According to gun control advocates, there are good gun owners and bad gun owners. Gun owners who support “reasonable restrictions” on their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, and gun owners who eat babies. I mean, live in a world where “shall not be infringed” means what it says. The anti-gunners call the latter group “extremists.” Some gun owners wear that label proudly, mindful of Barry Goldwater’s pronouncement that “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.” The question is, are YOU a gun extremist? To find out, answer the following three questions . . .
1. Do you support background checks for firearms purchases?
If you answered no . . . you might be a gun extremist.
If you answered yes, tell me: what is the point of background checks? Do they stop criminals from getting ahold of firearms? No. Do they transform a right into a privilege? Yes. You want extreme? I reckon anyone should be able to walk into a store, buy a gun, buy some ammunition and walk out of the store without a background check.
Why that would make it easy for criminals to buy guns! Mental defectives! Politicians! (I threw that one in there.) Yes, it would. But background checks are a government infringement. Also, one wonders how in the name of God we survived as a nation without background checks for 222 years.
2. Do you support Constitutional Carry?
If you answered yes . . . you might be a gun extremist.
After all, if anyone can carry a gun without government approval criminals could carry guns! Mental defectives! Politicians! (That joke never gets old.) Without a government permitting system the government can’t make sure that every gun owner has been trained to Navy SEAL standards. They can’t collect fees for the right to keep and bear arms, upon which the government depends to pay for the paperwork and manpower side of the infringing thing. And they can’t keep a database!
If no permitting system was required, Americans would be shooting each other all the time over traffic accidents and karaoke contests. Just like they do in Arizona and Vermont. Constitutional carry? We don’t let people drive without a license, why would be allow them to carry a gun without one? Only a gun extremist would argue against all that. Jeez.
3. Do you believe felons should be able to keep and bear arms?
If you answer yes without ANY qualifications . . . you might be a gun extremist.
If you’re in Ralph’s camp, if you believe that violent felons are different from other types of felons and reckon violent felons should lose their gun rights forever, you’re not a true gun extremist. I understand the logic, but true gun extremists argue that anyone who’s too dangerous to allow a gun is too dangerous to allow into society.
Lock violent bad guys up for life? That’s a bit extreme isn’t it? Yes. Yes it is. Now we dolly back. Now we fade to black. Knowing who’s who in the ongoing effort to extend and defend firearms freedom.
I am no where close to an extremist!
Surely, that’s a bit extreme to say.
I didn’t even have to read the questions to know my answer to the post would be a resounding “YES”. After reading and answering no, yes, yes… I must be what I thought I was. Good to know.
No, yes, and yes. No qualifiers. But, I’m sure you already knew that.
I’m more extreme than those guys in Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle.
If they can’t be trusted with a firearm to do the right thing, they shouldn’t be let out into society.
I agree, but it awfully hard to get rid of politicians.
It’s awfully hard to legally get rid of politicians. FIFY
Boothe and Oswald both found a way to get rid of unwanted politicians, not that I’d advocate anything of the sort. Heavens,no.
Dude, that’s seriously the kind of comment that makes me afraid to be associated with this website. What could you possibly be thinking when using sarcasm around the idea of killing anybody? That is just frightening. These are the kinds of posts the mods need to censor. Get your shit together TTAG
Trick, Booth and Oswald were both liberal extremists. Acknowledging that liberals will stop at nothing is not out of line. It is merely noting where our opponents stand on the issues.
@Nick D.
“The ideal form of government is democracy, tempered with assassination.” – Voltaire
*******************
On a side note, you’ve all read the book, “Unintended Consequences” by John Ross, correct?
We’re almost there.
The ideal form of government is self-government, AKA Freedom.
I agree. Soooo……life in prison for EVERY child sex offender (there are never any shortcuts or shadiness in those convictions, right? Especially in divorce/custody battles)…..or, you’re perfectly cool with released child sex offenders teaching at your kid’s school, coaching your kid’s team, and even being your kid’s pediatrician, right?
I just want to be consistent here. If they can’t be trusted around children, then they should be locked up forever, no exceptions.
For good measure, let’s go ahead and let convicted thieves and frauds work manage your retirement fund accounts, too. No sense denying them their rights once released. Hell, they’re not even violent felons.
It’s extremely rare to find anyone who truly believed in this. Apply the exact same principle to another class of felon, and you’ll find where their commitment to the idea falters. People arr only cool with it in this case because, like snooty antu-gunners, they think the consequences of this restoration policy will never affect them personally. That’s a piss poor and selfish as Hell justification for a position.
You do understand there is a world of difference between a right and a privilege, correct? You have no “right” to any job. You can apply for them, but that doesn’t mean anyone has to give you the job.
Nice try at a bait and switch, though old and tired claptrap is all that it is.
@ Jonathan:
How do YOU define “UNALIENABLE”.
Just curious.
I hear this and think… boy… you must love the bloated prison system in the US. Physical confinement is not and should not be the only punishment in the justice system.
If you are a persistent terrible/drunk driver you should lose your license regardless of imprisonment. There should be a process to get it back after some time, but I see no reason that someone should be imprisoned when taking away driving is probably enough for most (not all, of course). I look at guns the same way.
And I know… firearms ownership is a right. Makes no difference here as long as there is due process and it’s not an ex-post facto law. To me it’s like parole… you’re not in prison but you still have consequences to your crime.
I really think we need to start calling these anti-gun groups what they are: Extremist organizations. They claim they are not, but we seriously need to hammer home the fact that they have NO real support outside of the 35 paid people they cart all over the country. That makes them nothing more than an extremist minority that can’t even beat a BLOG on the internet in terms of popularity.
Agreed.
They keep using those rules that Alinsky (sp?) created against us, why can’t we use them too?
We can! and should.
In fact, we often do. For example, we called out Shannon Watts and Michael Bloomberg for having armed body guards.
“…the fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
…the fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
I do!
In much the same vain as we should be calling race-baiters, racists.
They are also a threat to National Security. After all, where will the next generation of sharpshooters come from when ours is old and infirm?
I want my babyback, babyback, babyback, babyback, baby-back rriibbss.
>,,>
According to this I should just strap on a vest and [comment moderated by the NSA]. I can see the logic in not allowing violent felons their rights back. Most criminals in the US are repeat offenders so that makes sense. Sadly (for you) I am wired to strive for most efficency, even if it means leeway (that I am not a fan of)in some things.
I don’t have a problem with giving felons their rights back, just not while they are in prison. Apply the fool me once principle though, and after the third felony, teach them how to walk on air.
[I can see the logic in not allowing violent felons their rights back. Most criminals in the US are repeat offenders so that makes sense.]
Actually there are many people who committed one crime, say boosted a car when they were 19, figure out that crime is stupid, and never offend again. Why should they be banned for life?
Have a time limit. The dangerous ones will reoffend, and stay denied. Which still won’t do any good, since the violent criminals will have guns illegally.
Since mine are no, yes and yes(since if you can’t be trusted with a gun, you shouldn’t be out of prison) I guess I am an extremest.
Guess I’m an extremist.
It should be as easy to buy a gun as it is to pick up a loaf of bread.
Same with anything. Meth, crack, raw milk. Whatever.
OMG! Raw Milk! That’s obscene! You should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking that thought! What about the children….
/sarc
Are you serious dude?
I guess he has read that Constitution thingee…..
Of course. Who are you to appoint yourself, or some gubmint official, to dictate to me what I may or may not put into or take out of my own body?
Agreed. The right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” includes the tight to screw up your own life any way you may want to, or even the right to commit suicide.
+1000 Shire-man.
so let me get this strait if one agrees with the intent of the second amendment they are a ‘Gun extremist’. that is insane
Pretty much like that on all fronts. If you mention the Constitution or the founders, that is one potential sign that you may be a terrorist (according to our current admin). Christian churches are hate groups. A real terrorist shooting up an army base while yelling “Allahu Akbar,” on the other hand, is workplace violence. It’s how they do things. It’s how they have always done things. Now shut up and do what your are told, you silly reactionary.
I was really disappointed that you couldn’t work the Criminals, Mental Defectives, Politicians bit into question 3! That joke really does not get old.
Proud gun extremist. We should be able to carry any firearm that our soldiers carry. If I’m not locked up, I should be allowed the tools to defend myself. And background checks? Sure, as soon as they require background checks at the voting booths.
…..or in the Oval Office.
I am disappointed to find out that I’m not a gun extremist because my answer to the last question — should murderers, child molesters and rapists have 2A rights? — is not merely no, it’s fvck no.
I agree that if violent felons can’t be trusted with a gun they can’t be trusted without a custodian. The fact is, they can’t be trusted without a custodian. Not for a second. Ever.
I think that the third question unfortunately conflates “extremism” with “wanton stupidity.” I am a gun extremist, but I’m not an idiot.
Agreed. If someone can’t be trusted without a custodian, then they need to be locked up or sometimes better, executed.
Sticky. What if someone with no history of violence, in an extreme fit of emotion, kills their cheating wife and her lover, for example? Think OJ. Yeah, it’s messed up, and has to be addressed. But they will probably never do anything like that again. Yet, the vast majority of murders are committed by people with a history of violence. I’m conflicted on that one.
That aside, I don’t need to take a test. I have already been given the title of “gun extremest” by a moonbat relative, so I’ve got my credentials already.
I am, and ever shall be, Ralph’s friend on this one.
Live long and prosper.
What if someone with no history of violence, in an extreme fit of emotion, kills their cheating wife and her lover, for example? Think OJ.
Then they have just then acquired a history of violence. See how logical thinking works?
I didn’t realize a singular event counted as a “history”. So a guy who had a shot of tequila once, on his 21st birthday, has a “history” of drinking?
Agreed. However, since the laws and bleeding heart liberals won’t allow us to lock up violent people forever, then we need to prevent those people from getting a gun when they get released. This is pragmatism (accepting reality as it is and dealing with it appropriately), not idealism (insisting on a solution that will not work in the current reality).
