Gun Ban Maybe A Good Idea?

This is a discussion on Gun Ban Maybe A Good Idea? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by SammyIamToday ...Liberty by definition means that unsavory people will get the same rights that you do. It's worth it every time. YES!!!1 ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 34

Thread: Gun Ban Maybe A Good Idea?

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    Quote Originally Posted by SammyIamToday View Post
    ...Liberty by definition means that unsavory people will get the same rights that you do. It's worth it every time.
    YES!!!1 ^^

    As based on posts not just in this thread or forum but everywhere it seems that this _fact_ has either been forgotten or never understood by a great many otherwise supporters of the second amendment.
    We don't get to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution and attendant Bill of Rights that we like/support/embrace.
    Even the statement of saying one is 'Pro-2A' is silly. You are either for the Constitution inclusive of the Bill of Rights, or you are against them. Period. Interpretation of english aside of course.

    Also people speak of us and them, white hats and black hats, sheep, wolves, and so called sheep dogs.
    The Constitution protects everyone regardless of their mindset, interests, profession, or even if they are a jerk or are scary/intimidating, or are even a criminal in the act of a crime or not.
    There is no suspension of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and in America there is no suspension of human rights either...in theory.
    Of course history and practice has not been so narrow and right which is no excuse nor justification to abrogate the rights of a few we might find to be undesireable.
    It's very simple and as many of us of an age learned from the Three Musketeeers; "One for all and all for one".
    That is our Constitution and it is as related to the second amendment in specific open and broad to 'People' as in all people not just ones we might happen to like or who are not strange to us be they foreign in origination or even mindset.

    Less liberty for others means less liberty for us all, even as we might not like those amongst the other.
    We have lived this lesson before and it is recorded in our history books dating back from year one to yesterday.

    - Janq

    "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." - Benjamin Franklin, Founding father of America and a very wise guy
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,709
    Janq (and others) - I fully understand that the rights enumerated in the Constitution and especially in the BOR are inherent to the people (all people), and are included in that document (primarily) to ensure that no government infringes upon them. However, we recognize the sovereignty of other nations, who have other laws. Just as I cannot exercise freedom of speech in Beijing, or freedom of religion in Tehran, we cannot cover the world with the blanket of our Constitution. Do I wish it were otherwise, and that every nation on earth had a document (that was listened to, at least most of the time) protecting what you and I understand to be inalienable rights? Certainly. But they don’t, and we can’t make them.

    By that same token, people who are not US citizens should not get the full protection of our laws, just as we do not get them when we leave our borders. If you are here illegally, you should have one right, and one right only – the right to a plane/bus/boat ticket out.

    I don’t support the original article as written – indeed, criminals will not be deterred, and “illegals” are already, by definition, committing a crime. And people planning on committing acts of terrorism or narcotics trafficking will hardly admit that on an application form, will they? (The scary part of the article – and the real deal breaker IMO – is this: who will determine if someone is a member of a terror organization or a narcotics smuggling/distributing organization? What if Klinton II decides the NRA is a terror organization?) I do, however, support the restriction of rights and privileges to non-citizens who are here illegally. Just my (admittedly harsh) opinion, and it really has nothing to do with the 2A…
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  4. #18
    Member Array joffe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    165
    or is reasonably believed to be engaged or about to engage in international terrorist or international narcotics activities, shall have the right to possess, transfer, keep, hold, or train with any form make and model of firearm.”
    'Is reasonably believed to be engaged in terrorist activities'? And how undefinable, how vague is not 'terrorist activity'?

    Such wording of laws would definitely backfire on gun owners.

    Give the government a pinky, they'll take the entire arm. Conceding that it's okay for some groups to lose their rights, and that this group can be arbitrarily defined by the government, is a recipe for disaster.

  5. #19
    Member Array SCGunGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by ronwill View Post
    Notice I said MAY, didn't say I would support a gun ban. I really just wanted to see reactions to the article. While I don't support an all out ban, I do support laws making it harder on those useing guns in crimes.
    Why do you support tougher penalties for criminals using guns in crimes vs. those who use other weapons? You're still as dead whether you get shot, stabbed with a knife, or bludgeoned with a tire iron, so why should your murderer get a lighter sentence if he used a tire iron than he would if he used a gun?

    Is it somehow more heinous to rape a woman at gunpoint than it is to do so with a knife blade pressed against her throat?

