POLITICS - Splinter RKBA Topic from the Spitzer Thread

[Old Ironsights]

Finally (seriously this time), regarding Paul's suggestion that any restriction on the right to bear arms whatsoever is not conservative, does that mean that any whackadoodle murderer should be able to walk out of prison and buy a gun? Because that viewpoint is never going to prevail and only makes defenders of the 2nd Amendment sound absurd.

Here is where you lose me. Obviously people confined to institutions (prison or hospitals) are, by definition, NOT FREE. OTOH, once released, they are assumed to have "paid their debt to society" or, in the case of neurochemical disorders, be stable/safe enough to be returned to publc life.

But whether we like it or not, that is simply not true. Especially in the case of the mentally ill. One can't just say, "OK, you're cured." Not to mention that in the case of a felon being prohibited from having a firearm - THAT IS ONE OF THE PUNISHMENTS! One would think that if such a right is considered so highly valuable, that the threat of losing such a right would be a fantastic deterrent.

Yah - and then the precedent of "Constructive Possession" comes into play and suddenly you have disarmed entire families because some poor woman goes all post-partum and gets "adjudicated", or you feel like your college age kid needs to be "adjudicated" to help them get their head on straight... and no one in their household will EVER be able to possess a firearm BECAUSE, as you say, "One can't just say, "OK, you're cured." and the way the GCA is written it is almost impossible to comply with the storage restrictions mandated by the BATFE. Laws don't prevent dangerously unstable people from getting arms, but they DO keep honest, stable and treated people from being able to defend themselves from dangerous people.

Not to mention that in the case of a felon being prohibited from having a firearm - THAT IS ONE OF THE PUNISHMENTS! One would think that if such a right is considered so highly valuable, that the threat of losing such a right would be a fantastic deterrent.

And since when do REAL criminals care about a silly little "possession" law? No, with the ever increasing number of things that can get you called a "felon" the only people who get really hurt by this is the guy forwhom "ignorance of the law is no excuse".

The RIGHT to "keep and bear arms" is derived from the basic, fundamental, Right to preserve one's EXISTENCE. Even the most lowly of animals has that Right.

The key words there are "derived from." There are a lot of links in that chain. 99.99% of Americans today have never needed arms to preserve their existence.

So? I happen to be part of that .01 %. I guess MY life wasn't worth defendeing eh?

Humans are Tool Users. We don't have "tooth and claw". We have Gun and Knife. Preventing a FREE PERSON from possessing tools of self defense equivelent to that of his predators is akin to defanging & declawing a housecat then setting it free in an alley or woods. It's going to die - because evry other creature out there still has tooth and claw.

I would suggest that the most important distinction between us and animals is that we have a better brain. Again, 99.99% of people in America don't seem to be getting devoured. Your analogy is just not accurate. Unarmed people are not declawed housecats in the woods.

Let me take you for a walk in the South Side of Chicago some time - where everyone BUT the criminals are EXACTLY like declawed houscats in the woods.

In today's society there are a myriad of other things that are more important than a gun to prevail. (In fact, the biggest thing defense attorneys complain to me about with a felony conviction is not the loss of gun ownership, it is the difficulty in getting a job. Even the people that don't live in a suburban or urban setting would be better off with a car than a gun, but it is really easy to lose your driver's license. They complain about that a lot, too.)

What do cars have to do with self defense? If you say "Licensing" I have got a real treat for you...

Do I care if a parolled/released murderer is "allowed" to own a gun? No. If they want one, they are going to get one anyway (that is the basic fallacy of ALL "prohibitions"). I don't care because I WILL NOT give up MY Tooth and Claw. I will be able and ready to defend myself from attacks by such a recividist.

You really don't care, huh? How do you realistically measure the odds that you are going to take the first shot. (The woman in C Springs hailed as a hero for preventing a larger mass murder still "let" two people get killed. How do you know it wouldn't have been you and your wife?)

Oh, maybe because I have "used" a firearm three seperate times to stop an ongoing assault... and never had to pull the trigger.

Your statement shows exactly how little you understand the idea of Self Defense and the Continuum of Force. Self Defense is not about "taking the first shot". It's about taking the LAST shot.

I would rather that certain people not be able to go buy a gun legally, because at the very least such a restriction (though I understand why you try to change the debate I am certainly not talking about prohibitions) is a speed bump between them and the gun.

No, it is not. Again, c'on over to the South Side of Chicago - where guns areall but banned to EVERYONE. If we don't get killed on the suspicion of being White Undercover Cops, we can buy just about any gun you care to think of. Got Cash? No problem.

My original point about this particular restriction, which even many people that support gun rights would believe is reasonable, was simply to dispute the prior post that one who supports "any" gun restriction is not conservative. Michael in NH

Supporting Gun Possession Restrictions is, by definition, supporting Big Government, which is NOT 'Conservative'. It may be Neo-Con, but it is not "Conservative".

[AJMD429]

'Just a little' gun control is like 'just a little' socialism, or for that matter, 'just a little' heroin; it makes things worse, and serves only as an excuse for more of the same, until it ends very badly.

One way I try to explain to those with enough attention span to listen is to look at the 'marginal utility' concept. You have violent criminals, honest citizens, and irresponsible morons as the basic three classes of potential gun owners. The VC's you don't want to have guns, nor the IM's, but you want the HC's to. So, with a gun law, you look at which group it will affect, and to what extent.

VC's are virtually unaffected by ANY gun law.
HC's are strongly impacted by EVERY gun law (or it's unintended consequences).
IM's seem to concern everyone - the college kid who has a gun because it's 'OK' now if we pass a CCW on campus bill. The truth is, they are seldom a problem, and although they do at least obey some gun laws, the 'slope' of change in violence vs. change in gun laws is very minimal for that group, and affects few lives.

In contrast, the HC's are so strongly affected that the negative consequences for them (and society at large) of gun laws FAR overshadow the effect on IM's. In other words, graphically, the 'slope' is greater.

Sum all the effects up, and for every additional nut or crook that gets hold of a gun due to lax laws, you've deprived thousands of honest citizens.

[Jeeps]

Doesn't matter what people think, infringement is infringement, bottom line.

The Bill of Rights isn't a suggestion, ITS THE FOUNDATION OF AMERICA.

How many more bricks can we chisel out of it?