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

[Gardener]

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.

Making sure I am not a criminal before I buy a gun, by running a background check, is not an infringement upon my rights.

See "Prior restraint", above.

As you did not actually address my post, I shall assume you agree with it and have allowed it to stand.

so how do we prevent felons and illegal aliens from buying a handgun at a gunstore?

make them promise that they are nice and legal?

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Why does it "not really belong there"?
Conceptually, why should prior restraint not apply to the exercie of EVERY right?

Such as the right to vote?

Such as -any- right.
Should the state be able to restrain you from leaving your house until it determies that you are not going someplace to commit a crime?

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.

To that end:
The right to vote differs here in that the meaningful exercise of the right to vote necessitates that everyone is who they say they are and that they do indeed have the right to vote; the state, therefore, has a compelling interest in verifying these things prior to an election so that ther rights of legal voters are protected.

So if you're saying that the Constitutionally protected right to vote differs, then you are identifying that there is at least one exception to the statement just prior to that which says prior restraint applies to all rights. In what way would requiring gun registration differ from the same reasons you've stated for justifying voter registration?

Essentially you're saying that a registration that requires a background check violates the Constitution because it is a prior restraint. Okay, I get that. But does prior restraint apply evenly to all rights? You've provided an exception yourself, although I acknowledge that one involves a background check and the other does not. However, it is a process of determining if the person meets the criteria for bearing arms. This would include such things as if the person has a basic knowledge of firearms, as in keeping with the idea of a "well regulated militia." Why could it not also include whether or not the person committed a violent crime which might jeopardize that individual's access to a full set of rights? Would that not then be a selection of whether or not the individual is eligible?

So, no, I am not convinced that prior restraint applies equally to all rights.

 

[R.C. Christian]

OMG, you're still here?

 

[Gardener]

Background checks is the only way to make sure criminals and illegal aliens don't buy guns at gunstores and gunshows.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Background checks is the only way to make sure criminals and illegal aliens don't buy guns at gunstores and gunshows.

I already provided you another way, yet you chant your mantra as if you were an automaton, programmed by the central hive....

Gee, wonder why that is....

 

[Gardener]

Background checks is the only way to make sure criminals and illegal aliens don't buy guns at gunstores and gunshows.

I already provided you another way, yet you chant your mantra as if you were an automaton, programmed by the central hive....

Gee, wonder why that is....

there is another option.

its called a firearms license.

or NICS could put your firearms data on the magnetic strip of your drivers license.

but that's "big brother", so gun nuts will oppose it all.

they don't want criminals and illegal aliens to buy guns but refuse to allow a system to prevent it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

there is another option.

its called a firearms license.

or NICS could put your firearms data on the magnetic strip of your drivers license.

but that's "big brother", so gun nuts will oppose it all.

they don't want criminals and illegal aliens to buy guns but refuse to allow a system to prevent it.

Ya think, sparky?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-doesn-t-make-sense-to-me-22.html#post7551901

 

[M14 Shooter]

Making sure I am not a criminal before I buy a gun, by running a background check, is not an infringement upon my rights.

See "Prior restraint", above.

As you did not actually address my post, I shall assume you agree with it and have allowed it to stand.

so how do we prevent felons and illegal aliens from buying a handgun at a gunstore?
make them promise that they are nice and legal?

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

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.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Such as the right to vote?

Such as -any- right.
Should the state be able to restrain you from leaving your house until it determies that you are not going someplace to commit a crime?

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.

To that end:
The right to vote differs here in that the meaningful exercise of the right to vote necessitates that everyone is who they say they are and that they do indeed have the right to vote; the state, therefore, has a compelling interest in verifying these things prior to an election so that ther rights of legal voters are protected.

So if you're saying that the Constitutionally protected right to vote differs, then you are identifying that there is at least one exception to the statement just prior to that which says prior restraint applies to all rights. In what way would requiring gun registration differ from the same reasons you've stated for justifying voter registration?

I said:
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 - certainly you will agree that I clearly explained the difference where voting rights are concerned, and why prior restaint and the infringement it brings is constitutionally acceptable.

Registration/verification of voters is a necessary component of the exercise ofthe right to vote as it is the only way to be sure the right is meaninglfully exercised.

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.

Thus, the difference.

Please be sure to seperate the concepts of registration and background checks as you seem to want to meld them together.

Essentially you're saying that a registration that requires a background check violates the Constitution because it is a prior restraint. Okay, I get that. But does prior restraint apply evenly to all rights?...So, no, I am not convinced that prior restraint applies equally to all rights

Again:
If you accept the prior restraint premise for one right and not another, then the onus is on you to explain why it does not apply to certain rights, as I did w/ voting.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Background checks is the only way to make sure criminals and illegal aliens don't buy guns at gunstores and gunshows.

You can keep repeating this like it hasn't been rebuked, but doing so just makes you look dishonest.

 

[Gardener]

Background checks is the only way to make sure criminals and illegal aliens don't buy guns at gunstores and gunshows.

