Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

[RetiredGySgt]

I am against the law that says a person once convicted, that has served their time is now barred from owning weapons. It is an unreasonable restriction on the 2nd Amendment.

If a person is a danger to society and has been convicted of a crime, they should not be released to the public if they remain a threat. Our justice system should not be able to create a method to punish someone for life outside of locking them up or putting them on parole. It is an unreasonable restriction and is unconstitutional in my opinion.

Now there is a way to have your right to own weapons returned, one can petition the Secretary of the Treasury to have that right returned. the reality is it is not likely to be granted under most any circumstance.

To be denied a weapon for mental instability requires a judge to have ruled on that. Not so sure I agree with that either, as it could easily be abused.

 

[LOki]

Not at all esoteric, it's actually an interesting argument.

I am reluctant to derail this thread before you and RetiredGySgt are done with me, so let's pick this facet of the discussion up HERE.

 

[LOki]

I am against the law that says a person once convicted, that has served their time is now barred from owning weapons. It is an unreasonable restriction on the 2nd Amendment.

I'd say it was heavy handed, perhaps licensing and registration is appropriate for these people. Requiring those who have demonstrated a proclivity for criminal violence would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis, to determine their fitness for weapons possession. Maybe it's appropriate that they demonstrate "need" in the sense Diuretic asserts. Maybe their priviledge should be contingent upon serving in the National Guard.

Just thoughts. In any case, such regulation (as I envision it) cannot be so broadly applied to encompass "the People" and remain Constitutional.

If a person is a danger to society and has been convicted of a crime, they should not be released to the public if they remain a threat.

This makes a great deal of sense.

Our justice system should not be able to create a method to punish someone for life outside of locking them up or putting them on parole. It is an unreasonable restriction and is unconstitutional in my opinion.

I hear you. There needs to be a means by which someone can square himself with the house. The government should not be appointing or empowering task masters to continue punishing someone beyond their legitimate, court mandated punishment.

Now there is a way to have your right to own weapons returned, one can petition the Secretary of the Treasury to have that right returned. the reality is it is not likely to be granted under most any circumstance.

To be denied a weapon for mental instability requires a judge to have ruled on that. Not so sure I agree with that either, as it could easily be abused.

To have ownership of a weapon (that you have Constitutionally protected right to own) denied, just because you don't buy a slip of paper from the government is just as easily abused, and repugnant to the notion of rights. Yes?

 

[M14 Shooter]

His argument if I haven't gotten it wrong (and please forgive me if I have Diuretic) is neither illogical, nor silly. It is based upon a set of values. It is based on an evalution of benefits and detriments. However, so are almost all arguments.

You have his argument right.
It is logically flawed, for the reasons discussed in this thread.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We know the cases of someone yelling fire in the crowded theatre and the dictum of my right to swing my arm ends at your nose. That's essentially my argument for the idea that all rights are subject to limitation, the limitation should be minimal though, as minimal as possible. The limits are where the arguments lie.

The limits on the freedom of speech, as you describe above, are based on the idea that these actions directly endanger others -- that is, they directly infringe on the rights of others -- and as such, these actions, outside the freedom of speech, can be 'regulated'.

How does that follow, regarding the 2nd amendment?

 

[ReillyT]

You have his argument right.
It is logically flawed, for the reasons discussed in this thread.

Whatever you say Bertrand Russell.

 

[Diuretic]

The limits on the freedom of speech, as you describe above, are based on the idea that these actions directly endanger others -- that is, they directly infringe on the rights of others -- and as such, these actions, outside the freedom of speech, can be 'regulated'.

How does that follow, regarding the 2nd amendment?

They're actually about reasonable limitations on particular rightst. I used them to try and illustrate the point that no rights are absolute. If the argument that no rights are absolute is valid then that will mean that the right expressed in the 2nd Amendment is not absolute. If the counter, that no rights are limited, is made, then that assumes total licence.

If you want to argue that there are no limits to the rights in the 2nd Amendment then you have to accept that there are no limits to the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They're actually about reasonable limitations on particular rights...

...all based on the premise that your rights extend as far as they do not infringe on the rights of others.

We all agree that yelling fire in a theater does this.
How does the posession of an automatic weapon?

 

[LOki]

They're actually about reasonable limitations on particular rightst.

Rights are already reasonably self limiting. You're talking about additional, limits, not reasonable limts.

I used them to try and illustrate the point that no rights are absolute.

This is, of course true, since rights are self limiting--way to go Mr. Obvious.

If the argument that no rights are absolute is valid then that will mean that the right expressed in the 2nd Amendment is not absolute.

That's right Mr. Obvious.

If the counter, that no rights are limited, is made, then that assumes total licence.

And "total license" is where you begin your irrational diversion from what a right is, and what is not covered by that right.

If you want to argue that there are no limits to the rights in the 2nd Amendment then you have to accept that there are no limits to the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights.

LOL! I'm not even making that argument.

 

[Diuretic]

Loki, you don't understand your own country's constitution. I thought you did. My mistake.

 

[LOki]

Loki, you don't understand your own country's constitution. I thought you did.

I understand the Constitution just fine.

My mistake.

Your mistake is hoping this unsubstantiated accusation helps you in any way.

Good luck with it.

