Mental Illness Database?

[PatrickS]

A major fault that I see in your licensing proposal is that you are essentially trying to license a right.

I drove for years before I was even old enough to obtain a driver's license, and the vast majority of that driving was perfectly legal, a driver's license is only required to use public highways, which is essentially what we have with our CHLs, a license to carry in public as opposed to no need for a license to carry on your own private property.

A license to own a firearm, even in your own home, takes you to IL with their FOID, where you have to have a license to own a gun, any gun, or ammunition.

Well, I'll stop posting to this thread because it seems folks are too
busy or passionate to read what I actually wrote. I explicitly stated
that such a license should not in any way restrict rights on private
property, and it would be akin to a drivers license -- i.e. relating
to public possession/use of a gun. Sorry if I wasn't clearer, and
perhaps it was just too long.

So if I comment again in this thread it will be to comments that
pertain to what I originally said rather than just reinterating and correcting
what I already said or didn't say.

I agree with seamusTX that this system is much too hard to use
to respond effectively point by point and does indeed seem to
hinder the kind of active interleaved discussion that occurs in
other forums. But I digress...
more productive.

It seems that you have hoist yourself in your own petard, you hardly could have read MY post carefully if you ignored the thrust of my objection to licensing a right. Driving on public highways, constructed with public monies, is a privilege, keeping and bearing arms, no matter where, is a right.

I actually didn't ignore the thrust of your objection, I just didn't
understand your apparently equating licensing a right to infringing
upon a right. Also, since I had already stated that IMO such a license
shouldn't restrict use on private property, it seemed you were
arguing a point that wasn't in scope (though I now see that it is insofar
as ownership/purchase is concerned).

Let me try to summarize how I understand your position/arguments:

A drivers license is reasonable because it restricts the use of
vehicles on public roads, which is a priviledge.

A CHL is reasonable because it restricts the posession/use of guns
(at least concealed) in public, which is (?) a priviledge.

A general gun license is unreasonable because it restricts
the posession/use of guns on private property, which is a right.

If that's correct, then I guess I'm still confused/unconvinced of a number
of points.

Firstly, if bearing arms is a right, which you make distinct from a
"priviledge", then having to apply for and obtain a CHL is just as
much an infringement as a general gun license and I would expect
you to be just as opposed to a CHL as a general gun license, yet
you seem to put in the same category as drivers licenses.

Secondly, since public roads are by definition public, i.e. belonging
to the people, paid for by the people, wouldn't I then have the right
to use them? I don't see where use of anything public is a "priviledge".
Is there a constitution-specific definition of "priviledge" and how it
is differentiated from a "right"? I'm not really seeing a difference
between driving cars and bearing arms and the peoples' collective
rights to impose restrictions on either.

Finally, since the goal of such a license, as I proposed (for the sake
of discussion, BTW, not because I'm convinced that it is necessarily
the way to go) was to simply manage better the restrictions that
we all agree are reasonable and desireable (excluding certain persons
from those rights) to *help* reduce the potential for tragedies (not
presuming that it would be a complete or even primary solution)
how does such a license, which would be "shall issue" by definition,
actually infringe upon ones 2A rights?

It seems to me that both bearing arms and driving are both "rights",
but that the people, collectively as a society, choose to impose a
degree of self-restriction, or self-infringement which limits those rights
to adult, competent, law-abiding individuals, and licensure is a system
for managing those "common sense" restrictions.

If I've misunderstood your position, or if I'm missing some significant,
well established constitutional cornerstone, please correct me.

[Geister]

Hey geister,
from your last post, I just want to say that I hope that a lot more people were able to travel more often to several different countries and see the difference in CIVILIZATION around the world.

And what exactly makes you think that I have not? You're just making an assumption that I have not since I have made no indication as to where I have travelled.

You seem to like making assumptions, especially your assumption that the government will make the world safer by making another background check for firearm purchases.

Hahahaha!

The ONLY way I feel safer is when I have a gun on my person and I know how to use it if I need to in order to stop deadly force against me. I don't feel safer when a nanny government, who are never accountable BTW, makes all these rules and regulations that will never work.

The nutcase in the VT shooting already violated several gun control laws and that didn't stop him. What in the world makes you think another gun control law will prevent another nutjob from getting a firearm?

Besides, what does the rest of the world have to do with what we're discussing? America is the GREATEST place on the planet, and a lot of that has to do with the fact that our government is not totally out-of-control yet like the UK.