    All of the laws and calls for laws that punish "gun crimes" more than the same crime committed with any other weapon really trouble me, as do "hate crime" laws. I believe murder is murder, and whether you murder with a gun or a knife is irrelevant. Similarly, if you murder someone because you believe him to be gay, or because he is of a different race than you, is he any more dead than if you murder him in order to steal his Rolex or because he surprised you in the act of breaking into his house?

    "Hate crime" legislation attempts to punish people not for what they do, but for what they think. That, my friends, is one very slippery slope to totalitarian rule that I would prefer we stay well clear of.

    When we in the pro-self-defense community agree to calls to punish the weapon, as in Project Exile, in essence we are agreeing with the gun-banners that guns are somehow "evil", "scary", or "make people do bad things."

  6. #20
    VIP Member Array BigEFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Central California
    Posts
    2,045
    I don't have a problem with LEGAL immigrants owning firearms. They should be able to defend themselves as well. If you believe that a well armed society is a safe society than law abiders, regardless of their residency status, should be allowed to own firearms. Illegals, on the other hand, is a completely separate issue.
    Lex et Libertas — Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis!

    "Not only do the people who put their lives on the line to protect the rest of us deserve better, we all deserve better than to have our own security undermined by those who undermine law enforcement." -Thomas Sowell

  7. #21
    Member Array ibex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    NRW, Germany
    Posts
    277
    I absolutely agree with Janq.

    The rights enumerated in the Constitution are inherent in all human beings, no matter how unpopular or undesirable they are.

    A young woman, for example, does not deserve to be defenseless against rapists and other criminals, regardless of her immigration status.

    Self-defense is a human right and has absolutely nothing to do with citizenship.
    "So this is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause."
    - Senator Padmé Amidala, "Revenge of the Sith"

  8. #22
    Senior Member Array ronwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    816
    As for who should have the right here's what Sam Adams had to say:

    "That the said Constitution be never construed to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

  9. #23
    VIP Member Array SammyIamToday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,087
    Quote Originally Posted by OPFOR View Post
    Janq (and others) - I fully understand that the rights enumerated in the Constitution and especially in the BOR are inherent to the people (all people), and are included in that document (primarily) to ensure that no government infringes upon them. However, we recognize the sovereignty of other nations, who have other laws. Just as I cannot exercise freedom of speech in Beijing, or freedom of religion in Tehran, we cannot cover the world with the blanket of our Constitution. Do I wish it were otherwise, and that every nation on earth had a document (that was listened to, at least most of the time) protecting what you and I understand to be inalienable rights? Certainly. But they don’t, and we can’t make them.
    You're right, our Constitution has no authority over another sovereign nation. That doesn't mean that our Constitution loses authority over our government while other foreign nationals are in our nation. To follow that line of thought is a slippery slope into authoritarianism.

    Sure no one wants to see some drug runner carrying a gun. However, if we're going to have real individual freedom, that kind of stuff is going to happen.
    ...He suggested that "every American citizen" should own a rifle and train with it on firing ranges "at every courthouse." -Chesty Puller

  10. #24
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,709
    Quote Originally Posted by ibex View Post
    I absolutely agree with Janq.

    The rights enumerated in the Constitution are inherent in all human beings, no matter how unpopular or undesirable they are.
    I assume you are against prisons or the death penalty then. By this logic, the most absolute basic right (to live) cannot be taken away by the state no matter how undesireable (how many murders and other crimes they may have committed) a person may be.

    The Constitution, and the rights protected therein, are not absolutes. Reasonable restrictions are understood to be necessary. Citizenship (or at least being a part of the legal immigration process) is a reasonable restriction, in my opinion.

    In your example - of course the girl has the right to defend herself - in her own country. She does not have the right to violate the laws of the United States, and she has shown that she is (by definition) a criminal under US law. Not a candidate for automatic protections under the Constitution (again, IMO).
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  11. #25
    Senior Member Array ronwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    816
    Quote Originally Posted by OPFOR View Post
    I assume you are against prisons or the death penalty then. By this logic, the most absolute basic right (to live) cannot be taken away by the state no matter how undesireable (how many murders and other crimes they may have committed) a person may be.

    The Constitution, and the rights protected therein, are not absolutes. Reasonable restrictions are understood to be necessary. Citizenship (or at least being a part of the legal immigration process) is a reasonable restriction, in my opinion.

    In your example - of course the girl has the right to defend herself - in her own country. She does not have the right to violate the laws of the United States, and she has shown that she is (by definition) a criminal under US law. Not a candidate for automatic protections under the Constitution (again, IMO).
    Couldn't have said it better.

