Should EVERYONE be allowed to legally purchase firearms?

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TheBluesMan

Moderator Emeritus
In another thread Byron posted the following statement:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>If someone is identified via [NICS] as not qualified to buy a gun from the dealer at Table A, is it in the public interest that he be able to walk over to the private seller at Table B and buy the gun?

For the vast, vast majority of people, the question answers itself. Are they wrong? I don't think they're wrong. I don't want the guy buying that gun either. Do you? Does anybody?

It is absolutely true that many people who push this point are out to eliminate gunshows. As citizens of a free country, they have a perfect right to pursue that agenda. They will succeed or fail on the strength of the case they make to a wider public. We help them to succeed by taking a position that we can't defend and that isn't worth defending.

We are going to get rolled on this one, a major defeat and embarrassment that will embolden and give additional momentum to the anti-gunners.[/quote]

The main problem as I see it is this. The vast majority of Americans believes that certain people shouldnÕt be allowed to legally purchase firearms. This majority also wants the government to prevent certain people from legally obtaining them. Most Americans know that criminals will always find a way to get firearms, but that society shouldnÕt make it easy for them. If we propose a firearms free-for-all, with every adult able to easily purchase firearms, (a seemingly indefensible position) the antis will gain more public support for more and greater restrictions. We will effectively lose our right to keep and bear arms.

...Playing the devilÕs advocate a bit... Some questions:

Do you agree that there are some adults in society who shouldnÕt be allowed to legally purchase guns? For example: Convicted violent offenders on parole, mentally disabled.

If you donÕt agree with this, that is, if you believe that absolutely any adult should be allowed to legally purchase guns, defend your position. Assume that I am a fairly intelligent anti-gun person. (They do exist, believe it or not!) Convince me.

If you agree that there are some people who shouldnÕt be allowed to legally purchase guns, how do we as a society keep them from doing so? Equally important, how do we keep this method from becoming de facto registration for the rest of us, like we have now with NICS?

Hypothetical example: John Hinkley receives a parole review and it is determined that he is mentally stable, and has paid his debt to society. He is released, and he moves in next door to you. Now, not counting Jodi Foster, how many members believe that he should be allowed to walk into a gun store and legally purchase a .22 pistol? How about at a gun show? How about in the parking lot at a gun show? How about in your garage?


------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4
Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
 
Every human has the right to self defense. It is not the thing that is evil, only the illigitimate use of same.

How do you determine what is "mentally disabled" with every social construct and tic now being labeled a "disorder" by the APA / DSMV? If everyone is disabled, no one can own guns.

That being said:

3 time convicted VIOLENT felons should be taken out back and shot... they won't be buying any more guns.

1st time violent felons should be shot at the point of contact... then they won't be buying any more guns either.
 
Did you ever watch an old western movie where the bad guy gets out after his term and you know he's going after the good guy for revenge? They give him his gun back with his other possesions! The Felons can't own guns rule didn't exist before the 34 NFA. Once you've paid your legal penalty, are you no longer able to cefend yourself for the rest of your life? MY 2nd Amendment doesn't say "Except for the following persons".

------------------
Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club
68-70
true story, a Union Gen. once said "Don't worry about those Rebs. They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..SPLAT.
 
Correct me if I am wrong (I often am) When you are convicted of a crime you lose all your rights. Not just for the time you are in Jail bit untill you die or are pardoned. If this is the case you would not have the right to own a weapon correct.
 
The one word answer to the thread title is "yes".

The answer to the questions posed by the thread parent:

Do you agree that there are some adults in society who shouldnÕt be allowed to legally purchase guns? For example: Convicted violent offenders on parole, mentally disabled.If you donÕt agree with this, that is, if you believe that absolutely any adult should be allowed to legally purchase guns, defend your position. Assume that I am a fairly intelligent anti-gun person. (They do exist, believe it or not!) Convince me.

No. As a Constitutionalist I cannot allow the Bill of Rights to be amended by legislative fiat. The amendmants do not state "except as stated otherwise by the Congress". The Thirteenth Amendment is a prime example of where the amendment process went wrong.