Alot of people don't have the same right and laws as the USA, alot of people don't want democracy,

I DON'T want a democracy, either. Democracies are mob rule. The United States of America was founded as a republic, NOT a democracy. You won't even find the word 'democracy' in the Constitution. There's a difference between the two.

I hope one day that you can figure out the concept that it is always BETTER to ACT than it is to REACT in any situation in life. When you react you are ALWAYS TOO LATE. Just apply this concept to any scenario you want to.

Wow, I'm glad I've lived my life not following that concept since it's wrong. All you are suggesting is to pre-emptive punish people before they've even committed a crime.

Thus, by using your logic to ACT instead of REACT, we should:

-- Deport certain minorities since they are statistically more likely to commit crimes.

-- Nuke the Middle East, China, and possibly parts of Europe since we're always disagreeing with them and they MIGHT attack us.

-- Perform psych evaluations and background checks on all males BEFORE they have children since men are more likely than women to become pedophiles.

-- Take away driver licenses from all females since they are more likely to get into parking lot accidents.

Are these examples extreme? Sure, but they do follow your logic to act instead of react. And the government has been known to go to the extreme, especially when you give them more and more power. For example, an Oregon legislator once introduced a bill that would label music pirates as "terrorists." The extreme bill did not become law but it doesn't surprise me that it was introduced.

Lucky, all you are doing is giving away some freedom in order to have more security. But all you get in return for giving up some freedom is the MERE illusion of safety. You won't be any safer at all with a huge mental record database. A nutcase can attempt to kill you in many different other ways or he can also steal a firearm. All it will do is create another hassle for the rest of us while giving the government the excuse that it's actually doing something. You're just giving up some freedom with no actual return benefit.

The ONLY guaranteed safeguard for your own personal safety is learning how to employ firearms and other self-defense techniques in defense of your own life. The government cannot provide that.

Instead of relying on the government for their safety, people need to learn how to be more self-responsible for themselves. The government is a ragtag group of freeloaders and total strangers to you who are RARELY held responsible when they screw up.

[Geister]

it's also IMO
both a valid and reasonable concern that there are possibly not enough
checks and balances relating to gun aquisition by folks who shouldn't
have them, or proper management of the checks and balances that
exist,

*SIGH*

By saying this you are indirectly agreeing with the gun control crowd that guns are evil devices which need to be controlled.

Instead of controlling the guns, CONTROL THE PEOPLE. Instead of passing the entire blame to the nutcase murderer, you are passing part of the blame to the firearm he used. Hell, why is the imaginative nutcase lunatic we are using in our discussion even out in public? If he's as dangerous as people on here are saying, wouldn't he have already committed a crime and be locked up?

If a nutcase works as a carpenter and does a poor job with the building, and it falls apart and kills the inhabitants, are you going to pass part of the blame on the nail gun he used and require background checks for future purchases of nail guns and other tools?

What if the nutcase decides to get a black Chevy Nova, paint a skull on the hood, and uses it to kill women? Are you going to pass part of the blame on the vehicle and demand background checks for all vehicle purchases and also demand a 10 gallon limit on fuel capacity?

Why not focus instead on WHY the lunatic wanted to kill people and what we could do to treat such mental illnesses? Hell, if the government was always as small as how the Founding Fathers intended, and if government would never slow down our economy and scientific progress, we probably would have already had cures for several mental illnesses. I know for a fact that our standard of living would be greater.

And before anyone misinterprets what I just stated as being the same
as "outlaw some guns but not my guns" that is NOT what I am
suggesting by any interpretation. I am simply interested in contructive
discussion of how we might better manage our RIGHTS -- in a manner
that PROTECTS them, not restricts them, and in a way that PROMOTES
in the minds of a majority of Americans that pro-2A folks are as
concerned about issues of abuse as much as anyone else rather
than just chanting the mantras "no infringement, no laws, from my
cold dead hands" -- all points which I AGREE with, but doesn't do much
to bring any of the "fence sitters" over to our side.

The problem with what you are saying is that it sounds like you are willing to compromise some of your Rights to appease people. You shouldn't have to compromise at all since it wasn't the Second Amendment's fault that some nutcase killed people. Maybe if we quit with the NRA compromises, get our ENTIRE gun rights back, enough people would be armed to DETER crime.
(Edited for 10 year old daughter rule. GH)

[Geister]

Finally, since the goal of such a license, as I proposed (for the sake
of discussion, BTW, not because I'm convinced that it is necessarily
the way to go) was to simply manage better the restrictions that
we all agree are reasonable and desireable (excluding certain persons
from those rights) to *help* reduce the potential for tragedies (not
presuming that it would be a complete or even primary solution)
how does such a license, which would be "shall issue" by definition,
actually infringe upon ones 2A rights?

