I am chilling in the Hampton Roads ([info]bklein) wrote in [info]guns,
2006-01-31 12:26:00
Don't flame me this is just a rumor I have heard.

*** deleted thread ***

This information was a rumor and should be taken as such. The BATF is looking into a way to help stop mentally unstable people who right now can purchase handguns and rifles. Like I said it is just a rumor.

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    switch

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

     
    Help
  • 60 comments

[info]lds

January 31 2006, 17:45:12 UTC 6 years ago

If it's "just a rumor," perhaps you could, say, cite some sources so we can check on it ourselves?

[info]maxomai

January 31 2006, 17:47:44 UTC 6 years ago

If the BATF is considering that, the proposal will probably get stomped into the dust once Congress finds out.

[info]prester_scott

January 31 2006, 17:50:30 UTC 6 years ago

Since there is no law that requires this sort of screening of prospective firearm purchasers, any attempt by ATFE to impose such a requirement would very quickly go to federal court and be smacked down hard.

[info]eremos

January 31 2006, 17:54:31 UTC 6 years ago

Ah, another RKBA post. First of all, there are already American citizens who are denied RKBA for very reasonable reasons. Convicted felons are not permitted to own firearms, and neither are individuals with certified mental illness. Do you think it's a good idea to allow paroled rapists and schizophrenics to have guns? Though many interpret the Second Amendment to guarantee universal, unhampered, unrestricted firearm rights to every American citizen, this is simply untrue, and to do so would be irresponsible and frankly, stupid. The First Amendment, which theoretically guarantees the same unrestricted right of free speech, has restrictions as well. Some of them may be unreasonable and excessive, but others (like the Brandenburg Test) are perfectly sensible. Although I disagree with the 21 handgun age (in many states), the "assault weapon" ban, barrel length restrictions, magazine restrictions, lack of shall-issue CCW (in many states), and many others, I consider criminal background checks and basic psychological tests to be perfectly reasonable.

[info]sorchadek

January 31 2006, 18:03:23 UTC 6 years ago

Agreed.

[info]mattcaron

January 31 2006, 18:05:48 UTC 6 years ago

Although I disagree with the 21 handgun age (in many states), the "assault weapon" ban, barrel length restrictions, magazine restrictions, lack of shall-issue CCW (in many states), and many others, I consider criminal background checks and basic psychological tests to be perfectly reasonable.

Agreed. Perhaps one should preface any discussion of the second amendment with "this applies to citizens in good standing, who have never been convicted of a violent felony". If you have been convicted of a crime, you start to lose some of your rights.

However, when you take into account someone who is a good citizen and never done anything wrong, then it seems to me that we should allow anyone to buy any type of arms if they have the money.

Remember - Laws don't stop me from buying a Barrett M82A1; the fact that they cost $8000 and I don't have a range at which to shoot them does. So, why not just apply this logic to other things as well?

I think a lot of people (not that you are doing this, but just in general) view firearms ownership as a social policy issue, like cars. I disagree with this view, not because it's wrong (indeed, I think that some of the issues may make sense from a social perspective), but because I think that the constitution trumps such efforts.

But then again, I think that anything short of yelling "fire" in a movie theater should be protected by the first amendment. What? I need a permit to have a rally or stand on my soapbox in Times Square? Nonsense, I say! :-)

[info]m_chandler

January 31 2006, 18:13:21 UTC 6 years ago

as much as I hate the paperwork, i agree with what you are saying. I know of several people who I would never consider allowing to have a firearm due to mental problems. as the system is right now it catches most of them without being too restrictive. i know
"restrictive" is a subjective statement but that is what the debate is for.

[info]tomcatshanger

January 31 2006, 18:40:31 UTC 6 years ago

it's interesting what rights we restrict from felons.
The don't loose any 1st amendment rights.
They don't loose 4th or 5th.
The 6th still holds true for them.

But we stripe them of the 2nd amendment and the right to vote.
The right to vote I can understand. In this republic, allowing those who break the law to change the law doesn't make much sense.

The 2nd amendment, not so much. If they are still a threat to society, being armed or not doesn't change much. They shouldn't be out of government custody. That's one of the powers of government that makes total sense, and yet we fuck it up by letting social predators roam the streets. If they are too dangerous to be armed, they are too dangerous to be free. If they aren't too dangerous to be free, whether they are armed or not just doesn't matter.

By striping felons of the right to self defense, we aren't helping society.

Also remember, felons come in all sorts of flavors. Violate the Assault weapon ban by moving to the wrong state with an AR15 30 round magazine, you're a felon. Poof, by hurting no one, you now loose the right to self defense.
Hell, drug offenders get charged with felonies all the damn time, a good number of them did nothing that hurt anyone but themselves.

Shrug. We live in a odd society.

[info]mattcaron

January 31 2006, 19:16:27 UTC 6 years ago

(moved post to where it should have been. Stupid lj silliness..)

Hmmm... You make a very good point.

