The Dangers of Gun Control

[ttwtt78640]

I get where you are coming from here, but I argue that the lines around 'gang bangers,' 'kids' and 'crazy folks' are pretty blurry':

• In a state where access to firearms is restricted around mental state/ capacity, who gets to decide what the threshold is?
• When it comes to age, how does one determine the time at which someone can rightfully own a gun? I was in the military, but some hotels wouldn't let me rent a room. . . or buy a drink.
• 'Gang Bangers' is a term that's used very liberally. I'm not much a fan of the whole guilty by association theory. Who get's to decide what 'gang banger' means?

Age is a fairly easy thing to determine, is it not?

The rest must be established only by due process of law to be added to the NICS database as gun prohibiting factors: examples include a violent felony conviction in a court of law, one adjudged to be mentally incompetent or one placed under a judicial protection (restraining) order. The gang affiliation is perhaps the most tricky, as you pointed out, but is on the books in many states and can elevate a misdemeanor to a felony (makes crime XYZ into aggrevated XYZ).

 

[Starbuck]

Age is a fairly easy thing to determine, is it not?

I understand that age is easy to determine, my issue is with what age will be determined to be under the threshold. . . can a 18 year old own a firearm (legally)? Or would the person have to be 21, or maybe 17?

As far as the mentally incompetent factor, that for me is a real sticking point. People are really quick to jump on the banning bandwagon, maybe all people with bi-polar disorder are flagged as ineligible. . . maybe their not. In my eyes, it's impossible to make a sound ruling on mental capacity, especially where popular opinion on the matter is so inconsistent. Someone might be able to carry a gun in Nevada, but not in Arizona.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I understand that age is easy to determine, my issue is with what age will be determined to be under the threshold. . . can a 18 year old own a firearm (legally)? Or would the person have to be 21, or maybe 17?

As far as the mentally incompetent factor, that for me is a real sticking point. People are really quick to jump on the banning bandwagon, maybe all people with bi-polar disorder are flagged as ineligible. . . maybe their not. In my eyes, it's impossible to make a sound ruling on mental capacity, especially where popular opinion on the matter is so inconsistent. Someone might be able to carry a gun in Nevada, but not in Arizona.

Age should be the same for voting as for 2A rights as both (should) depend on sound judgement and decision making skills.

I am not qualified to define what constitutes "serious mental impairment", but agree that that is subject to possible abuse, but no more so than one state defining possession of marijuana as a felony while another says that it is legal.

 

[Starbuck]

Age should be the same for voting as for 2A rights as both (should) depend on sound judgement and decision making skills.

Of all of the lines to draw, 18 seems to be the most reasonable. Unfortunately, we are in a country that likes to prohibit things. . . that being the case I'd have to agree with you on the age.

I am not qualified to define what constitutes "serious mental impairment", but agree that that is subject to possible abuse, but no more so than one state defining possession of marijuana as a felony while another says that it is legal.

Again, I agree with you here too. Personally, I'd rather take my chances with one off-kilter person have a firearm than tell 1,000 completely reasonable adults that they aren't permitted to own them.

With the marijuana laws, hell it's a plant. . . it grows in the ground. If you've got soil and an abundance of light/ water you should be able to grow it. However, we live in a country of banning bandwagons.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Of all of the lines to draw, 18 seems to be the most reasonable. Unfortunately, we are in a country that likes to prohibit things. . . that being the case I'd have to agree with you on the age.



Again, I agree with you here too. Personally, I'd rather take my chances with one off-kilter person have a firearm than tell 1,000 completely reasonable adults that they aren't permitted to own them.

With the marijuana laws, hell it's a plant. . . it grows in the ground. If you've got soil and an abundance of light/ water you should be able to grow it. However, we live in a country of banning bandwagons.

The reason that I like to tie voting rights to gun rights is that measures to prohibit one then prohibit the other as well. Since the demorats tend to get the "minority" vote that would make them less apt to be able to have their cake and eat it too.

It is said to pose a discriminatory burden to even require an ID to vote yet mandatory for not only ID, but a NICS BG check and large fee, to be able to keep and bear arms. Hmm...

 

[Starbuck]

The reason that I like to tie voting rights to gun rights is that measures to prohibit one then prohibit the other as well. Since the demorats tend to get the "minority" vote that would make them less apt to be able to have their cake and eat it too.

I can see that, but I'd counter that I'd rather see both of them less regulated than they currently are. I don't think most gun laws prevent murder any more than most proposed voter laws would prevent ballot fraud.

In my mind:

Let them have their votes. . . and guns too.

It is said to pose a discriminatory burden to even require an ID to vote yet mandatory for not only ID, but a NICS BG check and large fee, to be able to keep and bear arms. Hmm...