It seems to me that both bearing arms and driving are both "rights",
but that the people, collectively as a society, choose to impose a
degree of self-restriction, or self-infringement which limits those rights
to adult, competent, law-abiding individuals, and licensure is a system
for managing those "common sense" restrictions.

If I've misunderstood your position, or if I'm missing some significant,
well established constitutional cornerstone, please correct me.

If this is what you believe, then you don't understand Rights.

You do NOT, repeat do NOT have to ask someone's permission in order to engage in one of your Rights. That is the difference between a Right and a priviledge. As such, all the state CHL programs are unconstitutional.

I have no problem with driver's licenses IF the roads were managed by private companies instead of the government, but that's an entirely different issue I do not want to go into.

[jimlongley]

A drivers license is reasonable because it restricts the use of
vehicles on public roads, which is a priviledge.

Yes, to some extent.

A CHL is reasonable because it restricts the posession/use of guns (at least concealed) in public, which is (?) a priviledge.

Actually I don't really believe it's reasonable, possession and carry should be Vermont rules and not a privilege at all, it's just the way things are in Texas, which is much better than IL or NY among others.

A general gun license is unreasonable because it restricts the posession/use of guns on private property, which is a right.

Correct, licensing a right changes it from a right into something less than a right.

If that's correct, then I guess I'm still confused/unconvinced of a number of points.

I can't imagine why, I felt I was very clear.

Firstly, if bearing arms is a right, which you make distinct from a"priviledge", then having to apply for and obtain a CHL is just as much an infringement as a general gun license and I would expect you to be just as opposed to a CHL as a general gun license, yet you seem to put in the same category as drivers licenses.

Nope, it's an infringement, just one that I tolerate until we can get Vermont style carry passed in TX.

Secondly, since public roads are by definition public, i.e. belonging to the people, paid for by the people, wouldn't I then have the right to use them? I don't see where use of anything public is a "priviledge". Is there a constitution-specific definition of "priviledge" and how it is differentiated from a "right"? I'm not really seeing a difference
between driving cars and bearing arms and the peoples' collective rights to impose restrictions on either.

I don't know if there is a "constitution specific" definition, but the usual dictionary definition makes a privilege less than a right. Our Constitutional Rights are (pre-existing) ensured by the Constitution and Bill of Rights and cannot be removed except for cause. A privilege is something that is granted by a higher power and can be removed at will. Thus the state/city/county builds roads and may restrict who may use them, but none of them may, unless we allow them to, which is the case in TX, restrict our carrying of the guns we already own unrestricted.

Finally, since the goal of such a license, as I proposed (for the sake of discussion, BTW, not because I'm convinced that it is necessarily the way to go) was to simply manage better the restrictions that we all agree are reasonable and desireable (excluding certain persons from those rights) to *help* reduce the potential for tragedies (not presuming that it would be a complete or even primary solution) how does such a license, which would be "shall issue" by definition, actually infringe upon ones 2A rights?

First of all, it's licensing a right, that's an infringement, and do we all really agree as to what is reasonable and desirable? I am a subset of "we all" and I don't agree with this manner and method, nor do I think it's reasonable. It's an infringement, a sacrifice of part of a right just because a few criminals and nuts get ahold of weapons and do things that are already against the law.

And when this licensing scheme doesn't prevent the next massacre, will we take another increment away? No, we tried compromise back in the 60s and all the antis did was ask for more because that didn't work. We had an "assault weapon ban" for ten years, which could not be shown to have any kind of effect at all, and now the antis are dancing in the blood of these most recent victims demanding that it be implemented with even more restrictions. Even one little increment of infringement more is not acceptable.

It seems to me that both bearing arms and driving are both "rights", but that the people, collectively as a society, choose to impose a degree of self-restriction, or self-infringement which limits those rights to adult, competent, law-abiding individuals, and licensure is a system for managing those "common sense" restrictions.

Nope, driving on a public highway is not a right, see above, although you are welcome to drive on private property to your hearts content without needing a license, it's not a self-restriction, but a tax and fee for the use of the roads. Nowhere does the Constitution guarantee a right to drive.

And nowhere in your "common sense" (a phrase made popular by the Brady Bunch and their predecessors and allies) restrictions is there any guarantee that it will work for your avowed purpose, licensing drivers sure doesn't ensure safety on the public roads, not to mention the people who just go without the license.

