Public 'threatened' by private-firearms ownership

A prisoner has been denied his liberty by due process of law. Try not to be silly here, it makes you sound like a Department of Justice amicus brief.
Click to expand...

Legislation is also "due process of law," my friend. Careful with your definitions.

Anyway, we all agree that "shall not be infringed" isn't an absolute, correct?

There's at least one circumstance where the courts can deny you your 2nd Amendment rights? Even though you're still guaranteed others (5th, 6th and 7th)?

There are some reasonable restrictions...right?
 
All this talk of reasonable restrictions, less than absolute rights and so forth has tended to leave me curious.

For instance, there are already laws against bank robbery, murder and so forth, laws that criminals disobey,often using guns to show their disregard for the law, that others obey. Political types claim to be troubled by criminal actions, and propose legislation that works against the law abiding.

What I have proposed in the past to political types, has been the following. If criminal use of arms is so serious a problwem as to justiffy the abrogation of the law abiding citizens rights, then why not make criminal use of arms, armed bobbery, murder and so on, a capitol offense. Funny thing is that such proposals never get any sort of response, not even something to the effect that that would not be a workable idea, yet the same political types can always manage to promulgate or push the latest variety of gun control fairytale. This has always struck me as strange.
 
Re public threatened by private ownership of firearms, I wonder as to exactly what part of "the public" might be so effected?

Reminds me of a bumper sticker, tail gate sticker would be a better term for it that ran as follows. Mr. Politician, I'm a law abiding citizen. Given that, that might it be that you have in mind that causes you to be so upset by the fact that I own my own gun or guns? I do not know that any politician ever made a legitimate effort to answer the question, especially those who are so enamored of Gun Control Proposals.

In his latest piece in SGN, Jeff Knox suggests that, respecting the amicus brief submitted by DOJ, that gun owners need to start climbing up and down on Republican party organizations, pointing out, among other things, that this brief seems to raise question re the true orientation of Republicans and the present administration respecting the constitutional rights the brief starts out speaking in favor of. Sort of like that sophisticated tune that really cheapens us in the chorus.
 
Last edited:
I absolutely believe that if the 2nd Amendment is to actually mean anything, if it is to provide the security it was intended to, then the accessibility of these kinds of weapons needs to be real and available to pretty much anyone. On the other hand there are a lot of people out there who have no business having any kind of gun, especially a machine gun.
Click to expand...

Since the gun was invented there have been some truly scary people running around with them and that continues to this day even in nations where gun ownership is strictly controlled.

Before guns were invented using arms required a lot of brute physical strength and society was controlled by groups of what were essentially jack-booted thugs. Society was organized such that the armed class controlled everything, and its members did whatever they wanted.

Restricting access to arms recreates the situation where a small armed class exists and controls everything. We can see that precisely that situation has developed in places like Chicago, DC, LA, Newark, etc. where armed gangs enforce whatever conception of "order" they see fit and kill anyone who does not get with the program.
 
ConfuseUs offered:

Before guns were invented using arms required a lot of brute physical strength and society was controlled by groups of what were essentially jack-booted thugs. Society was organized such that the armed class controlled everything, and its members did whatever they wanted.

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

No small number of citizens might note in passing that little seems to have changed re the above observation.
 
ronc0011 writes:

You know, the whole machine gun thing gives me trouble. There’s no doubt that the 2nd Amendment is for the purpose of insuring that the people always retain the “actual” ability to retake their country in the event of an oppressive government be it foreign or domestic. With that in mind, for the 2nd Amendment to be of any real value it should apply to machine guns as well and even heavy machine guns, crew served weapons like the M60 or the M2.

All that being said I really do see a genuine problem with these kinds of weapons being freely available to the general public.

I absolutely believe that if the 2nd Amendment is to actually mean anything, if it is to provide the security it was intended to, then the accessibility of these kinds of weapons needs to be real and available to pretty much anyone. On the other hand there are a lot of people out there who have no business having any kind of gun, especially a machine gun.


Perhaps some kind of vetting system that requires passing a bit more scrutiny. I don’t know but it does seem like a bit of a dilemma.

And BTW, watching the direction of our country and world politics and affairs I believe the 2nd Amendment is more important today than it has ever been since the revolution.

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

Who might it be that would be responsible for the "vetting" you mention? Perhaps the same people who define the interestingly UNDEFINED "reasonable restrictions" elsewhere mentioned?

Would you take the moment or two involved in reading posts # 42 which I wrote as well as #47 written by another, think about them and then get back to us?

