiana, under FF&C, must believe (credit) that Hawaii took that official act and it can't be challenged in Indiana. Indiana can determine under its own internal laws how to treat Hawaii issued birth certificates. I can't challenge a Hawaii issued certificate in Indiana courts.

A second example, Indiana agrees in its internal laws to give weight to operator's licenses from Tennessee under whatever weight Tennessee gives them and Tennessee does likewise. In order to give weight to those licenses, both states agreement to give weight to the other states' traffic recorded offenses and actions concerning licensure, and to not treat offender's from the other state more harshly than offenders from their own state. Therefore, a mix of internal law changes and the compact allowed both TN and IN to give weight to the other's licensing.

Now, what were you asking about UCC?

 

[Trooper]

Forget it, Ted. It's been explained. Don't be obtuse just because you're butthurt at being corrected. I'll leave you with two final examples:

Hawaii says that they gave a birth certificate to some guy named Barack. Indiana, under FF&C, must believe (credit) that Hawaii took that official act and it can't be challenged in Indiana. Indiana can determine under its own internal laws how to treat Hawaii issued birth certificates. I can't challenge a Hawaii issued certificate in Indiana courts.

A second example, Indiana agrees in its internal laws to give weight to operator's licenses from Tennessee under whatever weight Tennessee gives them and Tennessee does likewise. In order to give weight to those licenses, both states agreement to give weight to the other states' traffic recorded offenses and actions concerning licensure, and to not treat offender's from the other state more harshly than offenders from their own state. Therefore, a mix of internal law changes and the compact allowed both TN and IN to give weight to the other's licensing.

Now, what were you asking about UCC?

Not only birth certificates but also death certificates. Thus if you own property here in Indiana but die out of state then that is grounds for estate to be probated.

What about marriage agreements (licenses)? You can be married in one state, live in another wtih full privileges of marriage and then be divorced in a third state. And all the states accept the orginal marriage agreement.

We are more restrictive on business partnerships and corporations which have to register in each state that they do business in.

 

[Trooper]

Seems to me that all the arguments starting: "so-and-so, if allowed to be armed, will go out and kill others just because he can." These types of argument totally disregard the armed presence of others; why would we think that someone attempting to commit murder would be allowed to escape the consequences by other bystanders? Whether the perpetrator be criminal, mentally ill, or whatever, the proper response to such acts would be for an armed citizenry to react - at that time or as soon thereafter as possible - to neutralize the threat by lethal or non-lethal application of the use of force. Lethal use of force to counter the threat or application of unlawful use of force against the citizenry would be akin to evolution; the unfit would be eliminated from society's "gene pool". As far as criminals imprisoned, why should they not have the same rights as other citizens once their imprisonment is ended? As others have said, if they are too evil to be trusted with the means of self-defense, they are too evil to be released into society again. Perhaps it would be kinder to execute certain evil people than to imprison them where they can spread their evil around on others without the means to defend themselves.

I agree with others' expressed opinions here: everyone has the right to defend themselves against those who would, without cause, harm them. No one should have that right rescinded in any way other than temporarily for determining their guilt or innocence of criminal activity. No one, upon completion of their assigned punishment for crimes committed, should be barred from the means of self-defense.

Maybe we should go back to the beginning on this discussion. What we are really debating is whether we should be, as a people, able to forbid others to do something. It is one thing to punish someone for violating our social norms. it is another to treat that individual as dangerous thus a second class citizen.

Do we have a responsibility as a group of people to strip a person of their rights, to make them a second class citizen? It is ok, I would presume, to limit the rights of the immature (under 21) or those who lost the ability to full function (the aged who no longer are responsible for their actions). But for an adult of mature age then can we restrict such a person? Or should be euthanize those who can not longer be trusted to live among us?

There is an assumption that we can restrict the behavior of mature adults. It is not so much progressive as it is a neo-Victorian nanny state that believes that some are elite thus have the responsibility to rule.

 

[Ted]

No free man shall be debarred the use of arms.

Once you let them out, they're free men.

What of those on probation and parole? What of those who are under court order to avoid specific locations, situation, and persons? etc etc etc.

Seems that those individuals aren't really free.

 

[jbombelli]

What of those on probation and parole? What of those who are under court order to avoid specific locations, situation, and persons? etc etc etc.

Seems that those individuals aren't really free.

Are they out and about in public, with me and my family, and everyone else?