The gun grabbers want to outlaw all guns in the hope that everyone (including criminals and psychotics) will not hurt anyone anymore. True gun rights extremists want to allow violent criminals and psychotics to possess guns, because they say these people shouldn’t be allowed out of prison (but they are) if they are still violent. Both of these agendas/opinions are completely impossible, completely illogical, and sheer fantasy. So who is the extremist? Both sides have their extremists who refuse to fully accept the realities of the real world.
[Putting my flame-proof suit on now. But I’m not going to change my opinion.]
“Both of these agendas/opinions are completely impossible, completely illogical, and sheer fantasy.”
Absolutely not true. According to the 2nd Amendment, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It does NOT say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms may be stripped away at the whim of some old white guy in a black robe.
Bob, Ralph, and others… regardless of what many might consider prudent, the reality is that we cannot have these regulations as to who can keep and bear arms in society because who decides? If government decides then the militia is always at risk, the individual as well. This places the security of a free state in jeopardy. Government simply cannot be granted that power if the People are to remain free. THAT is the reality. It was clearly spelled out in plain language thusly:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Posession of a gun by anyone is no danger to society. It is the use of that gun that may or may not pose a danger to society.
I routinely see comments here about the impossibility of keeping guns out of the hands of felons. Felons will acquire firearms. Making a law against it is futile. I favor a more Darwinian process for weeding out those who would abridge the rights of the law-abiding.
Constitutional carry would result in more “good guys with a gun “to oppose the “bad guy with a gun.”
“danger to society.”
Feh. Freedom is a danger to “society.” Improper or negligent use of guns (or cars, or chainsaws, or baseball bats) can injure or kill individual people. “Society” is a mythical construct rooted in groupthink and the idea that the herd is more important than the individual.
But part of growing up is realizing that what’s best for each individual adds up to what’s best for all, as long as each is free to seek her own happiness peaceably.
Sorry Ralph, what you call stupidity, is actually you being delusional; you should just hang it up and proudly proclaim yourself to be a gun-grabber that believes in GFZ and that banning all guns will keep us safe. Because your belief that outlawing a felon from owning guns will stop a felon from committing violent acts with a gun is the in the same brand of delusion.
This idea that outlawing a felon from owning a gun to keep him from committing violent acts is beyond delusional, it’s bordering on insane; at least as a gun-grabber, you can blame the liberal/progressive brain washing. But if you believe that a GFZ is simply a free fire zone for a homicidal maniac, then you have no excuse to believe a law will keep a felon from getting and using a gun if he so chooses.
All you do with this type of law is make the felons that do want to change become defenseless peasants easily murdered by real bad guys.
So go ahead Ralph, I’ll wait while you decide to declare yourself to be a gun-grabber. that way you can be completely consistent with your delusions/insanity.
your belief that outlawing a felon from owning guns will stop a felon from committing violent acts with a gun
Can you point out where I said that, or are you just trying to prove my point about idiocy?
If a violent felon is found in possession of a gun, he should be prosecuted for being a felon in possession and returned to the place he loves the best — prison.
Ralph, the only reason to outlaw an Ex-con from owning a gun is to stop him from committing violent acts with a gun. Which by plenty of proof is utterly and completely useless; all ex-cons are now outlawed from owning guns- which does absolutely nothing to stop them from committing violent acts, with or without guns; Chicago anyone? Ralph?
All you do by outlawing guns from ex-cons is to keep those ex-cons that do want to be law abiding citizens as second class peasants for their entire life; a life sentence of being made defenseless and helpless; unable to defend themselves and any family they might have from ex-cons that choose to continue being predators.
My belief is that you and people like you that help to perpetuate the revolving door of prison. I know that if I was an ex-con and the only choice you gave me was be a disarmed subject; subject to being abused, attacked and even murdered by any predators, whether animal or human; I would stay a criminal. . As a criminal I could own weapons and with weapons I would be able to defend myself while out of prison; then if I was caught with a gun; and I ended up in prison; I would be on equal footing with all the other criminals in prison, because there, it truly is a GFZ.
Yeah; Ralph, I would stay a criminal. The unintended consequences of those people that mean well but always get the opposite of what was intended, you know, like the liberal/progressives. Your in good company.
Oops; “You’re in good company”
ThomasR, You keep saying that banning violent felons from possessing guns does absolutely nothing to prevent violent crime. That is not true, because if a violent felon is found to be in possession of a firearm, he is immediately sent back to prison where he belongs.
Ralph said that quite clearly, and Thomas R refused to see it.
“If a violent felon is found in possession of a gun, he should be prosecuted for being a felon in possession and returned to the place he loves the best — prison.”
A federal law against possession by a felon does not prevent all felons from obtaining and illegally using firearms, but it does prevent some of them. And some is better than none. Don’t scrap a good law, just because it doesn’t work perfectly in every possible case. Improving our parole system would be a better way of dealing with this problem.
Why don’t we just fake all tbe guns away now and imprison everyone, better safe than sorry…..right.
Rights are over-rated and need numerous restrictions to be sensible.. lol
Bob. so if it stops even one criminal from committing a crime, then banning all ex-cons from owning a gun is worth it..
Which means you are OK for making a whole class of people to be peasants, peons and outright slaves, for their entire lives, even after they have paid their debt. If they obey the law, they will forever be made defenseless; never able to stand as a free man or woman, helpless in the face of violent attack, to themselves or their family.
I’ll be truthful Bob, people like you I see as no better than the Ex-con you are punishing; you are doing violence to a human being because , to you, he can never be forgiven, never forgotten and the person will never be able to be a full citizen for the rest of their lives. A life time sentence. At least in prison, the criminal is on equal footing with other criminals, a real GFZ. Out in the world, you are throwing this human being naked to the wolves, and you feel all self righteous in dong so,
You sir, are a despicable human being, I find I have nothing but contempt for you, and people like you.
I completely understand why a criminal continues being a criminal with the type of brutality you are willing to inflict upon them as another human being.
Bravo….well said.
Ralph,
I would tend to agree with you, but…
How have gun control laws ever stopped felons from getting their hands on guns anyway? Repeat offenders are the largest population of offenders. The lines about ‘someone needing a custodian’ apply strictly to our prison system, not to firearms. It’s about the people, not guns.
FOLKS- if you’re willing to say ‘no background checks,’ question #3 answers itself!
How have gun control laws ever stopped felons from getting their hands on guns anyway?
No. certainly not. But felon in possession laws allow the violent felon to be arrested for the crime of being a felon in possession and sent back to where he belongs, PDQ. Which is what I want.
Whether he was doing anything truly wrong or not.
Plus, habitual offender laws will eventually remove them from putting their chlorine in the gene pool.
I understand your reasoning Ralph. However, I don’t understand why I and a hundred million other Americans have to comply with background checks, permits, waiting periods, registration, and a slew of other regulations for the sake of attempting to “keep guns out of the hands of felons” when it is proven that you cannot keep guns out of their hands. They are going to get guns anyways. Wouldn’t it be better if they remained in prison and the 100 million of us not in prison can go about our lives in liberty?
How about we stop bothering the 100 million of us who are not murderer’s, child molesters, and rapists by leaving those who are with a “custodian.” Yea? Why are we releasing these crazy people into the populace and actually trying (costly trying) to filter guns out of their hands at my and 100 million other people’s expense?
Which do you think is more costly, a modest filter on who can purchase guns at a gun store, or the cost of incarcerating 200 million people–i.e., the 200 million who do not own guns? And you assume that 100 million “legal” gun owners are not criminals–how do we know this to be true? Because you had a background check that says you have no criminal record? Or just because you say so? No one is a criminal until caught.
I agree. We have rights. Innocent until proven guilty. I personally accept the risk of walking around in society with people who may have a nefarious nature rather than be hassled with pettifogged, bureaucratic red tape regulation garbage that doesn’t work. I also don’t enjoy paying the wages of all these people who hassle us with pettifogged bureacratic red tape garbage regulations so they can get great benefits and “feel” safe and talk on forums and gun blogs about how we need to keep guns out of the hands of felons… violent ones at that – as if it actually works.
I don’t understand why I and a hundred million other Americans have to comply with background checks, permits, waiting periods, registration, and a slew of other regulations for the sake of attempting to “keep guns out of the hands of felons”
That wasn’t the third question, that was the first question. To the first question, I answered “NO — I do NOT support background checks.” The third question dealt with whether gun rights for felons should be restored, to which I answered “FVCK NO.”
Two different questions, two different answers.
There are many violent felons who have served the sentence proscribed by law, and the law says they have to be released. You can’t just start locking up people forever; this would be unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment, as it would require any person convicted of any murder, irrespective of degree, to be locked up for life. There is a reason that different degrees of violent crime are treated differently, a reason that has hundreds of years of legal precedent; a person who commits a crime of passion is deemed less “culpable” than a murderer who lies in wait. a child is less culpable than an adult, a drunk less culpable than a maniac with an insatiable need for speed.
Further, we can’t afford the prisons we now have, much less the massive increase that would be needed if any violent felony meant a life sentence. In England, every felony was punishable by death–but it didn’t stop crime from occurring, nor will incarcerating people for life. The next solution was called Australia. Since there are no unoccupied/minimally occupied places left ion this planet, we either have to establish penal colonies on the moon, or before long, half this country would be imprisoned for life, and the other half would be working to pay for it all. We are pretty much stuck with releasing offenders at the end of their sentences. Many will reoffend. I cannot conceive of allowing them the tools to make reoffending even easier.
And finally, a significant portion of the criminal population consists of persons who are mentally ill. While they should be housed in mental institutions, the fact is our society for the most part has decided not to fund such institutions, except for the criminally insane who commit vicious and violent murders while hallucinating wildly because they stopped taking their meds, certain sex offenders who will most assuredly reoffend, and the like. The rest of the public institutions have been mostly closed, so now these insane live in homeless communities, doing drugs, and committing various offenses necessary to survival. Lock these folks up for life in a prison? Why would this be fair? Or just?
Yes yes yes, criminals will get guns in the street, but that does not mean that we hand them a glock and a box of ammo when they leave prison. No, banning them from ownership will not reduce crime committed by recidivists–but it will give additional ammunition (more felony charges) to lock them up for longer when they do reoffend.
it will give additional ammunition (more felony charges) to lock them up for longer when they do reoffend.