  12. #26
    Distinguished Member Array SubNine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Anchorage Alaska
    Posts
    1,969
    We have enough gun laws in America, enforce them. Don't make more, because they won't work. Name me one gun law that has reduced violent crime in America, especially among the minorities (Which is quickly turning into the majority).
    USMC rule # 23 of gunfighting: Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet.

    I am the God fearing, gun toting, flag waving conservative you were warned about!

  13. #27
    Member Array SCGunGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by OPFOR View Post
    I assume you are against prisons or the death penalty then. By this logic, the most absolute basic right (to live) cannot be taken away by the state no matter how undesireable (how many murders and other crimes they may have committed) a person may be.

    The Constitution, and the rights protected therein, are not absolutes. Reasonable restrictions are understood to be necessary. Citizenship (or at least being a part of the legal immigration process) is a reasonable restriction, in my opinion.

    In your example - of course the girl has the right to defend herself - in her own country. She does not have the right to violate the laws of the United States, and she has shown that she is (by definition) a criminal under US law. Not a candidate for automatic protections under the Constitution (again, IMO).
    Not so--the death penalty fits in perfectly, as our Founders understood. The crux is that there is a social contract, and the criminal forfeits various rights by breaking that contract (through his unlawful acts). Thus, they chose to include that no one may be deprived of life or liberty without due process of law--in other words, they set in place the mechanism by which society will deprive someone of rights. You break the contract by committing a crime, and you have agreed to forfeit your rights. Society then, through the justice system, carries out the forfeiture.

    I would hope that all here would agree that anyone legally in this country should be able to obtain and use firearms; one shouldn't have to become a citizen in order to exercise the right to defend oneself.

    Quite frankly, I would hope that while our laws might prohibit an illegal alien from legally purchasing a weapon in this country, they would not proscribe the use of any weapon in self-defense or defense of others by anyone, or allow any such person to be prosecuted for use of a weapon. *

    In other words, our laws relating to gun purchases, may set certain limits that bar you from purchasing a gun. On the other hand, no law should allow for the prosecution of anyone, whether an illegal alien from Mexico or Mars or a lifetime thug, who uses a weapon in self-defense or defense of others.

    I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who indicated that once a criminal has served out his punishment, all rights taken away ought to be restored. I agree with that idea. If someone is so dangerous to society that we don't want him voting or owning guns, we ought to keep him imprisoned.

    * There ought not be any "illegal guns" in this country, only illegal uses of guns--murder, assault, robbery, etc.

  14. #28
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    Quote Originally Posted by OPFOR View Post
    I assume you are against prisons or the death penalty then. By this logic, the most absolute basic right (to live) cannot be taken away by the state no matter how undesireable (how many murders and other crimes they may have committed) a person may be.

    The Constitution, and the rights protected therein, are not absolutes. Reasonable restrictions are understood to be necessary. Citizenship (or at least being a part of the legal immigration process) is a reasonable restriction, in my opinion...
    When a person commits a crime they are under our Constitution and Bill of Rights innocent untill proven guilty through adjudication or released or is found to be not guilty (which doesn't necessarily mean 'innocent' e.g. O.J. Simpson).
    There is no argument against prisons to that end although there is toward the death penalty in specific, which is a whole other topic.

    The Constitution is absolute including the rights and protections there in as established and/or recognized as being inalienable rights of humans.

    Also arguing that because some other country doesn't recognize human rights even as we do is not at all a reason nor good reasoning to deny human right(s) to those from there who might visit us even as those of us who visit them may and might suffer said loss of recognition in rights of being human.

    As children we learn the saying; "Two wrongs don't make a right". The same applies here.
    If I go visit your home and am afforded every courtesy that you might provide yourself, with noted exception of being directed to sleep and eat outside in the elements for no other reason than that you do not recognize me as having the right to sleep or eat under the same roof as you and those like you. That is your own house rule. I can choose to abide by it or visit elsewhere. But for me to then turn around and offer you the same in treatment and accommodation singularly because that is how things are in your own home even as such treatment is a foreign idea within my own then me doing so does not make me just. It makes me wrong, and worst a small petty person.
    Because our friends and foes alike do not yet have a complete understanding muchless respect for the rights of humanity that is no reason nor excuse to deny the world as much when they come to visit under our own roof even as they may not be big, adult, progressive, and human enough to do same for us.

