Defensive Carry banner

Gun Ban Maybe A Good Idea?

2K views 33 replies 18 participants last post by  ronwill 
#1 ·
#5 ·
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.
 
#3 ·
I support US citizenship as a prerequisite for owning a firearm in the US. But then again, I support US citizenship as a prerequisite for enjoying just about every right acknowledged by the Constitution....
 
#9 ·
OPFOR,

The US Constitution does not assign the right to keep and bear arms.

It simply recognizes it to be a right (of People e.g. human beings) that in the US shall not be infringed...

"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."

Foreigners are people/human beings just as are we US citizens by birth or otherwise. We all foreign or domestic as being human have the right to keep and bear arms as being necessary to the security of our individual as well as collective freedom as People,in the U.S. as per our own Constitution.

Sadly the majority of other countries in this world do not recognize this nor many other basic and essential human rights and seek to resist efforts by the People to secure them for fear of losing power over us one and all.

- Janq

"Freedom got an AK." - Ice Cube
 
#4 ·
No ban on firearms, ever. It won't help our cause. This is back wards thinking, if you want to ban illegal aliens then ban the illegal aliens not the guns the illegals will buy while being here illegally. Get rid of illegals and they won't be here to cause the trouble you want to prevent by banning firearms. This is just another excuse to raise attention to the anti firearms agenda, while the real issue should be border security.
 
#6 ·
I don't get it.

Really, if your part of a terorist group or if your here illegally, you are already guilty of crimes that you need to be either in jail or out of the country for.

I am not for those people owning guns, I am for enforcing the laws that will keep them in a place where we won't have to worry about it.

As for the foreign nationals, well that gets into a lot deeper water.

I don't think this has any legs to it.
 
#7 ·
Guess what? Someone intent on causing harm to Americans is not going to care that they are breaking the law.

Funny how this is clear as day to us regarding "Anti-Gun" laws. They don't work with citizen criminals and they won't work with the foreign kind either.

My $.02
 
#8 ·
Based on other threads I have read here and there, I was under the impression that non-resident aliens and illegals could not pass a nics check. Not quite a ban, but potentially similar results.
---
as for this article. I have no problem listing illegals on the list of felonies that prevent firearm ownership - again I am surprised it is not already there.
 
#11 ·
Until recently, Utah was issuing to resident aliens and, I believe, non-resident as well.
 
#10 ·
I'm all for undocumented persons or persons outside the law being denied access. In principle, that's a fine thought. However, in reality it cannot be executed for the 98% of such people, as they cannot readily be found. Laws already exist for actual commission of criminal acts (murder, rape, robbery, etc). Have possession? Fine. Found in possession with intent, or found using it criminally? You're outta here, via the legal grist mill.
 
#13 ·
Right to bear arms is an inalienable right. The Constitution is a restriction upon the government to violate those rights (not that they listen...).

This is a bad idea. Liberty by definition means that unsavory people will get the same rights that you do. It's worth it every time.
 
#16 ·
...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
 
#14 ·
When has a law banning guns, for anyone, anywhere, ever been effective in making people safer?

It's often argued that new gun restrictions will never be successful because anyone who wants a gun will still get it (especially bad guys). Why should this "ban" be any different?
 
#15 ·
Great discussion. May I add that, while RKBA is an inalienable right, it is not an unlimited right. Just as with all other rights there are limitations that most law abiding citizens understand. Most understand the grave responsibility that comes with all freedoms.
 
#17 ·
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…
 
#23 ·
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.
 
#18 ·
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.
 
#20 ·
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.
 
#21 ·
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.
 
#24 ·
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).
 
#22 ·
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."
 
#26 ·
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).
 
#29 ·
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.
 
#32 ·
While I agree with the intent of this guy's rant. A ban as he describes goes against the very fiber of what the second ammendment protects. The right of everyone in this great nation of ours to be armed, and be able to rebel against a tyrannical government. And that means if in 10 years we all become millitant muslims, we still have the right to rebel against our government, whether the government finds us unsavory, the enemy or what have you.
 
#34 ·
I agree and while I would not support a ban on the right to carry, the discussion was enlightening. There are many sides to this argument, not just anti's and pro's. Limits must be made but where do you draw those limits?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top