If so, then they have the right, too, as far as I'm concerned.

You either have the guts to live in a free society or you don't. Those who don't, don't deserve it.

 

[Trooper]

What of those on probation and parole? What of those who are under court order to avoid specific locations, situation, and persons? etc etc etc.

Seems that those individuals aren't really free.

There is some value in that the courts can put you under a more controlled, or supervised, situation thus you would be less free. With a misdomeaner, that is a very limited period of time which ends. Misdomeaners are meant to be second chances, a period of re-education.

With respect to a felony one has lost the trust of your fellow citizens. But unless we are going to put people under long term supervision, say five years to life, once the sentence is complete then that individual should be returned to full status as a citizen.

I have no problem with all felonies being five years to life with the purpose of putting those who we no longer trust in a second class status (less than a free man) until they can be proven that they can be trusted. There then needs to be a some mechanism to restore them to citizenship. Maybe make them take the citizenship test and take a loyality oath like those who come from other countries.

 

[IndyDave1776]

There is some value in that the courts can put you under a more controlled, or supervised, situation thus you would be less free. With a misdomeaner, that is a very limited period of time which ends. Misdomeaners are meant to be second chances, a period of re-education.

With respect to a felony one has lost the trust of your fellow citizens. But unless we are going to put people under long term supervision, say five years to life, once the sentence is complete then that individual should be returned to full status as a citizen.

I have no problem with all felonies being five years to life with the purpose of putting those who we no longer trust in a second class status (less than a free man) until they can be proven that they can be trusted. There then needs to be a some mechanism to restore them to citizenship. Maybe make them take the citizenship test and take a loyality oath like those who come from other countries.

Let me offer a far simpler solution: Those who are too dangerous to be trusted with all their rights should be incarcerated or else already executed. Those roaming free should have ll their rights. Problem solved.

 

[hrearden]

This is one thread that reveals how complex certain issues are. I think more than anything, it shows that our laws and the application of them (2, maybe 3 separate issues themselves), are in serious need of an overhaul. So far, I see almost none of the folks here would lose sleep if there were no real regulations on firearm ownership for US citizens. This is honestly refreshing. The real question seems to be: "Who is a US citizen?" Or, "To whom do we deny these rights, and at what point do we deny them?" Honestly, I like Trooper and Indy Daves last posts. Its been 5 years since my last conviction of anything, and they still haunt all I try to do. (And these were misdemeanors I was convicted of.) There should be a way to regain all rights you may have lost. I, for one, can attest to the absolutely infuriating hold the justice system has on you for the rest of your life, even if your sentence is supposedly "finished". Background checks done by large corporations left me jobless for the first couple years and denied me things like an apartment up as far as last year. (Those on this forum that have been to my place can attest, they obviously dont screen their tenants too harshly). Point being, I didnt really do only 20 days, Ive been doing a good 5 years and counting. I realize the checks are done by an entity separate from the justice system. However, whether you pass or not, is determined by a human with prejudices. Not only that, when youre arrested for something, that arrest is always on your record, even if it was dismissed. Thus, the person sees the heinous, trumped up charges you were hit with, but not the miniscule print off to the right that says, "dismissed". Point being here, if I had really served thje sentence they gave me, I wouldnt have to deal with this.

Oh and just so we are clear, I could pass a NICS check after a year. I could buy a gun, but I couldnt get a job at Wal Mart. How f#*ked up is that?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

This is one thread that reveals how complex certain issues are. I think more than anything, it shows that our laws and the application of them (2, maybe 3 separate issues themselves), are in serious need of an overhaul. So far, I see almost none of the folks here would lose sleep if there were no real regulations on firearm ownership for US citizens. This is honestly refreshing. The real question seems to be: "Who is a US citizen?" Or, "To whom do we deny these rights, and at what point do we deny them?" Honestly, I like Trooper and Indy Daves last posts. Its been 5 years since my last conviction of anything, and they still haunt all I try to do. (And these were misdemeanors I was convicted of.) There should be a way to regain all rights you may have lost. I, for one, can attest to the absolutely infuriating hold the justice system has on you for the rest of your life, even if your sentence is supposedly "finished". Background checks done by large corporations left me jobless for the first couple years and denied me things like an apartment up as far as last year. (Those on this forum that have been to my place can attest, they obviously dont screen their tenants too harshly). Point being, I didnt really do only 20 days, Ive been doing a good 5 years and counting. I realize the checks are done by an entity separate from the justice system. However, whether you pass or not, is determined by a human with prejudices. Not only that, when youre arrested for something, that arrest is always on your record, even if it was dismissed. Thus, the person sees the heinous, trumped up charges you were hit with, but not the miniscule print off to the right that says, "dismissed". Point being here, if I had really served thje sentence they gave me, I wouldnt have to deal with this.

