Bekologist

I wasn't aware gun ownership was an inaliable right, but a granted right via the 2nd amendment. Life and liberty are considered inaliable rights, but guns don't enter into the equasion.

To Johnny, legally buying a gun is easier than getting a driver's liscense (no tests, just a background check) but also more restrictive, because there are many disqualifiers to gun ownership as well.

No felonies, no domestic violence convictions, no mentally ill, etc....however there is still a 'private sales' loophole in existing gun laws that allows person-to-person sales of guns without any form of background check whtsover. Not to mention all the illegal ways to obtain guns in the US....

Don Gwinn

Dear Lord. . . this thread is still here. You people are dedicated.

I'm glad you know better now. By the by, life and liberty are not mentioned as specific rights in the Constitution. They were in the Declaration of Independence, which has as much legal force in the United States as the Articles of Confederation.

There are simply NO rights "granted" by any part of the Constitution. The Constitution simply sets out the powers and limitations of the federal government. The Bill of Rights enumerates a list of rights which are to be protected from government interference. It's quite plain that the founders believed those rights existed before the Constitution was written; all you have to do is read their other writings. There was, in fact, a vigorous debate over whether the Bill of Rights should be included at all. Many felt it was dangerous to make a list of basic civil rights because people in the future might believe that only those rights were protected or that they had been created by the document.
Apparently, they were right.

If you live in Washington (the state) that may be true. However, there are 50 states and 50 ways of handling this issue. I live in Illinois, where even "possessing" a gun or a single round of ammunition requires a Firearm Owner Identification, or FOID. To get a FOID, you take your passport photo to the State Police and fill out a form asking all kinds of background questions. You turn in both along with a $5.00 fee, and the State Police run a background check on you. This takes anywhere from two to six weeks if everything goes right. If they find that you have no record, they send you a card in the mail. You sign the card and are now legally empowered to possess, buy and sell guns and ammunition--as long as they're the types approved by your local laws.

There's also no private sales "loophole" in Illinois. To sell a firearm to my friend, as I did last week, I had to record his FOID number and he mine. We're required to keep them in our records for ten years. I was also legally obliged to make him wait three days to take possession (it was a handgun--a long arm would only require one day.)
If all this seems arbitrary and stupid, it's because it is. And guess where the crime rate and murder rate are lower--Washington state or Illinois?

You must beware of asking what the law says in the United States. Often there are 50 different sets of law on the same question!



One more time--rights cannot be granted! If it has to be granted to you by a human being, then by definition it's not a right. If it's a right, it cannot be granted or removed by a person either. Rights are inherent within human beings. Other humans can choose to deny those rights (or try to do so) but that doesn't mean they cease to exist.

Don Gwinn

Just as an example of the way the law works in Illinois, three points of interest:

1. At Illinois gun shows, many tables now sell clear plastic ID carrier necklaces like the ones used for press credentials and security badges. These are used to wear your FOID card in plain view around your neck so that you may pick up and handle ammunition at sellers' tables without having to whip out your billfold every time.
It's well known in Illinois gun-owner circles that some police agencies have made arrests for felonies at gun shows by having plainclothes officers wait until a seller is busy, pick up a box of ammo without showing a FOID, examine it for a few minutes, then set it down. In another variation, the officer throws a $20 bill down on the table, picks up a box of ammo from the table and walks off. Gun show sellers have now been warned to shout "stop that thief!" when this happens, but whether that will be a defense to the charge that they sold the ammo to the officer, I don't know.

2. I recently had to go out to our car with my wife so she could drive a couple of miles to get toothpaste. We were staying at a hotel in northern Illinois, and I had completely forgotten that I had two small boxes of .22 lr ammunition in the trunk of the car. Her FOID card had lapsed, so she was committing a felony by "possessing" that ammunition if she drove the car without me.

3. A couple of years ago, a guy in Lake County (near Chicago) sold a rifle to his next-door neighbor. They were buddies, and he knew the guy already had lots of firearms, plus a valid FOID card, so he let him take it home with him that day instead of waiting 24 hours.
He was charged and convicted. He's now a felon. Probably out of prison or close to it, though, so it's not like it was unfair or anything.

slide

Your education continues....

spinnaker

Sounds to me like some gun laws need to be changed in Illinois.

BookFinder 

The fact is, that circumstance is grossly unfair, and represents the worst of what we have stooped to in an irrational response to the larger problems.

What seems to have been lost in the current debate (nationally and locally) is this: At the heart of a free citizenry is the concept of moral responsibility, and moral accountability. The problem is, the responsible people are now being criminalized by law that is morally bankrupt and devoid of common sense judgment.

I grew up in a home with my old man's guns tucked into drawers, or stowed on an open rack. They were always loaded, and they were never bothered. My brother and I knew not to touch the guns -- period. We were taught to shoot early in life, and were also taught about the burden of responsibility for using a weapon.

