In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Gun Control agreement...
Highball
Member Posts: 15,755
A topic over on General Discussion merits a look-see for opinions of posters not generally seen over here.
"What gun control do YOU agree with ?"
I would ask you to take a look, if you haven't seen it...I am amazed that it hasen't been poofed by the drop-in moderator over there.
Politically incorrect, some of it, don't you know....
Locust Fork expressed an opinion..(actually, facts)..that should have many men looking to their hole cards....
"What gun control do YOU agree with ?"
I would ask you to take a look, if you haven't seen it...I am amazed that it hasen't been poofed by the drop-in moderator over there.
Politically incorrect, some of it, don't you know....
Locust Fork expressed an opinion..(actually, facts)..that should have many men looking to their hole cards....
Comments
As you and many others have said, most gun-owners believe in some form of gun control. I myself have professed many forms over the years that I consider acceptable.
However, I find I grow less and less confident with the ability of a government (local, state, or federal) to administer even the most common sense of gun laws.
I recall you and TR Fox once had a discussion about putting firearms in vending machines. It seemed humorous at the time, but the more I have thought about it, that would indeed be the purest implementation of uninfriged gun ownership.
But I still find it difficult to leap the mental chasm and embrace the idea of a purely unrestricted gun-owning society. I conceed that YES, that would be the purest manifestation of the 2nd Amendment. In fact, REQUIRING ALL PERSONS to possess a firearm in their home would be the truest form of the Founding Father's intention.
Alas, I still have difficulty with the concept of selling a firearm without three basic background checks: 1) a check for U.S. citizenship; 2) a check that the buyer is at least age 18; and 3) a check for violent felony convictions.
To clarify these positions, I think there must be some easy, unintrusive way to prove citizenship when buying a gun. We should not allow armed foreign nationals in our country as a rule. I also believe that minors (non-emancipated) should have parental consent before they are allowed to buy a firearm. I strongly believe that a parent (even a raving liberal parent) has the right to control what things their child is exposed to. If we are going to hold parents criminally and civily accountable for the actions of their minor children, then they need to have that level of control over those children.
As for the violent felons, I think this is common sense. However, the problem I have is that their is not common definition to the term "violent felon". In most states, a felony is a felony, regardless of the degree of violence. I think if there could be some consistent measure of what a convicted violent felon is (muderers and rapists certainly), then we should definitely have a mechanism for identifying these people if they try to purchase a firearm. But Highball, I also agree with your basic premise that these people should not be roaming the streets to buy a gun in the first place.
I also struggle with the idea of teachers being armed in the classroom. I like to think that I can at least control over which environments my child is exposed (perhaps a false hope), especially when the government REQUIRES my child to be in those environments. Yet, I also understand that a teacher entering a potentially violent workplace should have just as much right to be armed as anyone. I struggle with this issue a lot in my mind. In fact, a politician in my state may introduce a bill in the state legislature allowing teachers to arm themselves in my classroom. I find myself actually inclined to support that legislation, despite my past comments opposing the idea.
I have shared my opinions on the issue here, in this forum, as I know they will be taken with much more thoughtfulness and invoke much more constructive discourse than the discussion in the General forum.
-Wolf
Have a list of SSN's or something that everyone has. The only way your name ends up on this list is for a violent felony, and if you present your SSN (or whatever) and your number shows up on the list, your purchase is denied.
No phone calls. No 4473's, and no more bureaucratic BS.
Alright, WW. I have an idea that might be WW approved.
Have a list of SSN's or something that everyone has. The only way your name ends up on this list is for a violent felony, and if you present your SSN (or whatever) and your number shows up on the list, your purchase is denied.
No phone calls. No 4473's, and no more bureaucratic BS.
OK, that is good and could work. But add having been declared mentally incompetent.
quote:Originally posted by gunphreak
Alright, WW. I have an idea that might be WW approved.
Have a list of SSN's or something that everyone has. The only way your name ends up on this list is for a violent felony, and if you present your SSN (or whatever) and your number shows up on the list, your purchase is denied.
No phone calls. No 4473's, and no more bureaucratic BS.
Uhh, fox. This was a thought, not a plan.
OK, that is good and could work. But add having been declared mentally incompetent.
TR, the issue I have with this is who will determine "mental incompotence"? A fringe psychologist could deem a fascination with firearms as mental incompotence. An example, my brother is a very responsible gun owner, but has also dealt with anxiety and depression for several years, even being medicated for those ailments. Some may consider that as a sign of mental incompotence, yet he has never broken a law in his life, makes a very good living, and is an all-around upstanding citizen.