If I've misunderstood your position, or if I'm missing some significant, well established constitutional cornerstone, please correct me.

The well established Constitutional cornerstone is called the Second Amendment.

[Jason73]

I really dont believe that having a "mental illness database" would stop people like Cho from killing others. Stricter gun control laws would not have stopped Cho from killing either. He could have made bombs using instructions easily obtained from many websites, he could have poisoned the mashed potatoes in the cafeteria, he could have run down the students with his car, the list goes on and on.

IMO having such a database would further erode our right to privacy, and would only serve to limit our RIGHTS as outlined in the Constitution. I am 110% against this idea, as I am with any law that takes away the freedoms I enjoy as an American. I believe that we only have two options that would help prevent attacks like this:

1. Throw the Constitution in the trash and become a police state where we enjoy absolutely NO civil liberties and have no freedoms whatsoever.

2. Restore the rights of Americans to defend themselves EVERYWHERE they go.

I won't live in a country where option 1 is the answer.

Anyway, thats my two cents worth.

[PatrickS]

Finally, since the goal of such a license, as I proposed (for the sake
of discussion, BTW, not because I'm convinced that it is necessarily
the way to go) was to simply manage better the restrictions that
we all agree are reasonable and desireable (excluding certain persons
from those rights) to *help* reduce the potential for tragedies (not
presuming that it would be a complete or even primary solution)
how does such a license, which would be "shall issue" by definition,
actually infringe upon ones 2A rights?

It seems to me that both bearing arms and driving are both "rights",
but that the people, collectively as a society, choose to impose a
degree of self-restriction, or self-infringement which limits those rights
to adult, competent, law-abiding individuals, and licensure is a system
for managing those "common sense" restrictions.

If I've misunderstood your position, or if I'm missing some significant,
well established constitutional cornerstone, please correct me.

If this is what you believe, then you don't understand Rights.

I first read this a couple hours ago, and to be quite honest,
am glad I had time to let the offensiveness of its intensity
subside a bit.

You may be 100% right in what you say, but if it comes across
as a slap in the face, you've lost any opportunity to possibly
influence my opinion.

You do NOT, repeat do NOT have to ask someone's permission in order to engage in one of your Rights. That is the difference between a Right and a priviledge. As such, all the state CHL programs are unconstitutional.

I am, and have been for some time BTW, in agreement with the
essence of that statement; however, I also find that to be somewhat
of a purist or absolutist position that does not necessarily cover the
complexity of the issue.

Consider convicted felons and the mentally incompetent. Excluding
them from exercising their 2A rights is also unconstitutional. But
I wouldn't expect you to argue that an institutionalized mental
patient be allowed to have a Glock (or if you did, I'd most likely
disregard anything else you had to say).

I'm interested in constructive discussion, to both deepen my own
understanding and possibly better ground and even adjust my own
conclusions about such issues, and to that end, will make an effort
to respond to your comments and clarify why I do not at the moment
find myself in total agreement with all your statements.

I have no problem with driver's licenses IF the roads were managed by private companies instead of the government, but that's an entirely different issue I do not want to go into.

Interestingly, it seems that a number of courts have argued that
in fact driving on public roads should be considered a constitutional
right, with the exception of those using the public roads for
commercial purposes. Presuming that driving on the roads is in
fact a right, akin to the 2A, the existence of traffic laws and drivers
licenses becomes a very relevant point of comparison and discussion.

What is highlighted for me, in this thread, is the relationship between
"absolute" constitutional rights and the ways in which such rights might
be "qualified" in various ways. Limitations on 2A rights for felons
and the severely mentally ill are key examples.

Such limitations already exist, and since it's reasonable to presume
they will persist (no matter how absolutist or purist a view one may
hold) and as enforcement of such restrictions are widely held to
be "a good thing", even though not providing a complete solution
to the problems of gun violence in our country, discussion of how
to more effectively enforce such restrictions, and derive the greatest
benefit from such restrictions, are IMO entirely reasonable and
responsible, even by those who strongly support the 2A.

The American Constitution is a remarkable thing, and we are arguably
the most fortunate country in the world to have it, but I am not so
naiive to think that it is perfect or is able to cover all possible cases,
and thus, an absolutist view is IMO almost as dangerous as a
revisionist view, which is why I value open and constructive discussion
about these issues.

[PatrickS]

....but I am not so
naiive to think

And I'm not suggesting anyone else is naiive either.