But it was not just the weapons in the house. We did not plunder in our parent's drawers or closets, or bother each others' stuff. The idea of personal ownership balanced by personal responsibility for one's behavior was part and parcel in the family mindset. We could leave money laying out without fear of it being bothered, and we asked permission before touching another's possessions in any form. The only deviance from this occurred when, after I joined the Marines, my mother discarded my stack of comic books in the corner of my closet. She thought she was doing a good deed like throwing away old newpapers! And it was a major family crisis four years later when I got out of the crotch and realized what had happened. She was honestly sorry for the act, and years later, she called me before discarding letters I had written her while stationed overseas! In short, we were reared with a common sense morality that respected others possessions, and above all respected their life and person.

Now, I am not saying we were paragons of virtue. Rather, this mindset was part of community life where I lived. Many families like ours left their doors open at night, and locked the screen doors mainly to keep the cat from going in and out. To illustrate that sense of community values a bit further, I once worked with a fellow who grew up in a farming community in Texas. The co-op was never locked, and if someone needed something from the merchant he went in and got it, left a note, and settled up the next time he was in the store during regular working hours. Theft was unheard of during the time my friend was growing up there -- I have no idea if it is still that way in that community.

Anyway, in the larger community of America, that sense of balance and responsibility seems to have somehow slipped away in the past 25 years, and we are now in strident discussions of rights and behaviors, and legislation has been passed that makes perfectly responsible citizens the victim of misguided law. And the example cited above about the man selling his neighbor a gun perfectly illustrates the issue.

Parts of the argument, "get tough on criminals" etc., are correct in principle, but hard to make work. And the fact is, short-sighted law can make a criminal out of someone who is innocent of any criminal intent.

So to my thinking, a return to, or some re-establishment of a moral center in the thinking of the citizens and those who serve in the various levels of government would go a long way towards dealing with the problems -- and without stacking more law onto the already incomprehensible and conflicting set of codes on the books.

As always, IMHO.

spinnaker

Yes last I heard Chicago was free of gun crimes because of all those wonderful gun laws that protect the citizens of the State of Illinois. Am I wrong?

I grew up in a similar community. We never had to lock our doors either. We didn't go as far as leaving a note for the merchant but if I did not have enough money the merchant would just write it down and get the money from my mother the next time she was in the store. At the worst we had some petty theft from the stores and a little later in my childhood a couple of kids that would deal in nickel bags of weed. Recently there was a shooting on that same peaceful street. And I'm sure the shooter had a legally registered firearm.

Times sure have changed. It is very sad. But the answer is not restricting the rights of responsible gun owners but using the existing laws so the scum goes away for a very long time. I'd like to see one new law on the books. If a prisoner is being paroled then he lives with the parole board's and/or judge's family for 3 months. After all if he is safe for the community then he should be safe to live with the board's family right?

Ebbtide

Much more difficult to get a drivers license in most places, and requires much more of a financial commitment. In Ohio all you basically need to be is 21 years old.

slide

The theory of gun control, as in any rights control (assuming no conspiricy to create a tyranny) is that certain citizens are incapable of acting responsiblity (or morally - you choose the word). Thus, if we're to have equality, all citizens must have their rights abrogated to the standards capable of the least capable citizens.

Gun control first came about in reconstruction South when the poliicians figured colored people were incapable of behaving if armed. I think they were also afraid of a power balance. That is, as long as only whites had guns, the blacks were pretty well incapable of making any realistic revolt.

The idea spread as politicians figured more and more groups were incapable of behaving correctly or politicians were more and more afraid of the citizens. Today all of us are in the position of the black guys in the South circa 1880. The government is afraid of us or it feels we aren't responsible enough to have any real power. Sure we can vote which is supposed to be great power, but let's stop the laughter for a second. We get to 'vote' for either Bush/Gore/Kerry which isn't nearly as much power as a bunch of stirred up people who are armed as well as the government.

So the gun control laws come about the usual way. Just as the whites in the South 130 years ago scared the citizens by waving the prospect of a 'negro revolt' in their faces, today we're chased by 'crime waves' (pesky negroes again) or now terrorists. In fact, we're more in danger from this government than any terrorist, 'negro' or drug dealer, but gee, who would believe it from the headlines?

sentinel

Dumbing down society or the least common denominator is not the answer.

Don Gwinn

Ebbtide, that kinda depends. Ohio does not license gun ownership to my knowledge; I suppose you mean CCW permits? I guess that is a closer analogue to a driver's license (since you don't need a license to own a car or use it on private property, either) but coming from Illinois we tend to think in terms of license to own a gun, since CCW licenses are not an option.

Don Gwinn

This guy gets it. He's capable of thinking I'm wrong, voicing his disagreement politely, and yet NOT advocating silly and tyrannical laws to force me to conform to his way of doing things.

slide

Yeah, he was responding to me. It was a stone pleasure to be disagreed with and not be called a dumbass or something nasty. I think if we could discuss and disagree at this tone in all things, we'd run out of argument and reach consensus. Too bad this sort of discussion is the exception.

sheba

Why must one arm themselves to feel safe or powerful?
Just let go.
Let the pieces fall where they may.
Open your mind.

Don Cook

Absolutely right on target! My sentiments exactly.

Don Cook

You wouldn't qualify for a CC permit, as they refuse to issue them to the mentally ill.