In closing, you seem concerned about automatic weapons in the hands of the law abiding citizenry. I wonder as to why, for hasn't the armed law abiding private citizen long since proved themselves to be a hell of a lot more responsible than some LE Professionals, as they are sometimes described, not to mention more responsible than some in government. Seems to me that they have, meaning that the question has long since been answered. What strikes me as really funny is history. Prior to the enactment of the National Firearms Act of 1934, if you, Mr. Private Citizen desired a machine gun, you went down to the store that sold such firearms, haggeled with the store keeper if you could over the price, paid your money and took the thing home, the thing being a Colt Monitor(commercial version of the Browning Automatic Rifle) a Thompson Sub Machinegun or any other automatic weapons that might be available. While there was some limited use of automatic weapons by the criminal element, it didn't amount to all that much, with law abiding machinegun owners somehow refraining from shooting up downtown on the odd Saturdaynight.

In conclusion, it strikes me that if anyone is suspect, it turns out to be much more a case of government being suspect, rather than Mr.,Mrs., or Ms. Every Person being suspect. They might not always pick the right candidate at election time, however then hew closer to the law than many others do, especially those in government.
 
Some fundamental questions need to be answered. Why is the right to own a firearm even questioned? Do those in power who are anti-gun truly believe we would be safer without them? Who is really afraid of John Q. Public owning a firearm and why? Why does almost all of the new proposed legislation target legal gun owners instead of concentrating on illegal weapons? Are they(the anti-gunners) truly so stupid as to believe that making all guns illegal will eliminate gun violence? Remember the same approach was used concerning alcohol, and is still being unsuccessfully used to combat the growing drug problem in this country. I'm beginning to get paranoid about the whole thing with, I believe, good cause. The only truly logical reason I can think of is control. Perhaps we will never know the whole truth until it is far too late.
 
The answer to that is both frustrating and simple: it has become politically and financially profitable to peddle fear of firearms and firearms owners and too many people are gullible enough to buy it. There is no belief whatsoever among the people who push it that such is an actual means to any valuable end (except possibly absolute power, which is attractive enough) but that it gets them dollars, connections and favors, and votes. If they could sell paperclips and toothpicks or pet rocks or 2 ft inflatable Gumby toys to get the same or better result they would. It's a product they sell and it so happens people buy it. It's their widget. It's insidious and it can in fact kill people, completely inverts the balance of power in the country, and erodes the freedom at the core of the single nation that has determined the destiny of the human race for the last 100 years, but those who sell it don't give a damn about me or you or anybody. It's just what they do 9 to 5 for a paycheck and it gets them a fat paycheck and VIP treatment instead of the guillotine they deserve and it appears they will continue to do so for as long as the result is the same.
 
There are enough people doing the chest-thumping "no restrictions - repeal ALL the gun laws" blustering that I have to make some comments.

Why does almost all of the new proposed legislation target legal gun owners instead of concentrating on illegal weapons?
Click to expand...

So... if we repeal the NFA and GCA-68, what is an "illegal weapon"? Repeal of these laws would mean that MG's, SMG's, SBR's, AOW's would all be legal to own along with our typical handguns & long guns.

The truth of the matter is that we've had 40 years* of increasingly tighter gun-control laws and they aren't working. If it did work, our crime rates would be lower than they were in 1966-67.

So what's the solution guys? How do we effectively prevent crime, especially crime committed with firearms?

My thinking says you punish the action(s) not the tools. You make the consequences of misuse very serious. To wit;
  • Violent felony conviction = loss of firearm rights.
  • Brandish a firearm while committing a crime = an extra 5 years in jail.
  • Fire the gun during a crime = an extra 8 years in jail.
  • Hurt or attempt to hurt someone while commiting a crime with a gun = no parole. Serve the full time.
  • Repeat offender = additional 10 years in jail, no parole.

Stick up a liquor store by waving a gun around? That's 5 years for armed robbery and up to 5 years additional for using a firearm. Shoot the clerk and wound him? That's 15 years (or more) for attempted murder and you are ineligible for parole.

And when I say someone commits a crime, we need to define it to avoid adding the penalties to "paper" or "technical" crimes, such as a woman who chases an attempted rapist outside before shooting him or the "crime" of using an "improperly registered" gun.



* 74 years if you include NFA in 1934.
 
I think the Democratic Candidates are actually doing the gun industry a favor by all these threats of bans " Ill do everything in my power to ban assault weapons !" -- Hillary or "A weapon such as a AK-47 belongs only on a battlefield" -- Obama
I bet there is no way any ban would make it through congress, and the candidates are rallying votes. In the meantime, guys like you and me are buying every AR whosiwhatsits and AK doomaflotchy we can get our hands on in fear of a ban. I already have enough parts for my Ar to keep it funning for 50 thousand rounds probably, Might get another, and a few more barrels just for :Ds
 
So what's the solution guys? How do we effectively prevent crime, especially crime committed with firearms?

My thinking says you punish the action(s) not the tools. You make the consequences of misuse very serious. To wit;
Violent felony conviction = loss of firearm rights.
Brandish a firearm while committing a crime = an extra 5 years in jail.
Fire the gun during a crime = an extra 8 years in jail.
Hurt or attempt to hurt someone while commiting a crime with a gun = no parole. Serve the full time.
Repeat offender = additional 10 years in jail, no parole.