Granting the government the power to determing mental incompotence could be a very dangerous move.
quote:Have a list of SSN's or something that everyone has. The only way your name ends up on this list is for a violent felony, and if you present your SSN (or whatever) and your number shows up on the list, your purchase is denied.
No phone calls. No 4473's, and no more bureaucratic BS.
Gunpreak, I think there are ways to unintrusively and anonimously check for citizenship, age, and criminal record, without retaining any record of those searches or connecting them to a firearms purchase. It sounds like you would be receptive to this idea, as you have already outlined the basis for such a system. But I do have to recognize that Highball is correct, this is still a form of infringement. I suppose I can only justify this by hoping such a system would still honor the "spirit" of the 2nd Amendment while recognizing our modern reality. For some reason, typing that last sentence makes me feel unclean.
-WW
Oh, and fox, allow me to add to the list something I forgot.
Have a list of SSN's or something that everyone has. The only way your name ends up on this list is for a violent felony, and if you present your SSN (or whatever) and your number shows up on the list, your purchase is denied.
...but this list is good for any firearm or piece of now-restricted hardware, including, but not limited to short-barreled rifles and shotguns, fully automatic rifles and pistols, and suppressors.
Mental incompetence is not an issue, since anyone who is truly 'mentally incompetent' will be held in an institution to assist him or her with such trouble, but upon release, will regain competent status, once more.
No phone calls. No 4473's, and no more bureaucratic BS.
If an individual needs prescribed medication SPECIFICALLY to understand right from wrong, or to not hear voices in his or her head, or to exist as only one personality, or to not feel terrified, threatened and pursued by others (paranoid), or to understand the basic concept of legal versus illegal, or to ascertain reality from fantasy or to comprehend the finality of death, then is it reasonable and prudent for us as a society to ensure that guns do not legally come into that individual's hands?
Without taking that necessary medication - for whatever the reason - and with a gun in his or her possession, that same individual may end up hurting or killing himself (herself) by suicide or another and/or getting killed in turn by the police.
Do we NOT as a society have the moral, ethical and higher obligation to prevent - as much as is practical and possible - that from happening? I personally maintain that we do, that we must.
Without the necessary prescribed medication, that same individual cannot make valid, legal and binding judgements and decisions. A gun restriction - based upon the specific criteria I outlined - has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Constitutionality, Rights, Big Brother, etc., IMO.
I personally believe that morality and ethics supercede any perceived right in that instance. We as a society simply cannot be sideline enablers and merely hope for the best in a potentially bad situation.
quote:OK, that is good and could work. But add having been declared mentally incompetent.
TR, the issue I have with this is who will determine "mental incompotence"? A fringe psychologist could deem a fascination with firearms as mental incompotence. An example, my brother is a very responsible gun owner, but has also dealt with anxiety and depression for several years, even being medicated for those ailments. Some may consider that as a sign of mental incompotence, yet he has never broken a law in his life, makes a very good living, and is an all-around upstanding citizen.
Granting the government the power to determing mental incompotence could be a very dangerous move.
quote:Have a list of SSN's or something that everyone has. The only way your name ends up on this list is for a violent felony, and if you present your SSN (or whatever) and your number shows up on the list, your purchase is denied.
No phone calls. No 4473's, and no more bureaucratic BS.
Gunpreak, I think there are ways to unintrusively and anonimously check for citizenship, age, and criminal record, without retaining any record of those searches or connecting them to a firearms purchase. It sounds like you would be receptive to this idea, as you have already outlined the basis for such a system. But I do have to recognize that Highball is correct, this is still a form of infringement. I suppose I can only justify this by hoping such a system would still honor the "spirit" of the 2nd Amendment while recognizing our modern reality. For some reason, typing that last sentence makes me feel unclean.
-WW
In red above. Well, sure. But to a degree the same question can be asked about who will declare that a given person is guilty of or has committed a violent felony? The answer of course is that person has been found guilty by a jury of his peers. Or, in the case of being found guilty just and solely by a judge, the actions that the person has been established to have committed have been published well in advance as such actions being classifyied as a violent felony if and when committed.
So in that regard, if handled properly, only citizens who truly are mentally incompentent would be so classified.