Regardless of the content of the amendment (slavery) the most important section of the amendment is section 2 which states:

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

This was the first amendment to the constitution to have this caveat and every amendment since then has had it or something like it. This is why the right to vote is able to be limited. Those who are felons or dishonorably discarged from the military can be legally prohibited from voting because of the caveat. THIS IS WHAT IS KNOWN AS A CONFERRED RIGHT. The Congress confers it and the Congress may take it away.

The Second Amendment is not a conferred right and it is time we started acting like it!

PS: As for Hinkley, there were checks in place at the time but he had no criminal record and no history of mental illness. He also bought TWO guns at the same time and a multiple firearm purchase was registered with the ATF. The only way to stop him would have been to declare him a criminal or mental incompetent in the face of no evidence to that fact. The same would go for the guy who shot up the San Francisco high rise (Ferri), the Long Island train shooter, the Atlanta Finincial district shooter, etc, all whom had no criminal records or prior mental instability.

Now, my question to the thread parent:

Would you want to be declared a criminal in the face of no supporting evidence just so you could be denied a firearm purchase on the off chance you MIGHT just someday become one? This is what is known as prior restraint.

Most firearms laws are based on prior restraint.

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.


[This message has been edited by jimpeel (edited October 09, 2000).]
 
Personally, I believe that those that have served time and are mentally stable should have their rights restored. I also believe that you should be required to know something about the firearm that you are purchasing and it is not beyond reason to make sure that mentally unstable folks not purchase guns. I don't know how you do this.

The public wants to place limits on gun ownership. We are fighting to limit the restrictions. It is hard to believe that anyone could successfully make the argument that all adults should be able to purchase firearms.
 
If a felon has served his time and is reformed, give him his guns.

If we don't trust him with those guns, why the @#$% is he out of jail?

Like this crap about "Registering" child molestors...

If we don't trust them, DON'T RELEASE THEM!!!

------------------
“It is criminal not to teach a man to defend himself when he is the
constant victim of brutal attacks. It is legal and lawful to own a
shotgun or a rifle. We believe in obeying the law.”--Malcolm X
 
Madmike,
You hit the nail on the head. If someone is nolonger a threat to society, then they need to be released. Their full rights should be restored, and they should have the right to self-defense. If they are still a threat to society, then WTF are they being released?
The answer to that question is that we have to make room for the guy busted for having an ounce of marijuana. We have to lock him up, so we'll let the murderer go free with the child molester. I say, make all drug offenses misdemeanors, and then lock up the violent criminals for the rest of their days. Making POM a misdemeanor would save millions, as we could still insist that they do community service, so we get cleaner roads, but we don't spend a small fortune to keep them in jail. Just my thoughts!
 
I cannot see any way to determine who is or isn't "qualified" that doesn't infringe upon various rights. I hate being treated as if I were a criminal suspect every time I purchase a firearm, having to show ID, wait for a backgroud check, etc.
I have no problem with anyone owning any kind of gun, so long as they are responsible owners. Three violent felony convictions (using a gun or not) should get a life sentence, with "life" meaning just that: they stay in prison 'till they die, period.

Our entire system of justice is based upon the assumption of innocence until guilt is proven, the only way a criminal justice system can work in a free country which shows proper regard for individual rights. How can anyone justify treating people who want to do something that's legal (purchase a firearm) as a potential criminal simply because they want to buy a gun? This is assumption of law-breaking before the event, and cannot be condoned in a free society.

Weaseling around and trying to appease the anti-rights crowd with "reasonable restrictions" is what has brought us to the current state of affairs. No more. Time to take a radical, hard-core stand. After all, if what I do harms no one else, deprives no one else of their property, nor infringes upon anyone else's rights, then what business is it of anybody else's what I do? NOTHING, THAT'S WHAT!
Time to tell the nosey, meddling, busy-body goody two-shoes paranoid ninnies to eff off and mind their own damn business. (And yes, THEY'RE the ones who are paranoid, not us!)

------------------
Shoot straight & make big holes, regards, Richard at The Shottist's Center
 
Yes let everybody purchase guns. Don't punish me for something I might do, or more correctly, something you might do. I don't want to be a victim of your imagination.

To determine if someone is mentally fit is a subjective process, which is easily abused.

Our penal system operates under the premise that one can pay a debt to society we then need to uphold our end of the deal. To be succinct: if the debt is paid it's paid.

