Executive Order To Keep Criminals Off The Streets?? No gun violence in jail.

[Flavus Aquila]

As a lifetime member of the NRA I think background checks are reasonable and logical from the stand point that I have no issue with the law itself. However as I have said before, give an inch and they take a mile. Before long they determine that if you are something lesser than a violent criminal you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun etc.

Even so...the measure is still useless so why pass it at all other than for show?

I agree. I think that background checks are very reasonable. I think it reasonable that felons, the mentally ill, domestic abusers, and just those prone to violence through their criminal record should be screened for their ability to responsibly own firearms. Some of the more contentious issues are where to draw the line and where to make exceptions. This is a huge grey area open to much interpretation.

The Supreme Court already protects the law abiding citizen's right to carry firearms. Their interpretation of the second amendment will likely serve as a very long lasting precedent. This is a very fragile freedom because on the one hand protection from civil disorder and criminals is demanded by citizens of any civilized nation, which requires some form of regulation. Too much regulation and you disarm citizens' right to defend their lives and property, including from a corrupt government. Our country also has a complicated history with gun rights that go back as far as the English Bill of Rights, with reference to even older common laws. Protecting the right to bear arms was imperative for a country that faced the injustices that came with being a colony and not having the full rights of English citizens. But we live in very different times today. Today there is much political drama that centers around the ridiculous idea that government itself is evil and tyrannical, when what is to fear is a government that is not representative of its people.

Case in point is the fact that an overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens support background checks on people before they purchase guns. It boggles my mind that there are states that do not require them at all and they are likely aiding, even if unknowingly the arming of criminals with guns. Congress, being heavily lobbied by the NRA, does nothing and is hence not being representative of the People. What an irony it would be if citizens who support gun regulation to protect them end up usurping a government that opposes any serious attempt to regulate. Of course, it would be unlawful for law abiding citizens to do such a thing, right?

What is troubling to me about the right to carry firearms to protect against a "tyrannical" government is that different political factions have very different understandings of tyranny, so even if one faction thought that rebellion and usurpation was a necessity, it would not be a representation of the People, but their own faction and ideologies. But, what is most troubling is that these factions fail to see the bigger picture, which is that we live in a pluralistic society and that government is a necessity to facilitate between all of the factions. This is so one faction doesn't dominate with complete authority,which would be tyrannical.

Would it be problematic if the cut off line were drawn very strictly? Eg. If you have ever been convicted of any offense, or had any sort of license suspended? Right to have guns removed as long as one has an AVO?, etc. etc.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Would it be problematic if the cut off line were drawn very strictly? Eg. If you have ever been convicted of any offense, or had any sort of license suspended? Right to have guns removed as long as one has an AVO?, etc. etc.

Of course?

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Of course?

What would be the issue with a very strict cut off, as you see it?

 

[Eventhorizon]

What would be the issue with a very strict cut off, as you see it?

The conditions you mentioned. I am for keeping those who have shown inability to control their violent tendencies from easily purchasing any potential lethal weapon to include being allowed to drive a vehicle. But to exclude someone for something as simple as having a drivers license revoked ...

 

[Flavus Aquila]

The conditions you mentioned. I am for keeping those who have shown inability to control their violent tendencies from easily purchasing any potential lethal weapon to include being allowed to drive a vehicle. But to exclude someone for something as simple as having a drivers license revoked ...

I actually like the notion that losing one's driver's licence would permanently disqualify one from owning a gun for two reasons: 1. It would serve as a coercive disincentive to break traffic laws (including drink/drug-driving); 1. It would remove fire-arms from people who cannot handle potentially dangerous equipment (cars) with a minimum level of responsibility.

Is it not fair to say that if one cannot use a vehicle on the roads responsibly, there is reasonable doubt about their ability to handle any potentially lethal equipment responsibly?

 

[Eventhorizon]

I actually like the notion that losing one's driver's licence would permanently disqualify one from owning a gun for two reasons: 1. It would serve as a coercive disincentive to break traffic laws (including drink/drug-driving); 1. It would remove fire-arms from people who cannot handle potentially dangerous equipment (cars) with a minimum level of responsibility.

Is it not fair to say that if one cannot use a vehicle on the roads responsibly, there is reasonable doubt about their ability to handle any potentially lethal equipment responsibly?

Right. So I would say I think that is overstepping bounds at a level that clearly conflicts with the 2nd amendment. I would also bet that we would consistently be at odds with what the second ammendment means and its value.
Thats fine, people are entitled to their opinion. In this case though we have a fairly clear document to guide us.

 

[the]

I actually like the notion that losing one's driver's licence would permanently disqualify one from owning a gun for two reasons: 1. It would serve as a coercive disincentive to break traffic laws (including drink/drug-driving); 1. It would remove fire-arms from people who cannot handle potentially dangerous equipment (cars) with a minimum level of responsibility.

Is it not fair to say that if one cannot use a vehicle on the roads responsibly, there is reasonable doubt about their ability to handle any potentially lethal equipment responsibly?

Would you require a drivers license to get a gun as well?

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Right. So I would say I think that is overstepping bounds at a level that clearly conflicts with the 2nd amendment. I would also bet that we would consistently be at odds with what the second ammendment means and its value.
Thats fine, people are entitled to their opinion. In this case though we have a fairly clear document to guide us.