Honestly, I think it could be interpreted as a discriminatory burden to require an ID/ BG check for either voting or gun ownership.

I don't need to show an ID when I buy fireworks, gasoline or fertilizer, why should I need to undergo a BG check to cast a ballot or buy a gun?

 

[ttwtt78640]

I can see that, but I'd counter that I'd rather see both of them less regulated than they currently are. I don't think most gun laws prevent murder any more than most proposed voter laws would prevent ballot fraud.

In my mind:

Let them have their votes. . . and guns too.



Honestly, I think it could be interpreted as a discriminatory burden to require an ID/ BG check for either voting or gun ownership.

I don't need to show an ID when I buy fireworks, gasoline or fertilizer, why should I need to undergo a BG check to cast a ballot or buy a gun?

While I agree that more freedom is better than less, we all still benefit from some modest controls as well. Nobody seems to deny that those (recently) convicted of violent felonies, those adjudged to be mentally incompetent or those under current protective orders are good candidates to walk about armed. Nobody seems to disagree that one should vote only once, only as themselves and only in the district/state of their residence in any single electon.

My point is that both voting and gun rights should be equally restricted or available - arguments for the further restriction of one constitutional right, but allowing those already restricted from it to vote for its further restriction seems to be a very biased system - allowing the I can't do it so neither should you crowd to tip the scales in favor of more gov't control. Much like allowing the low income majority to press for added taxation of only the high income minority - that is only able to be offset by the rich buying politicians favor via campaign contributions.

 

[CalGun]

I disagree. A felon loses many rights, and that can include the right to self incrimination. We can not force a citizen to self incriminate for the purposes of prosecution, but this is post prosecution; guilt is already determined. Besides my brother in law deserves a license that reads 5150 no guns.

You cannot compel a felon to self-incriminate, thus absense of a "NO GUN" ID is no guarantee that they are not in the "NO GUN" group. Think of it as starting a good citizen's club, would it be best to confirm membership and then issue them a club member card or to assume hat all are members unless they carry a special non-membership certificate?

 

[Starbuck]

While I agree that more freedom is better than less, we all still benefit from some modest controls as well.

No, I can totally see where you are coming from and practically speaking your idea is more likely to happen than mine.

I'll almost completely buy off on the documented criminal history restrictions, but will always have trouble dealing with the subjective items (age, association, mental capacity).

My point is that both voting and gun rights should be equally restricted or available

I like that quote.

 

[TurtleDude]

Thanks for the same old regurgitated pap that gets spewed at least once a week here (though not many have had the nerve to quote Adolph Hitler in support of their position).
Bet I can guess your position on abortion and gay marriage.

I have noticed, over the years, that often the most virulent haters of gun rights are gay men or their supporters. IT appears that such people think or assume that by bashing gun owners, these gay advocates will be attacking those who are not in favor of gay marriage etc

Its hilarious

 

[Grand Mal]

I have noticed, over the years, that often the most virulent haters of gun rights are gay men or their supporters. IT appears that such people think or assume that by bashing gun owners, these gay advocates will be attacking those who are not in favor of gay marriage etc

Its hilarious

Wow. You missed the whole target with a shotgun. Must be that tremble that comes from age and failing confidence.
Here, take this club. We'll turn our backs and you go downrange and massacre something.

Just for laughs, I'm a supporter of gun rights and a hater of tedious cliche-ridden drivel delivered like it's a ray of sunshine and clarity.
And I was in a nasty mood. Sorry if your panties got twisted, princess. I'll tone it down a bit when I know you're in the room.

 

[TurtleDude]

Wow. You missed the whole target with a shotgun. Must be that tremble that comes from age and failing confidence.
Here, take this club. We'll turn our backs and you go downrange and massacre something.

Just for laughs, I'm a supporter of gun rights and a hater of tedious cliche-ridden drivel delivered like it's a ray of sunshine and clarity.
And I was in a nasty mood. Sorry if your panties got twisted, princess. I'll tone it down a bit when I know you're in the room.

I didn't get upset at all. I just find it funny for some people to always introduce abortion or sodomy rights in a gun thread.

 

[Grand Mal]

I didn't get upset at all. I just find it funny for some people to always introduce abortion or sodomy rights in a gun thread.

Being me? I always bring up sodomy and abortion?
Another miss with the shotgun. Lay your weapon down and step back off the line. You're an observer now.

 

[opendebate]

Wow. a hater of tedious cliche-ridden drivel delivered like it's a ray of sunshine and clarity.

What an awesome line. I am so guilty of this sometimes. Gotta figure out how to put this in my signature.

 

[TurtleDude]

Being me? I always bring up sodomy and abortion?
Another miss with the shotgun. Lay your weapon down and step back off the line. You're an observer now.