TMB

I come across these threads from time to time on different boards and I can truly say I do NOT understand ytou guys that jus HAve to have guns. I don't understand the attraction or draw of guns, I do not understand why anybody would want to own a gun.

Saying you want to own a gun, because you can - is just flat out stupid.

Guns have one purpose, and one purpose only. I cannot understand why anyone would even think of carrying a gun along on a bike ride, unbelievable.

I pray I never meet up with any of you while out on the road.

Don Gwinn

I hope this will be taken in the tone of respectful humor in which it's intended:

Couldn't tell you. You'd have to ask someone who does it for that reason. I arm myself to defend myself and my family should it be necessary.
Why must one wear a helmet or a seat belt to feel safe? Why must people insist on having fire extinguishers and smoke detectors before they feel safe and secure?
Later today I'm going to go out and replace the worn brake pads on my car so that I know it will stop reliably and my children will be safer. I still haven't learned how to feel safe without the emotional crutch of brake pads.
I'll pass, thanks. Have you let go of buying insurance? Keeping a fire extinguisher? Tightening up your bike before you ride?
For that matter, do you eat food and go to doctors, or have you finally learned to let go?
With all due respect, you seem to want us to open our minds to utter passivity. No thank you. If you think it makes sense to let go, let life happen to you and just hope for the best, it's your right to do so. I prefer not to depend on luck any more than necessary.



Remember, kids, antibiotics have no purpose but to KILL! Next time your child has a Staph infection, just let go and let the pieces fall where they may. Everything will be fine if you embrace peace and turn away from the brutality of Neosporin.

Don Gwinn

Actually, that's not true at all. Guns are built for many purposes. Most of mine are built for fighting. I own a couple built for hunting, and two that are built for the express purpose of fun plinking. I don't own any specifically built for competition, but that's another purpose.

There ARE some things that almost every North American owns that have one purpose and absolutely no other--KILLING. Do you have Neosporin in your medicine cabinet? I've even got some Penicillin in mine--it was worth the waiting period and the background check. Some of you probably even have . . . have. . . . mouthwash. I've got a high-capacity bottle of Listerine in my bathroom, but then we've already established that I'm a marauding barbarian.

In fact, I'd bet you've got devices in your home whose only purpose is to roast, boil, fry or otherwise defile the flesh of living things so that you can eat it. If not, you must be one of those savages who eat it raw.

If you're alive, you're killing other life to stay that way. Get over it. It doesn't make you a monster. Sometimes bacteria threaten your life and must be killed. Sometimes dogs, mountain lions and wolves threaten your life and must be stopped, by killing them if necessary. And sometimes human beings go so wrong that they threaten the life or the safety of other human beings and must be stopped.

Now, if you're not willing to stop them, that's your business. I am.

If you're not willing to stop them, but you're only too happy to call rough men with guns to do violence on your behalf when necessary, you have an interesting quandary on your hands.

Do you choose to "let go?" Do you "let the pieces fall where they may" when someone or something is ready and willing to kill you to get what it wants? Or do you dial 911 and hope someone with a gun gets to you in time?


We all have to draw the line somewhere. We can't all be firefighters, neurosurgeons, marine biologists and plain old Marines wrapped in the same person. My choice is to be my own first responder as much as possible. I'll dial 911, but I want to be able to defend myself if it's necessary to do so. I'll dial 911 if I need medical help, too, but that doesn't stop me from taking EMT training and volunteering for the local ambulance service, because there may come a time when those skills will save someone who would have died waiting for "someone else to come do something."

If you want to draw the line a little further back and decide that you don't really need to be an EMT or know how to shoot or fight, that's fine with me. I simply resent being painted as a paranoid fanatic because I'm prepared to deal with a situation that you are not. You made your choice and I made mine. We'll each live with our choices.

toomanybikes

And I rest my case as to why I would NOT to meet some you people - ever.

Don Gwinn

One last post, and then I swear I'll let someone else talk for awhile. The last time I was utterly passive about something and just figured there was nothing I could do about it, so I should just "let go and let the pieces fall where they may" I ended up weighing over 400 pounds. I was probably creeping up on diabetes, but I know I was pushing for a heart attack.
I'm only about halfway back from that, and it's taken a lot of very active work to get this far. Letting go is not an option as far as I'm concerned.

toomanybikes

You find the ability to somehow equate carrying and using a gun to possibly kill people with the use of anti-biotics and excessive weight gain on your behalf?!

Unbelievable.

The gun is the cause of, or the method of, most of man-kinds ills.

I do not understand people wanting to own them. I don't understand people wanting to use them. The fallacious arguement " because I can and it protects my rights .' is just that - fallacious, specious and downright stupid.

*ignore*

Johnny_Monkey

I still think this thread belongs in P&R.

Don Gwinn

I'm sorry you find yourself incapable of believing my explanation. I assure you it was made in all honesty. Whether you would find that reassuring or frightening, I don't know, but I believe every word I posted. Of course, that may change, but only when someone shows me errors in my reasoning. Understand that I'm just as bemused by the passivity and pacifism you display as you are alarmed by my willingness to use force when necessary.

If you really used the Ignore function, you can't read this anyway, I suppose.

toomanybikes

Agreed.

and I'm walking away.