Given the historical situation at the time of the second amendment, its interpretation is likely to change with the passing of decades and centuries. I also presume that amendments can be amended.

It is also possible, that within 40 years, the entire constitution may not be relevant at all, depending on how things play out on the other side of both the Atlantic and Pacific.

Would you require a drivers license to get a gun as well?

No. A reckless driving record is just one factor which could disqualify from gun ownership.


In most areas liberality seems to work well, however, it would seem ideal to me that ideally only sporting/game shooters, police, and military should actually bear arms - and only during associated activities.

I just can't see why a ditsy momma, with little kids, for example, should be carrying a gun in her purse to go to starbucks.

 

[Skarekrow]

Given the historical situation at the time of the second amendment, its interpretation is likely to change with the passing of decades and centuries. I also presume that amendments can be amended.

It is also possible, that within 40 years, the entire constitution may not be relevant at all, depending on how things play out on the other side of both the Atlantic and Pacific.

That’s exactly what amendments are…why our history books refer to the Constitution as a “living document” growing and changing.
The second amendment can just as easily be reduced to history by another amendment.
Look at the 21st amendment that reestablished liquor as legal in the US repealing prohibition.
The Constitution is meant to be a starting point and framework but not the end all and the founding fathers make many references to this namely Jefferson.

[h=4]"Whatever be the Constitution, great care must be taken to provide a mode of amendment when experience or change of circumstances shall have manifested that any part of it is unadapted to the good of the nation. In some of our States it requires a new authority from the whole people, acting by their representatives, chosen for this express purpose, and assembled in convention. This is found too difficult for remedying the imperfections which experience develops from time to time in an organization of the first impression. A greater facility of ammendment is certainly requisite to maintain it in a course of action accommodated to the times and changes through which we are ever passing." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:488[/h]

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves were they to rise from the dead." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:40

 

[54192&#cmy]

21,000 of the 33,000 appear to be suicide. That seems more like it to me. In the end we are trying to make government the new religion. It knows all it sees all and it is always looking out for your best interest. we ought to be careful legislating morality. Some people may not like you telling them how to live. How do you plan for everything. We would all have to live in a virtual prison to keep us all safe. With cameras and microphones everywhere. I guess if you have nothing to hide you will submit to daily intrusions into your privacy. We should weigh both sides. Guns also prevent crimes. They aren't just for committing them. There will always be criminals. Even in trained hands of competent police officer there are accidental shootings. Humans have been and always will be the real problem.....

 

[sprinkles]

That’s exactly what amendments are…why our history books refer to the Constitution as a “living document” growing and changing.
The second amendment can just as easily be reduced to history by another amendment.
Look at the 21st amendment that reestablished liquor as legal in the US repealing prohibition.
The Constitution is meant to be a starting point and framework but not the end all and the founding fathers make many references to this namely Jefferson.

The 21st amendment repealed the 18th amendment which was only in place for 14 years. The 18th was ratified because they believed it would stop crime and protect people from alcohol abuse, but what happened was completely the opposite of that.

Rebellion of the people is probably the only reason it was repealed, and the irony is that firearms likely helped facilitate that. Had the 18th been ratified at a different time we might still have it.

 

[Skarekrow]

The 21st amendment repealed the 18th amendment which was only in place for 14 years. The 18th was ratified because they believed it would stop crime and protect people from alcohol abuse, but what happened was completely the opposite of that.

Rebellion of the people is probably the only reason it was repealed, and the irony is that firearms likely helped facilitate that. Had the 18th been ratified at a different time we might still have it.

Twas but an example.
;-)

 

[sprinkles]

Twas but an example.
;-)

It's just interesting that back then people had what was called "moxie" and now suddenly they don't. They just cry about stuff.

Back then the government said "you can't drink alcohol" and the people said "fuck you!" and did it anyway. And ironically just as prohibition went out, the National Firearms Act came in not even a year later. Likely because the government did not want a repeat of this since the people pretty much openly flouted them. I'm sure that no small number of officials resented this fact.

 

[just me]

I remain steadfast that all this should go through the proper channels. Anything else is crap......something of extremely poor quality.

 

[Elegant Winter]

If you ban a certain segment of the population from owning guns something miraculous may happen.

 

[sprinkles]

If you ban a certain segment of the population from owning guns something miraculous may happen.

Guns are like Al Capone. Capone made a franchise of appealing to people's desires. People wanted to drink, he enabled that for money. People wanted to gamble, he made sure they could, so long as he made money. But the thing is, the government MADE Capone and they took kickbacks from him. There's likely only two reasons he went to prison: the first is his competition hated him because he would eliminate them so brutally. The second is that maybe they thought he was getting too out of control.

Capone owned Chicago because the officials let him. The firearms industry is the same way.

 

[Skarekrow]

If you ban a certain segment of the population from owning guns something miraculous may happen.

What is that segment?
Please, do tell…in detail.
Please if you can cite a few links and facts to back up your conclusion?
I really am interesting in what has brought you to such conclusions as a generality?

Edit: Wouldn’t stricter gun control laws and licensing work in your favor if you are trying to keep it away from a certain portion of the population?

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION]

Yup I know what she was referring to. I'm just saying that it probably would not be at the top of the list of things for the government to do if you get my drift.

Might as well ask China to stop being socialist. Might even have better luck with that.