Actually, it enables violent felons to be imprisoned for simply possessing a gun, which is what I want.
That sounds like some very violent and felonious language you are using….turn in your guns and go to jail. He who determines the laws is the king. The constitution be damned.
“which is what I want.”
Yeah, but it isn’t what the Constitution says. It says, “shall not be infringed.” It doesn’t say, “shall not be infringed, except for ex-felons.”
Ralph, I agree with you on many points you make. But not this one. You are saying it is OK to incarcerate people who haven’t committed a crime. Your philosophy on this one is identical to the hoplophobes: “the [former felon/citizen] might commit a crime, so lock him up”. This is like saying a man might commit rape, so lock him up ahead of time. If a non-violent felon has served his time, and is released, he/she should have all the rights of a free US citizen restored until he commits another felony. The only exception from this is if the original felony was a violent act or involve a firearm, like armed robbery. No problem with sticky loss of gun rights for such behavior.
The problem is they have so radically expanded the scope of what constitutes a felony that it no longer means what many assume. For example, keeping old expired meds or giving a prescription pain killer to a hurting family member turns you into a felon. Only 1st degree violent felonies should be “sticky” in their proscription of fundamental, constitutionally protected rights.
We can’t afford the prisons we have because we fill them with non violent offenders (drug possession primarily) while violent offenders get the revolving door treatment.
if we decriminalized drug use, we would have more prison than we could possibly use left to lock up the violent felons. Even more If we executed the rapists, molesters, and murderers as we should.
So you think we need to set them free to avoid being cruel, but leave them unable to defend themselves or their families from the same threats you feel a need to defend against. So you are not cruel, you are sadistic?
Yes, being forever banned from defending yourself and your family is what is called a consequential disincentive to commit crime.
As for their families,1. They (the felons) don’t care. 2. Momma can use a gun. 3. Momma will often have to use it against ex-felon, ex-baby daddy, boyfriend husband, other etc.
I think people who think like you should be summarily disarmed and forced to wear pink “gun free guy” shirts. Your neighbor can defend you.
@Gregolas: But what about constructive possession? Momma could become a felon if caught with that firearm within access of the former felon.
but that does not mean that we hand them a glock and a box of ammo when they leave prison.
If that Glock and box of ammunition were their property upon entering prison then they ought to be handed them back when they leave. Isn’t the mantra something like, “guns don’t kill people?” The firearm is merely a tool. If you’re concerned about them having the ammunition at the moment of release then mail the ammunition to them when they are released. It can be waiting for the newly released at a destination they provide.
I’d have no problem with giving a child molester a gun, and if it has a bayonet lug, it will have the sticker attached when I give it to him. Three four , maybe a dozen or so times, but I will really let him have it.
Rapists? since PiV is rape, all us heterosexual males are rapists…
I believe in treating people like that with a certain measure of human dignity, I ask that you make sure no ladies are watching when you urinate on their grave.
I’m w Ralph w one exception. Child molestersget a gun. Mine. In their mouth.
“With one round, lock and load….”
Ok I am an extremist.
No, I’m not even close to being an extremist. I have no problem keeping guns out of the hands of people that have forfeited that right.
So does a GFZ sign stop a homicidal maniac from committing mass murder? No?
Does a law against mass murder stop mass murder? No?
Does a violent felon need a gun to commit murder? No?
Does a law stop a potentially violent Ex- con from getting a gun? No?
If an Ex-con truly is reformed and follows the law and doesn’t own a gun, can he defend himself and his wife and kids effectively from a group of armed home invaders? No?
Then the law you want not only will not do any of what it is intended, but will allow a truly reformed Ex-con and any family become a helpless and defenseless prey to a predator.
You are not only delusional, but cruel and heartless as well.
Exactly right.
Oh dear.. Oh my..
I guess I should turn myself in right now…
1. Yes I support background check. Basic ones. Not this expanded universal crap. A simple check 10 minutes or less. No it doesn’t stop bad guys, but it might. No 10 day wait or 1 gun a month limitations.
2. Yes I support constitutional carry, concealed or open. period end of story.
3. Yes with limitations
This is a touchy subject, one that I know we have discussed before.
1. Non violent felons only.
2. Probation must be completed without incident, and there needs to be some sort of wait time to show they are in fact not going to offend again. It is an article in and of itself, but suffice to say that if you can prove you are on the straight an narrow, then I think there should be a process of restoration of rights.
Daniel, I agree.
After the passage of a fixed period of post-conviction good behavior and COMPLETE AND FULL RESTITUTION to their victims (which never, ever happens), then nonviolent felons might have their 2A rights restored.
I’m a bit on the fence here Ralph, perhaps you can help me. I could agree with you at least part of the way if we first made every victimless crime a non-felony (misdemeanor or legalized). The way you’ve got it right now the pain pill that your friend dropped in your car and couldn’t find 2 years ago could land you in jail and preclude your possessing guns for the rest of your life. Ditto blundering into one of the many GFZs and getting caught carrying concealed. What counts as a felony these days covers things that cannot conceivably harm anyone. So long as that is the case I’m against any lifetime sanctions for felons.
I liked the idea proposed on an earlier thread today of a background check unconnected to the purchase of a firearm. Basically, once you are cleared, you can buy anything you want, and the only record is the dealer’s record of sale. No info on the 4473 of what it is you are buying, no federal or state records of purchases/ serial numbers. The idea that “tracing” of guns to their owners is useful in solving crimes is a total fallacy. The police still have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a particular person killed/shot/attacked another–i.e., that have to prove that a particular firearm was in a specified person’s hand, and evidence of ownership does not fill that evidentiary requirement.
Daniel, add me to the club. I agree with your thoughts as well.
Looks like me and Ralph have to sit at the “almost extreme” table.
But like Meatloaf said, two out of three ain’t bad.
I’ll sit at the table with you and Ralph.
And yes, I’ll have the meatloaf.
Yes, but no waiting periods.
Yes.
Yes but only for non-violent felons and violent felons who complete probation without incident. A second strike for a violent felon means a forever no.
I guess I’m not quite an extremist.
1. Not crazy about BG checks. If they could be proven to keep firearms away from the “bad guys” while not restricting the good guys’ rights, OK. But I’m not convinced that’s the case. So… sort of a qualified no.
2. Yes. I live in a constitutional carry state. I’m still waiting for someone here to shoot someone else over a parking space. Ain’t happened yet.
3. Um… not comfortable with violent felons being restored to 2A rights, but I’m fine with nonviolent felons being restored their rights.
The idea behind background checks, provided they are used just for that (recall that Cruz tried to pass a revisions that would narrowly defined how it could be used) is that it would deter criminals from trying to purchase at gun store, gun show or private sale — that is the intent.
However, we all know that criminals will use straw buyers — we saw this with the Fast & Furious Fiasco. We saw this in the indy film Assaulted that looked at the issue and we saw this in an issue of Vice Documentary. Criminals and gangs will use people with no current record to go purchase the guns. You will never stop that ever. Criminals will also steal guns, this happens every day. You also have crooked cops and others (see the DHS Chief who go busted) will sell guns illegally to anyone for a price. You cannot ever stop the flow of gun to criminals — there is always someone who is corruptible.
Background checks have the added problem that the states do not bother to send the necessary information to NICS on a timely basis or at all in many cases. The most laughable of them all is NY which talks tough on guns but is way behind in updating info to NICS.
Background checks will never, ever, ever, ever be a solution to bad guys getting guns. All it does is make deterrents to some criminals some of the time. My argument is bring the Background checks — they do nothing, have never done anything and the database is Swiss cheese. However, gun owners can now argue for National Reciprocity — “hey we have background checks everywhere, the govt. said I am a good guy so I should be able to carry where ever I go” It would reverse Mohawk the antigun crowd and make them eat their own words. It would remove their argument.
On principle it is getting permission to exercise a right, but that has gone out the door a long time ago. If you need a permit you are already getting permission. Background checks do sweet FA and takes a quiver out of the antigun chorus.
Trading favors? You would prostitute your cherished rights?
You’re getting close to understanding the felonious mind but not all the way there. Try to imagine that you desperately, more than anything else in the world, need a gun but cannot buy one, what would you do? I think I’d stalk parking lots looking for cars with gun related stickers and burglarize them. The penalty if caught is a joke if you’re a hard core criminal, and a few of these minor infractions should net a gun.
When taking what isn’t yours is second nature, when addled by drugs is your common condition, when desperation is a constant feature of your existence and when hurting others to get your way is acceptable behavior, nothing can be denied you except by force, passive in the case of gates and bars, or active in the case of being beaten or shot. Background checks are as much security theater as the TSA and other such crap. The simple fact is that an unscrupulous and determined person will persist in being a threat until met with force.
Fun little read. I’m on board with 1 and 2. No background checks ever. Constitutional carry everywhere.
Number 3 is more complex than that. You and I have the right (not the privilege) to bear arms. That is an inalienable right, a God-given right that no one can take away from us without due process. And therein lies the rub. Under due process, constitutionally AND logically your rights can be stripped from you. The right to bear arms is one of those right.
But this does not mean I agree wholeheartedly with the way this system works now. I think it must change, and this is how.
Felons should not automatically have their right to bear arms automatically stripped forever. That should be part of the sentencing. Example: “Mr. Smith is sentenced to 10 years in prison and his gun rights are stripped from him for 20 years.” The right to bear arms can be taken from you with due process, but it should be appropriate for each crimes. Some felons, like non-violent ones, may not need to have their gun rights taken away at all.
I agree wholeheartedly. I am a no, yes, qualified yes. Your comment makes perfect sense. Due process is exactly what the courts are supposed to be, and firearms rights are one of those that needs to be addressed in it.
Violent felons should be barred from firearm ownership via the courts for a minimum time frame after their incarceration is concluded. Nonviolent felons should not lose their rights to bear arms with the exception of the time they are incarcerated. I believe people who have committed violent crimes should be evaluated extensively on their mindset at the commission of the offense(s), post offense, and post incarceration, regardless of whether it’s a felony or not. Domestic abuse falls in that category for me, along the lines of abusers who have a history of said behavior, even though most of these charges are misdemeanors.