Impetus on gun ownership defocuses our attention from the real problem. Violence is a behavioral problem. Control behavior by responding to it. Good behavior nets positive reaction, poor behavior brings negative reaction.
 
You guys tie yourselves in knots because you
unconciously allow the anti gunners to frame your thoughts in this debate.

The power of the anti civil gun rights tv media brainwashing is evident even here amoung pro- gun rights advocates on tfl.

It makes me ill just to think about it!!!

The ANSWER is to register the criminals,
who have forfieted their rights via their own actions, the crimes they have been convicted of and not register the law abiding gun owners.

Criminals should have on their drivers license and other picture id's

FIREARMS PROHIBITED PERSON

These 3 words on their drivers license makes
the Brady Bill and NICS (national instant check system obsolete.)

However, it won't happen because the govt already has a bureaucracy in place sucking up our tax dollars.

How many MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WOULD HAVE BEEN
SAVED EACH YEAR by three little words on
drivers license.......
FIREARMS PROHIBITED PERSON
and just pass a law that private sellors of firearms have to check drivers license or other picture id for these three little words.

(Federally licensed firearms dealers are already prohibited by law from selling to prohibited persons.)

SO>>>
REGISTER THE CRIMINAL, NOT THE LAW ABIDING GUN OWNER.

But no, not here in the USA. The us govt has to do every thing bass ackwards, at huge expense, so they can spend vast amounts of tax payers dollars and unjustly criminalize the law abiding.

The NICS system could be one tenth of its size at one tenth of the expense and opperate 10 times faster and more efficient if they kept track of the criminals, a small minority, instead of the vast majority of law abiding gun owners.

This leads one to suspect alterior motives.

Why track the law abiding instead of tracking criminals.

Because, they eventually want to know where and from whom to confiscate our lawfully owned firearms.

One type of firearm at a time, one state
at a time, California style .....
and never all at once so as not to kiss us ALL off at once.

We let ourselves be manipulated and it is our
own fault for not stopping them.

Could we actually bother to vote this election, do you think?

Naa, not here in the usa.

Only 65% of us citiens are registered to
vote and of that 65%......... only 45% bother to actually go out and vote and of that 45%voting,
18 % always vote democrat and
18% always vote republican so that>>>>>

elections are actually decieded by only ...........9% of swing voters.

And 9% is a small number ,for a large and powerfull socialist NWO organization with full use of the tv media,-- to manipulate.

And so goes yet another useless rant.
I could be wrong, but then again ,I'm not Dennis Miller! So, maybe I,m right; Im certainly so conserative as to be considered radical by some,but i don't think that makes
me liberal although at one time liberals were considered radical.

There, are you thoughly confused now or are you rotflyao. !:^)
If you are confused, you were
taught in school " what to think" instead of how to think, that is to say, how to actually go about thinking for yourself.

You really , by now at least, should be rotflyao or else crying,depending on your viewpoint.

Some say.... that the election results are fixxed
by those in control of the election computers
and the public are "NOT ALLOWED" to verify results and arrested if they attempt to verify the results ordered by the powers that be.

Reality is stranger than fiction.I still half expect something y2k-ish to happen a year late! And I'm not refering to computer problems, either.
 
I strongly believe that if the punishment fit the crime guns would not be an issue.

Sense they are an issue I am quite torn. There are people I know who should not be allowed to purchase, own, handle, touch, look at, or be within a 10 mile radius of a gun, but if I were to push for these few people to not be allowed to purchase how many more good, law abiding people would be denied to purchase a gun because of these few people?

It boils down to the fact that everyone should have these rights (granted by the second amendment), in the hopes that we will be able to weed out the few with either fear or punishment.
 
Being released from prison has nothing to do with a parolees ability to fit back into society. It means they've served their sentence, period.
In my opinion, a violent felon has violated the social contract that binds all of us in society. They deserve to lose their rights, one of them being the right to own a gun. That being said, I am disturbed by the creeping felonization of crimes, and the drive to make misdemeanor offenses disqualifiers for gun ownership. It's to the point where you need to be an angel to be either a politician or a gun owner.
 
Look, denying felons the right to own guns even after they've served their sentences serves little or no crime fighting purpose, BECAUSE THE FELONS WHO MEAN TO USE GUNS CRIMINALLY WILL OBTAIN GUNS CRIMINALLY! So it's just not worth the hassle.