[PatrickS]

A drivers license is reasonable because it restricts the use of
vehicles on public roads, which is a priviledge.

Yes, to some extent.

A CHL is reasonable because it restricts the posession/use of guns (at least concealed) in public, which is (?) a priviledge.

Actually I don't really believe it's reasonable, possession and carry should be Vermont rules and not a privilege at all, it's just the way things are in Texas, which is much better than IL or NY among others.

A general gun license is unreasonable because it restricts the posession/use of guns on private property, which is a right.

Correct, licensing a right changes it from a right into something less than a right.

If that's correct, then I guess I'm still confused/unconvinced of a number of points.

I can't imagine why, I felt I was very clear.

An unfortunate and unavoidable facet of human communication

I believe, though, that we have achieved clarity based on
your additional comments above and below. Thanks.

And I agree with you, in principle. I still have questions and
concerns about the degree to which constitutional rights can
(and arguably should) be qualified, such as in the
case of convicted felons, the underaged, and the incompetent,
and the means by which "the people" enact and enforce
such restrictions, which is part of the key focus of this thread,
as well as the idea of gun licensure which is parallel in nature
to the original theme of the thread, and whereby I am a little
guilty of partially hijacking the original theme.

Firstly, if bearing arms is a right, which you make distinct from a"priviledge", then having to apply for and obtain a CHL is just as much an infringement as a general gun license and I would expect you to be just as opposed to a CHL as a general gun license, yet you seem to put in the same category as drivers licenses.

Nope, it's an infringement, just one that I tolerate until we can get Vermont style carry passed in TX.

Fair enough.

Secondly, since public roads are by definition public, i.e. belonging to the people, paid for by the people, wouldn't I then have the right to use them? I don't see where use of anything public is a "priviledge". Is there a constitution-specific definition of "priviledge" and how it is differentiated from a "right"? I'm not really seeing a difference
between driving cars and bearing arms and the peoples' collective rights to impose restrictions on either.

I don't know if there is a "constitution specific" definition, but the usual dictionary definition makes a privilege less than a right. Our Constitutional Rights are (pre-existing) ensured by the Constitution and Bill of Rights and cannot be removed except for cause. A privilege is something that is granted by a higher power and can be removed at will. Thus the state/city/county builds roads and may restrict who may use them, but none of them may, unless we allow them to, which is the case in TX, restrict our carrying of the guns we already own unrestricted.

Finally, since the goal of such a license, as I proposed (for the sake of discussion, BTW, not because I'm convinced that it is necessarily the way to go) was to simply manage better the restrictions that we all agree are reasonable and desireable (excluding certain persons from those rights) to *help* reduce the potential for tragedies (not presuming that it would be a complete or even primary solution) how does such a license, which would be "shall issue" by definition, actually infringe upon ones 2A rights?

First of all, it's licensing a right, that's an infringement, and do we all really agree as to what is reasonable and desirable? I am a subset of "we all" and I don't agree with this manner and method, nor do I think it's reasonable. It's an infringement, a sacrifice of part of a right just because a few criminals and nuts get ahold of weapons and do things that are already against the law.

And when this licensing scheme doesn't prevent the next massacre, will we take another increment away? No, we tried compromise back in the 60s and all the antis did was ask for more because that didn't work. We had an "assault weapon ban" for ten years, which could not be shown to have any kind of effect at all, and now the antis are dancing in the blood of these most recent victims demanding that it be implemented with even more restrictions. Even one little increment of infringement more is not acceptable.

I find that to be a motivating argument, and will chew on that a bit.
Thanks.

It seems to me that both bearing arms and driving are both "rights", but that the people, collectively as a society, choose to impose a degree of self-restriction, or self-infringement which limits those rights to adult, competent, law-abiding individuals, and licensure is a system for managing those "common sense" restrictions.

Nope, driving on a public highway is not a right, see above, although you are welcome to drive on private property to your hearts content without needing a license, it's not a self-restriction, but a tax and fee for the use of the roads. Nowhere does the Constitution guarantee a right to drive.

It has been argued that the right to drive is implicitly guaranteed by
the Constitution, even if not explicitly, e.g.:

"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go
where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights
of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens.
The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to
transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon,
or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or
prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional
guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his
inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while
conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering
with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his
person, but in his safe conduct." II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law,
Sect.329, p.1135.

Still, there are better examples for discussion, in particular the
very theme of this thread, the infringement of the 2A right on those
who are deemed to be mentally incompetent; as well as convicted
felons, the underaged, etc.

