Chode

Here is another Federal restriction on the rights of U.S. citizens to keep and bear arm. This is an outrage! You don't have to pass some similar test to get a driver's license, do you? Why shouldn't crazy people be allowed to own guns? Anyway, isn't it already a moot point?

__________________
Sweet!

Drew1369

It is true, driving deaths FAR outweigh gun deaths, crazy people shouldn't be allowed to drive and should have take a test or have a database barring them from driving as well... good point Chode...

Other then that, I'm a pro gun guy, but even I think this law is a good one, tho it should have been taken into consideration along time ago... its the problem with almost all gun laws, they are reactionary, and never done precautionary.

__________________
Marge: We wouldn't be in this trouble if you'd just paid the heating bill!
Homer: I thought global warming would take care of it! Al Gore can't do anything right!

Nik00117

its barring poeple who are off their rocker from buying guns.

I don't want some nut case with a 12 gauge in his living room i'm sorry.

If that nut case feels he is no longer a nut case then he should go see a doctor be tested and if he passes he gets taken off that list until then, in my eyes hes to dangerous to be given a gun.

yustr

Just to stir the pot a little: there is NO right for any individual to own guns; crazy, sane, or somewhere in between.

The 2nd Amendment could not be more clear. The SCOTUS will hear a case this next term and hopefully put this bastardization of the words to bed for good.

But Chode is correct: its really a moot point because there are already millions of guns out there. So many that anyone who cares to get can do so easily - crazy or not.

__________________
I didn't mean to say it. But I meant what I said. J. McMurtry

In Vino Veritas

RedScott

Absolutely incorrect. 100% wrong. There's no historical or intellectual case you can make for this argument. None that couldn't be refuted almost instantly anyway. Regardless of what the Supreme Court finds, nothing can be more clear than the fact that humans have the natural right to defend themselves.

sobeit

my only problem wiht this is whose definition of the mentally ill is the government using.

yustr

I see your point 666: "You must be crazy cause you don't think like we say you should think."

And RedScott: We are a nation of laws not men. What part of the wording don't you understand?

It's also in man's nature to impregnate any female above the age of menstruation (now about 12) but there are laws against it. Some would argue that there is no such thing as altruism - that mans nature says take take take. Are you really relying on a "natural right" as the basis of you stance?

__________________
I didn't mean to say it. But I meant what I said. J. McMurtry

In Vino Veritas

Nik00117

The government is going to relay on the same defination that the medical community relies on. Which I believes states something along the lines of when a patient is mentially disabled he is not able to make very clear choices, this can be caused by many things, such as voices in head, seeing things, believeing things are true but arne't, or haveing certain thoughts and expressing them such as sucidice or homocide.

I don't think the government is doing the defining, they are taking the ones that the medical community ahs identified, and using that.

Government is not defining who is mentally ill here, merely that mentally ill poeple should not be going down to your local pawn shop and buying that rifle.

RedScott

Certainly, though not I but the Declaration of Independence and the very foundation of our nation's government.

The standard line of reasoning for gun advocates IS to appeal to the U.S. Constitution, and specifically the second amendment. However, to do so shows an incredible lack of understanding on what the constitution is and the philosophy of the founding fathers.

Our country was founded on the philosophy of Liberalism. We are not a country spawned from nationality, but rather one born from a philosophy. That philosophy was that all men are created equally and with the same natural rights. Rights that can neither be given, nor taken by a governing State. They are indeed unalienable; they cannot be taken away, they can only be infringed upon. They are dependent on no other person to obtain, as the only requisite for having them is human DNA.

Understand that any time something is needed to obtain a so-called “right”, such as a permit, license, or the express written consent of Major League Baseball it is no longer a right at all, it is a privilege.

After the country gained independence from Britain the Founders were so frightful of government they formed an extremely limited, loosely bound confederation of States rather than an overarching strong Federal government. The problem came when the States began to print too much money to pay off debts to France after the Revolution and in order to curb inflation some proposed instating a new Federal government that would have the power to coin money over the States. Thus, the U.S. Constitution was written and sent out to all the States for approval.

Immediately objections were raised, the Anti-Federalist claiming that the new government would have too much power. To answer these objections the Federalist Papers were written as a series of essays that are basically a comprehensive commentary on the entire constitution. One of the biggest objections to the constitution was that, while it did limit the powers of the government, it did not offer any written protection for the rights of the People.

Ultimately, the answer to this criticism was the Bill of Rights.

Alexander Hamilton, whom I am not much of a fan of, was astonishingly correct in his assessment of the faulty nature of such a listing of rights in the Federalist No. 84.:

So to put that bolded piece in modern terms it might say, “Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of individuals to own whatever firearm they choose shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions on owning inanimate objects may be imposed.” And yet we’re currently living in an age where the constitution has been completely circumvented and those very restrictions HAVE been imposed.

Hamilton was afraid that the government could use the limited amount of rights listed in the Bill of Rights to make the claim that rights are, in fact, limited. That they were dependent on the government itself to be granted. To make sure this would never happen, the framers included the ninth and tenth amendments in the Bill of Rights to give any rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution to the People or the States, NOT the Federal government. Ironically, these amendments have been discredited by modern day statist for being too ambiguous and giving too many rights to the people, the very thing they were designed to do.