1. That this mentally unstable person would have no history of violence (a clean criminal record) until they suddenly get a firearm in their hands.
2. That a severely disturbed person would be able to retain enough mental faculty to acquire the money to purchase a firearm, transport themselves to the gun shop, and then calmy conduct a transaction with the gun dealer.
I agree with Gunphreak on this one. If a person is truly that disturbed then they should be institutionalized. Otherwise, they will probably have some history of violent behavior that would appear on a criminal background check.
I think we also have to consider the right of the gun dealer to refuse to do business with these types of people, just as a bartender has the right to refuse service to someone who has obviously had way too much to drink.
-WW
I find two flaws in the mental incompotence scenario:
1. That this mentally unstable person would have no history of violence (a clean criminal record) until they suddenly get a firearm in their hands.
2. That a severely disturbed person would be able to retain enough mental faculty to acquire the money to purchase a firearm, transport themselves to the gun shop, and then calmy conduct a transaction with the gun dealer.
I agree with Gunphreak on this one. If a person is truly that disturbed then they should be institutionalized. Otherwise, they will probably have some history of violent behavior that would appear on a criminal background check.
I think we also have to consider the right of the gun dealer to refuse to do business with these types of people, just as a bartender has the right to refuse service to someone who has obviously had way too much to drink.
-WW
Finally!!! Someone who gets it!!
A year ago, I would have never suspected WW being the one who did get it! In this respect, you have learned many things, and you should be commended for it.
I find two flaws in the mental incompotence scenario:
1. That this mentally unstable person would have no history of violence (a clean criminal record) until they suddenly get a firearm in their hands.
2. That a severely disturbed person would be able to retain enough mental faculty to acquire the money to purchase a firearm, transport themselves to the gun shop, and then calmy conduct a transaction with the gun dealer.
I agree with Gunphreak on this one. If a person is truly that disturbed then they should be institutionalized. Otherwise, they will probably have some history of violent behavior that would appear on a criminal background check.
I think we also have to consider the right of the gun dealer to refuse to do business with these types of people, just as a bartender has the right to refuse service to someone who has obviously had way too much to drink.
-WW
You are making it way too black and white. Life is rarely like that. Sure there are mentally disturbed people who, the minute you encounter them, you and everyone else knows that person is mentally disturbed. Yet there are other people are are severely mentally disturbed and often times people who first enounter them judge those disturbed persons as being entirely normal. Many of such disturbed people reach adulthood without creating a violent criminal record for themselves. One reason for such a lack of a record is that as various people (neighbors, relatives, police, health care workers, etc) come into contact in an unpleasant manner with the mentally disturbed person, and when such people realize that the person is mentally disturbed, then often times any thought of putting that mentally disturbed into the crimnal justice system (arrest, trial, prison, etc) are rejected and the mentally disturbed person is instead handled in a kinder and gentler manner.
Until things get worse than they are now, if three unassociated physicians or a jury of the disturbed person's peers declares a particular person as being dangerously mentally disturbed, then I am willing to believe it. And such a person should not have a firearm or any items that can easily cause death or injury; either to themselves or to others. This means a knife, car, baseball bat, medication, etc.
Ever hear of the law on natural selection?
The only way a mentally disturbed person can be taken care of is of his own will (which means going some place like an institution) or if, when he snaps and does something rash that he is taken down by equally armed citizens or other persons placed in security of others.
Too often we get the idea that it is all about saving lives being the key thing, but really, when someone gets out of line in a free society, he should be killed.
Hey fox;
Ever hear of the law on natural selection?
The only way a mentally disturbed person can be taken care of is of his own will (which means going some place like an institution) or if, when he snaps and does something rash that he is taken down by equally armed citizens or other persons placed in security of others.
Too often we get the idea that it is all about saving lives being the key thing, but really, when someone gets out of line in a free society, he should be killed.
Everyone has heard of the above law. However, when humans left the jungle and created a fairly civilized society, those humans abandoned several such natural "laws". One law we abandoned was that only the strong survive. I myself like that change more and more as I get older and older and less and less "strong."
Another law we humans abandoned was the law that the physically strongest and/or the largest pack shall rule.
Another law we abandoned was the law that whomever has possession of it owns it.
And on and on.
So in that regard, your trying to introduce the concept of the law of "natural selection" into a gun control discussion has little merit.
Hey fox;
Ever hear of the law on natural selection?
