Acceptable Gun Laws

[SOneThreeCoupe]

I support utilizing existing laws against brandishing, assault with a deadly weapon, and murder to prosecute for gun crimes.

Other than that, I have no problem with Wal-Mart carrying M249s for the general consumption and people open carrying suppressed pistols on the street in front of a K-12.

 

[44 AMP]

Why are there gun laws at all?

Because guns empower individuals, for both good and evil. And different ruling groups (including elected officials) prefer their subjects to be dependent on them and do not wish them to be empowered as individuals or as groups.

We have had laws holding that murder and assault were crimes long before there were any guns.

Gun control laws are all about control. Control of you, as an individual, in what property you may own, and who's permission you need to own it.

Gun contol laws are about prior restraint of your exercise of your civil rights. And I'm not talking just about our right to keep and bear arms, I'm talking about that wonderful right to own property, expressed with the term "pursuit of happiness".

Nobody is arguing against the kinds of laws that say you can't shoot people for fun and profit. But laws that say you need govt permission to own a gun, and it can't be too small, or too big, and it can't look a certain way, or be able to be shot fast, or hold too many bullets, etc., because you might decide to shoot people for fun and profit are, to me, morally wrong.

Every other political system on earth (save those directly modeled on ours, and even some of them) places a higher value on the state than on the individual. Individuals are only of worth as they serve the state. There are many varying degrees of this concept, and often the "state" is is described using the words "the people" or "the greater good", or "society", etc. But the basic underlying principles are the same.

Only in the USA was there created a system of government where the people (the great unwashed masses) were deemed intelligent enough, responsible enough, "good" enough to be allowed to rule themselves.

Our revolutionary forefathers took that power away from the established order, at gunpoint. And the system they created has endured, and even improved itself, correcting most of the injustices built into the system, over time, because of the enlightened self interest of the American people.

The idea of gun control laws is that we, the people who rule ourselves, through our elected government, are not fit to rule ourselves!

Gun control laws are about the fact that we are not willing to pay the price for ruling ourselves. It is about the belief that we are all uncontrolable children, until we prove our trustworthiness to the govt. And govt standards of what constitutes such proof are arbitrary, and subject to change.

Gun control laws are about the concept that there are bad things, ignoring the reality that there are not. There are only bad people who use things.

Gun control laws are about the idea that you, as a free citizen should only be allowed to own those things the govt deems that you need.

Gun control laws are about the belief that we are more subject than citizen. They are a slap in the face to honest people.
And they are, at absolute best, a minor inconvienience to criminals. At worst, they create a "safe work environment" for those who's intent is to harm others.

I can go on...and after some feedback, likely will.

 

[pax]

44AMP ~

That post rocked.

pax

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Ok, this one is too tempting so here I go BTW, quite an endorsement from pax, I'm jealous

Gun control laws are all about control.

Right. What's always so bad about control? I am glad that we have speed limits and traffic laws. I am also glad that those nasty food processing plants (and I have been in them working ugh!) are inspected and subject to closure if they don't keep the place clean (same with restaurants). I am glad that raving lunatics can't buy a gun in a gun store and I am glad prior felons are not allowed to even possess them.

I'm talking about that wonderful right to own property, expressed with the term "pursuit of happiness".

You know that is the DOI not the COTUS. Very different documents and the pursuit of happiness is not a right the COTUS protects.

There are many varying degrees of this concept, and often the "state" is is described using the words "the people" or "the greater good", or "society", etc. But the basic underlying principles are the same.

There once was this dude named Hobbes who said that without government and laws man led a "short brutish life". So, we cede some of our personal "liberty" to pragmatically bring about order and ultimately our own self-protection.

In real life that means if your neighbor steals from you; rather than shoot it out with him and possibly kill many others in the process, you have a legal and legitimate means of pursuing redress. Police, Courts and law.

