testtest

A Question to Ponder on Miscreant Control

To the OP: I totally agree with the intent of keeping guns out of the hands of those who have shown by there actions that they should not have them.

Here come the "but".

But, I do not think laws can do that. It is my observation that every law intended to control human behavior is a failure. That's why we have law enforcement people like yourself. I would think that in your years of experience you would have been able to see that criminals just don't obey laws. Also, laws have to be broken to be enforced, which is somewhat of a paradox.

However, maybe my viewpoint is incorrect. Even if laws could work to prevent crime, the other problem with trying to find common ground is that the left always takes every small move in the direction they want to go as being a permanent win for them. They work like a ratchet. Every "click" is non-reversible. Rational people dealing with them think they are compromising to move forward, but the left seizes on every compromise as not only a win, but proof that they were right in their war on sanity to begin with. Have you ever seen the left give up ground to move forward?
I agree with your assessment of scofflaws. I have no illusions that laws will stop criminals-that is the nature of criminals. I do believe, however, if a convicted felon uses a gun, the law should have the teeth to put him where he will never see the light of day. That should be the basis of firearms disability laws. I also believe that a person illegally gives or sells a gun to someone known to be a criminal, or mentally ill, or a child, there should be consequences. There will always be violent criminals and mayhem, and anything we can do to shorten their careers benefits all of us. The irony of gun control is that for the most part it does not control criminal behavior, it only serves to control law abiding citizens.

The ultimate purpose of my original post was to bring into focus views from the perspective of 2a advocates who frequent here. I appreciate the collegial nature of the discussion. In the process I think we have put our fingers on the sharp points of the discussion. We generally agree that dangerous humans should not have weapons, but can't quite agree on who the dangerous people are, or how to separate them from their weapons without stepping on everyone else's rights. We need to be able to argue these issues with the opposition in a calm and rational manner. Now to find a calm and rational person to have the discussion with....
247255353_1506124546420977_5128503292313963366_n.jpg
 

Ranger715

Operator
I think the best we can do for our cause is to lead by example. We must be safe, sane, sober, moral, reasonable, responsible people. Among people who know me, I am a nice guy. I'm calm, generous, polite and have a smile for everyone I meet. I also carry a gun. Most of them have no idea, but may find out when they learn I'm a life member of the NRA. I will defend gun rights when the topic arises, but I don't preach. That doesn't convert people. They simply have to realize, on their own, that many good people they know and like own guns and it's OK. They may even start to feel that it would be wise if they did, too. Hopefully, they will see the disconnect between what the gun grabbers say about us and the reality they observe about us.

As for those who say there must be no restriction on gun ownership of any kind, I have never met such a person. I believe in restrictions as punishment for actual harmful behavior. Prohibitions against certain convicted criminals makes sense to me. They have demonstrated behavior that makes it reasonable to limit their rights, but I do think there should be a path to redemption. Some say they will get guns anyway, and they obviously do. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be against the law.

Most gun control laws are wrong because they punish people without regard to harmful behavior. They seek to prevent the possibility of harmful behavior. Person A is afraid of what person B did or might do, so they restrict what person C can do in hopes that person B will be hindered in whatever wrongdoing he might someday contemplate. As a result, person C, who hasn't done a thing to anyone, suffers for the fear of person A and/or the actions of person B. It's just wrong.
 

Recusant

Custom
A follow up question. There are state and federal laws that pretty much universally prohibit convicted violent felons (in some states they can regain their civil rights if not a violent felon) from possession of firearms and ammunition. Are those laws in our best interest, or not?

There is a push to re- introduce Project Exile in the Richmond area. Prohibited people who are caught carrying a firearm go to Federal Prison for 5 years. Liberal critics of this program say that it is a racially motivated program and will lead to the mass incarceration of African-American men. To that I quote the TV detective, Beretta, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime".
 

BreakingWind

Operator
There is a push to re- introduce Project Exile in the Richmond area. Prohibited people who are caught carrying a firearm go to Federal Prison for 5 years. Liberal critics of this program say that it is a racially motivated program and will lead to the mass incarceration of African-American men. To that I quote the TV detective, Beretta, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime".
Depends. My brother was convicted of Felony Theft when he was 16 (3 of them 15, 16, and 18 yr old, broken into a maintenance facility at a shuttered Army Post and stole 2 ATVs and a Jeep, after hot rodding them in the woods right outside the base they abandoned them. Unfortunately the 15 year old went back and retrieved one of the ATVs and attempted to sell it to a Honda motorcycle shop). Brother is now 52 and has never reoffended. His were restored recently. In his case yeah, I would say it worked. Non-violent and never reoffended for 35 years. I think if the requirements that have to be met are sufficient to assure that the individual is and will stay a law abiding citizen then yes, their 2A rights should be restored.
 

Bassbob

Ronin
Depends. My brother was convicted of Felony Theft when he was 16 (3 of them 15, 16, and 18 yr old, broken into a maintenance facility at a shuttered Army Post and stole 2 ATVs and a Jeep, after hot rodding them in the woods right outside the base they abandoned them. Unfortunately the 15 year old went back and retrieved one of the ATVs and attempted to sell it to a Honda motorcycle shop). Brother is now 52 and has never reoffended. His were restored recently. In his case yeah, I would say it worked. Non-violent and never reoffended for 35 years. I think if the requirements that have to be met are sufficient to assure that the individual is and will stay a law abiding citizen then yes, their 2A rights should be restored.
I know a guy in a similar situation. He's about 58 now, but when he was 18 he did some stupid, non violent crap and didn't get a lawyer and is a felon. He paid a lawyer and got it expunged last year and had a court restore his rights. He still is unable to get a "Proceed" from an NICS check.
 
