Who should be prevented from buying a firearm?

[Bunnykid68]

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

That is all I was adding, the part about your rights conflicting with mine. As always Doug very well written sir.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Right.

You are either free and have rights, or you are a subject and have restrictions.

I would submit, that your definition of "free" has never existed in recorded history, either in the kingdom of man or beast. The men that founded our nation even recognized this, and were perfectly content with it. But then again, the way the Constitution is used to day, is a far cry from how it was used during the founders time.

 

[Mackey]

If Obama and many other libs have their way, an improper person would be anyone NOT a member of the police, military or special services.

 

[tv1217]

Any congressman/woman who introduces or votes for legislation that would restrict OUR rights.

 

[MTC]

A few comments that might help explain a difference in viewpoints. While there are points of agreement, the sentence structure chosen can reveal a divergence.

I think the hard part for many people to accept is that NO Right is 100% absolute. None. Including the 2nd Amendment.

I will not accept it because it is not true. The Right itself is, at its core, absolute. At least, it was meant to be before being violated by layer upon layer of statutory infringement in direct contradiction to the constitutional provisions specifically enumerating, affirming, and supposedly guaranteeing that - or those - Rights. We're not talking about, in this instance, the commission of a criminal act or the use of one right to the detriment of another, rather the Right itself.

In conversations with gun control proponents, I've often been treated to angry tirades prefaced with "Your rights are not absolute!" or the even more patently false "No provision of the Constitution is written in absolutes!" as they went on in an attempt at hectoring, browbeating and guilt-tripping the unfortunate recipient into accepting whatever gun control scheme they were proposing or - in this case - existing statute(s) they were defending. Ironic that they had become unhinged, considering that their side had already got its way legislatively on the issue we were discussing (which is a possible indicator that they had intended to go much further with their agenda). No, what set them off was my statement, making sure to be as calm and quiet as possible, that I did not appreciate the gross violation of my rights by the current statutory requirements to apply for authorization/permission as a prerequisite for the keeping and/or carrying of arms, under some rationale of "public safety". They wanted me to accept their definitions and terminology as well.

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.

Correct on the first sentence, incorrect on the second - at least in the structure. Once all of the rights in the Bill of Rights are acknowledged, and that others have these, too, then the limitations on the actual exercise of a right will be arrived at and become more clear, though not always as clear in every conceivable situation as one might like. Still, it is to be acknowledged and understood that one is not to [use any "right" to] commit a crime.

One common theme of gun control proponents is that they prefer to talk about limitations on the RKBA first, then work backwards from there - that is, in the direction of ever more restrictions - to arrive at the point where they think gun laws should be.

 

[Bunnykid68]

MTC very good points sir. You made me think about that, There are no conditions on the 2nd Amendment. Your right to bare arms does not infringe my right ever, no way, no how. If you choose to shoot your guns at me or my property, well , that has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, it has do do with violating my rights.

 

[88GT]

I see no argument for barring the possession of firearms from any free body that doesn't smack of elitist control. That's my answer.

I would submit, that your definition of "free" has never existed in recorded history, either in the kingdom of man or beast. The men that founded our nation even recognized this, and were perfectly content with it. But then again, the way the Constitution is used to day, is a far cry from how it was used during the founders time.

Patently false.

The animal kingdom sans humans is the purest form of self-interested behavior. No (non-human) beast on earth behaves for purely altruistic reasons. And absolutely NONE HAS EVER CONSIDERED THE RIGHTS OF ANOTHER in its actions.

The animal kingdom is where our natural rights are modeled the best. What separates us from the rest of it is our acknowledgement that our fellow man does have rights and our need to recognize and respect those rights for the....wait for it...common good. If we all behaved strictly like animals, we'd have some very empty towns and very full cemeteries. So we agree to form societies and live within a set of rules governing all members of that society. Those rules form the basis of codifying what that society values is the basis for modern day laws. (It's the social contract a bunch of people on here like to pretend doesn't exist.)

 

[92LX]

Another Note for Nobody....

If someone is to dangerous to own a gun, they should not be be let out on the streets.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I see no argument for barring the possession of firearms from any free body that doesn't smack of elitist control. That's my answer.



Patently false.

The animal kingdom sans humans is the purest form of self-interested behavior. No (non-human) beast on earth behaves for purely altruistic reasons. And absolutely NONE HAS EVER CONSIDERED THE RIGHTS OF ANOTHER in its actions.