The only way a mentally disturbed person can be taken care of is of his own will (which means going some place like an institution) or if, when he snaps and does something rash that he is taken down by equally armed citizens or other persons placed in security of others.
Too often we get the idea that it is all about saving lives being the key thing, but really, when someone gets out of line in a free society, he should be killed.
Gunphreak, what criteria do you yourself presently use to determine what "out of line" means? And exactly who gets to decide who is "out of line", with summary execution your recommended course of action? Based upon your comment, it seems as though you espouse a systematic "cleansing" of society. And, I don't believe that you actually mean that. Not a jab here, just an observation.
quote:Originally posted by gunphreak
Hey fox;
Ever hear of the law on natural selection?
The only way a mentally disturbed person can be taken care of is of his own will (which means going some place like an institution) or if, when he snaps and does something rash that he is taken down by equally armed citizens or other persons placed in security of others.
Too often we get the idea that it is all about saving lives being the key thing, but really, when someone gets out of line in a free society, he should be killed.
Everyone has heard of the above law. However, when humans left the jungle and created a fairly civilized society, those humans abandoned several such natural "laws". One law we abandoned was that only the strong survive. I myself like that change more and more as I get older and older and less and less "strong."
Why does this concern you when you possess an equalizer? And keep in mind, the so-called "normal" person has abandoned this law, not the predators of society. It actually emboldens them to know their prey may not fight back, thanks to the aboandoning of a natural law.
Another law we humans abandoned was the law that the physically strongest and/or the largest pack shall rule.
Another point of BS. Gangs do this, and regardless of whether or not you feel it cowardly (it is) or not, it also is effective at removing docile people who may happen to step into the wrong domain. For that matter, cops do this, also. They are a gang, essentially, but not in the same sense as the word is used today. That we don't unite with our communities, and bear in mind the adage of "safety in numbers" shows our ignorance, not our civility.
Another law we abandoned was the law that whomever has possession of it owns it.
Yeah, this has ways of getting people shot. Since it interferes with other laws of nature, like natural selection, for example, it isn't likely to be as large of a problem.
So basically, you're saying that there is no need for a lock, because there is no thievery in this world? Everyone here knows that's bull.
And on and on.
So in that regard, your trying to introduce the concept of the law of "natural selection" into a gun control discussion has little merit.
Sure it does. Your lack of observation is the area that warrants the least merit, though.
quote:Originally posted by gunphreak
Hey fox;
Ever hear of the law on natural selection?
The only way a mentally disturbed person can be taken care of is of his own will (which means going some place like an institution) or if, when he snaps and does something rash that he is taken down by equally armed citizens or other persons placed in security of others.
Too often we get the idea that it is all about saving lives being the key thing, but really, when someone gets out of line in a free society, he should be killed.
Gunphreak, what criteria do you yourself presently use to determine what "out of line" means? And exactly who gets to decide who is "out of line", with summary execution your recommended course of action? Based upon your comment, it seems as though you espouse a systematic "cleansing" of society. And, I don't believe that you actually mean that. Not a jab here, just an observation.
I'll go easier on you, Slow Hand, because I can see this is a bona fide question.
"Out of line", as was referred to before there was a such thing as a police department, or a cop, was simple. if you did something that warranted the townspeople to rise up against you, like rape, or cattle rustle, or atempt to kill someone, you were summarily lynched or shot. They didn't mess around with the stupid stuff, like we do.
I do espouse a systematic cleansing of society, starting and ending with murderers and rapists.
I agree that our society very often drops the ball with murderers, rapists, pedophiles, etc. and, of course, with repeat offenders and lifelong criminals. Very often, feelings of compassion and regret get directly in the way of administering proper punishment for the crime committed.
Judges and prosecutors have also demonstrated that they occasionally make some very serious mistakes, often with tragic consequences. Deals are struck that occasionally backfire and permit the guilty to get off without so much as even a gentle slap on the wrist.
You'll get no argument from me on any of the aforementioned and I firmly believe that people who are convicted under the law should be punished under the law. If the laws are non-existent, vague, not specific enough or just wholly inadequate for these times, then that is an issue that legislators must address in swift fashion. Failure to do so rests squarely upon their shoulders and not on that of due process.
I'm very much in favor of due process over mob mentality. A lot of innocent people have already been lynched, burned, shot by mobs and also legally executed by the system while the guilty went free.
