Banning AR-15's Doesn't Make Sense To Me

[FA_Q2]

Background checks are a sensible alternative to banning that doesn't flirt with infringing on the 2nd Amendment. I'll never understand what anybody has against them.

As for a basic demonstration of knowledge of firearms, that works as well, and fall right in line with the "well-regulated militia" end of the 2nd.

Those two things together are positive way of dealing with the issue and makes a hell of a lot more sense than banning.

I'm not comfortable with the state tracking the weapon sales of individuals. If our concern is whether a person is qualified to buy a gun, then license the person. But per weapon checks and registration is bound to lead to abuse, think the corrupt Eric Holder, the IRS, and the attacks on the Tea Party.

I don't want criminals to buy guns or the mentally ill, so a license showing that a person is legally qualified to purchase a weapon makes sense, but it's a "go / no go" test - the involvement of the government ends at the license - if a person has it, what they buy is their own business.

This I can understand and agree with in the same manner that I back voter ID laws. I am, however, having a tough time reconciling the idea with this:

Registration of guns is -not- a necessary component to the exercise of the right to arms, and may - indeed, almost always is - meaningfully exercised without it.

Simiarly, the exercise of the right to arms may be meaningfully exercised, ad was so exercised for a LONG period of time - without regard to the possibility of those who are not legally allowed to have guns to get them.

We are having a respectful and meaningful discussion so far. I hope we are able to keep it up and not get insulting such as what usually happens on USMB.

Agreed.


Incorrect. The right to vote was indeed exercised, but NOT meaningfully, as you point out by the fact that gangs, etc, were able to vote multiple times. The fact that people still voted and people were elected does not mean that right was meaningfully exercised, it instead means that the right was not sufficiently protected by the state, and that the rights of the legit voters were diminished -- recall that the reason for voter registration is to proect the rights of the voters, and nothing else.

Gun registration does not protect the rights of those who exercise the right to arms, and so its constitutional permissibility cannot soundly follow from the example set by the permissibility of voter registration. Again, the difference in in the inherent nature of the rights; the fact that felons might sill be able to get guns in no way diminishes the exercise of the right by those who have it, whereas the fact that felons might still be bale to vote diminishes the exercise of the right who have it.

There can be no comparison between the 1st and 2nd Amendments when it comes to prior restraint. They are noticeably different rights. First, a string of offensive words cannot mow down a room full of people.

True, but a meaningless distinction. Libel and slander are not prtected by the 1st because they cause harm; yelling fire in a theater is not protected by the 1st because it places people ina condition of clear, pesent and immediate danger, and the dissemination of military secrets threatens our national security, possibly even creating an existential threat far greater than that of firearms -- and yet, the state cannot constitutionally restrain your exercise of your right to free speech until it determines that it contains any of these things and therefore violatwes the law.

Second, the wording of the 2nd Amendment allows for regulation, where the 1st does not.

Weak. -All- rights may be regulated (see above); the only question is if that regulation creates an infringement (almost all do) and if that infringment is constitutionally permissible. The question here is if prior restraint, constitutionally impermissible with regard to the 1st amendment, while constitutionally permissible with regard to voting rights, is permissible in regards to the 2nd.
This gets us back to:
If you accept the premise of prior restraint, then you need to accept that the same premise applies to all rights, or soundy explain why it applies to some and not to others.

Or, put otherwise:
What maked the 2nd so different that it does not share the same protection aginst prior restraint as the first?

I hope to see the debate between 14 and Jimmy continue because that is an interesting point that 14 used.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As I have already addressed this twice, allow me to repeat myself again.

False premise, that you can pass a law that will prevent people from breaking the law, and that you can constitutionally enforce a law by restraining everyoner's actions until they are deemed by the state to not break that law

It is illegal for felons/criminals to buy/possess guns. Like every other criminal law, this is enforced by an arrest, a trial and a conviction; like every other criminal law, it is not intended to prevent someone from committing a crime, but to provide a means to prosecute them when they do.