It seems to me that we are dealing here with a simple matter of
degree (a dangerous thing for sure) such that the definition of
"competence", whether mental competence, maturity, and in the
case of licensure requiring basic safety and skills training, operational
competence, is a basis for self-infringement (at least agreed to,
or at best tolerated) by a majority of "the people".

Unconstitutional? It seems so. A bad thing? Unreasonable? Too
steep a slippery slope? I'm undecided.

And nowhere in your "common sense" (a phrase made popular by the Brady Bunch and their predecessors and allies) restrictions

I see no reason to allow such radical, often illogical groups hijack the
term, and I certainly do not imply any support for such groups in my
use of that term, but perhaps "logical" or "reasonable" would be better,
given that logic and reason are testable and hence a better basis for
concensus.

It is IMO both logical and reasonable to presume that there are
cases where restrictions on rights is justified. The problem, as
always, is agreeing on what those restrictions might be, and
how such restrictions might be most effectively managed, to
the greatest benefit of the "the people".

is there any guarantee that it will work for your avowed purpose, licensing drivers sure doesn't ensure safety on the public roads, not to mention the people who just go without the license.

I've stated as much several times myself in this thread, so I
won't comment further on such points.

If I've misunderstood your position, or if I'm missing some significant, well established constitutional cornerstone, please correct me.

The well established Constitutional cornerstone is called the Second Amendment.

Well, er.. ahem.. in the context of this particular forum and thread,
that quip is a tad bit condescending.

But I do genuinely appreciate your comments and the time
you took to offer them.

[PatrickS]

it's also IMO
both a valid and reasonable concern that there are possibly not enough
checks and balances relating to gun aquisition by folks who shouldn't
have them, or proper management of the checks and balances that
exist,

*SIGH*

By saying this you are indirectly agreeing with the gun control crowd that guns are evil devices which need to be controlled.

Evil, no. Dangerous, yes. (and please don't spout any
"guns don't kill people, people kill people" mantras). If you
don't consider guns dangerous, then feel free to hand a loaded,
cocked pistol to your favorite toddler.

Sorry, but I would hope we were quite a bit beyond such points
in a forum such as this.

Instead of controlling the guns, CONTROL THE PEOPLE.

That's precisely what this thread is about. If you missed that,
please go back and re-read from the beginning. This thread
is ALL about controlling THE PEOPLE; as are all of my own posts
in particular in this thread.

Instead of passing the entire blame to the nutcase murderer, you are passing part of the blame to the firearm he used.

You are reading such things into my posts entirely (or not reading
my posts at all....)

heck, why is the imaginative nutcase lunatic we are using in our discussion even out in public? If he's as dangerous as people on here are saying, wouldn't he have already committed a crime and be locked up?

If a nutcase works as a carpenter ...[snip]...

Sorry, you're rambling about points that are entirely out of scope
of this thread and never argued in this thread.

And before anyone misinterprets what I just stated as being the same
as "outlaw some guns but not my guns" that is NOT what I am
suggesting by any interpretation. I am simply interested in contructive
discussion of how we might better manage our RIGHTS -- in a manner
that PROTECTS them, not restricts them, and in a way that PROMOTES
in the minds of a majority of Americans that pro-2A folks are as
concerned about issues of abuse as much as anyone else rather
than just chanting the mantras "no infringement, no laws, from my
cold dead hands" -- all points which I AGREE with, but doesn't do much
to bring any of the "fence sitters" over to our side.

The problem with what you are saying is that it sounds like you are willing to compromise some of your Rights to appease people.

I'm certainly open to discussion. I do not wish to compromise
on any of my rights, but at the same time, I do not hold an
absolutist viewpoint and do not disregard the concerns of a
large majority of others "on principle" (even if I may ultimately
reach a conclusion or adopt a position which does not satisfy
their concerns).

You shouldn't have to compromise at all since it wasn't the Second Amendment's fault that some nutcase killed people. Maybe if we quit with the NRA compromises, get our ENTIRE gun rights back,

Including 2A rights for convicted felons and institutionalized mental
patients?

You seem to have completely missed the focus of this thread.

enough people would be armed to DETER crime.

No one here, that I can see, is in any way in disagreement about
enabling folks to be armed to defend themselves against crime.

Again, you seem to be completely missing the points of discussion
that I aimed to raise in my own posts, within the original theme of the
thread.

[Geister]

I first read this a couple hours ago, and to be quite honest,
am glad I had time to let the offensiveness of its intensity
subside a bit.