If you are not violent, or have been before (with the exception of heinous, aggravated and brutal crimes) and have proven to a reasonable jury or committee that you are no longer a threat, you should have your 2nd Amendment rights restored fully. No waiting period if there are some kind of check. Along those lines, those should be the only thing checked for by a background check. Make a federal list, easily accessible by FFL holders to verify whether said person is on said list, and punish both FFL holder if he sells anyway, and rights-restricted person for attempting while restricted, instead of never punishing those who violate the current background check laws.
I echo Paul’s comment.
We already restrict the rights of people who are convicted of crimes. It seems a bit odd to suggest that it’s acceptable to infringe upon their right to liberty (by locking them up) but that prison time must be the ONLY way their freedom can be restricted as part of a punishment.
I see no issue with having certain conditions placed on violent offenders upon their release. After a violent offense, a convict can have most or all of their rights restored after proving that he/she can live peacefully among his/her fellow men and women in society (a period of parole).
Someone who is upset at their neighbor and goes and shoots holes in the neighbor’s unoccupied car could end up with a felony conviction. I’m not convinced that “lock ’em up forever” or “give ’em back the guns immediately upon release” should be the only two options for that person (or other persons convicted of similar crimes).
No, Yes & Yes with restrictions (non violent only).
1. Yes, with qualifications. I’ll take the trade-off of a short wait at the counter if it means criminals have to go find what they can on the black market instead of getting whatever weapon they want, as soon as they want it. I don’t consider this a meaningful infringement.
2. Yes, without qualification.
3. Yes, with qualifications. I support restoring rights to felons, but with the use of parole and probation. Let there be a transition period between locking them up in a cage and a full restoration of rights. If they can behave, they get all their rights back after a while, if not, back to the slammer.
+1
Ok on the Background check, f-NO on the waiting period. It should take all of 10min.
It should not take longer to get a background check than does to get instant credit at a retail register.
For anyone who answers “yes” to Question 1, here’s something to ponder.
“And that’s – when you look at those two million initial denials, they were virtually all mistakes. Conservatively, you’re talking about at least 95% of those initial denials are mistakes. It’s probably over 99%
…
And, the problem with this debate is that people list out the possible benefits of background checks, so they really never seem to go out and check to see how it actually works. Because I think if they actually looked at the academic literature, they’d see that no one finds that there’re benefits from reduced crime – in terms of criminologist or economist have looked at it. And, if you actually look at the cases that they prosecute, they’re almost zero. In 2010, there was 76,000 initial denials. The government brought prosecution against 44 and won convictions in 13 of the 76,000 cases. That’s not 13,000; that’s not 1300. That’s 13 out of 76,000 initial denials.“
–John Lott, in his April 2013 Interview on Ballistic Radio (with my emphasis added)
Podcast Here:
http://ballisticradio.com/2013/04/15/podcast-ballistic-radio-episode-6-april-14-2013/
Transcript Here:
http://www.dsbscience.com/download/BR20130414_GunFreeZones.pdf
13 out of 76,000 as positive efficacy on background checks is pretty poor, especially considering the cost involved.
However, I do suppose having some efficient means to run for active felony warrants would not be a bad thing.
Excellent JR!
Thank you.
You are quite welcome. If you have not checked out the podcasts at Ballistic Radio, they are well worth the time.
Hope be able to link to more transcripts soon.
{Note: I’m not affiliated with Ballistic Radio…just a listener}.
So, background checks. We need a better background check than we currently have, but I still like the idea.
Which is why I believe they should not be opposed — the system is broken and will forever be broken and like all things big government will never ever be fixed and the ATF does not bother in most instances to even follow up on failed checks.
It is make believe and it eliminates an excuse for the antigun crowd. It would eliminate the rally cry of many antigun groups and many politicians.
I have a better idea…..make a law that all guns are colored pink. That way they will look less dangerous. You want security theater, why not make it epic? Or stop playing theatrics with rights.
As you pointed out, part of the reason for the low prosecution rate is that the vast majority of denials/delays are erroneous (There resides another problem, how is it that a data base returns incorrect information about a person in such a manner and so frequently? I use databases for large numbers of people and their information daily and never, never see such errors, not even once let alone 1000’s of times a year).
Background checks, or the threat of them might deter some felons from attempting to purchase firearms from an FFL, however, there are many more ways to obtain a firearm than through an FFL. In fact, if you’re of a criminal bent, stealing them is often a better choice than buying.
Show me one example of prohibition of anything working and I’ll reconsider my position, but I believe the fact to be that there simply is no way to prevent a determined person from obtaining common articles virtually at will. Mere possession of crack or heroin would constitute a felony and yet either or both can be had at will. Hint: ask the guy you get the dope from where you can score a firearm, I’ll bet he can help, since drug purchases are largely supported by theft and many drug dealers are also fences to some degree.
If I absolutely positively had to have a gun and couldn’t buy, borrow or beg one I can think of several sure ways to come up with one off the top of my head and I’m not an experienced criminal. Stalking parking lots looking to burglarize vehicles with gun related stickers comes to mind, as does loitering near a shooting range and following someone home, to wait until they leave again to burglarize the residence. Or, to make it even easier, how about randomly and serially burglarizing homes until a gun is found. If all you want is one gun you should be in and out in a couple of minutes, meaning you’d likely make it through dozens or scores of burglaries before caught, and surely you’d come up with a gun before you had to break into the 20th house.
It’s pure theater, this notion that by making it illegal one makes it impossible or even terribly difficult. It doesn’t matter what it is, prohibition doesn’t work, never has with anything ever and never will.
1. Yes, as it currently in states like Texas, where a background check is a five minute phone call, you’re good to go.
2. Yes.
3. Yes, if they have served their time and didn’t break their parole, proving themselves to be rehabilitated, they should enjoy their fully restored rights as a citizen.
That sounds like the Missouri background check. A quick phone call, maybe a minute and done.
In KS, you can forego the call if you have a CCL. I can pick out a firearm and walk out the door in under 5 minutes. Wish I could afford to do it more often.
Same in most states….if you bow and request to be privileged, you do not need to be treated like mere citizens.
Even in CT, unless it is around hunting season or Christmas, it is 5 or 10min at most and available for private transfers. Again, it is security theater.
No yes yes, I guess I am a gun “extremist”. Or maybe just someone who follows the constitution.
I would rather allow ex-cons to to have guns than prisoners to have cell phones and conjugal visits.
I would rather have insane people institutionalized than background checks.
Not having Constitutional carry is as ridiculous as needing a permit to say what I just said.
Then again…I might be an extremist.
I am a lesser extremist. I am in favor of some kind of background check system. I don’t think background checks are effective in stopping most felons from tooling up but it makes it harder and probably reduces their overall firepower.
I am also in Ralph’s camp on felons.
Don’t take this the wrong way, but infringing on the rights of the many to hopefully make it harder on a criminal few to accomplish their goals doesn’t sound like a very good idea to me. As for ‘firepower’ the once a year that the actual number of weapons used makes a difference in a crime is hardly worth even inconveniencing every gun buyer. Crime is generally committed with what is at hand and in an impulsive nature. The North Hollywood Shootout is famous exactly because it’s so incredibly rare. If you’re jacking a car, robbing a convenience store or shooting up a rival drug dealer from a moving vehicle and by surprise any old gun will do.
I guess I’m with Ralph on this.
Certainly we have a right to execute some kinds of criminals, and stripping those types of felons of their right to self-defense, is no different. But not all crimes deserve the death penalty, so neither do all need the suspension of the right to self defense.
Forgot to vote:
1. No. No one should ever need anyone’s permission to buy arms. I grew up in a time when you could buy a gun over-the-counter at almost any hardware store. Background Checks are only good for limiting competition.
2. Yes. No one should ever need anyone’s permission to bear arms. Anywhere, but especially publically owned facilities, bought and kept up by our own money.
3. Conditional. Certain felon’s should not be allowed weapons of any kind. Background checks will never keep them from getting guns, however, so arm yourself.
Seems to me you can’t say NO to the last one without saying NO to the first one. But more importantly…
I consider myself and gun-rights extremist, but I do have qualifiers for the last one. In effect I think non-violent felons should recover all rights upon serving their terms, and I believe violent felons should have access to due process for recovering their rights as well. While most violent felons ARE repeat offenders, some are not.
If we are willing to unconditionally abrogate the rights of some few to control some others, then there is no such thing as rights or freedom and any group with sufficient power is within their authority to do away with anyone’s rights as they see fit to.
EDIT: Seems to me you can’t say NO to the last one without saying YES to the first one. But more importantly…
Sure you can. If a violent felon is caught with a gun, he goes to jail. Period. Nobody has to wait until he actually uses the gun because possession is the crime, and it’s very easy to prove. You don’t need a background check for that.
What if he is caught with a pitchfork or a knife? Are those okay? You are putting the gun on a pedestal as if it is something special and is the only means of taking a life.
Ralph, I enjoy your wit and often agree with your positions but on this you’ve confused me. Do you really mean that in all cases no felon should ever have the RKBA again? The list of actions and conditions (and that is an important distinction) that are felonious in the US is so large and vague that virtually everyone has committed at least one felony, and some legal scholars suggest we commit several per day without ever knowing it. Even so-called ‘violent’ felonies are often questionable, particularly given the state of domestic abuse legislation in some locals. I fully believe that armed robbery ought to net a sentence of not less than 10 years actually served, on the other hand, I feel that once the sentence is served all disabilities ought to be lifted. As the slogan goes, safe enough to be on the street, safe enough to have a gun.
Addendum: If we sentenced appropriately for violent crimes there would be no need for add on charges like felon in possession. . . one ought to actually serve a sentence in accordance with the crime committed, not be blanketed with additional charges. That’s part of what is wrong with criminal justice as it is, this ‘throwing the book’ behavior in an attempt to cover the actual problem, sentences handed down and sentences served are often far to light for the crime committed.
You’ve nailed it, restricting the rights of the many and just to hopefully control the actions of the few and unjust is a horrible concept and not one apt to work anyway. Point in fact it’s not working for gun control now, just as no form of prohibition of objects/substances has never worked anywhere ever.
