Rivers

Do you believe it is reasonable for government to pass any law that would allow police to take into custody an obviously deranged sociopath who is carrying a loaded firearm onto the school that your child attends?

OK, I admit that I built an extreme scenario but I want to make a point. In an absolute world, there would be no need for compromise or weighing of opposing views. But we don't live in that world. We do live in one that allows everyone to have rights that sometimes conflict. Then we are forced to compromise from one extreme position or another.

If you answer "yes" to the question, then at what point do you say that it is no longer OK to allow regulation? Is it race, gender, age, sobriety, criminal record, or religion? Or, if you say that no regulation is OK, how would you reconcile it to yourself if/when that nut case goes on a killing rampage with your own child as a victim?

It's a fine line, located in widely varying places, to define what level of regulation is tolerable to everyone, though perfect to no one.

MP45Man

Not sure I understand the question. In PA it is a first degree misdemeanor to take a firearm on to school property.

Bob The Great

I have a couple of questions: What rights are conflicting in your scenario? And how do you define "obviously deranged sociopath?"

What I would prefer is that the adults at the school be on the lookout for "obviously deranged sociopaths" and either have the principle invite him to leave (which is perfectly reasonable, and if he does not, then he is tresspassing) or wait for him to do something sociopathic, like try to shoot or kidnap a kid, and then shoot him with their own CCW.

Bottom line is this - a truly deranged sociopath bent on shooting up a school won't care if it's illegal for him to be armed. And by the time the police are called and show up, he'll probably have killed as many people as he has bullets and commited suicide.

That's not a knock on the cops, they just can't physically be everywhere at once. The only people who can are private citizens going about their daily lives.

If you want regulations, at least propose regulations that work. We've seen time and time again how ridiculously ineffective it is to prohibit carrying a gun as a means to prevent shootings. It just doesn't work.

__________________
"A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the continuance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
Is this hard to understand? Then why does it get unintelligible to some people when 5 little words are changed?

Shadowsbane

First, who determines the man is obviously deranged? Me? You? The one who calls the police, or the police themselves?

To some my enjoyment of hunting is horribly deranged, to others it is the mere owning of a firearm.

Secondly if the said person is so obviously deranged then how does taking them into custody equate to regulation of firearms? I am sure regardless such a person would probably be viewed as a person of interest and questioned. Perhaps giving up his true intentions which would then become conspiricy to commit mass murder.

Also if there were regulations in place what makes you sure they would be followed? Such things already exist today, yet they do not have seemed to prevent much else besides those who could of otherwise defended themselves from becoming more than cattle waiting for slaughter.

__________________
Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.

ccw9mm

Law has purpose. Enforcement of basic laws such as elimination of "obvious" threats for cause is basically acceptable as a primary function of our system of justice/enforcement. The society has said so, based on that standard of behavior being codified into law.

The way I see it, your scenario is about removing the threat of a deranged person. The incidental fact he ends up being armed is beside the point. The fact he's arrested at my child's school, even more so.

There are no absolutes. Further, I don't believe it would be desirable, even if possible.

(Think for a moment on an absolute right to own and defend your space. Kill anyone that comes near, no questions asked. Kosher? Uh, no. There are limits to that "ownership" and what you can do with it.)

A collection of laws is, in essence, our agreed standards to which we'll hold ourselves. (Ignoring for a moment those laws that go well beyond that basic purpose.)

No level of regulation is tolerable to everyone. It's an impossible, pie-in-the-sky hope that will never be.

I'm with others who say: I don't really understand the question you're asking, or even the scenario you're proposing.

Life is. You do, or you don't. You choose to live in relative peace with others, or not. In a representative system of government, you get a shot at contributing to your own direction, the degree of governance, which laws get erected or cast down. You get to decide if that's your cup of tea, or not.

__________________
Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
Reports: CZ P01 pt1, pt2.
Thoughts: Justifiable self defense.
Reality: Disarming citizens only results in more victims.
Tip: Use the <search> feature.

Rivers

Rather than micro-defining that this term or that term means, or whether there is an existing law or not, I'd like to point out that every question posed suggests that there is a point of compromise, or movement away from an absolute position.

Whether it's guns, birth control, religious freedom, etc., my point is that while it may "feel right" to refuse to accept any regulation whatsoever, that is not our reality. If everyone were absolutely sane, responsible and in possession of his mental and emotional faculties, then we could move that "fine line" closer to an absolute answer. Unfortunately, the sane and the insane walk this earth with equal human rights. To maintain the public safety, those rights are limited, just as the right to free speech does not include falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

RKBA suffers the same need for compromise, to control that which poses a real danger while hopefully not trampling on the freedoms of those who present no risk. That is the battle we have to fight. The trick is knowing where to make our stand.

Bob The Great

sorry, but I disagree. A right has no "need" to compromise with those who would take it away. I would refer you to read some of the letters of Thomas Jefferson.

There will always be evil people in the world, and no matter how people try to control them, they will exist, and bad things will happen. The trap to avoid is judging all people by the lowest common denominator, in the hope that if you treat everyone as bad, you will be able to control the actual bad people. This is simply false. Society must deal with the evil people in it, but not by sacrificing the rights of everyone for a fanciful measure of "control" over evil.

__________________
"A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the continuance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
Is this hard to understand? Then why does it get unintelligible to some people when 5 little words are changed?

Thanis

Anti-gun uses this logic alot. One of the reasons they pushed so hard o the, "right to bear arms is only limited to militia." Once you take 2A out of the picture for individual gun-owners, you can get into a privlage argument. Since no compromise can be found, take the guns from everyone for everyone's safety.

That argument you offer can be used by pro-gun or anti-gun. IMO, the major flaw of the process you state is that it favors anti-gun. We can play semantics, but you do not bear arms because you will need a weapon (you should call LE in that case) but because you might need a weapon for self-preservation. If no compromise can be found, and only one of two extreme options is possible, reason would favor the immediate not the possible.

ccw9mm

... which rationalizes the means of defense right out of one's hands. ONLY by preparing for the possible can one hope to be prepared for the immediate if it should occur.

__________________
Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
Reports: CZ P01 pt1, pt2.
Thoughts: Justifiable self defense.
Reality: Disarming citizens only results in more victims.
Tip: Use the <search> feature.

packinnova

The problem is that the "fine" line is not so fine. There is effectively no end to the question you pose. Effectively it is no different than the pre-emptive strike concept in war. For all I know, I could determine you could be a sociopath on our first meeting and therefore determine it is necessary for hte good of the public to pre-emptively eliminate the threat.

I don't believe in comprise. Comprimise is used the same as the race concept. As in the ones that claim that winning a race doesn't matter, only the running of the race...notice that that's almost always stated by the losers of the race. I care to be on the living side thanks.

__________________
-The Mist (2007)