The animal kingdom is where our natural rights are modeled the best. What separates us from the rest of it is our acknowledgement that our fellow man does have rights and our need to recognize and respect those rights for the....wait for it...common good. If we all behaved strictly like animals, we'd have some very empty towns and very full cemeteries. So we agree to form societies and live within a set of rules governing all members of that society. Those rules form the basis of codifying what that society values is the basis for modern day laws. (It's the social contract a bunch of people on here like to pretend doesn't exist.)

Uh, I think you just proved my point. The greatest enemy of the realization of rights, is self-interest. "Rights" don't exist in the animal kingdom, and unless their "creator" had a different plan for then, rights are a purely man made idea. Nothing wrong with striving for all to have them, but to believe that one is entitled to them naturally, directly contradicts actual nature.

 

[Ted]

So much fail in this thread..............

 

[VN Vet]

My off the cuff rebuttal: Is No Vietnam Veteran should be allowed to possess a firearm or firearms permit of any kind...

Jeremy, You are a truely a character. We may be more alike than you know. But, you are a character. I think I may be older than you by a generation at least and therefore more mellow than you, however I like you, be it I have no explaination why.

 

[straid]

People with active warrants for violent crimes

Warrant != guilty

People who are intoxicated on drugs or alcohol, etc

Intoxicated when, exactly? At the moment they apply for the license? Being intoxicated on alcohol is not a [necessarily] crime (in public yes, at home no). It's usually what a person does when they're intoxicated that's the problem.

Adolescents (up to 12?)

Occasionally, there's a news story of an adolescent that saves themselves of their family with a firearm. They are lauded in the press.

 

[Libertarian01]

Just what is a "Right?"

To All,

I think my position on the definition of this concept needs to be clarified to avoid misunderstandings.

I believe that a "right" is the intellectual understanding and acceptance of every human beings need to do certain things to survive. These needs are inherent in our design, thus I would refer to them as "natural rights." If you believe in God, then you may presume that by design they were given to us by God. If you do not believe in God, then they were given to us by our evolved/natural design. The source is not necessarily relevant for this discussion, but I bring it up to show the "source" of our rights.

Every human being has a need to breathe, so every human being has a "right" to try to breathe.

Every human being needs to feed. Thus every human being has a "right" to try to find food.

Every human being has the need to interact and communicate with others, thus every human being has the right to try to express itself.

Every human being has the need to survive an attack, thus every human being has the right to try to defend itself.

I use the word "try" because nothing in nature is guaranteed. Many human beings who have sought food, water, shelter, and personal defense have failed and died in their attempt to secure these needs, yet all of them had the "right" to do so.

Inevitably, when humans live near one another our rights will come into conflict every single day! We do not perceive it as such, yet they do. Tomorrow many of us will go to work. The shortest distance between our home and place of work is a straight line. Yet, none of us will be able to travel in a straight line because other people exercising their right to have a home will not allow us to travel across their property. So there is already conflict. When driving to work the most efficient method for all of us would be to simply maintain the fastest possible speed and never stop, yet we voluntarily acknowledge everyone is in the same predicament and so voluntarily acknowledge many rules of the road that slow us down but allow everyone to get where they need to go.

This is why no right is absolute. In theory our rights our unlimited, yet because we need to live with one another we acknowledge a minor oppression of our rights because we have something else: respect for others. We respect that someone else can own property, so no matter how much we may want it we acknowledge that we cannot have it because they own it. We may attempt to purchase it or acquire it, but because we respect one another we do not take action that would disrupt society, and this is the reason we acknowledge that no right is absolute in society.

Because under the "no limits" theory Person A has a right to try to live where ever Person A so chooses, and if Person B is already there Person A may try to attack them, kill them, and then use their land. Of course, Person B has a right to try to defend their property as best they can, so the stongest/sneakiest/smartest may survive and use the land. That is until Person C comes along and bushwhacks the survivor of the A B conflict.

Note that I am not morally judging the A B conflict. This is the way of human history for thousands of years. The Romans wanted Brittony, the Romans took Brittony from the locals. The Vandals wanted Roman goods, the Vandals took Roman goods. The Mongols wanted, the Mongols took.

Within each society though there were still rules. No Roman could "steal" from another Roman without potential repercussions from the government. If corruption was involved they likelihood of stealing was greater, but not without potential consequences. Same want true for Vandal on Vandal property rights. The government may have only been a local chief or Tribal elder, but there was some acknowledgement of personal property "rights." Obviously, cultures differed to varying degrees, yet in each there was some acknowledgement of rights.