I completely agree with the "it's silly to lose the RKBA for this felony discussion", which is why I tend to qualify it with "violent felony". However, your point that:

If they are too dangerous to be armed, they are too dangerous to be free. If they aren't too dangerous to be free, whether they are armed or not just doesn't matter.

gives me pause to think.

Maybe the problem is that there really wasn't much in the way of permanent mass incarceration (prison) for quite awhile (I think the first prison was in New York in the late 1800's, but I'm not 100+ sure, and I'm at work, so I can't spend much time looking it up) and that the original laws were predicated around the idea that you be killed for the violent felonies of the time, and therefore what to do after you've served your sentence never came up?

[info]mattcaron

January 31 2006, 17:59:11 UTC 6 years ago

But, that's never stopped them before.

In my point of view, all permitting, licensing, limitation, and/or waiting periods constitue "infringing on my right to keep and bear arms".

Why? Well, when you only allow certain types of arms, or require me to wait to get them, or require me to fill out a form which determines acception/rejection criteria, then it is a priviledge, not a right.

Similarly, back when the constitution was drafted, I know of no restrictions on what individuals could buy. So, if one so desired and had adequate funding, one could concievably buy artillery pieces. If the founders were concerned about those weapons in the hands of the populous, don't you think that they would have had some restrictions about it in the constitution?

[info]bklein

January 31 2006, 18:05:27 UTC 6 years ago

to play devil's advocite the founding fathers did not know how powerful guns would become.

[info]mattcaron

January 31 2006, 18:10:43 UTC 6 years ago

True, but I think that is irrelevant.

First, I think they knew that guns would become more powerful. Did they know that the world today would exist? Probably not, considering that they're not psychic. However, I think they did realize that crime, war, and politics is all about the balance of power. Therefore, it stands to reason, that they figured that, as weapons technology increased, their amendment would ensure that it affected both sides of the fence (citizenry and government) equally, ensuring a proper balance of power. It was important to them, because a citizenry at the mercy of a government posessing a military of overwhelming power is a recipe for tyrrany. Unfortunately, I think that we've stumbled upon this situation. If, for example, a president refuses to step down, and declares a dictatorship, and the army backs him, does the common citizenry posess the ability to remove him through force of arms?

[info]eremos

January 31 2006, 18:29:33 UTC 6 years ago

I don't believe that it is irrelevant. The writers of the Second Amendment could not possibly have conceived that nuclear weapons would exist, nor that they would become (somewhat) affordable on the international black arms market. I have it on good authority from an employee of an American intelligence agency that in certain areas of Eastern Europe (notably the Czech Republic), 40M USD will buy you an old but perfectly functional ex-Soviet nuclear warhead. For $50M, you can buy an upgraded turnkey system that requires no modification or special training to operate. Of course, majority of the American population cannot afford or transport such a weapon, but there are significant numbers of people who could do so. Based on your logic, it should be perfectly reasonable to allow any wealthy American to purchase and own a nuclear weapon- do you agree?

[info]scarybaldguy

January 31 2006, 18:47:40 UTC 6 years ago

The absolutist view

Based on your logic, it should be perfectly reasonable to allow any wealthy American to purchase and own a nuclear weapon.

As long as they're not infringing on anyone else's rights, yes. Possession of an object - ANY object - does not confer ill intent on the part of the owner.

Ownership does not equal use or abuse.

[info]eremos

January 31 2006, 18:52:51 UTC 6 years ago

Re: The absolutist view

I agree, in theory. Unfortunately, we live in a society, and any responsible government must take measures to balance both the rights and safety of the people within that society. So although I agree with you in theory, I must adamantly disagree in practice because one individual's right to own a weapon designed to kill 500,000 people must be sacrificed in order to ensure the right of those 500,000 to live without the threat of nuclear annihilation, even accidental. The right to live is ranks higher than the absolute right to property.

[info]eremos

6 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]mattcaron

6 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]eremos

6 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]mattcaron

6 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]eremos

6 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]mattcaron

6 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]eremos

6 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]mattcaron

6 years ago

  • Loading...
...and 17 more comments... from [info]visgoth, [info]anarkocap, [info]rfurtkamp… Expand

[info]mattcaron

January 31 2006, 18:53:50 UTC 6 years ago

Based on your logic, it should be perfectly reasonable to allow any wealthy American to purchase and own a nuclear weapon- do you agree?

Yes, I do, with the caveat that one needs to deal with all the stuff one would need to deal with if one was a normal country. For example, the IAEA will probably have something to say about it.

The problem in this thought experiment are as follows (and this intertwines with my logic, and is offered more by way of explanation than anything else):

(1) While it's probably a good idea for no one to have nuclear weapons (one could say guns as well), they do exist, and could be used against the citizenry by the government. If the citizenry has them, then the balance of power is retained. Obviously, if someone decides to secede, then we have a problem, but we've had problems like that in the past - that's the price we pay.

(2) If we say "you can't have fissionable nuclear material, because it's too dangerous, and without this principle component, you can't have nuclear weapons, and that's how we'll control nuclear weapons", then we run into the problem of setting a precedent that could lead to "you can have all the guns you want, but gunpowder is illegal", because it's basically the same thing.