So, I don't espouse anything that is "systematic" per say because it excludes mitigating circumstances. As gun owners and enthusiasts, we are aware - or least we all should be - of the implications associated with using a firearm against another human being.
Self-defense is not always obvious or apparent after-the-fact. Defense of another against an attacker also is not always evident. The police don't always uncover all of the facts at one time. Excessive force can be alleged. Witnesses' memories fail. People flat out lie. Etc. Etc.
Yes, our system has some flaws - a few serious ones in fact - but Justice must remain blind if you, me and the next guy are to ever get fair and equitable treatment under the law. And, unfortunately, the guilty sometimes go free and unpunished to steal, kill or rape again.
I realize that we are both highly opinionated men, each passionate in our views and beliefs. But I also think back to over 230 years ago when a piece of paper drafted and signed by over 50 very passionate and weary men maintained that all men are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, entitled to a speedy trial, entitled to face their accuser and entitled to be judged by a jury of peers.
Like TRTKBA, those basic rights are critical to our very existence.
Merry Christmas to you and yours, Gunphreak. Pax vobiscum.
It looks like these boards are helping people "see the light." Now if we could only reach more people.
1. The very thought of people looking for trouble (vigilantes) has me in an unremedial uproar. Even the Bible finds this to be the mark of a man who has evil in his heart.
2. I'm all about due process for thievery (and most other things), but not robbery. It should be open season on robbers, simply over the principle that a robber expects you to forfeit your possession under threat of force, vs. a thief just taking something from you. I'm not in favor of mercy for robber.
3. I'm not in favor of a person going to "settle the score" when the law can intercede. I find no problem with people fighting for their honor, or beating the tar out of someone who has caused them grief that is not something the law can intercede on, but not killing them.
4. I have no problem with the idea of a spouse coming home and finding their partner with another person and killing the spouse, but I do have a problem with killing who they were with (unless it was someone the victimized personally knew, and should know better).
5. I have no problem with a father hunting down and killing a person who has kidnapped his child, nor do I find it unreasonable for a father to personally end the life of another who has molested, killed, or grievously injured their child, but i do have a problem with our justice system victimizing the father once he does these things, and I doubly have a problem with a jury that would convict a man of such. They should be tarred and feathered.
What I have outlined here would make a tremendous difference in society for the better, despite the extremist nature of the represented opinion.
I find two flaws in the mental incompotence scenario:
1. That this mentally unstable person would have no history of violence (a clean criminal record) until they suddenly get a firearm in their hands.
2. That a severely disturbed person would be able to retain enough mental faculty to acquire the money to purchase a firearm, transport themselves to the gun shop, and then calmy conduct a transaction with the gun dealer.
I agree with Gunphreak on this one. If a person is truly that disturbed then they should be institutionalized. Otherwise, they will probably have some history of violent behavior that would appear on a criminal background check.
I think we also have to consider the right of the gun dealer to refuse to do business with these types of people, just as a bartender has the right to refuse service to someone who has obviously had way too much to drink.
-WW
The last analagy made me smile, because I can drink way too much, drive my car and kill someone, I'd of couse go to jail for a while but when I got released rather than be branded as too untrustworthy to own or drive a car, they'd give me my drivers license back!.
Never could understand that.
quote:Originally posted by WoundedWolf
I find two flaws in the mental incompotence scenario:
1. That this mentally unstable person would have no history of violence (a clean criminal record) until they suddenly get a firearm in their hands.
2. That a severely disturbed person would be able to retain enough mental faculty to acquire the money to purchase a firearm, transport themselves to the gun shop, and then calmy conduct a transaction with the gun dealer.
I agree with Gunphreak on this one. If a person is truly that disturbed then they should be institutionalized. Otherwise, they will probably have some history of violent behavior that would appear on a criminal background check.
I think we also have to consider the right of the gun dealer to refuse to do business with these types of people, just as a bartender has the right to refuse service to someone who has obviously had way too much to drink.
-WW
The last analagy made me smile, because I can drink way too much, drive my car and kill someone, I'd of couse go to jail for a while but when I got released rather than be branded as too untrustworthy to own or drive a car, they'd give me my drivers license back!.
Never could understand that.
The majority of the public likes, wants and needs a car. Anytime the majority of the people are in favor of something, there will be lax regulation of that "something".
The majority of the people do not feel that same way about cars as they do about guns. Therefore, the major difference.
Anyway, if you committed a bad enough vehicular crime, I am not sure you would get your license back.