You may be 100% right in what you say, but if it comes across
as a slap in the face, you've lost any opportunity to possibly
influence my opinion.

Well, I'm sorry for the intensity, but I've got to admit, I'm a bit shocked that we are discussing the difference between rights and privileges.

Opinion doesn't really have anything to do with it; you just can't make a privilege out of a right. Otherwise we would be applying for Free Speech permits from the government just to have this discussion.

If free speech was as "easy" to control as firearms, you can bet the government would require such permits and would have a list of words we cannot say. They wouldn't care what the First Amendment says.

I am, and have been for some time BTW, in agreement with the
essence of that statement; however, I also find that to be somewhat
of a purist or absolutist position that does not necessarily cover the
complexity of the issue.

I think you're making the issue too complex, actually.

Consider convicted felons and the mentally incompetent. Excluding
them from exercising their 2A rights is also unconstitutional. But
I wouldn't expect you to argue that an institutionalized mental
patient be allowed to have a Glock (or if you did, I'd most likely
disregard anything else you had to say).

Then you've already formed an opinion of the issue. Why ask now?

If he's inside a private mental institution that does not allow their patients to have firearms, then I do NOT have an issue with such a ban.

But if you are asking if I have a problem with a mental patient purchasing a firearm, then no, I do NOT have a problem with that. Simply because you cannot know beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone is going to use that gun to commit violence, nor can you suggest that denying his purchase of a firearm will keep him from killing people with another method.

If your argument is that we should deny mental patients from purchasing firearms because they MIGHT use them to commit crimes, well, we can just as easily substitute "mental patients" with "racial/ethic/gender/religious group more likely to commit a crime." See how it's a dangerous proposition? You're punishing people BEFORE they've even committed a crime, and any sort of a database will NOT prevent a crime from occurring if someone is dead set on committing one. If there's a will, there's a way.

So, frankly, you're just giving the government more power and you're not any safer than you were before.

The ONLY way we can ever live in a utopia is if people quit initiating violence against one another. Obviously we do not live in a utopia. But even without guns, people will continue to find ways to inflict violence on each other as they have been doing for thousands of years.

Banning or restricting guns will NEVER have any sort of effect because instead of focusing on the actual violence, you are only focusing on the tools used and that is definately not the root of the problem. But the flip side is that you can actually use guns to prevent violence from happening. Thousands of people do it every day.

So the ONLY way to ever really prevent violence is to employ firearms and other tools in the defense of your own life. Any sort of a government database restricting certain people from legally purchasing firearms will have very little effect since it misses the root of the problem entirely.

[PatrickS]

I first read this a couple hours ago, and to be quite honest,
am glad I had time to let the offensiveness of its intensity
subside a bit.

You may be 100% right in what you say, but if it comes across
as a slap in the face, you've lost any opportunity to possibly
influence my opinion.

Well, I'm sorry for the intensity, but I've got to admit, I'm a bit shocked that we are discussing the difference between rights and privileges.

Opinion doesn't really have anything to do with it; you just can't make a privilege out of a right. Otherwise we would be applying for Free Speech permits from the government just to have this discussion.

If free speech was as "easy" to control as firearms, you can bet the government would require such permits and would have a list of words we cannot say. They wouldn't care what the First Amendment says.

I am, and have been for some time BTW, in agreement with the
essence of that statement; however, I also find that to be somewhat
of a purist or absolutist position that does not necessarily cover the
complexity of the issue.

I think you're making the issue too complex, actually.

Consider convicted felons and the mentally incompetent. Excluding
them from exercising their 2A rights is also unconstitutional. But
I wouldn't expect you to argue that an institutionalized mental
patient be allowed to have a Glock (or if you did, I'd most likely
disregard anything else you had to say).

Then you've already formed an opinion of the issue. Why ask now?

If he's inside a private mental institution that does not allow their patients to have firearms, then I do NOT have an issue with such a ban.

But if you are asking if I have a problem with a mental patient purchasing a firearm, then no, I do NOT have a problem with that. Simply because you cannot know beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone is going to use that gun to commit violence, nor can you suggest that denying his purchase of a firearm will keep him from killing people with another method.

If your argument is that we should deny mental patients from purchasing firearms because they MIGHT use them to commit crimes, well, we can just as easily substitute "mental patients" with "racial/ethic/gender/religious group more likely to commit a crime." See how it's a dangerous proposition? You're punishing people BEFORE they've even committed a crime, and any sort of a database will NOT prevent a crime from occurring if someone is dead set on committing one. If there's a will, there's a way.