Without question, the myth that has been most debilitating to liberty in American history, is the myth that our Bill of Rights gives us our rights. This myth is why we have people dissecting the language of the second amendment trying to figure out it's true intent, whether it is meant to provide rights to individuals or to a collective mass. However, this is totally irrelevant, because the power to restrict gun ownership is not given to the Federal government in the Constitution.

Another great source on the natural right to defend oneself is St. George Tucker, a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by James Madison in 1813). He wrote a commentary on the constitution and in it included this eloquent and devastating passage which I'll conclude with:

yustr

I concur that Hamilton, and others, argued against the need for specifying any rights because, as you highlight, there's no reason to grant something that the Government has no authority to take away. (I would hold the same position but I've seen what government's can do.) Yet others felt that it was vital to do so. And what was adopted as the law of our land includes those Amendments. Not to say they weren't concerned - hence the 9th and 10th Amendments.

To carry your position farther, where does your natural right end? Can you obtain military weight "arms" for protection? After all you can't be sure what the other guy is carrying. Do you have the right to use preemptive force? Mr. Bush has established that as doctrine in his fight against terrorists. Can you use the same argument against your neighbor?


Note:
This is an extremely interesting topic for discussion - but one that tends to easily get out of hand. If we manage to keep it within the spirit of TSF we'll allow it to continue and all sides can be heard.

__________________
I didn't mean to say it. But I meant what I said. J. McMurtry

In Vino Veritas

RedScott

Well all rights end where they infringe on the rights of others. Or where they are dependent upon others for enactment. For instance you have the right to own a weapon, but you do not have the right TO a weapon. That is to say you are not entitled to a weapon in the sense that a European might say they have a "right" to medical care. (understanding that in that case while they may very call health care a "right" it is not at all such. It is a privilege.) So, to answer your question about "military grade weapons" I'd say yes, a person has an inherent natural right to own whatever type of weapon they see as necessary.

Now, one might make the claim that the founders could not foresee the type of weaponry that would be available to commoners in this day and age. I'm not altogether sure what one can pick up at a retailer, as I'm not a gun enthusiast myself, but I assume if one has the proper connections he could find his way to a pretty impressive weapon. Maybe a rocket launcher of some sort. Certainly a fairly heavy caliber machine gun. Would a strict and literal reading of the constitution mean it is impossible and illegal for governments to prevent these weapons from falling into citizens hands? Not at all, as A) there is an amendment process by which the government can legally petition the People to give them the authority to regulate these types of weapons and B) the US Constitution applies only the Federal government so the State governments can and should regulate their citizens weapons according to their own constitutions.

On the issue of preemptive strikes, like you, I believe Bush's logic for starting the war was garbage. Likewise any such preptive strike by an individual would be.

Chode

I don't consider myself much of a gun person even though I own a few, but I think that the impact of technology on gun ownership issues has moved some of the debate into areas the Founding Fathers couldn't anticipate. In the 18th Century there was certainly little difference between military and sporting weapons.

I have no objection to people owning guns for self defense and sports, but at the same time, I'm really not sure that our right to keep and bear arms extends to any weapon we can afford. Sure, it's fun to drive your classic M60 tank out to the gun range and shoot up some paper, but isn't it really likely that a huge profusion of military weapons in civilian hands is just going to increase the already large number in the hands of criminals and drive down prices for them?

Frankly, the idea that having plenty of firepower is going to prevent the Government from abusing your rights is a fantasy. Those of you who know some practicing mediums might want to discuss this with David Koresh,or some of the individuals the FBI has mistakenly shot and killed in recent years.

I don't have an answer to this question. I can't buy into the NRA position of virtually no control, (though the NRA doesn't oppose the idea that mentally incompetent people shouldn't be allowed to purchase guns. They have no problem with the database) but I can't accept the idea that U.S. citizens should be denied the right to own firearms altogether.

__________________
Sweet!

-=Rousseau=-

The main issue is that unless guns are completely banned, as in no manufacture or sale of guns is legal, and military guns are very strictly controlled, there is no way to keep a criminal from obtaining a weapon. The problem with outlawing guns to keep criminals from obtaining them is that criminals don't obey laws . And really, if someone even without a criminal history decides they want to go crazy and kill people, the last thing on their minds would be whether or not it was legal to own a gun.

Then again, guns aren't even necessary for violent crimes... A baseball bat or pretty much anything hard or sharp works. I concede that they wouldn't allow for the scope of violence such as what Seung Hui Cho did though.

Look at London for example and their rise in knife-related crimes. No guns in London, but there are knives.

The end idea is that if a law against killing people, etc doesn't stop the criminals from committing these crimes, why do we think that a law against obtaining guns would? I do support full background checks, tests of competency and safety, and registration of firearms - law abiding citizens should not have problems with these. Heck, it should be hard to pass these tests to keep unsafe people from getting them in the first place. Maybe a recurring test every x years to keep people fresh? Other than that, a ban on gun magazines over a certain size makes sense - citizens at shooting ranges can reload from boxes without great inconvenience. (Magazines over this size would not be produced & available).

RedScott

No only that, but once you ban all guns you turn your society into one of male dominance where females and weaker indivduals are without the equalizing force of a firearm. Again, you can turn to England as an example where males have there way with ease.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...l.genderissues

cstr20cstr

I agree with this, IF the person in question IS TRUELY a nut case. So how do they define "mentally ill" ?

On the other hand, I do believe in the right to bear arms by US citizens. As long as they aren't truely insane, or a repeat criminal.

sobeit