Oh and just so we are clear, I could pass a NICS check after a year. I could buy a gun, but I couldnt get a job at Wal Mart. How f#*ked up is that?

Why would we limit an individual's right to self-defense just because he's not a US citizen? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Let other countries hold their inhabitants in bondage. I'm all for controlling our borders and deporting ALL those who are here without permission, but once they get here legally, they have the right to self-defense as surely as any natural-born US citizen.

While I don't believe all laws are just or constitutional and that there are too damn many of them, if you did the crime, don't ***** about the sentence or its consequences. We all have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but what we don't have is assurance that life will be "fair" - it isn't.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

This is all a moot point. As Lew Rockwell noted, "We are a nation of basement lathe operators." Why get in a tizzy about relatively weak firearms? Nukes are actually way easier to make than you have been lead to believe. If you have about $20k dollars, a few months of spare time, and lots of patience, you too can harness the power of the atom. Which makes all this whining about who can carve a single-shot shotgun out of some steel a very moot point.

The centrifuge is mightier than the projectile.

 

[NYFelon]

How about convicted murderers, rapists, robbers, burglars, kidnappers, hijackers, paper hangers, and so on and so forth?

See, mention the term "felon" and this is automatically what people think of. The reality of the matter is that the majority of felons are NONE of these things. In the United States, the majority of felonious convictions are for possession of drugs. Then there are idiotic felonies, like importing fish from Costa Rica that are illegal to be caught in the coastal waters of Costa Rica. Or HEAVEN FORBID, the production and distribution of <gasp> unpasteurized milk. Or any other number of idiotic laws which carry with them felony convictions and a lifetime as a second class citizen.

That dog doesn't hunt. A person is either too dangerous to be permitted out among the general populace, or they are not. If they are not then they are a citizen, and as such should be accorded all rights and privileges of American citizenship.

This doesn't even begin to cover the fact that prohibitions on owning firearms only prevent those felons who have no intention of violating the law. If a felon decides he wants a gun, he's going to get one. End of story.

 

[IndyDave1776]

See, mention the term "felon" and this is automatically what people think of. The reality of the matter is that the majority of felons are NONE of these things. In the United States, the majority of felonious convictions are for possession of drugs. Then there are idiotic felonies, like importing fish from Costa Rica that are illegal to be caught in the coastal waters of Costa Rica. Or HEAVEN FORBID, the production and distribution of <gasp> unpasteurized milk. Or any other number of idiotic laws which carry with them felony convictions and a lifetime as a second class citizen.

That dog doesn't hunt. A person is either too dangerous to be permitted out among the general populace, or they are not. If they are not then they are a citizen, and as such should be accorded all rights and privileges of American citizenship.

This doesn't even begin to cover the fact that prohibitions on owning firearms only prevent those felons who have no intention of violating the law. If a felon decides he wants a gun, he's going to get one. End of story.

I will have to revisit this later having run out of my 24 hour allotment of rep.

 

[CX1]

Why would we limit an individual's right to self-defense just because he's not a US citizen? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Really stop and think about the men who wrote that and the times they were in. Do you think after signing they all ran home and and told their 'unpaid servants' they suddenly had the right of self-defense? Or is the loop hole the fact that they were not even considered people at the time?
I'd say that to the founders 'all men'=WASP citizens. I don't believe they would consider non-citizens having much in the way of rights.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Really stop and think about the men who wrote that and the times they were in. Do you think after signing they all ran home and and told their 'unpaid servants' they suddenly had the right of self-defense? Or is the loop hole the fact that they were not even considered people at the time?
I'd say that to the founders 'all men'=WASP citizens. I don't believe they would consider non-citizens having much in the way of rights.

There is generally a disconnect between mens' philosophy and the way they live their lives. That doesn't mean their philosophy is flawed; it means that humans are flawed. Everyone is a hippocrite to one extent or another, but regardless of what YOU think of them, THEY created the Declaration, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights and they explained very well what they meant. Don't attempt to interpret human weakness as license to abrogate others' rights for any reason.