So, frankly, you're just giving the government more power and you're not any safer than you were before.

The ONLY way we can ever live in a utopia is if people quit initiating violence against one another. Obviously we do not live in a utopia. But even without guns, people will continue to find ways to inflict violence on each other as they have been doing for thousands of years.

Banning or restricting guns will NEVER have any sort of effect because instead of focusing on the actual violence, you are only focusing on the tools used and that is definately not the root of the problem. But the flip side is that you can actually use guns to prevent violence from happening. Thousands of people do it every day.

So the ONLY way to ever really prevent violence is to employ firearms and other tools in the defense of your own life. Any sort of a government database restricting certain people from legally purchasing firearms will have very little effect since it misses the root of the problem entirely.

Thanks for taking the time to respond. These were the kinds of
arguments I was looking for. Sorry if I played "Devil's Advocate"
a bit there

I think one of the bits of dialogue that is missing is exactly those
that have been covered in the last few posts. Folks who are not
anti-2A but not fully aware of its significance to all other rights
can become just as offended by seemingly "over the top" (even
if 100% correct) positions of "from my cold dead hands" and
thus not be open and recieving of necessary arguments explaining
why.

My participation in this discussion has been, as previously stated,
to explore in more depth a few essential points, as part of the
process of claryfying and strengthing my own conclusions about
these matters.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Geister,

"But if you are asking if I have a problem with a mental patient purchasing a firearm, then no, I do NOT have a problem with that."

In the real world, there is no such thing as an absolute right. For one thing, there is the doctrine called "compelling state interest" that is frequently invoked by the courts when they impose a limitation on a right. You might not like it, but it is there, part of the common law that PREDATED the Constitution.

Examples abound involving all of the various rights we enjoy under the Constitution.

And without a judicious application of this doctrine, you wouldn't want to leave your house, with or without a gun.

It's why your CHL is no good in The White House, for instance, or in a courtroom. It also allows for banning the distribution of hard core pornography in publications intended for children.

How would you like to be in a courtroom where a bitterly contested divorce was being heard, complete with the most voscious child custody battle you could imagine, and everyone there was packing a streetsweeper?

Have all the fun you want, but I'll watch that one from a blimp circling high overhead.

Another point is that the constitution says we have a RKBA, not a RKB *CONCEALED* A. You don't think this little detail was left out by accident, do you? And yet, even so, you can't open carry in The White House, among other places, because there is statute law banning it. And I don't know if that law has ever been challanged, but I am quite confident that if it was it would be upheld in a heartbeat based on the doctrine of compelling state interest, the 2A notwithstanding.

Words mean things. And in our society, we sometimes disagree on what they mean. None of us can KNOW that OUR opinion of what the Constitution or the law mean is correct, even though we may firmly believe that it is. Someone else might have just as firm a belief that a different interpretation is correct. That's is why we have the courts. We all agree to PEACEFULLY abide by what THE COURTS say that the words mean, not my cheap opinion, or yours, or anyone else's.

Sometimes the courts get it wrong, at least in MY opinion, but all in all it's not a bad system.

After all, this IS the greatest place on Earth, isn't it?

[seamusTX]

Another point is that the constitution says we have a RKBA, not a RKB *CONCEALED* A. You don't think this little detail was left out by accident, do you?

Pistols of the time were a foot long, single-shot, inaccurate, and pretty much useless for anything other than dueling.

The RKBA also referred to swords. Whatever happened to that?

- Jim

[Geister]

How would you like to be in a courtroom where a bitterly contested divorce was being heard, complete with the most voscious child custody battle you could imagine, and everyone there was packing a streetsweeper?

First off, how in the world do you pack a streetsweeper? They are too big to carry.

Why are you suggesting that anyone who carries a firearm is going to go over the edge and use it?

I wasn't aware that people who concealed guns are more likely to start killing each other over minor disagreements. Maybe in Westerns but not today.

Your entire argument puts emotion over logic.

Another point is that the constitution says we have a RKBA, not a RKB *CONCEALED*

The Constitution does not say anything about RKBA. It's the BILL OF RIGHTS that says so. And what difference does it make whether the gun is concealed or not? Have you bothered to EVER read the works of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison when they discuss RKBA? It's obvious that their emphasis is on keeping and bearing arms period, and HOW they are carried is irrelevant.

IF they did put the word "concealed" in there, I'm sure you would then retort with something like "well, they didn't say semi-automatics concealed...." or something else just as frivolous.