You can act like this doesnt address your question, but that's just you being dishonest.

So you think we should wait for criminals and illegal aliens to commit a crime for us to take away their guns?

That's how criminal law works.
You break the law, you get arrested, taken to trial, convicted and punished.

You canot pass a law that will prevent people from breaking the law, and you cannot constitutionally enforce a law by restraining everyoner's actions until they are deemed by the state to not break that law.

Sounds pretty unpatriotic and useless.

With this, I accept your concession of the point.
When you have a sound counter argument to what I presented here, please do let us know.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We need laws, regulations and systems to prevent criminals and illegal aliens from acquiring firearms.
Its that simple.

Funny how you act like this hasn't been debunked.

 

[Gardener]

You canot pass a law that will prevent people from breaking the law, and you cannot constitutionally enforce a law by restraining everyoner's actions until they are deemed by the state to not break that law.

Sounds pretty unpatriotic and useless.

With this, I accept your concession of the point.
When you have a sound counter argument to what I presented here, please do let us know.

so you are against Voter ID laws?

you are against drug testing before people can get Welfare?

you are against metal detectors at airports and the White House and Congress?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Background checks are a sensible alternative to banning that doesn't flirt with infringing on the 2nd Amendment. I'll never understand what anybody has against them.

As for a basic demonstration of knowledge of firearms, that works as well, and fall right in line with the "well-regulated militia" end of the 2nd.

Those two things together are positive way of dealing with the issue and makes a hell of a lot more sense than banning.

I'm not comfortable with the state tracking the weapon sales of individuals. If our concern is whether a person is qualified to buy a gun, then license the person. But per weapon checks and registration is bound to lead to abuse, think the corrupt Eric Holder, the IRS, and the attacks on the Tea Party.

I don't want criminals to buy guns or the mentally ill, so a license showing that a person is legally qualified to purchase a weapon makes sense, but it's a "go / no go" test - the involvement of the government ends at the license - if a person has it, what they buy is their own business.

This I can understand and agree with in the same manner that I back voter ID laws. I am, however, having a tough time reconciling the idea with this:

Agreed.


Incorrect. The right to vote was indeed exercised, but NOT meaningfully, as you point out by the fact that gangs, etc, were able to vote multiple times. The fact that people still voted and people were elected does not mean that right was meaningfully exercised, it instead means that the right was not sufficiently protected by the state, and that the rights of the legit voters were diminished -- recall that the reason for voter registration is to proect the rights of the voters, and nothing else.

Gun registration does not protect the rights of those who exercise the right to arms, and so its constitutional permissibility cannot soundly follow from the example set by the permissibility of voter registration. Again, the difference in in the inherent nature of the rights; the fact that felons might sill be able to get guns in no way diminishes the exercise of the right by those who have it, whereas the fact that felons might still be bale to vote diminishes the exercise of the right who have it.


True, but a meaningless distinction. Libel and slander are not prtected by the 1st because they cause harm; yelling fire in a theater is not protected by the 1st because it places people ina condition of clear, pesent and immediate danger, and the dissemination of military secrets threatens our national security, possibly even creating an existential threat far greater than that of firearms -- and yet, the state cannot constitutionally restrain your exercise of your right to free speech until it determines that it contains any of these things and therefore violatwes the law.

Second, the wording of the 2nd Amendment allows for regulation, where the 1st does not.

Weak. -All- rights may be regulated (see above); the only question is if that regulation creates an infringement (almost all do) and if that infringment is constitutionally permissible. The question here is if prior restraint, constitutionally impermissible with regard to the 1st amendment, while constitutionally permissible with regard to voting rights, is permissible in regards to the 2nd.
This gets us back to:
If you accept the premise of prior restraint, then you need to accept that the same premise applies to all rights, or soundy explain why it applies to some and not to others.

Or, put otherwise:
What maked the 2nd so different that it does not share the same protection aginst prior restraint as the first?

I hope to see the debate between 14 and Jimmy continue because that is an interesting point that 14 used.