    As to reasonable restrictions, what is reasonable and who defines reasonableness and under what circumstances exactly for what duration to be applied where and for what duration toward whom?
    Again we have been down this road before and history shows it's a quite a slippery slope to negotiate.
    Todays effectively preemptive toward crime restriction of 'foreigners' to our 'State' will become tomorrows preemptive toward crime restriction toward persons who are foreign to those men who declare themselves to be the 'State' as they wield power gladly given over to them by the slaves they've been entrusted to look after and allegedly protect, as they see fit.

    Does any of this sound even remotely familiar?
    If not then as a refresher take an hour or so to read this reflection of not so long ago American history toward same similar...

    'Persistence of Power, Elites and Institutions'
    by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson -
    http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/facsemin...1_Robinson.pdf

    ...Or for a quick to the point 10-20 minute read jump to page 45 and read through to page 51 under chapter seven 'Historical Perspective' at section 7.1 'Persistence of Elites in U.S. South'.

    It is important to know and remember that justifications used by us against others and those who might be foreign can, have, and may be used by others against us even as they are us but completely foreign to us in mindset and/or political power seeking objective.
    This tale has been told before based on the same position and history has shown that it was wrong.

    - Janq

    "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.' - George Santayana, Philsopher
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

  15. #29
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,709
    Janq and SCGuy - well reasoned and thought out arguments. I think, at heart, we agree: no person should be denied the right to defend themselves against violent aggression.

    As to reasonable restrictions - "reasonableness" (to paraphrase Churchill) is the worst standard in the world to define things...except every other way. The "reasonable man" standard is the basis of much of our judicial system, simply because it is the best that we can do. When we have evolved to the point of omniscience, we can perhaps come up with a better way, but until then it is all we have and all we can hope for. "Reasonable" restrictions can be interpreted differently, of course, but we all know you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, produce child pornography, perform human sacrifices, etc., under the 1st Amendment, so there has to be some level of reasonableness for everything else. (For what it's worth, I believe that we should be able to plant a 155mm howitzer on our lawn, as long as we don't use it to infringe on the rights of anyone else.)

    I understand that restriction on one class can (and usually does) lead to restrictions on other classes. I understand that the Constitution does not grant rights, but specifies them in order to protect them from infringement. I also, perhaps, misspoke when I said "citizenship" should be a requirement for equal protection. A better phrase would be "a person of legal status," that is, someone who is not by their very presence committing a crime. If we agree that criminals have broken the social contract and forfeited rights that would otherwise be inalienable (freedom, or even life), then we can agree that illegals are not entitled to the full protections of the Constitution and the BOR...

    Again, I deeply respect your opinions and thoughts, and I believe we agree in much more then we disagree. I maintain, however, that if you have broken the social contract by coming here illegally, then your only right is three (safe) hots and a cot until the next plane out.
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  16. #30
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    Quote Originally Posted by SCGuy View Post
    ...I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who indicated that once a criminal has served out his punishment, all rights taken away ought to be restored. I agree with that idea. If someone is so dangerous to society that we don't want him voting or owning guns, we ought to keep him imprisoned.

    * There ought not be any "illegal guns" in this country, only illegal uses of guns--murder, assault, robbery, etc.
    Yes, and agreed completely.

    Our Constitution offers a combination of laws and restrictions and guidelines toward governing citizens which are We the People'.
    As well it does not provide but more accurately recognizes multiple rights of humans with no qualifier toward what color hat one might wear or from where the head that wears it might originate as they stand foot within these United States we call America.
    The right to keep and bear arms is one of these rights recognized as a right of humans not just citizens. Sadly we still today right now have laws on the books that reduce the Constitution as have we had in place through the past.
    That though is not reason to justify adding additional newer rules and clauses simply because of convenience or worst fear.

    - Janq
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Handgun Ammo, good idea - bad idea.
    By Ox in forum Related Gear & Equipment
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: March 19th, 2010, 10:30 AM
  2. Good idea or Bad idea???
    By Sheldon J in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: March 9th, 2009, 02:50 PM
  3. Probably not a good idea
    By TedBeau in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: March 7th, 2009, 01:19 AM
  4. I don't know if this is a good idea or not...
    By TN_Mike in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: November 10th, 2008, 03:12 PM
  5. Is this a good idea?
    By skunkworks in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: June 7th, 2007, 11:19 AM

Search tags for this page

why gun ban is a good idea

Click on a term to search for related topics.