1. I’d like to have a free, fast, secure, publicly accessible system that would allow me to check if someone standing before me is a known felon or mental patient. That applies not only before I hand over a functioning firearm to them in my presence, but before I rent out real property to them, allow them to date my daughter, etc. I am not at all interested in what the civilian disarmament lobby proposes, which is basically nothing more than turning control of the secondary firearms market over to licensed manufacturers and retailers, burdens gun owners for burdens’ sake, and swell a tracing system that has never been useful for solving or preventing crime, and should be scrapped.
I’d like to have a free, fast, secure, publicly accessible system that would allow me to check if someone standing before me is a known felon or mental patient.
There are several online services that can do those things, and while they are not free, they are cheap. When you’re screening for your property or your offspring, the fee is worth it.
Right this very second we live in a country where a convicted felon can get a gun without a background check, permit, or waiting period and can carry it where he/she wants, all by breaking the law, something felons are already want to do. So how exactly does any of these laws that are “for the children” actually make us safer? How does putting up restrictions to legal purchase and carry of a firearm not make us less safe?
+1. Well said.
They don’t unless you live in a Disney resort. Which is what we’ve been saying all along.
How does putting up restrictions to legal purchase and carry of a firearm not make us less safe?
Felon in possession laws are easy to prosecute, and every violent felon in prison is a good thing.
But that’s still after the fact. It does not actually prevent jack squat.
And, if you have them for the ‘felon in possession,’ then you also have them for whatever the hell else they did (this time) – armed robbery, murder, whatever it is.
Felon in possession serves two purposes: gets you a conviction on something if the primary case is crap and / or helps at sentencing.
But at the end of the day, it’s as good an example of “fiat crime” as any other. It’s just one that happens to feel good since it’s sticking it to the bad guy.
Just beware those fiat crimes, because who is defined as “bad” gets mighty fluid.
I suppose there are some who are prevented from committing other crimes because they were incarcerated simply for being a felon in possession having been caught up in a traffic stop or some such other thing. On the other hand I don’t think the denial of rights and the infringement of both 2a and 4a is worth the minimal additional safety.
Given the option, I’ll allow everyone who wants one to have a gun and everyone to carry anywhere they felt like it. I’ll trust my skill and the assistance of other right minded people to deal with any threat that comes. If everyone carried all the time violent crime would necessarily be very, very low. Those who understood the risk wouldn’t risk it, those who did not would die off quickly.
Anything that makes it more difficult to keep and/or bear arms is inherently bad in my opinion. The couple of ‘bad guys’ it keeps disarmed is not worth the number of good guys it likewise keeps disarmed.
Simply by going armed we’re constantly confronted with the possibility of becoming felons by stepping over some arbitrary and imaginary line.
I cannot help but think of yesterday, when I went to vote. It’s a felony to carry into a polling place, thus I had to surrender my 2a rights temporarily so that I could exercise my right to vote. I dared not disobey the signs, since my 4a rights are so weak and tattered that I’m subject to search basically anytime a LEO chooses to conduct one. Perhaps I’m just anti-restriction of any right at this point. I’m good and truly tired of walking tight-ropes, where a fall equals prison time and permanent suspension of 2a rights, just because I’m exercising my 2a rights. Put simply:
LESS RESTRICTION GOOD! MORE RESTRICTION BAD!
+1000 Ardent. 🙂
Until they are released next month on good behavior and well educated on new skills they learned from the other inmates.
…….I don’t think felons should have firearms while in prison……
…..after they are released (i.e. “paid their debt to society”), it depends…..
…..they should have a path to regaining full ‘citizen’ status……..
……to condemn them (and the their families) to a lifetime of helplessness in the face of evil…..
…..well, that’s just cruel and unusual punishment……….
a lifetime of helplessness in the face of evil
Violent felons ARE the evil.
No, people who like to stretch the constitution into their desired meaning are “true evil”, Go look in the mirror.
*COUGH*
(baby eater)
*COUGH*
Baby eater? Look at this again in a few hours, when you sober up, then explain, ok?
Sorry for the poor attribution, Paul G. I was taunting Ralph, who sounds kind of like the antis’ image of the bloodthirsty gun owner caricature.
If you say yes to No. 3, then why would there be a reason for No1?
Current active warrants and maybe people out on bond awaiting trial, for example.
The question of ‘felons in possession’ generally refers to “convicted felons,” not people who have committed a felony but have not gotten caught or convicted yet.
The gun grabbers and, well, politicians in general, broad stroke the term “felon” so as to elicit an emotional response from their listeners. They often don’t even distinguish between “violent felons” and others.
Our side makes the distinctions. It merits separate debate to discuss “those with felony warrants” or “white collar felon,” etc.
Yet a “white collar felon” has likely destroyed more lives than your typical violent felon. But you want to arm the one who is truly destructive, go figure.
“But you want to arm the one who is truly destructive, go figure.”
I didn’t say I wanted to arm anyone. I merely wanted to point at that felon is a broad category; not all felons are the same or represent the same threat to society.
#1 Yes; no more than 3 day wait and no data on the firearm. Database deletion of the background check record if no ‘hits’ for disqualification.
No check required for private ownership transfer.
#2 Yes.
#3 Yes, upon successful completion of all sanctions, and a rigorous background check including current stability.
No – for any *violent* felony offenders, ever.
“.. no more than 3 day wait”
Why?
I’m not challenging your answer, I am asking how you came up with three as the top end? Why not 2, or 4? Why wait at all?
I was told in the army to lock up my wallet, watch, etc. Not that it would stop a thief, but it would stop a person from making that one second mistake of grabbing your stuff and becoming a thief. That’s how I feel about background checks. It won’t stop a criminal, but the time it takes, and just doing it could slow down a hot head from making a mistake he would regret the rest of his and maybe someone else’s life.
So, I take it then that you are in the “government’s job is to protect us from ourselves” camp? That’s a nanny state. Couldn’t that become benevolent (or not so) dictatorship or oligarchy? Is that a power granted government by the Constitution?
There are rights, then there are privileges. The 2a is a right merely recognized by the constitution and generally accepted to have existed before it and superior to it. To take this from someone, this natural right, is no small thing. The concept as it is, that every felon (with few small exceptions) faces a lifetime loss of a natural right is severely flawed. First we need to revamp what we consider a felony to be (Hint: drug possession and other victimless crimes ought not to be felonies), then we need a system by which due process is directly applied to the loss of natural rights. The default ought to be that every person ought to be able to exercise all of their natural rights and any deviation from the default ought to be rare and imposed only under egregious circumstances. I’m right on the edge of joining the camp that hold that if a person can’t be trusted with a firearm they can’t be trusted in society, period.
If you haven’t read my comment yet, perhaps it may help sway you over to the “extremist” camp, Ardent. 🙂
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/05/robert-farago/gun-extremist-answer-three-questions-find/#comment-1755039
I am an extremist, and no 12 step program can help that. I don’t get the “non-violent” only dogma. Describe violent? Murder? Rape? Punching a tree instead of a human? Breaking your pencil? Does “potentially violent” come next? Maybe someone who has blood pressure spikes when certain stimuli are applied? Bigots? Racists? Misogynists? Libertarians?….oops meant librarians, they are violent felons in sheep’s clothing, ya know. Why put people in prison to rehabilitate them if you don’t believe they can be rehabilitated? Or, why let them out?
Right now it is the definition of “infringed” that is short-changed. Allowing any wiggle room is guaranteeing that it will be exploited. When you start adding qualifiers to the ownership of rights, you create a lot of wiggle room for such exploitation. Nah, that would never happen.
Aye.
You’ve seen the slippery slope and decided to put up a guard rail to prevent anyone sliding down it, bravo!
no, yes, yes. I am a proud extremist.
No, Yes, Yes, (using the custodial rule.)
I like the often expressed thought “If you can’t be trusted with a gun, you can’t be trusted without a custodian.” What is a probation officer if not a court appointed custodian? They supervise felons, make sure they are following the rules, and have the power to send them back to prison if they break them. Sounds like a custodian to me.
Not all offenders on probation should be stripped of their 2A rights, however. If you’re a violent felon, you’ve showed we can’t trust you to not be violent. Tough shit for you. If you’re on probation for smoking reefer, we can’t trust you to not have the munchies, wear tie-dye, and listen to Phish. Pot smokers don’t get angry and shoot up the place, they giggle and eat Funyuns. Here’s your gat back. Beat up your mailman? No heater. Abscond with the petty cash? Mucho mohaskas por tu. (My Espanol sucks.)
In any event, once the probation period is over, so is the blaster ban. At that point, you’ve showed we CAN trust you again, so get strapped, yo.
1) Background checks? Was initially disturbed by Alan Gura’s “trade off” proposal, but it made me reflect. What if we had a universal NICS check that included NO info such as gun type or s/n? I might accept that sort of check – in exchange for national carry reciprocity.
2) Constitutional carry – yes, absolutely! (And yes, I recognize that CC makes the reciprocity issue rather moot.)
3) Non-violent felons? “No gun restrictions.”
4) Felons with history of violence…. “Sorry”. I side with that icon of common gunsense, the Ralphster.
“Common sense gun control”… where else do we gun owners hear this? 😉
Oh man! The most polite and non-controversial comment is also the most severe burn on this thread! Someone blast that guy with a fire extinguisher and call the Shriners, he needs to get to a burn unit ASAP.
I’ll say this once and I’ll say it clearly. The whole “if we can’t trust them with a gun then they should be in jail” is frankly some of the dumbest sh!t I’ve ever heard. I’m talking epic stupid. Here’s why:
1. Juries are largely compromised of morons. If you have not been personally victimized by this unfortunate reality, consider yourself lucky. The juries in LA are what I call “ambitiously stupid.” That’s several notches above your run of the mill continuous brainfart. Many who are arrested never do time, or are found innocent by jurors barely smart enough to fog a mirror. I’ve seen jurors fall asleep while I’m testifying in court. On an attempted murder case.
As in independent constitutional conservative and current police officer, no defense attorney will ever allow me to serve as a juror on their case. My stepfather who is an anatomy professor was also summarily disqualified. There just isn’t much room for independent thinking when serving as a juror.