In the modern society that we have today we understand that we all prosper by having a degree of consistency. That is, if we know that our neighborhood is safe we can go to and from without worry. We can focus our efforts on our jobs and produce the maximum amount that our labors will allow. This then allows our businesses to flourish and our people to thrive.

By having the maximum amount of dependable safety we are capable of focusing our talents and energies on improving our lives and the lives of our loved ones.

Which brings us back to my original answer to the OP. By limiting weapons to those a human being can control this means that there is some rational, logical thought behind that control, and I can feel safe. By limiting weapons away from people who are not competent I can depend upon those people who do own weapons to be rational and without random moments of losses of control.

This by no means guarantees our collective safety, but it, to me, is the minimal impact on "rights" with the maximum enjoyment of liberty by all. As nothing is guaranteed and accepting that no system is foolproof I accept that there could always be a flawed, random event. We all have to put up with those from time to time. Like relatives coming to visit.

Regards,

Doug

 

[CarmelHP]

^^^He doesn't get it. Prior restraint without an evil or wanton act will always be abused and is unnecessary and ineffective.

 

[Kutnupe14]

^^^He doesn't get it. Prior restraint without an evil or wanton act will always be abused and is unnecessary and ineffective.

He totally gets it, the "rights" pipe dream, as if it is naturally occurring, is about as difficult to realize as Marx's vision for communism. Not to say it not something we should constantly work for, but it's a "human" idea, not a natural one.

 

[CarmelHP]

He totally gets it, the "rights" pipe dream, as if it is naturally occurring, is about as difficult to realize as Marx's vision for communism. Not to say it not something we should constantly work for, but it's a "human" idea, not a natural one.

^^^^He doesn't get it either.

Except it's not. It existed in this country mostly intact until 1968 and most assuredly until 1934. 1934 didn't keep the LCN Mob from getting what it wanted and 1968 didn't keep the criminals it was supposedly aimed from getting what it wanted. They just made the assorted police state lovers happy.

 

[Wreaver]

My off the cuff opinion is: No person convicted of a violent crime should be allowed a firearm permit of any kind.

Because nobody has ever been wrongly convicted. Not all people in prison wrongly are exonerated. Some serve their entire sentence and are placed back in society with that cloud over their head.

 

[jeremy]

Jeremy, You are a truely a character. We may be more alike than you know. But, you are a character. I think I may be older than you by a generation at least and therefore more mellow than you, however I like you, be it I have no explaination why.

I get that response a LOT...

I am pretty sure you have me by 2 decades...

But, I don't expect to learn Tact in the next 2 decades either...

 

[NetPIMP]

I subscribe to the idea that gun control is not about guns, but rather is about control.

I believe that while gun control exists in an attempt to keep guns out of the hands of wanton criminals, it fails miserably in its endeavor to do so - and almost assuredly, always will. ("If there's a will, there's a way...")

It is my opinion that NO ONE should be denied what I feel is a basic & fundamental right guaranteed to us by 2A. If you're in custody, in jail/prison, fine... past that, "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Contemporary gun control measures/rules/laws have, in my opinion, infringed on our right.

"Do you think felons and gang members and thugs should have guns?!"

If they're out and free, then they have the same rights as me... trampling on their rights equates to trampling on mine - and that cannot and should not stand. So, they can have their guns, as long as I can have mine.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I subscribe to the idea that gun control is not about guns, but rather is about control.

I believe that while gun control exists in an attempt to keep guns out of the hands of wanton criminals, it fails miserably in its endeavor to do so - and almost assuredly, always will. ("If there's a will, there's a way...")

It is my opinion that NO ONE should be denied what I feel is a basic & fundamental right guaranteed to us by 2A. If you're in custody, in jail/prison, fine... past that, "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Contemporary gun control measures/rules/laws have, in my opinion, infringed on our right.

"Do you think felons and gang members and thugs should have guns?!"

If they're out and free, then they have the same rights as me... trampling on their rights equates to trampling on mine - and that cannot and should not stand. So, they can have their guns, as long as I can have mine.

Good post in general. As for the criminals, they ARE going to have guns regardless of state permission or the lack thereof. It amazes me how many people forget that criminals, by definition, are people who disregard the law.