That is control but I kind of like it. We do rule ourselves but not based on what we want individually but rather through a government we elect. However, I am not an anarchist and some of your posts kind of sound like some of them.

Gun control laws are about the belief that we are more subject than citizen.

To paraphrase another fellow whose name I can't remember; "we are a nation of laws not men". We are subject to the government WE elect. If we don't like that government then we should vote them out. We get the government we deserve and the laws we allow.

Don't like gun control? Talk with your vote and that other amendment that really keeps us free; the first.

 

[Webleymkv]

I look at it this way: Everyone should have the right to do whatever they wish so long as what they do does not harm or infringe upon the rights of someone else. That being said, laws prohibiting certain uses of guns such as prohibiting shooting in a particular area are generally OK because they directly protect the well being of someone else. Likewise, laws prohibiting ownership of guns by people convicted of certain crimes and those diagnosed with certain mental disorders are permissable as well as the government is able to show a legitimate public safety need to enact such laws. However, the number and type of guns that I choose to own as well as how, when and where I choose to carry them has, for the most part, no impact on the safety or rights of anyone else and as such I don't believe that the government has the right to regulate any of these aspects.

 

[44 AMP]

as promised....

Originally Posted by 44 AMP
Gun control laws are all about control.

Right. What's always so bad about control?

Nothing, in principle, the devil is in the details. It is a personal matter, where you draw the line, between "reasonable control" and tyranny. We have laws about shooting people for fun and profit. We have laws about persons we consider unfit (a danger to themselves and/or society) to own and use guns. We have game laws, to enhance and preserve the sport.

All these are reasonable to me, in general. One can make a valid argument about who should be a prohibited person, and for how long, as it wasn't until 1968 that it became Federal law spelling it out. These laws, while generally good, have been taken to extremes in the years since, and not always to every one's benefit.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP
I'm talking about that wonderful right to own property, expressed with the term "pursuit of happiness".

You know that is the DOI not the COTUS. Very different documents and the pursuit of happiness is not a right the COTUS protects.

Yes, I do know where the phrase is found. One of those pesky unalienable things, like life and liberty. And while not specifically spelled out in COTUS or the BOR, they are covered. Look at the 10th Amendment.

Hobbes said our lives are "nasty, brutish and short". And this is the philosophy I was referring to, in part. The elitist view that we must have control imposed upon us, for our own good, along with the (usually) unspoken thought that we are not capable of doing it for ourselves.

This is the great experiment that is the United States. That we, the people choose our laws and our administrators.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP
Gun control laws are about the belief that we are more subject than citizen.

To paraphrase another fellow whose name I can't remember; "we are a nation of laws not men". We are subject to the government WE elect. If we don't like that government then we should vote them out. We get the government we deserve and the laws we allow.

"we are a nation of laws..." We hold that no individuals are above the law, that the laws apply equally to all, with no special priveledged class. I agree completely with the principle. I disagree with how well this has been working out in practice, especially lately, but such is the nature of mankind. The best we can do is hold a high ideal, and strive to achieve it, fail though we may in individual cases.

Too true that we get the government we deserve, and the laws we allow. The problem is that we have gotten used to allowing more and more, and as a people, being involved less and less in the decision making process.

If I sound somewhat like an anarchist, it might be because anarchists base their beliefs on personal freedom and liberty. The difference is in the degree, and the fervor one has for expressing it. Make no mistake, I believe in a society living within a framework of laws, with all individuals responsible for compliance within those laws. What I do not believe in is laws that do nothing but turn the pillars of society into the bars of a cage.

We already have way too many of those, and we don't need any more.

I realize that one can come up with extreme arguments, on both sides. All the way from owning nukes to dial 911 and die! and back. No need to repeat those here, is there?

Gun control laws punish the innocent more than the guilty, as far as I can see. Why do that?