Stick up a liquor store by waving a gun around? That's 5 years for armed robbery and up to 5 years additional for using a firearm. Shoot the clerk and wound him? That's 15 years (or more) for attempted murder and you are ineligible for parole.
Click to expand...

You've bought into the guns are evil argument and you don't even realize it. Why "especially crime committed with firearms"? Why is brandishing a firearm worse than brandishing a chainsaw or a pitchfork or machete?
 
BillCA:

Funny thing re legislative proposals that impact on firearms is that they all impact solely on the law abiding. Possibly, just possibly that is not the intent, however it is the way the thing ends up, with Mr. Everyman Law Abiding Citizen being reequired to navigate additional rocks and shoals, or should you prefer, jump trough some newly devised hoops. Of course, criminals don't bother, strange isn't it?

I made some suggestions in an earlier post, suggestions I've made to elected things many times, without ever having the benefit of a "we don't agree with your line of thinking" post card, let alone a real reply.

Seems that we, the people keep getting screwed by our employees, those we choose to represent us in the halls of power, the place where laws are made.In answer to your question, I suppose it's because it is easier to jump on the law abiding, to push them around, to abuse them than it is to combat real criminals, who tend to be really nasty, possibly even violent types.

You might, if you desire, ask the following question. Anyone else feel free to chime in with their answers. Why is it that our elected things always find it easier to pick on those who do no harm, the laaw abiding?
 
Yes, we all disagree with what the Solicitor General has said. But to provide some perspective, he is appearing for and representing the District of Columbia in the Heller case. In making his arguments here, he is doing nothing more than what lawyers do -- advocating the position of his client, the District of Columbia. He is not speaking for the Bush Administration, and the arguments he is making don't necessarily reflect Administration policy.

The Attorney General of the United States routinely provides legal representation for the District of Columbia, and the Solicitor General is brought in when such representation involves matters before the U. S. Supreme Court.
 
If criminals feared the law and punishments I'd advocate more laws and more punishments. About the only thing any criminal fears these days is armed and aware would-be victims. That goes for both the common thug and politician. About the only thing I can honestly advocate is giving them more to fear.
 
fiddletown wrote:

Yes, we all disagree with what the Solicitor General has said. But to provide some perspective, he is appearing for and representing the District of Columbia in the Heller case. In making his arguments here, he is doing nothing more than what lawyers do -- advocating the position of his client, the District of Columbia. He is not speaking for the Bush Administration, and the arguments he is making don't necessarily reflect Administration policy.

The Attorney General of the United States routinely provides legal representation for the District of Columbia, and the Solicitor General is brought in when such representation involves matters before the U. S. Supreme Court.

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

Re the above, the following comes to mind. Comments please.

1. Re your "he is doing nothing more than what lawyers do.....". The SG is a presidential appointee, paid by the federal government, not by D.C. Therefore, with respect, your holding re his arguments "don't necessarily reflect Administration policy" seems questionable.

2. If arguments presented by the SG ran seriously counter to the administrations position, mighten he or she be told to "sit down and be quiet", lest they be fired?

3. In conclusion, are we to take it that DOJ's amicus brief wasn't "cleared" at the highest levels of the sitting/present administration?
 
zxcvbob - no, I haven't really "bought into the guns are evil argument" as you put it. I'm acknowledging the reality of the political arena.

One could easily argue why we should make any distinction between rape of an adult vs. raping a child. But I won't make that argument.

A loud vocal minority with a good PR group pressures politicians to do something about violence involving guns. The ideas I tossed out address this issue and focus attention on legislating against criminal actions instead of trying to push yet more restrictions on merely having a gun. If you have a better plan, I'm open to hearing about it.

At one time it was felt that spending 3, 6 or 9 years (CA law) in prison was a sufficient deterrent to most people for robbery. One only has to look at the number of robberies by force to see that this is not a serious deterrent anymore. I think there are two reasons for this - first the odds of getting caught declined until the advent of security cameras (which keep getting smaller and better) and secondly because prisons are no longer the tightly controlled settings they once were. Too many criminals don't see going to prison as a serious obstacle.

Were it up to me, I'd explore making punishments for repeat offenders much harsher than they currently are. Some will argue that first-time punishments should also be severe, though I think that cognizant thinking says that depending on circumstances a first-timer might be treated differently.
 
Yes, we all disagree with what the Solicitor General has said. But to provide some perspective, he is appearing for and representing the District of Columbia in the Heller case. In making his arguments here, he is doing nothing more than what lawyers do -- advocating the position of his client, the District of Columbia. He is not speaking for the Bush Administration, and the arguments he is making don't necessarily reflect Administration policy.
Click to expand...

If that were true, I don't think he would be filing an Amicus brief. Instead, he would be filing as attorney for DC.
 
Private citizens make up the public. If you allow the government to dictate the circustances and rules under which you can exercise your rights, you don't have any rights, just priviledge. The SG's brief was one of the dumbest pieces of "logic" I've ever read. :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top