2. Jails are overcrowded. Therefore, dirtbags get let out early. Most felons never serve their full sentences. We’ve seen guys let out of the back of the jail with their papers and court date before the arresting officer was even done with the booking paperwork.
3. Recidivism.
4. Medical / Emotional / Behavioural problems – the jail is a poor treatment center for the mentally ill. Hell, treatment centers specifically set up to treat mental illness are hit and miss. Even if doctors get the medications right, the patients still need to take their meds at the proper time and the proper dosage. Medical needs change over time. So also does recreational drug usage, which tends to do a fine job of scrambling brain chemistry. Try asking a few basic math questions to your local inner city transients.
5. There seems to be some sort of assumption that “the system” reliably locates, incarcerates, and prosecutes criminals. I can personally assure you that the criminal records system and the databases based thereupon are as fundamentally flawed as the NICS system. One of my blood samples “got lost” on a pretty young lady who got high and crashed hard into the back of an occupied Prius. The driver of the Prius was medically transported. The drunk had a lot of “friends” in the local police department. That sweet young thing had two prior DUI’s, but never got prosecuted from my arrest. It won’t be so funny if she crashes and kills someone on her next DUI.
Those who think that jail offers any sort of reliable, meaningful rehabilitation are frankly out of touch with reality. Otherwise, feel free to move next to a halfway house on the wrong side of town. I’ve been there, and I’ve volunteered at the Union Recsue Mission in downtown LA. One of the girls who came to help got cornered into a Starbucks where a local bum intimated her into buying $25 worth of coffee, food, and giftcards. I reimbursed that young girl who was not experienced with crime in the ghetto. Lesson learned.
Further, I have virtually zero interest in restoring the rights of violent felons. If a man cannot respect a woman’s right to chose a sexual partner than I don’t respect his 2A rights. If a child molestor can’t keep himself from attacking and traumatizing young children then I don’t care about his 2A rights. I’m not going to fight for the carjacker to get a CCW. We have no right to harm others except in legitimate self defense or to terminate criminal behavior. Psychopaths do not see the world as we do. To them the pain of others brings sick pleasure. I will not fight for the rights of psychopaths. I fully understand that they will get weapons regardless of the law, but I will not advocate for them one second. They are their own advocates, and will seek whatever macabre passions that pass into their troubled minds.
So I guess, according to RF’s logic, I’m not a gun rights advocate. That’s. bullsh!t.
End rant.
” Juries are largely compromised of morons” – that’s a funny typo!
If I spent my life in LA doing what you do, I’d probably agree with everything you said. Fortunately much of this country isn’t like LA……………..yet.
Regarding #1, Since my hair turned white (I became an official OFWG) I have been called in to serve twice and been selected zero.
Epic rant. Thank you brother and got your back 100%.
P$: to the poster who says everywhere is not LA you are missing the point: violent felon convicted by a jury…
My take is too bad u fvcked up but I wlll NEVER trust you nor turn my back kn you.
AND anyone who does trust a violent felon with a gun….well Darwins Law …
Sociopaths usually look like everyone else and can live anywhere and more often are charming and glib.
They need to be locked up until they are in Depends and drooling and then put out in the snow.
“does trust a violent felon with a gun”
If you are properly armed and trained in self-defense, there is no need to “trust” anyone with anything. If you are accosted by an armed bandit, and you successfully DGU, how can you tell if the bandit has a previous felony conviction on his record? And how would a law against it make any difference, since bandits by definition do not obey laws?
“Criminals, mental defectives, politicians!” I’m pretty sure most of the latter are covered under the two former.
That “violent felon” is a slippery-slope in that at any given moment, every person in the country is committing up to three felonies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXC3X4dbmpY
Three felonies is a stretch. Three malum prohibitum crimes? Sure, maybe. But violent felonies? I don’t think so.
3. Do you believe felons should be able to keep and bear arms?
If you answer yes without ANY qualifications . . . you might be a gun extremist.
I’d say the qualification that they can’t have guns while they’re in the system is acceptable (although the alternative would help keep the prison population down…).
For those who cringe in fear at the idea of released convicts having firearms:
There are two types of ex-cons: reformed, and simply released.
The reformed ones have seen the errors of their ways and are trustworthy, responsible citizens (this should be an important goal of incarceration, right after separating the dangerous from the responsible). These people have no higher probability of committing a violent crime than you or I (if they do, they’re not fully reformed yet).
The ones who leave prison with the same “ethics” that got them sent there in the first place are still dangerous. So why are they allowed out unsupervised anyway? They’re dangerous they should still be in the system, hopefully getting reformed.
I feel convicted violent criminals should go from being locked up or monitored 24 hours a day in a prison, to being released back into society with their full rights restored, through a series of steps. Each step should reward the convict for improved behavior and social productivity, by rewarding him with a greater degree of freedom. So someone who commits rape, which only comes with a few years in prison under the current system, would never get out if he never turns his life around.
There are two types of ex-cons: reformed, and simply released.
Violent felons are never reformed. They’re either committing crimes or between crimes.
I guess we should just shoot them instead of sentence them, since you obviously are the last word on the subject.
I will if they threaten my life. They are the reason I carry after all.
But reformed felons shouldn’t be allowed to worry for their well-being. Sounds very elitist.
Well, thankfully, they’re not yet allowed to roust you for crimes you haven’t committed yet.
If you own more than one gun, or a semiautomatic rifle, you are a gun extremist, with an arsenal. And, eat children.
1) No. Buying a gun is not illegal. Improperly using it is. Don’t make laws to protect laws. Background system could too easily be corrupted.
2) Yes, total.
3) Yes, though amended to being off probation. If they’re too dangerous to be a gun owner, they’re too dangerous to be free. Freedom is freedom, incarceration is incarceration.
“3) Yes, though amended to being off probation. If they’re too dangerous to be a gun owner, they’re too dangerous to be free. Freedom is freedom, incarceration is incarceration.”
I would expand on this and say that the right place to stop or prevent any person from misusing a gun is on the spot, by an armed would-be victim. Stats on DGUs are hard to come by because of the (I’m guessing) vast number that take place without a shot fired. The BG got chased away and no crime was committed, so nothing gets reported.
Agreed. I don’t like the idea of saying felons are barred from gun ownership, because what’s to keep the laws from all becoming felonies? Traffic ticket? Felony. Barred for life. It also puts the power in the courts to really judge punishment. Parole would ban gun ownership for the period. Once completed, transition to a truly free citizen would be finished. If an excon paid his debt, it should paid forever as long as he’s on the right side of the law, ie, restoration of all rights.
“If they’re too dangerous to be a gun owner, they’re too dangerous to be free.”
Yet they walk among us.
And most will commit dozens of crimes until they get caught again.
We all know that it’s not criminals next to us at the LGS counter buying guns. Criminals get guns illegally. We agree. Therefore, making laws barring felons from owning guns is the same as imposing a national background check system; it ain’t gonna stop the bad guys but will add a step to the good guys. If everybody’s armed, repeat offender felons will drop… one way or another.
Take it up with your judge and show up for jury duty.
Here’s a question that might make for an interesting topic on TTAG.
Assuming constitutional carry, does/should a property owner (ie business) have the RIGHT to bar gun owners entry? If so, what other constitutional rights are revoked upon entry? I’m balancing both arguments here. Could this be a dangerous precedent?
Yes, the property owner has the RIGHT to ban guns on his/her property.
There is no right to do whatever you want on someone else’s property. If you go to someone else’s property, you are agreeing to abide by whatever rules they set. If they don’t want guns on their property, it’s their choice.
I tend to agree. But by that logic, we also lose free speech, privacy, religion, etc. that’s where I’m getting hung up. I’m assuming all the bill of rights amendments are equal and tied together; you get one, you get all, and vice versa. And in that case, remember that the largest land/property owner in the country is the federal government.
Yes, a person can tell you what he does not want you to talk about in his home,be it politics, religion, race, whatever….his property, his rights. You are allowed by him to be there, it is not public domain.
Phil, The point you seem to be missing is, which side of the door is he on? Are you really this obtuse, or are you trolling?
[superfluous post withdrawn]
I’m asking a question for pure purpose of discussion. See my previous responses and posts on the trolling topic.
I’m all for property rights and the property owners being the law. But which has dominance; the bill of rights or property rights? I’d argue the bill of rights, since it governs the land of the property owner. Therefore by the transitive property, a property owner would (not should) have no say in allowing or disallowing guns on the premises. If you allow this person in your door, you must also allow all of their rights. You can bar entry to those people you wish, but they don’t lose their rights by crossing a property line. The reason I bring this up is by using the previously mentioned example of the right to free speech and to bear arms. If you walk into a liberals abode, it may not be proper to preach conservatism or libertarianism, but its certainly not illegal. And the reason I bring up the fed owning the most land, it’s a question about if we lose ALL our rights on federal land, and what’s to keep them from just buying more and limiting places where all of our rights exist?
I’m on your side bud; it’s just an honest discussion. I originally asked this so that maybe TTAG would explore it as its own topic.
“But which has dominance; the bill of rights or property rights?”
That question has no meaning. In case you’d care to actually read them, you’ll find that property rights are the foundation of Liberty; the Bill of Rights just codifies (and is supposed to) protect the most important of them.
It is illegal in a manner of speech. If he disagrees enough he can ask you to zip your lip. If you refuse, he asks you to leave. If you do not leave you are tresspassing. His property, his way.
Semantics. I get what you’re both saying. As a property owner, I think that takes precedent. I can invite people in or kick them out, but I can’t legally infringe on their personal rights while here. If I ask them to leave its now a separate issue of trespassing. Now, I can taylor my invites to those that will share beliefs and ideas, sure. But I think that while the bill of rights is numbered, they’re generally each equal in value. I’m questioning why it’s ok to remove one right without removing others? Why do we hear the media yap about gun control and not about free speech control. Or this is a privacy free zone, etc.
Kind of an interesting legal debate. I think we’re arguing about the same principle but from different angles.
In a society that is based on liberty, there is absolutely no conflict between the rights of free speech, bearing arms, & religion, and private property rights.