 

[freakintoguns]

gun control laws made it such that incidents that have occured in the past 20 years or so in the US should not have occured, but still did. so gun control laws are 100% useless. criminals are going to commit crimes. THEY DO NOT GIVE A DANG ABOUT LAWS! thats why we call them criminals. gun alws only affect honest citizens, much like alchol and tabacco laws. kids still drink and smoke, people still drive drunk, and people still drink themselves to death. like 44, i could go on and on about useless laws in this great country, but i wont.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Everyone should have the right to do whatever they wish so long as what they do does not harm or infringe upon the rights of someone else.

Spoken like a true Libertarian. However, as 44 AMP mentioned earlier the devil IS in the details. Lots of arguments can be made about what infringes on the rights of others.

Not related to guns but I remember a debate once about those who rode motorcycles and refused to wear helmets. They crashed, sustained head injuries and became wards of the state (you and me paying taxes) since they had no insurance. So, I guess their decision had an effect on me and I sure don't like it either.

Today, unlike a hundred years ago there is a lot more interconnectivity between us at least as far as our obligations to Caesar. Again, those devilish details, made each law they pass subject to that debate.

You may not care if your neighbor has a rocket launcher and stores C-4 in his basement but I care and don't want him near my house and I don't think his perceived right to have them overrides my right to be safe.

 

[RDak]

No guns for violent felons or those who are insane.

 

[USAFNoDak]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP
I'm talking about that wonderful right to own property, expressed with the term "pursuit of happiness".

Tennesse Gentleman responded:

You know that is the DOI not the COTUS. Very different documents and the pursuit of happiness is not a right the COTUS protects.

The DOI states that man is born with certain inalienable rights, which are endowed by his creator. Among those rights are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Men form governments to secure those rights. (That's not the exact wording but close enough for this discussion).

The Bill of Rights, in the COTUS, was written to protect those very rights, which were mentioned in the DOI, from government encroachment, and from encroachment by the majority who may try to vote for laws which would violate those rights. It is the government's job to secure those rights, and not just the rights which are enumerated in the BOR. That is what the 10th Amendment in the BOR is all about. So, the pursuit of happiness, while not specifically spelled out in the BOR, is still a right which the COTUS protects. How can you not be aware of that?

Also, Tennessee Gentleman writes:

To paraphrase another fellow whose name I can't remember; "we are a nation of laws not men". We are subject to the government WE elect. If we don't like that government then we should vote them out. We get the government we deserve and the laws we allow.

I agree with you in this regard, TG, to a certain point. We are a nation of laws, not of men. We are subject to the government WE elect. However, no matter what type of government we elect, or whom we elect to it, that government and the elected officials have been given clear instructions that they are not to violate our civil rights. Those instructions come from the DOI and the BOR in the COTUS. The majority vote is never supposed to violate the rights of the minority. The USSC is supposed to be the body of government which rules against certain laws which the government we elect may very well pass, even though such laws would violate our natural rights.

We, as a people, and a nation, have neglected to teach the true meaning of the DOI, the Constitution, and why we have 3 branches of government. This is why we are failing to secure our own rights. The plan was laid out, but we have lost our fervor for sticking to that plan in the name of self indulgence. In other words: "The heck with other peoples rights. I want my handouts from the government. I want the government to provide for me so I don't have to struggle as much. I want my life to be easy and I want someone else to see to it that it is." That is the attitude we've taken and it is causing "infringement" on our natural, god-given rights.

 

[BlueTrain]

Did you ever notice that all so-called crime control bills make more things illegal? Be that as it may be, however, I'd like to suggest that, contrary to 44AMP's opinion, our revolutionary forefathers, at least some of them (not everyone here was here by 1800), scarcely took power away from the established order. In fact, those founding fathers were already the established order. Mostly they had a problem with kings, though there was a party that thought Washington should be a king. Even so, the Society of the Cinncinati was established, which is pretty exclusive.