Which point was that?

 

[M14 Shooter]

You canot pass a law that will prevent people from breaking the law, and you cannot constitutionally enforce a law by restraining everyoner's actions until they are deemed by the state to not break that law.

Sounds pretty unpatriotic and useless.

With this, I accept your concession of the point.
When you have a sound counter argument to what I presented here, please do let us know.

so you are against Voter ID laws?

you are against drug testing before people can get Welfare?

you are against metal detectors at airports and the White House and Congress?

When you have a sound counter-argument to what I presented here, please do let us know.

 

[FA_Q2]

Which point was that?

Mainly this:

Gun registration does not protect the rights of those who exercise the right to arms, and so its constitutional permissibility cannot soundly follow from the example set by the permissibility of voter registration. Again, the difference in in the inherent nature of the rights; the fact that felons might sill be able to get guns in no way diminishes the exercise of the right by those who have it, whereas the fact that felons might still be bale to vote diminishes the exercise of the right who have it.

It is an interesting point that registration of voting is required due to the fact that it infringes on others votes when you illegally exercise that right.

 

[Gardener]

You canot pass a law that will prevent people from breaking the law, and you cannot constitutionally enforce a law by restraining everyoner's actions until they are deemed by the state to not break that law.


With this, I accept your concession of the point.
When you have a sound counter argument to what I presented here, please do let us know.

so you are against Voter ID laws?

you are against drug testing before people can get Welfare?

you are against metal detectors at airports and the White House and Congress?

When you have a sound counter-argument to what I presented here, please do let us know.

You are against laws that pro-actively prevent criminals and others from breaking the law.

Does that include Voter ID laws and metal detectors at airports and other sensitive locations?

Please answer the question.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Which point was that?

Mainly this:

Gun registration does not protect the rights of those who exercise the right to arms, and so its constitutional permissibility cannot soundly follow from the example set by the permissibility of voter registration. Again, the difference in in the inherent nature of the rights; the fact that felons might sill be able to get guns in no way diminishes the exercise of the right by those who have it, whereas the fact that felons might still be bale to vote diminishes the exercise of the right who have it.

It is an interesting point that registration of voting is required due to the fact that it infringes on others votes when you illegally exercise that right.

Exactly - while the illegal exercise of the right to arms does not diminish the right of those that exercise it legally.

In essence, in terms of constitutionally acceptable prior restraint, voting rights and gun rights are apples and oranges:
-The illegal exercise of the right to arms does not diminish the legal exercise of the right to arms
-Voter registration protects the rights of the voters; gun registration/backgtround checks do not protect the rights of gun owners.

So, the fact that voting rights may be permissibly restrained does not in way soundly translate into an argument that the right to arms may be permissibly restrained.

 

[M14 Shooter]

so you are against Voter ID laws?

you are against drug testing before people can get Welfare?

you are against metal detectors at airports and the White House and Congress?

When you have a sound counter-argument to what I presented here, please do let us know.

You are against laws that pro-actively prevent criminals and others from breaking the law.

Does that include Voter ID laws and metal detectors at airports and other sensitive locations?

Please answer the question.

When you have a sound counter-argument to what I presented here, please do let us know.

 

[Uncensored2008]

In any epoch, as the Aristocracy reaches the pinnacle of corruption, a fear of getting caught by the masses occurs. As this grows, the response of the corrupt ruling class is to disarm the public at large. Kung Fu was born when the Han Dynasty rulers outlawed the possession of weapons by the peasantry. In Rome, prohibition of arms rose as corruption brought the empire down. In Britain, every time the Monarchy got nervous that their corruption would be exposed, they banned weapons from the peasants.

So here we are in the world of Obama - the most corrupt administration in the nations history, with a race baiting criminal, Eric Holder, in charge of the Dept. of "Justice." Open bribery, kickbacks, selling favors and legislation on the open market, looting the public treasury on behalf of well connected corporations - a level of criminality that would shock most banana republics.