You are the one who introduced abortion and gay issues to this thread. what was your point in asking the OP that stupid question?

 

[Grand Mal]

You are the one who introduced abortion and gay issues to this thread. what was your point in asking the OP that stupid question?

Just twisting panties. You know how it is, don't be getting all virginal like you just got felt up in the drive-in.

 

[TurtleDude]

Just twisting panties. You know how it is, don't be getting all virginal like you just got felt up in the drive-in.

You are derailing the thread and engaging in stupidity.

 

[Grand Mal]

You are derailing the thread and engaging in stupidity.

(grin!)
Just a little jovial banter. Don`t worry, I still respect you.

Oh, go ahead, pull that gay`sh*t on me again. I can do this all night.
But not tonight.

 

[TurtleDude]

(grin!)
Just a little jovial banter. Don`t worry, I still respect you.

Oh, go ahead, pull that gay`sh*t on me again. I can do this all night.
But not tonight.

YOu were the one who felt 'gay sh*t' should be introduced in this thread.

Lets get back to the issue at hand

 

[Grand Mal]

What an awesome line. I am so guilty of this sometimes. Gotta figure out how to put this in my signature.

So am I. Guilty, I mean, of cliches and drivel sometimes. Maybe that makes me sensitive about it.

 

[Buck Ewer]

The National Guard isn't the type of Militia they were referring to. The National Guard is part of the United States Army, or the Air National Guard being part of the United States Air Force, but with the Governor as their Commander-in-Chief of the national guard, unless activated by the President, with the approval of Congress, during time of war.

They mentioned the phrase "the people" in there. Not "members of the armed forces".

At the time there was little differentiation between members of the armed forces and "the people" . In a populist grass roots revolution they are one in the same.
So the first phrase of the sentence is irrelevant to the third? ... No.
The framers of the constitution knew full well how that sentence was phrased and if they meant that "the people" should always have the right to bear arms outside of a well regulated militia, then they would have formed that thought in a separate sentence.
They didn't.
Commas and periods change the meanings of phrases and those who wrote the constitution knew that better than most do today.
The "well regulated militia" is the most important part of that amendment. That is why that phrase is the first part of that sentence.
The second phrase explains the first, the third phrase supports the first by defining the means.
It's clear that that is what they meant if you take the time to analyze the grammatical structure of the sentence..

 

[TurtleDude]

At the time there was little differentiation between members of the armed forces and "the people" . In a populist grass roots revolution they are one in the same.
So the first phrase of the sentence is irrelevant to the third? ... No.
The framers of the constitution knew full well how that sentence was phrased and if they meant that "the people" should always have the right to bear arms outside of a well regulated militia, then they would have formed that thought in a separate sentence.
They didn't.
Commas and periods change the meanings of phrases and those who wrote the constitution knew that better than most do today.
The "well regulated militia" is the most important part of that amendment. That is why that phrase is the first part of that sentence.
The second phrase explains the first, the third phrase supports the first by defining the means.
It's clear that that is what they meant if you take the time to analyze the grammatical structure of the sentence..

yeah what is clear is that the federal government was

1) never given the power to regulate small arms owned by the citizenry

2) and then told it could not infringe on ownership of small arms

 

[Buck Ewer]

yeah what is clear is that the federal government was

1) never given the power to regulate small arms owned by the citizenry

2) and then told it could not infringe on ownership of small arms

You fail at understanding grammatical sentence structure.

 

[TurtleDude]

You fail at understanding grammatical sentence structure.

you completely demonstrate a lack of constitutional understanding. Wait-, you are going to spew the oft repeated bovine excrement that the second amendment delegated to the federal government the power to regulate the arms of the militia?

Its hilarious watching those completely unlearned in constitutional scholarship making fools of themselves

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

At the time there was little differentiation between members of the armed forces and "the people" . In a populist grass roots revolution they are one in the same.
So the first phrase of the sentence is irrelevant to the third? ... No.
The framers of the constitution knew full well how that sentence was phrased and if they meant that "the people" should always have the right to bear arms outside of a well regulated militia, then they would have formed that thought in a separate sentence.
They didn't.
Commas and periods change the meanings of phrases and those who wrote the constitution knew that better than most do today.
The "well regulated militia" is the most important part of that amendment. That is why that phrase is the first part of that sentence.
The second phrase explains the first, the third phrase supports the first by defining the means.
It's clear that that is what they meant if you take the time to analyze the grammatical structure of the sentence..

That is one way of looking at it. The founders were also very logical. So...

People have to have guns to form a militia [ at least in colonial times forward ]... so, while they may have put this right of the people last, it must, logically, come first.

So that we are clear, you are also saying we should have more militias? That is the Constitutional imperative of this right?