It should be mentioned that even though they were the landowning class, mostly, with a heavy dose of lawyers, they took considerable risk in revolting and many paid for their daring with the loss of their fortunes. Of course, the same thing happened four score and seven years later, too. I don't think that (the risk-taking involved) is appreciated enough these days.

One person, not a contributor here, wrote that if laws were trees and were all cut down, no one would be able to stand in the wind that would blow. It is well to remember that laws generally are in proportion to the number of the inhabitants (not necessarily citizens), and that applies to pretty much all laws, usually with good reason. For instance, it might be one thing to heat your house with a wood-burning stove. But if you lived in a town of wooden houses all set close together, it might be well that there were some rules about burning wood.

 

[RDak]

They tried that in towns with "wooden houses close together" Bluetrain and it has been an abysmal failure IMHO.

 

[BlueTrain]

Would you elaborate on the absymal failure? What exactly were the laws that failed?

 

[USAFNoDak]

freakintoguns posted:

thats why we call them criminals. gun alws only affect honest citizens, much like alchol and tabacco laws. kids still drink and smoke, people still drive drunk, and people still drink themselves to death. like 44, i could go on and on about useless laws in this great country, but i wont.

Something that seems lost on some people is that laws, in and of themselves, don't PREVENT anything. The punishment associated with breaking the law, is the deterent. Some people don't care about the deterent or don't think they will be caught and punished, thus, they break the law.

If we had a law that said it was illegal to murder someone, but the penalty was a $10.00 fine, there would be a majority of people who would still never murder anyone. Why? Because it would go against their moral judgements, which may include religion, love for their fellow man, respect for human life, etc. There would be some who may not have murdered if the sentence was death, that would murder if they only had to pay a $10.00 fine for doing so. There are others who would and do murder even if the penalty is death or life imprisonment. They don't care about the penalty or think they'll never be caught. The point being is that the law does not prevent anything. The penalty may deter some, but it won't deter all, from breaking the law.

In a free society, laws are really nothing more than a statement of what we deem to be "anti social" behavior. This includes what the punishment will be for engaging in that behavior. The more abhorent the behavior, the more severe the punishment.

This is why gun control laws are typically utter failures when it comes to stopping violent crimes. The law doesn't prevent anything. The punishment for breaking the law deters only the normally law abiding or those who typically live "pretty close" to abiding by our laws.

Let's look at a law such as the assault weapons ban. Did that law stop anyone from getting an assault weapon if they really wanted it? No. The black market can always provide. Manufacturers, while complying with the law, were perfectly willing to change features to sell firearms which were functionally identical to the ones which were banned. Many people at this point in time may have been more likely to willingly ignore the law. Why? Because they didn't see the moral injustice of owning a semiautomatic firearm that was cosmetically similar to a select fire firearm.

Laws have to reflect our moral judgements. I would not murder someone, even if the fine was only $5.00 for doing so. However, if I wanted an AR15 and the government said I couldn't have one, I'd probably get one anyway. Why? I see nothing wrong with me owning one. It affects no one elses rights and I wouldn't use it to commit crimes. I would take the risk of the punishment. Plus, I believe the 2nd amendment protects my right to have one, so I would look at the law as being unjust in the first place.

Some criminals will buy full auto weapons (Google "North Hollywood Bankrobbers) even though it was illegal for them to do so. Why would they risk breaking a gun control law? Because they wanted to rob a bank and were willing to murder anyone who tried to stop them? Gun control can "possibly" deter some law abiding folks because they feel they should abide by any law and they don't want to risk the penalties. They are not the people who commit violent crimes. Thus, gun control is pretty useless in preventing violent criminals from using guns in the commission of their crimes.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

That is what the 10th Amendment in the BOR is all about. So, the pursuit of happiness, while not specifically spelled out in the BOR, is still a right which the COTUS protects. How can you not be aware of that?

What I am aware of is that the 10th Amendment has nothing to do with the "Pursuit of Happiness" a phrase found nowhere in the COTUS.