We have an utterly and completely corrupt federal government, headed by a criminal - and what does he try to do?

Ban weapons.

 

[Survivalist]

so you are against Voter ID laws?

you are against drug testing before people can get Welfare?

you are against metal detectors at airports and the White House and Congress?

When you have a sound counter-argument to what I presented here, please do let us know.

You are against laws that pro-actively prevent criminals and others from breaking the law.

Does that include Voter ID laws and metal detectors at airports and other sensitive locations?

Please answer the question.

Standard gun control laws are for the feeble-minded.

Why don't you suggest enforcing the stacks of laws they already have on the books? Are you for giving felons reduced or dropped penalties when they use an illegal firearm?

Here's a good law: any member of any violent street gang caught using any weapon during a crime will face draconian punishment.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Which point was that?

Mainly this:

Gun registration does not protect the rights of those who exercise the right to arms, and so its constitutional permissibility cannot soundly follow from the example set by the permissibility of voter registration. Again, the difference in in the inherent nature of the rights; the fact that felons might sill be able to get guns in no way diminishes the exercise of the right by those who have it, whereas the fact that felons might still be bale to vote diminishes the exercise of the right who have it.

It is an interesting point that registration of voting is required due to the fact that it infringes on others votes when you illegally exercise that right.

Exactly - while the illegal exercise of the right to arms does not diminish the right of those that exercise it legally.

In essence, in terms of constitutionally acceptable prior restraint, voting rights and gun rights are apples and oranges:
-The illegal exercise of the right to arms does not diminish the legal exercise of the right to arms
-Voter registration protects the rights of the voters; gun registration/backgtround checks do not protect the rights of gun owners.

So, the fact that voting rights may be permissibly restrained does not in way soundly translate into an argument that the right to arms may be permissibly restrained.

Ah, now this is a point that deserves to be explored. Is your position then that registration of firearms that includes a criminal background check diminishes our 2nd Amendment rights? If so, in what way?

You made a point in an earlier post that we're talking about trying to prevent people from committing crimes as opposed to convicting those that break the law through due process. The goal of background checks may be to reduce violent crime, and the effectiveness of that may be questionable, but that point does not make them unconstitutional. An individual who has a felony record of violent crime can easily be identified through such a check, and disqualified via felony disenfranchisement. If background checks are carried out in that way, what could be unconstitutional about it?

I think the fear that people who oppose background checks have is that they will not be carried out in that way. That is a legitimate concern, because background checks could be carried out in a way that restricts access to firearms in an unconstitutional way. I am simply arguing that the restriction of rights through felony disenfranchisement is not unconstitutional, and in that respect I am not opposed to background checks. I guess personally I do not fear them because I already know that I would not lose my 2nd Amendment rights because of them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ah, now this is a point that deserves to be explored. Is your position then that registration of firearms that includes a criminal background check diminishes our 2nd Amendment rights? If so, in what way?

This has been discussed.
-Background checks are a form of prior restraint, which infringes the right.
-Registration is a restraint placed on the right not pursuant to an inherent portion of the right (see: voter registration), which therefore infringes on the right.

You made a point in an earlier post that we're talking about trying to prevent people from committing crimes as opposed to convicting those that break the law through due process.

That is the intent of background checks, and it necessarily creates a condition of prior restraint; it infringes your right to arms every bit as much as the government not letting you travel until it determines you are not going somewhere to commit a crime

The goal of background checks may be to reduce violent crime, and the effectiveness of that may be questionable, but that point does not make them unconstitutional.

No... the fact that they are a form of prior restraint makes then unconstitutional, unless, as demonstrated by the constitutional permissibility of the restraint found in voter registration you can show that said prior restraint is necessary in order to protect the rights of those exercising the right to arms, and that the right to arms can only be meaningfully exercised if the check takes place.

....I guess personally I do not fear them because I already know that I would not lose my 2nd Amendment rights because of them.