 

[Diuretic]

No problem. Let's go on and have a discussion about the 2nd Amendment then. I'm not an American so I obviously have no idea about it but you have plenty of support there from Americans who know all about it, so let's hop into it. So, let's discuss firearms and the 2nd Amendment. I have a lot to learn, I'm looking forward to it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No problem. Let's go on and have a discussion about the 2nd Amendment then. I'm not an American so I obviously have no idea about it but you have plenty of support there from Americans who know all about it, so let's hop into it. So, let's discuss firearms and the 2nd Amendment. I have a lot to learn, I'm looking forward to it.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=666252&postcount=668

No response?

 

[LOki]

No problem. Let's go on and have a discussion about the 2nd Amendment then. I'm not an American so I obviously have no idea about it but you have plenty of support there from Americans who know all about it, so let's hop into it. So, let's discuss firearms and the 2nd Amendment. I have a lot to learn, I'm looking forward to it.

No response?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I'd say it was heavy handed, perhaps licensing and registration is appropriate for these people. Requiring those who have demonstrated a proclivity for criminal violence would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis, to determine their fitness for weapons possession. Maybe it's appropriate that they demonstrate "need" in the sense Diuretic asserts. Maybe their priviledge should be contingent upon serving in the National Guard.

Just thoughts. In any case, such regulation (as I envision it) cannot be so broadly applied to encompass "the People" and remain Constitutional.



This makes a great deal of sense.



I hear you. There needs to be a means by which someone can square himself with the house. The government should not be appointing or empowering task masters to continue punishing someone beyond their legitimate, court mandated punishment.



To have ownership of a weapon (that you have Constitutionally protected right to own) denied, just because you don't buy a slip of paper from the government is just as easily abused, and repugnant to the notion of rights. Yes?

So long as the regulations and requirements are clear and not played with, then there is no problem. If the Government is going to play with licensing automatics they will also play with checks on other weapons and this will be the "oppressive" government, wouldn't you agree?

 

[LOki]

So long as the regulations and requirements are clear and not played with, then there is no problem.

Well, I guess the difference between us is that I see a problem with having rights "played with" under the specious auspices of "reasonable regulation."

If the Government is going to play with licensing automatics they will also play with checks on other weapons and this will be the "oppressive" government, wouldn't you agree?

Yes.

 

[Diuretic]

...all based on the premise that your rights extend as far as they do not infringe on the rights of others.

We all agree that yelling fire in a theater does this.
How does the posession of an automatic weapon?

Missed it first time around.

The premise that an individual's rights extend only as far as they don't infringe on the rights of others I'd agree with, but I'd suggest that there may be more to look at. Take the 1st Amendment, free speech provision. Defamation laws provide a reasonable restriction and true, they're predicated on the individual rights of others. But inflammatory speech amounting to incitment is also restricted but not on the basis of a direct interference with the rights of others (and I accept that there is a link with the rights of others but it's distant) but on the need to maintain peace and good order in society.

So, to the automatic weapon objection. It's acceptable to restrict private ownership of automatic weapons because of the very nature of automatic weapons as effective (human) killing machines. Imagine if every home in the US had at least one automatic weapon (now don't swoon), the potential for harm is massive. To avoid this harm the ownership of these types of firearms must be restricted (including prohibition).

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Missed it first time around.

The premise that an individual's rights extend only as far as they don't infringe on the rights of others I'd agree with, but I'd suggest that there may be more to look at. Take the 1st Amendment, free speech provision. Defamation laws provide a reasonable restriction and true, they're predicated on the individual rights of others. But inflammatory speech amounting to incitment is also restricted but not on the basis of a direct interference with the rights of others (and I accept that there is a link with the rights of others but it's distant) but on the need to maintain peace and good order in society.

So, to the automatic weapon objection. It's acceptable to restrict private ownership of automatic weapons because of the very nature of automatic weapons as effective (human) killing machines. Imagine if every home in the US had at least one automatic weapon (now don't swoon), the potential for harm is massive. To avoid this harm the ownership of these types of firearms must be restricted (including prohibition).

Originally they were not restricted at all. And that lead to mayhem, murder and robbery on a grand scale in the 20's and early 30's. I believe a license requirement is reasonable and proper.

 

[Bern80]

So, to the automatic weapon objection. It's acceptable to restrict private ownership of automatic weapons because of the very nature of automatic weapons as effective (human) killing machines. Imagine if every home in the US had at least one automatic weapon (now don't swoon), the potential for harm is massive. To avoid this harm the ownership of these types of firearms must be restricted (including prohibition).

When a bunch of people (not just me) tell you that your working under a false premise you may want to look into that instead of simply repeating it over and over.

Case in point this whole the purpose of an automatic is to kill people bull shit. I have told you, I don't know half a dozen times now, (all of which you have failed to respond to) that the most you can attribute purpose wise to an automatic weapon is that it's purpose is to fire bullets quickly. That is the best you could do and still keep a level of intellectual honesty.

As you have so stated before they could also be effective car mangling machines. Or effective elephant killing machines and had that been what they were predominantly used for we wouldn't be having this conversation because you wouldn't be able to make this argument. For your argument to work you would have to ban ownership of every other gun that was predominantly used to kill people before an automatic was contrived.

Your so big on subtle differences, well there is a not so subtle difference between something's purpose and what people decide to use for. Have you gone back and actually looked at the verbal gymnastics you've had to play to make your argument work? Starting out with the whopper that need doesn't really mean neccessity.

 

[BrianH]

And if guns were banned, people would find another effective way of killing people. Like they did before guns were around.