If someone isn't ok to have a gun, why would we let them operate a vehicle?

The core issue is always freedom vs safety. In the end freedom isn't without costs. It isn't just the soldier that pays, it is the person that dies in a cross walk because we use cars instead of all being in trains. This goes on and on.

But gun control is even broader than that. It touches on human rights and equality. If a policeman can have certain weapons and certain armor for protection, and a normal citizen cannot, then by definition the policeman is more human. They have more human rights. Self-defense is a human right. And if self-defense is a human right, then the most effective self-defense available is a human right.

The OP leads us down a path that sounds good but lacks logical clarity and is filled with fallacy. I would highly suggest that no one be influenced by the "reasoning".

Look at this:
Reasonable people will agree that there are some humans who should not even be at large in society, and we can all agree that some should never be allowed to get their hands on a weapon.
This is a nonsense statement because it is irrelevant. Weapons are everywhere, take away firearms and they still exist. Norway guy used a bow and arrow and in Japan they use knives for mass murder. And hands and sticks work just fine for most violent criminals. In fact, take away modern weapons, and the strongest take what and who they wish.

And this bit of deception:
and the extreme right view that everyone should be able to get a gun no matter what
Really, give me citation...and IF you can find one, you already stated that it is irrelevant as it would be a tiny minority by definition..."extreme".

This is used to attempt to paint the reader into a "compromise" position that is really far away from a compromise:
Attempts to reason with either end of the spectrum from the center will fall on deaf ears and devolve into finger pointing, labeling, and name calling. Nothing good can come from that.

And if we don't compromise, then well here comes the scare tactics of "nothing good" (wink, wink all your guns go away).


"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." —Barry Goldwater
 
In my view, if someone has been convicted of committing a violent crime against another, or if they are a member of a terrorist group, or a group which seeks to overthrow the government, then they should not be permitted to carry a gun. You could add to that list children, and those who are mentally incapable of living an independent life.

Just curious, who gets to decide which groups are bad? (You didn't say convicted of a crime, just a member of a group.)

Who gets to decide who is mentally too far gone to have the human right of self-defense? How about Brittany, should she have the right to defend her person?
 

mikep

Operator
I don't think you'll reach the people on the far extreme who want to ban everything. The thing to do, in my opinion, is reach the rest. I think the best way to do that is present ourselves a reasonable and not scary. Don't open-carry an AR to lunch at Subway, take the skulls and Punisher stickers off trucks, and generally look and act like we're not preparing for war. Make firearms less scary by not acting like we're planning to use them at the drop of a hat and talk about them in a "it's fun to shoot" way, not a "gotta be ready to shoot somebody" way. Finally, invite people who are scared of guns out to try a .22 or something. My two cents.
I subscribe to the "speak softly, but carry a big stick approach", which is outlined in the first part of your post. I am sufficiently equipped to protect my wife and those in my house and continue to train and learn how best do so, if needed. I don't need to advertise it, but that's what works for me.
I also believe that educating people who are afraid of guns is important, which you touched on at the end. However, they must be open to learning something new and outside of their comfort zone. If their minds are closed then it is a waste of energy. Shake the dust from your feet and move on.
 

jumpinjoe

Professional
I get the sense we're talking about different people, too. You seem to be referring to the extremists. Most people aren't those. Try for the people in the middle who havent taken a hardline stance. I think you'll find that's the majority and they are open minded. Those are the people to win over.
benstt, let me expand just a little on what you say here: In years past when teaching the state's Hunter Safety program to folks, one of the things I learned is that there are 3 kinds of people we need/would like to talk to. Obviously the pro gun folks are already on our side and are typically fine and don't require a lot of talk. But the other 2 are totally different. 1st are the anti-2nd, anti-gun folks who are generally a lost cause since they already have their minds made up ..... right or wrong.... and for sure think they are right! However, the non-gun/non-hunter folks are a whole other issue.

More often than not I could strike up a conversation with a dad or mom, or uncle, or grandpa who were non-gun owners but brought the kids to class just to get the kids their ID cards so they could hunt with someone, and make some real headway. I often spent almost as much time with some of those non-gun/non-hunter folks, changing many opinions, as I did with some of the kids ..... but then I had an assortment of well trained instructors to cover that base.

I learned pretty quickly it was almost a certainty if there was an anti-2nd or an anti-gun person in the crowd, they usually weren't there because they wanted to be.
We have been trying, with myriad laws, forever, to keep firearms from criminals. Unsuccessful. Don't worry about it and stop passing laws trying to prevent it. Just promote the 2A and watch the problem dwindle. And with harsh prosecution in the courts of those felons that survive a tangle with armed citizens.

The Cardinal Truth that no one, and certainly no Government, is going to be able to guarantee your safety from others continues to be forgotten. Only YOU can do that. The current momentum against that is a Leftist method. If the Government would only limit/protect us from foreign harm (as they are charged but fail to do) that would be adequate.
This pretty much covers it. You simply cannot legislate morality nor safety. The very definition of a criminal is one who is prone to ignoring laws.

And to be really to the point ....... our constitution has never guaranteed us safety, but does guarantee our freedoms!!!
 

jumpinjoe

Professional
Mr HaysGreener said this: "if a convicted felon uses a gun, the law should have the teeth to put him where he will never see the light of day. That should be the basis of firearms disability laws"..... I couldn't agree more. And I would even expand on it a tad .... If anyone, convicted felon or not at the time, uses a gun in an illegal and/or violent way, the same should apply!
 
Top