You can keep repeating this like it hasn't been rebuked, but doing so just makes you look dishonest.

How do you propose we keep guns out of the hands of criminals and illegal aliens?

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

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.

I understand what you are saying on the above two points. My only issue is that I do not see that they are significantly different from voting rights because voter registration was not always required, and thus was meaningfully exercised for a time before voter registration was required, or at least required to the extent that it is now. In the 1800s multiple voting was common, sometimes under coercion by cooping gangs, making strict registration a necessity. One can easily argue that such a necessity has presented itself in respect to gun violence. We may not all agree whether or not certain guns should be banned, but we can all reasonably agree that guns should be kept out of the hands of violent criminals or those not possessing the basic ability to responsibly bear one, to the best of our ability. While background checks do not guarantee this, they do at least help determine this eligibility.

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. Second, the wording of the 2nd Amendment allows for regulation, where the 1st does not. Sensible regulation that does not infringe upon the 2nd Amendment is what is needed. While registration can be carried out in such a way as to infringe on the 2nd Amendment, it does not do so by default, whereas banning weapons does.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Background checks is the only way to make sure criminals and illegal aliens don't buy guns at gunstores and gunshows.

You can keep repeating this like it hasn't been rebuked, but doing so just makes you look dishonest.

How do you propose we keep guns out of the hands of criminals and illegal aliens?

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.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

I understand what you are saying on the above two points. My only issue is that I do not see that they are significantly different from voting rights because voter registration was not always required, and thus was meaningfully exercised for a time before voter registration was required, or at least required to the extent that it is now.

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?

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

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

Exactly the question that should be asked.

I wish to explore it with you. But I am done for the day. To be continued.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Background checks is the only way to make sure criminals and illegal aliens don't buy guns at gunstores and gunshows.

You can keep repeating this like it hasn't been rebuked, but doing so just makes you look dishonest.

How do you propose we keep guns out of the hands of criminals and illegal aliens?

OMG. We didn't have as many of these problems in the 1950's did we? That's because the family and Christian morality kept a check on things. Those are gone now so only irrational cave men with guns instead of clubs remain.

We should have known it was coming once human filth started putting nasty tattoos on their skin. I did.

 

[Gardener]

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?

Sounds pretty unpatriotic and useless.

We need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and illegal aliens, BEFORE they use such guns in a crime or they get arrested with the gun. They shouldn't get their hands on the gun in the first place.

You seem to want to take no action whatsoever to prevent criminals and illegal aliens from buying guns in gun stores and at gun shows and through private sales.

 

[Gardener]

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

Its that simple.

 

[FA_Q2]

quote=Underhill;7079148

I would agree that bans haven't always worked (although it certainly has in some cases).

But mandatory gun locks and background checks could do some good and won't take anything away from anyone. So why on earth would any gun owner be against them?

And for the record, I own 5 guns at the moment.

What law do want imposed about gun locks? Do you mean all guns must be sold with one (as most are now), or do you mean that all gun owners must have trigger locks placed on them except at the gun range?

How fast would anyone be able to take the trigger lock off a gun after an aggressive thug busts into their house? Background checks don't stop criminals from using the stolen and illegally obtained guns they use in virtually all their crimes anymore than it stops them from selling narcotics because they are against the law.

Besides Sallow, are there any other anti-gunners in this thread?

Please fix your tags – I never made that statement.

 

[FA_Q2]

Let’s see if we can have a civil, logical discussion on banning high-powered weapons such as AR-15’s.

I do NOT support banning these weapons and here’s why. We’re always going to have these high-powered guns in existence, so we have 1 of 2 scenarios to pick from:

1.) We agree to have guns decentralized between (a) the gov't, (b) criminals and (c) law abiding citizens OR

2.) We agree to centralize gun ownership into the hands of only (a) the gov’t and (b) criminals

Not sure if people remember, but 10 years ago certain powerful individuals within the US Gov’t pushed to go to war with a country that never attacked or posed a threat to the United States. This resulted in the slaughter of close to a million human individuals (figures vary, but it's definitely over 500,000). The motivation for this war was likely tied to money and strategic gain. The point is, our Gov’t has proven itself very capable of doing some very bad things against our best interests.

With that given, why take “law abiding citizens” out of the equation above (wouldn't they be the least threatening group)?

I see many folks on the left rightfully criticizing the Gov't for killing middle easterners at will and for going rogue and bailing out the big banks, ect, but at the same time see no issues with handing over their more powerful weapons to that EXACT same entity.

Thoughts?
.





.

An AR-15 isn't any different than any other deer rifle i.e. 30.06, 270. 308...etc...except for the cosmetics. In other words, it looks scary.

What? So, by no different you must mean that the shooters in Sandy Hook and Aurora could have pulled off the same thing with a deer rifle?

I'm in full support of our 2nd Amendment rights, but that statement makes no sense.

They could have done just as much with a myriad of weapons to include handguns. The AR is not particularly more dangerous than many other weapons, particularly in those situations which are NOT ideal for an AR. A handgun in many respects would have been superior.