Lose your right? Perhaps not. Have your right infringed? Unquestionably.
The 2nd amendment protects the right from infringement.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Ah, now this is a point that deserves to be explored. Is your position then that registration of firearms that includes a criminal background check diminishes our 2nd Amendment rights? If so, in what way?

This has been discussed.
-Background checks are a form of prior restraint, which infringes the right.
-Registration is a restraint placed on the right not pursuant to an inherent portion of the right (see: voter registration), which therefore infringes on the right.

You made a point in an earlier post that we're talking about trying to prevent people from committing crimes as opposed to convicting those that break the law through due process.

That is the intent of background checks, and it necessarily creates a condition of prior restraint; it infringes your right to arms every bit as much as the government not letting you travel until it determines you are not going somewhere to commit a crime

The goal of background checks may be to reduce violent crime, and the effectiveness of that may be questionable, but that point does not make them unconstitutional.

No... the fact that they are a form of prior restraint makes then unconstitutional, unless, as demonstrated by the constitutional permissibility of the restraint found in voter registration you can show that said prior restraint is necessary in order to protect the rights of those exercising the right to arms, and that the right to arms can only be meaningfully exercised if the check takes place.

....I guess personally I do not fear them because I already know that I would not lose my 2nd Amendment rights because of them.

Lose your right? Perhaps not. Have your right infringed? Unquestionably.
The 2nd amendment protects the right from infringement.

I know that prior restraint has been discussed. However, prior restraint is something that applies specifically to the 1st Amendment, as has also been discussed. It's even application to all rights is not established. Prior restraint, until I see otherwise, has only been applied to 1st Amendment issues. If the argument is that is should be applied evenly to all rights, fine, but I have yet to see that it is. The best that I can see is that it is being presented as such by advocates against background checks.

Background checks to determine if an individual is prohibited from bearing a firearm prior to the purchase of one is not unconstitutional, at least not readily so. I don't know what your example of prohibiting travel has to do with it. If you commit a Class C felony, you are prohibited from your 2nd Amendment right, similar to felony disenfranchisement.

If a background check is required as a means to determine if an individual fits that status, how is that prior restraint? Prior restraint places a restriction on 1st Amendment rights regardless of whether or not the individual committed a crime that forfeits that right. As far as I know, there are no conditions that restrict 1st Amendment rights, while there are for voting rights, gun ownership rights, and jury duty. For this reason, prior restraint does not apply exactly the same for other rights. As much as one may want prior restraint to apply evenly to all rights, it does not. If your counter is that it just does, that's not enough.

 

[Gardener]

I am confident that a thorough study will show that the vast majority of legal gun owners do not commit crimes with their guns.

Most gun crimes are committed with guns that are stolen or bought illegally.

As for gun massacres? Many of those would be prevented with background checks for all gun sales and more thorough background checks which include updates mental health records.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I am confident that a thorough study will show that the vast majority of legal gun owners do not commit crimes with their guns.

Most gun crimes are committed with guns that are stolen or bought illegally.

As for gun massacres? Many of those would be prevented with background checks for all gun sales and more thorough background checks which include updates mental health records.

Which ones?

Not Sandy Hook, since he stole the guns from his mother. Virginia tech was with a stolen gun too - so which ones would be stopped?

 

[Gardener]

I am confident that a thorough study will show that the vast majority of legal gun owners do not commit crimes with their guns.

Most gun crimes are committed with guns that are stolen or bought illegally.

As for gun massacres? Many of those would be prevented with background checks for all gun sales and more thorough background checks which include updates mental health records.

Which ones?

Not Sandy Hook, since he stole the guns from his mother. Virginia tech was with a stolen gun too - so which ones would be stopped?

didnt the VT guy buy his guns?

didnt the Colorado shooting guy buy his too?

 

[Gardener]

another good way to stop massacres is to have numeric trigger locks on guns.

 

[Uncensored2008]

didnt the VT guy buy his guns?

didnt the Colorado shooting guy buy his too?

VT no, he stole them.

Colorado, yes - he bought them.

But he had no criminal record and no mental health issues in any file, so he would fly through a background check.