I guess the real problem becomes "has the world changed that drastically in the past 230 years?"

If so, then we might as well redraft the constitution, radically rethink the right to bear arms, and spell it out with an amendment to the bill of rights saying exactly what the second amendment means. We might lose some ground (anything that's LEO, Class-III would probably go away), but we might remove some of the doubt around other ones (high cap semi-autos).

If not, and the world is the same as it was 230 years ago, then we need to repeal the last 100 years of firearms legislation and live with the consequences.

I believe the latter. But then again, I have faith in the individual citizen, and feel that one should be assumed responsible until you have demonstrated otherwise.

[info]eremos

January 31 2006, 19:06:54 UTC 6 years ago

I disagree that civilians should be able to possess all weapons in order to "balance" government and military power. By common logic, citizens must not have weaponry equal to law enforcement and military, because force = authority, and the "balance" you propose is, in effect, a removal of government authority. Government abuses and corruption notwithstanding, government is intended, ipso facto, to control and regulate society. Governments and militaries must have superior weaponry in order to combat criminality, rebellion, riots, and other similar incidents. Obviously, this seems to require a lot of trust in the government, but that is the nature of the beast.

In addition, I have a personal, philosophical support for the disparity of arms. Allowing any citizen to own weapons of military power means that, in theory, any ordinary citizen can instigate and lead a revolt. This, my friend, is a Very Bad Idea. Any good rebellion has only one purpose: to remove an overly corrupt, ineffective, or authoritarian government and replace it with a better one. I would not want my neighbour to be able to be able to start a revolution, because he is simply not intelligent enough to do so capably, or to create a reasonable government afterwards. Even in our current situation, common citizens could win a popular revolution against even our current heavily-armed government. The disparity of arms puts us at a disadvantage in terms of force, and requires us to win not by pure strength, but instead by strategy and intelligence. This serves two purposes: 1. It eliminates the possibility of "might makes right", and 2. If a revolution were to occur, only the most intelligent and resourceful rebels would win- exactly the people we would want to lead a new government.

[info]mattcaron

6 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]eremos

6 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]loco_cerveza

6 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]eremos

6 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]mccaucasianghst

6 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]mattcaron

6 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]mccaucasianghst

6 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]mattcaron

6 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]mattcaron

6 years ago

  • Loading...

Deleted comment

[info]mattcaron

6 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]abz6598

January 31 2006, 21:21:16 UTC 6 years ago

THere is a school of thought that says that since the second amendment says that the right to bear arms is for militia purposes, weapons that it would cover would be those suitable for militia use...these would be everything from pistols up through heavy machineguns and possibly light field pieces. Nuclear weapons most likely wouldnt fit the bill.

Deleted comment

[info]mattcaron

6 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]loco_cerveza

January 31 2006, 22:59:43 UTC 6 years ago

Militia at the time the Bill of Rights came to be was any one that was a citzen, it was not to almost WWI I belive that Militia was definded as we understand it now. I feel if you feel the need to buy a RPG and have the money should be able to, You always have to ask your self who protects us from the protectors.

[info]mattcaron

6 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]visgoth

January 31 2006, 20:10:36 UTC 6 years ago

The founding fathers did not know how powerful media would become.

Yet nobody argues that 1st Amendment rights should be restricted simply because information - even false and/or harmful information - can be spread quickly and easily.

[info]eremos

January 31 2006, 19:32:07 UTC 6 years ago

I won't get into my opinion on incarceration, but I will say that I agree with you that we currently allow criminals back onto the streets when they are still threats to society. However, we have to deal with one problem at a time. We can argue about the correction system later, but right now, the fact remains that violent felons out of incarceration are statistically much more likely to commit violent, often gun-related crime than any other non-criminal citizen. Although it is possible that a convicted felon may need a firearm for earnest, harmless self-defense, there is a far greater statistical probability that that weapon will be used for crime. Therefore, violent criminals should still be denied RKBA.

[info]loco_cerveza

January 31 2006, 22:51:20 UTC 6 years ago

I was going to post something to the effect that the SS and the BATF are about the same thing then I thought no, it is really not worth my time or effort, I really don't see the point in it, All it sounds like to me is another gun grab to me. I say give everyone that wants one a gun and ammo and let Darwin sort things out. That is just me. :-)

[info]loco_cerveza

January 31 2006, 22:54:48 UTC 6 years ago

I know in the mid to late 1980's Tipper Gore wanted the goverment to run all the media and tell people what to read and what not read. If Sen. H. Clinton (D New York) gets in to office of the president we may see it once more.

[info]mattcaron

February 1 2006, 00:37:53 UTC 6 years ago

As an aside, you know that whole "if someone has the hiccups and you scare them, the hiccups will go away" old wives tale? Well, I try and scare my fiancee by saying "Imagine Hillary getting elected".

Funny stuff. :-)
Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Facebook Twitter More login options
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…