Get rid of all the laws against things which are none of the government's business. That will free up a huge amount of prison space, and police man hours. Leave people alone until they actually do something wrong, and then punish them. Harshly. Give 'em one or two chances to prove that they've changed, and then just give up on them, leave them locked up forever.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
TheBluesMan -
The 2nd Amendement simply does not allow for infringments. There's no "except felons" or comparable clause.
The biggest problem with the "prevent X from purchasing Y" is that the common citizen bears the brunt of the restrictions, while X is highly motivated to find other much simpler ways to buy Y. Preventing purchases is great in theory, but simply doesn't work in fact.

Flaim -
When convicted and subsequently released, you don't lose the other nine Rights, so why should you lose the second? You _do_ lose the right to vote or hold office, but those are NOT part of the BoR.
 
FLAIM-no they should not be able to own guns or speak freely or gather peacably much less have a right to trial after having been convicted.I dont mean to flame you flaim but think like a lib for a minute they only rights theyll ever attack as a group are those that scare them or that would allow us to oppose their perfect government rulers.Not to mention that these are the same people whom when we attempted to take away their cable tv and air conditioning so that their time served would actually seem like punishment and then the libs said that would violate their civil rights.
JIMPEEL-you dont want the bill of rights to be amended to be legislative fiats??
Where have you been the past 20 years??That is what guncontrol is allll about legislating away our freedoms in the name of making us and the children safer and
supposedly restricting criminals by passing those same laws.
GARYH--Carry permits have been issued in MS for years now without first requiring any form of training beforehand ,compare that states crime rate with one like sayyy
NY.Such trainging classes in many states tend to get more exspensive and more complicated every year with more paper work/red tape.
I beleive that for the past 5 decades most people by far that have had the sense to get a firearm for any proper use have also had the sense to get any needed trainging without being legislated to do so.Legislation that is supposed to 'protect us or our children' always comes with many strings attached dont forget that.
BLUESMAN's question reminds of some very important things rapists murderers and even unstable persons are regulary released on the street sometimes with no real punishment and very little prison time (convicted murderers as little as 5 yrs).
Now certainly we shouldn not be so paranoid ( as I am) as to think this common injustice in our justice system could be their to very effectivly as we now see complicate the fact that 'guns are so readily available in america' and point to a change???
Our beloved media is happy to help us avoid the fact that because such thugs often roam the streets we should ALL THE MORE SO cherish our guns and keep them close but instead because such felons,gangsters white supreacists UNSTABLE persons are on the streets we are directed to ask the very responsible question
how much MORE difficult can we make it to purchase guns for everyone.
That is a valid question isnt it .
The fun spin were all directed to over look here is were told how bad we are for allowing guns to be so free to law abiding people but theirs nothing wrong with the people who allow violent felons virtually unpunished to be so free.
An old humorous joke of rules was
1.The boss is always right
2.If boss is ever wrong see rule number one.
Our version today is
1.State/federal congress is allowed to make any laws they see fit to eliminate criminals access to firearms and to make children safe from them and the public safe from gunviolence.
2.If such laws ever result in the creating of legal hoola hoops,financial burdens, a national registration system or completely banning of legal/law abiding citizen from owning guns see rule #1.

You wish to own a gun?
For what purpose?Hmmm your unstable/not a valid reason.
DENIED

Guess what countrymen if you feel you need a gun of any type of gun for self-defense
by many politicians you are UNSTABLE.

The state has come to the decision that your mental process is a little unstable and not quite competent enough to own dangerous firearms please use that yellow form
you used to attempt to buy a firearm turn it over and list the other firearms you own so that for the good of your community and the children we can reaquire these.
You have served your country well citizen X.
Think it wont happen?
It already has many times in Connecticut and id didnt even happen during a NICS check it happend after a MMM soccer MOm or two turned some of their
nutty gunowning neighbors into the police by telephone.
Scroll down to the article titled 'turn in your neighgor law'
Guess who gave them the power to do that.
WE are right now as we make fit further infringements on our rights in the name of combatting crime.
http://www.gunowners.org/news/nws9912.htm

Also Jim March,Bluesman this is the link to that article you once thought that I
snipped and adjusted to make the NRA look bad.(but they do that for me.)