An often-repeated quote, from United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941), reads as follows:
The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.

 

[onthejon55]

When I consider punishment for people that blantly commit murder especially in cases when the victim was random, Simple Man by the Charlie Daniels Band comes to mind

"Take them rascals out in the swamp, put em on their knees and tie em to a stump, let the bugs and rattlers and the alligators do the rest!"

 

[FloridaCWP]

personally I think there is little room for firearm laws in the US. Right now in total there is approximately 20,000 gun laws throughout this great county. That totals all federal and state laws.

Personally I think that states like Florida have it right if they are going to impliment a permit for Concealed carry. For the State of Florida to refuse you your Concealed weapons permit, they have to PROVE you are not capable of receiving it. And that is based on your criminal record and fingerprints. After that the records are destroyed and you don't have to worry about your privacy being trampled. No gun records, no registrations.

I believe there should be a bear minimum to the restrictions.

1- Pass a federal Background check to check for criminal past.
2- NOTHING ELSE.

There should not be a CWP! Personally that right is granted by the 2A. We shouldn't have to pay extra to invoke a right! We should have to undergo a background check before purchasing a gun and then you should be allowed to carry it both openly and concealed at any time. The legal age should be lowered to 18. Public schools should offer archery and firearms classes to show children responsible use, all be it with the express permission from the parents of the child, but the option should be there.

Proper education and awareness trumps all laws and politicians! If people were shown how to use them and were comfortable with the REAL aspects of weapons then there would be far less "accidental" shooting and deaths related to guns.

People claim you need to show a "proficiency with guns" before you can carry or purchase. To that I say Hogwash! People should have to prove I am not proficient if they wish to take it away from me! Would you expect to be thrown in prison for 20 years simply because you couldn't prove you didn't rob a bank? HELL NO! The burden of proof is on the other side. You must prove I am irresponsible before you can take my gun.

It is just that simple! When a crime is committed with a firearm then those people should be met with harsh punishments. Murderers should be put to death as well as serial rapists and child molesters. Reform rarely works and keeping someone in prison for the rest of their life is more cruel than placing them to death. If you don't believe me ask a vet as to what he would do to a dog that was hit by a truck. I doubt that he would keep him alive if the odds weren't in his favor for a long HAPPY and HEALTHY life.

In prison you don't live a long and happy/healthy life. Keeping someone cooped up there is not a humane option. Those that commit capital crimes should be met with a capitol punishment. This would free up space on the prison system, reduce the burden on the american/state tax payers (at a annual average cost of almost 25K per inmate it adds up quick ) and sends a clear message that We have had enough and won't tolerate criminals treading on the civil rights of others.

Just my $0.02

 

[USAFNoDak]

Tennessee Gentleman posted:

What I am aware of is that the 10th Amendment has nothing to do with the "Pursuit of Happiness" a phrase found nowhere in the COTUS.

My sincere apologies. I meant to refer to the 9th amendment in the Bill of Rights in my earlier post.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Just because a certain "right" is not mentioned in the COTUS, does not mean that "The People" do not retain such a right. The founders explicity mentioned in the DOI that man has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They wrote the constitution to make sure that a government instituted to secure such rights did not have any desires to trample such rights and made it illegal for them to do so. After all, the COTUS is the supreme law of the land.

 

[roy reali]

What Limits?

If you want to know what limits Congress has take out a copy of the Constitution. Look up Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18. That should give you all the warm fuzzies that you can handle.

 

[USAFNoDak]

I don't believe that the constitution mentions anything about the right to be "safe". It certainly doesn't mention the right to be free from "fear".

The 4th Amendment,

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

mentions the right to be secure against unreasonable searches, but I'm not convinced that is the same as the right to be "safe". I do believe that we have a right to be safe, and we have a right to keep and bear arms to help keep us "safe". However, the right to be "safe" is never mentioned in the COTUS.