To make a long story short, the bill of rights does NOT dictate the behavior of individuals. It dictates the behavior of government. It says the government cannot restrict your speech, nor can it prevent you from practicing religion, nor infringe upon the RKBA.
Private property is an entirely different matter. In a free society, the owner of the property sets the rules. If you don’t like them, you leave, or else (as Paul G. pointed out) you are trespassing.
Freedom of speech means that the government can’t stop you from speaking. It doesn’t mean that a property owner can’t determine what is and is not spoken on their property. It doesn’t mean anyone is required to give you a microphone.
Freedom of religion means that government may not prohibit you from practicing religion (as well as the government not endorsing a specific religion). It does not mean that a property owner must give you a place to pray and/or worship.
The right to keep & bear arms means that the government can’t infringe upon that right. It doesn’t mean that any private individual or business should be forced to allow firearms on their property.
Private property is of paramount importance in a free society. Without it, a government can effectively control everyone and everything.
You, as a property owner, are NOT infringing on anyone’s rights by setting the rules for your property. It is effectively a form of a contract. You grant the visitors the privilege of visiting your property, and in return, they agree to abide by your rules while on your property. If they fail to abide by those rules, they’ve broken the contract.
In short, to repeat – there is no conflict of rights. Property rights do not trump the right to bear arms, nor does the right to bear arms trump property rights. If the rights were truly respected, then the government would neither dictate that you can’t bear arms nor dictate that a property owner must allow you to bear arms.
As for the media … they have their own agenda.
As for the largest land owner being the federal government, that is a separate issue. Yes, it is a problem. But it’s not relevant as far as the discussion of constitutional rights are concerned.
Well said chip, and agreed.
I think perhaps you’ve not thought this out. Private property rights and rights that exist or are restricted on public land are certainly two different spheres of concern. The basis of property rights verses personal rights is simply put: You have the right not to enter onto someone else’s private property, and they have the right to insist you behave in any manner they choose if you do, or else you can leave/be forced out.
Since your never legally required to enter onto the private property of another there is no standing for an argument about civil rights while on the property of another.
If business owners can restrict my 2A rights, why cant they also say “No gays or blacks” too? If you cant say “No Christians”, etc. Why can you say “No gun owners/carriers”?
I am speaking specifically to businesses vs private homes, as it is my understanding that when you open a business and allow the public in you lose the right to discriminate like that…why arent WE (The People of The Gun) protected from said discrimination like other groups?
Not trying to argue or be combative, just trying to understand where the line is.
I’ve been leaning that direction more and more but I’m not all the way there yet. I would rather see private property where the public is invited in to be left alone all the way around; i.e. they can discriminate. Did you ever hear Andrew Napolitano’s explanation during a FOX segment? His explanation moved me much closer to the “if businesses can’t discriminate based upon x, y, or z then it can’t discriminate against 2A.” Public accommodation…
http://youtu.be/GP1Wgkh5MeE
extremist.
For me, I don’t like background checks, but the fact is I’ve clearly accepted them as a part of doing business. I’ve never been overly inconvenienced by one, and with my CCW, I’ve never had to actually wait to walk out with a purchase.
I don’t know that ivy ever actually had to pay for one, either, other than in getting my license.
A simple go/no go system of calling in with a drivers license, like we do with CCW, should be all that’s needed. I wouldn’t even be all that averse to that kind of thing being available for private sale, though making it mandatory would be a mistake.
A simple money/gun transfer is all that is really needed.
All prisoners are felons, but all felons are not prisoners.
A yes to question 3 would allow prisoners to have guns.
(Before you comment, remember there is difference between jail and prison)
1 – NO
2 – YES
3 – YES…in a more perfect world where violent felons (murder, rape, child molestation, kidnapping with injury, battery with injury…anything else?) really do get executed or go to jail for-really-real-damn-ever and we clean up our criminal codes so nonviolent “offenders” (drug possession, prostitution…anything else?) are not taking up space in our prisons. But until we get there…NO. Violent felons should have their gun rights permanently stripped at sentencing. If they subsequently are found to be in possession of a firearm following their release, back to the slammer they go. However, with reference to Question 1, I am not about to advocate that the rest of us have our rights infringed or even inconvenienced to any degree with BGCs in a vain attempt to keep such possession from occurring.
All that these answers do is prove that the anti-gun propaganda campaign and push for “reasonable compromise” is doing the job expected of it. Like water eroding rock to form a canyon, we are seeing the slow inroads of erosion of our rights being planted in the heads of otherwise sane pro-gun persons.
Just think, our children’s children may be claiming “You will take my permit-owned and power-regulated single shot pellet gun when you ASK ME NICELY!.” And by God, they will mean it!!
Well said.
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at that, but it’s one heck of a good comment. The 2a does say ‘shall not be infringed’, I think we should take that at it’s plain meaning. There are all sorts of other ways to deal with violent felons and others that don’t include infringing on everyone else’s rights.
The felony question is a good one. We used to put felons to death, so letting them live but without some rights (voting, guns, etc) is where we are now. The problem of course is that we’ve made too many crimes felonies. It’s too easy to become a felon now, and the strict penalties no longer fit the crimes. I don’t get heartbroken over a serial killer not having access to firearms, but a guy who sells the wrong kind of lobster over the wrong state line? It’s absurd to call that person a felon and/or penalize him in the same manner.
When was a felony conviction an automatic death sentence? Has to be pre-feudalism.
No, yes, yes, hmm, extremist, yep. Now we have cleared that up let’s talk about the first, fourth and tenth Amendments. This is fun, it could be catching, I think we could reduce crime, help State rights and do a bunch of good stuff, how about that. Oh and tell the BLM about article 15, where it says that the federal government cannot own land, yep. We’re on our way.
Where oh where, may I ask, is this “Article XV” you speak of? There are only seven Articles following the Preamble, and then there are the Amendments.
Article I, Section 8 has the 18 Enumerated Powers, if that’s any help.
Just saying more things are a felony these days. That being said it warrers down the word. If the public isn’t safe with that person being an active participent of the public then that person should be executed. That would end the debate point and case made.
I believe that everyone should have the right to open carry. For concealed carry, I am in favor of a full and complete background check, and training. Once a person completes those criteria, they should be able to go any where with their weapon. No police officer should be allowed to take it from them unless they have committed a serious crime.
They should be allowed to carry on any aircraft,bus boat or train as long as they inform the Captain or supervising crew member of their carry, and permission to board cannot be denied. Those people provide a buffer against hijackers that the air marshals cannot provide. If you have never seen an air marshal, they stick out like a Norwegian at a black panther party. Kinda like the tailor who designed a lavish outfit for a king, then commented that they were a wonderful uniform for the palace guards. To which the king replied, these are for my spies.
You believe that having ~40 square inches of fabric under one’s gun is fine, but those same ~40 square inches of fabric on top of one’s gun should be criminalized?
I do not see the logic in your position. The simple act of carrying a gun harms no one, whether it’s covered or not.
The gun control advocates can kiss my rebel dick…….I am a FREE AMERICAN CITIZEN and I LAY CLAIM TO MY INDIVIDUAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, MY RIGHTS DUE NOT BELONG TO ANYONE ELSE PERIOD!!!!! Rights are not a collective issue, this Country, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are about the INDIVIDUAL Not the community at large!!!! Anyone notice that the larger a community/collective gets the more stupid “it” becomes.
Take your “extremists” label and stick it….. I am tired of their BS nonsense!
Be Safe!!!!!!
Thank you Doc!
I believe in background checks, but ONLY if you only need to do it once! There should be a system in place at the state agency that will automatically send an “all clear” signal to the dealer if nothing has been reported. There would be no voice intervention and cost should be minimal.
This system would be similar to your drivers license. You don’t have to take a drivers test every time you go on a trip, why should you have to pay a fee and wait, every time you buy a gun?
I shudder when I think about how much I have paid in fees over the years, probably enough to buy a new bench rest rifle complete with scope and ammo, and of course, back ground check fee!
Waddaya know? I’m a gun extremist. I don’t think of myself that way, but this quiz is obviously very scientific so there you have it. You know what? I’m okay with that.
1. Do you support background checks for firearms purchases?
No.
The National Instant Check System is hopelessly broken and generates an untold number of “false positives”, for which the FBI “conveniently” doesn’t keep any statistics on. No one is being held responsible for the non-submittal of records, and it’s hopelessly behind the curve in data entry anyway. For an example, the state of Maryland has contributed a grand total of six records to the NICS in totality. This includes criminal and psychological adjudications in the program’s entire 20-year history. Every effort to make it smoother, easier, and less burdensome has been summarily shot down by shrill outcry from the obstructionist civilian disarmament industrial complex. Funny how they constant piss and moan about wanting to fix it, then purposefully blocking any and all efforts to do so. Add to that the fact that psychiatry itself is, as any medical professional in the field worth their salt will tell you, is still far from an exact science despite how far we’ve come from the days of Sigmund Freud. Who gets to determine the definition of “mentally defective”? If found to be, how does a court make a carefully measured decision that is properly weighed against the presumed defendant’s civil rights? What circumstances would even trigger a court case against them, especially if they’ve yet to commit a crime? Oh, and let’s not even get into how irrecoverably screwed up our health care system is, and just how desperately under-equipped and ill-prepared and dare I say even generally unwilling to comprehensively and compassionately care for the mentally ill in any form or fashion. All of these issues and more will have to addressed before the rest of us sane people can even begin talking about background checks again with a straight face, with “sane” being the descriptor for anyone who isn’t a gun control advocate.
2. Do you support Constitutional Carry?
Yes.