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human liberty; it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. ~~ William Pitt

Today it would be to combat crime is the cry for every infringement on our rights.
www.ccops.org

------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"
 
Since I started this, I guess I should chime in at least once, FWIW. The forum is "Legal and Political", and most of the responses so far are address the legal side: What the 2nd Amendment should mean, how the criminal justice system should treat felons, the issue of prior restraint, right to freely transfer private property, etc. These are all valid and important. (For example, I'd argue that losing voting and gun rights is part of the punishment. People should know ahead of time that fines, prison time, and permanent loss of certain rights is what you face if you get caught robbing gas stations. We aren't later going to give you your money back, we aren't going to restore the time you lost sitting in the can, and we aren't going to restore the rights you forfeited, either.)

But when I originally posed the question, I was really thinking about the political side. How do you sell a certain position on this issue to a wider public who is largely uninterested in it? The anti-gunners are not going to be swayed by any arguments, but they are a relatively small group; it's the great mass of people with no firm opinion who have to be convinced because they will end up casting the votes that determine which way things go.

Here are some kinds of arguments that I think do not cut much ice with this larger public:
(1) Legalistic and literal interpretations of the 2nd Amendment, parsing of Constitutional language, etc. I'm afraid this gets seen as roughly on a par with Biblical literalism, fanatical and slightly goofy. Better to stand aside and let the Supremes deal with it on this level. (2) Attacks on the motives of those pushing for wider gunshow checks (they just want to kill gunshows, etc.). But who cares what their motives are? If their arguments are more attractive, they win. (3) Raising questions about why felons and loonies are being allowed to walk around loose in the first place. It's a good question, but they are out there and they sometimes try to buy guns, as the number of NICS turndowns shows. (4) Attacks on the entire NICS system as useless and as a covert registration system. But that's not the issue here. The issue is extending the existing NICS, which a huge majority of people favor, to private sales at gunshows. An attack on the whole NICS system will only make people roll their eyes and look at their watch; it is viewed as a diversion to cover up the lack of any good arguments against this specific step.

So, what would a good, convincing argument against requiring Brady checks by private sellers at gunshows look like? I don't know, because I've never seen one. I also don't pretend to have a perfect answer for this. The best I can come up with is to open the NICS to private sellers. In return for requiring private sellers to do background checks, I'd ask that sellers get blanket immunity from liability for any subsequent misuse of the gun post-sale. Fixing NICS would then be a separate and even more important goal. The good part of the latter effort is that it would be carried on through the courts, not in the arena of public opinion where we are at a general disadvantage.
 
The problem with folks saying that the right of the people shall not be infringed, is that
no reasonable people believe that.

Felons had a simple choice - don't do it.
Let them buy OC when they are out.

There is no way to predict they are rehabilitated that works.

Ernest2 had the right idea. If you are not a felon or certifiable - you can buy a gun.

As far as the complaint about mental health diagnosis - there's more to it than a little twitch. Let the person denies on that grounds have recourse to legal appeals.

This will degenerate into one of those arguments that the 2nd gives us the right to have our own tank or A-Bomb. Arrest us later if we destroy our city.

Most gun owners don't believe the absolutist view of the 2nd. Thus, Ernest is on the money.
 
Byron: In a country where a significant fraction of the population thinks NOBODY should be allowed to own a gun, and most of the rest aren't interested in principles and political philosophy, there aren't any convincing arguments that felons "should" be allowed to own guns. However...

1. Making it illegal for a felon to own a gun doesn't disarm felons, except for the ones who've gone straight. And what's the point in disarming THEM?

2. The money and time spent on this futile effort could be more effectively spent on measures which actually work.

3. The measures being resorted to in this effort to disarm criminals can, and will be, abused to disarm the law abiding.

In other words, argue cost/benefit. There's lots of cost, and very little if any benefit.



------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
IMHO, the only way in which citizens could have an "absolute right," without prior restraint, in an organized society, would be if there were "absolute responsibility."

This means, that if ANYONE uses a firearm to commit a homicide, there wouldbe a short trail of fact, only. If adjudged guilty, the violator would be terminated by public execution, within, say 24 hours.

No appeals, no mitigating circumstances, no mercy could be considered.

Of course, since humans do not deal with each other, in civilized society in such a manner, Government must impose some prior restraint.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top