Every valid scientific study says that concealed-carry permit holders are, generally speaking anyway, statistically more well-behaved than the general populace — and orders of magnitude more law-abiding than your average beat cop. What, if anything, would cause this track record to change with the removal of any permitting scheme — or, hell, even the insertion of any permitting scheme for that matter? That was the kind of argument that the obstructionist civilian disarmament industrial complex used to try and stop the institution of concealed-carry laws in the 1980s. Suffice it to say that, by all empirical measurements, their unsubstantiated fears of the return of the ‘Old West’ and ‘O.K. Corral’ shootouts on every street corner over every petty and menial affront never materialized. That being said, the removal of such a permitting system would be equally uneventful, ceteris paribus, and has been in the handful of states that have already done so. It is absolutely nobody else’s business to know whether anyone else even owns a gun of any kind, much less the accessories and ammunition bought alongside it, let alone who is carrying one whether openly or concealed in any configuration. No one can rightly articulate why exactly its mere presence constitutes an imminent threat, and that is precisely because it doesn’t. It is no more a threat to anybody than any other inanimate object, whether it be a hammer, a pencil, or a shovel. It is not cognizant, nor possesses any sentience, self-awareness, or Free Will of its own. It does not and cannot in itself in its mere presence or even in carrying it enable, disable, motivate, captivate, or force anyone into or out of thinking or doing anything. To ascribe such absolute power to an inanimate object only demonstrates a rote and willful misunderstanding and ignorance of it. Its purpose is immaterial and always will be, as it serves whatever purpose its wielder has for it. Therefore, it is solely and inextricably within the purview of its operator to refrain from using it to violate the lives, liberty, and properties of their fellow citizens and no one else. Especially not the government. Should it happen, the government has repeatedly held itself to be beyond any responsibility to provide personal protection to anyone from those that do. Therefore, it can only be said that the individual citizen alone is entirely responsible for being able to defend themselves until help arrives — should it even arrive at all.
Sometimes it doesn’t.
3. Do you believe felons should be able to keep and bear arms?
Yes.
Given that almost half of all convicts are incarcerated on non-violent drug offenses, it assumes that these people did not or at least never intended to inflict physical or psychological harm on anyone. Also given that upwards of half of all convicts have (or may even acquire while incarcerated) some form of mental or emotional illness of some kind, it begs the question of whether these people need proper, compassionate psychiatric care rather than being housed in a system that will only teach them to be better criminals. It is arguably a gross violation of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which expressly forbids “ex post facto laws”, which retroactively change the legal consequences and even the status of actions that were committed or relationships that existed before the enactment of a law. Once a convict is released from prison, they are considered (legally speaking anyway) to be rehabilitated. If they are truly rehabilitated, why then must we be still concerned with their behavior before they re-offend? It could very well be argued that the continued denial of rights after release, having paid their debt to society, amounts to a presumption of guilt until their innocence is proven. This is the polar opposite of the “innocent until proven guilty” mantra that many academics and indeed the citizenry presently claim as the foundation of our justice system. There are mechanisms available for the restoration of rights (contrived and burdensome though they are) in only in some states, which itself arguably leaves an impermissible gap in the equal protection of civil rights supposedly guaranteed to all citizens under the Privilege and Immunities, Due Process, and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This also flies in the face of fact that, upon release, a now-prior convict is in the natural sense (as opposed to the legal) every way a free and equal citizen. If they are not, then they must be guilty of something still, and should still be paying their debt to society in prison.
If love of individual liberty in all things under all circumstances and being a proud and unapologetic defender of it makes me an “extremist”, I certainly don’t want to be anything less.
But, that’s just me, right?
Seconded
An excellent exposition on all three points! Well thought and well stated. Thanks for this.
Some folks here seem to be jumping to unwarranted conclusions.
Supporting restrictions on firearms possession/carry by convicted violent felons DOES NOT require background checks.
Background checks are, in theory, an attempt to prevent a crime (a prohibited person from obtaining a firearm). There are two major problems: (1) they don’t work well, and (2) they are open to massive governmental abuse.
Background checks may redirect a criminal’s efforts towards obtaining a firearm, but that doesn’t mean they’ll be stopped. They inconvenience responsible people who attempt to purchase guns, and this could be a life-threatening problem if the purchase is in response to a specific threat. Too often they stop people from making purchases who should not be stopped. They enable the creation of a gun registry, which could be used for confiscation purposes. They increase the cost of firearms because of the additional required work by the gun seller and the government bureaucracy. They do very little good and a fair bit of harm.
If a violent felon is conditionally released, and one of those conditions is that for a certain duration he/she is prohibited from owning or carrying firearms, then that affects only the convicted person. For a prosecutor/parole officer to prove that a convict has violated the conditions of his/her release, there are methods other than background checks that can be used, including photography, video recordings, witness testimony, lawful searches, etc. None of these methods would interfere with the RKBA of anyone else.
Background checks interfere with everyone’s RKBA, regardless of whether or not they have committed a crime, and therefore they are not acceptable if the RKBA is a right that must be protected.
I guess I’m an extremist. Oh well I’ve been called worse…
Who actually made-up these questions? Some gun-grabber? RF?
If the former, let me just inform you that you can take your sleazy little questionnaire and shove it up your bodily orifice of choice. I absolutely refuse to play along with your pseudo-cunning ploy to get me to help you label, brand or stereotype me in a fashion you can use to facilitate your agenda to disarm me and infringe my right to Keep and Bear Arms any further than you already have. So, kindly go f**k yourself!
If the latter. I will presume this was concocted for “entertainment purposes”, and still, politely however, decline to answer. There has been much ado here on TTAG about not giving the gun-grabbers stuff they can use against us, or to cite as examples of how terrible we are, so, I won’t play along for that reason, either.
To those of you who did answer, please do not infer any condemnation or criticism. I am just voicing my “gut level” reaction to this piece (and I did read the comments). So, no offense intended.
Obviously a gun grabber made them up. And then added end points. I could have made up my own end point names I guess, if it makes us feel better. Depending on how we answer we’re either Constitutional or Retarded. Ah… That’s better!
Listen to this; it’s a great indication of where we will be if worst comes to worst. Some of it might even be prophetic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXIJRtlNiPs
Oh shit… I’m an extremist! 😀
But we already knew that, didn’t we? 😉
Ordinary crime aside for a minute… government can not be granted the power to decide who can be armed and who cannot in free society. If government possesses that privilege then Liberty is always in mortal danger as government would continually strive to weaken the militia. It’s plainly stated in the Second Amendment. Hunting, target shooting, and self defense would’ve been commonplace usage for those involved in the creation of the Constitution. Such things would little require enumeration in such a document. However, the revolutionary thing was that a free people possess arms and the skill to use them in defense of their own Liberty from enemies foreign and domestic. They knew very well that if government were granted the power to regulate who in free society could or could not keep and bear arms then government could and would seek to weaken that which stood in the way of increased government power. Unlike a monarch, who may or may not posses a conscience, types of government such as ours aren’t headed by one person or small group of persons so our government can’t possibly have a conscience. Government tyranny is the ultimate crime and it is crime on a grand scale. This is precisely why government shall not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms: it is necessary to the security of a free state. Without plain language, to-the letter adherence to, by government, the Second Amendment is pointless.
There is a balance, however. Laws against ordinary self defense are contrary to Liberty, security, and a free state. The jury pool (grand, criminal, and civil) ought be publicly educated to the notion that the balance to shall not be infringed is that the individual accused must be given benefit of the doubt, reasonable doubt, and be considered innocent until proven guilty. This is where that balance against the danger of a violent felon re-offending lies and not in government infringement upon the individual right to keep and bear arms.
Today, our nation has thrown that balance out of whack. What we see is rampant crime in some parts of our nation and government tyranny rising on a scale never before seen in America. This is because we have ignored the admonishment, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I guess I’m not as much of an extremist as I thought since I added a qualifier to #3: Do I believe that felons should be able to keep and bear arms? Yes, but only once they are out of prison.
Funny, I don’t feel wishy-washy . . .
“Shall not be infringed” should be the only law. If a convicted felon completes his sentence then he immediately gains back ALL of his rights. The only problem then is; who determines what constitutes a felony and what is the appropriate sentence?
1. Do you support background checks for firearms purchases?
Frankly, the rational provided against back ground checks in this article is debate failure of the highest order.
-Do they stop criminals from getting ahold of firearms?
Yes. Through that channel of distribution. Just because a policy doesn’t provide 100% proof against an activity doesn’t mean there isn’t some inherant value therein. At very least, a background check presents a minimum bar for the purchase of a firearm and thus deterent. Sure, criminals can get guns, but not through the most commonly available channel and thus as easy as it potentially would be.
-Do they transform a right into a privilege?
No. At least not any more so than a person denied their rights because of legitimate criminal activity. Of course, this can be abused to deny the average citizen their rights and then turned into privilage, but that’s less a function of the check and more of an offical abusing this system to further an agenda. This article now confuses a deterant mechanism with organizational corruption. A gun is merely a tool, as is a background check. How it is then used is another story entirely.
My personal opinion doesn’t fall along these lines, however. I allude to it in the second point, in fact. i’m fine with setting a minimum bar for firearms ownership just like I’m fine with a minimum bar to driving a car on the roads, but that is not to say i trust those managing the system that determines said eldgability, it’s ability to perform or security from extra circicular activities, such as NSA database building.
Can a background check be used for all the nefarious things the article suggests? Sure it can! Just this particular sound bite goes about proving its point with all the ineffectual grace of a ham-fisted gorilla.
“-Do they transform a right into a privilege?
No. At least not any more so than a person denied their rights because of legitimate criminal activity.”
Not so fast. The last time I checked, the 2nd Amendment says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”, not “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed except in case of legitimate criminal activity.”
Now that is a fail, Snozzallos. I think you just failed your background check for exercise of first amendment rights, sorry.
No. Yes. Yes.
I trust the violent felon more with a gun than the government.
At least the felon is honest with his intentions and I can deal with him. Can’t say that I can with the latter unless I too become a felon especially with the slippery slope being a real thing and the government’s never – ending lust for power.
Yes, kinda (concealed, i’m sorry but you open carry guys are crazy IMO), and no. I still like guns though.
“Lock violent bad guys up for life?”
Yeah, no. If you’re going to take someone’s life nut up and shoot them in the head. In fact march them out to the prison cemetery while the backhoe is digging their hole, kneel them in front of it, one frangible to the back of the head, dump body in hole, cover with dirt. then garnish with headstone listing their conviction and plant a tree so that they can at least provide fertilizer for something that produces oxygen.
Comments are closed.