Posted on 09/14/2010 5:18:15 AM PDT by marktwain
I seek information so that I don't commit errors which damage my credibility with those who might otherwise be convinced. I ask questions and "split hairs" in order to drill down to the most accurate information possible.
Which leads to my next questions:
How many Floridians have been convicted for armed speeding?
What were the sentences?
Were they eligible for parole at any time prior to completion?
“How many Floridians have been convicted for armed speeding?”
You’re being disingenuous; the statement was to make a new law to require a life sentence for someone who possessed a firearm during the commission of ANY crime.
Speeding is currently a crime.
If you cannot be honest then I’d rather not discuss this further with you.
Speeding is currently a crime.
My questions stand. If you choose not to answer, then I will be left to draw my own conclusions.
Yes, you insist on being dishonest. That is your choice.
>I have long maintained that the most efficient way to control ownership of guns is to simply put on each person’s driver’s license whether or not they are entitled to own one.
PROBLEM: Even those that cannot legally drive may be ‘entitled’ to own/use firearms. In fact, my state’s Constitution affirms the right of the Citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense... with no age-limit whatsoever.
Owning a gun is not a constitutional right for everyone. Here in Colorado, you cannot buy a gun if you are under the age of 18, and people who have been convicted of domestic violence cannot own a firearm. As far as I know, those prohibitions have never been challenged in court on constituional grounds.
So you’re fine with the status quo, the de facto registration of firearms, and allowing absolutely anyone to own one?
If you are licensed to carry a firearm your license plate registration is flagged with that info...........
No, I am not fine with the status quo of de facto registration.
And the status quo is certainly NOT that of "allowing absolutely anyone to own one." {Though that SHOULD be the case so long as they are freemen that we are discussing; "no freeman should ever be disbarred the use of [fire]arms."}
The truth is that the state acts like it may do whatever it likes; that is that a Constitution is not a [legally] binding document; I particularly like guns because it shows this so well, and I will use my own state as an example {though it can be applied to other states & the federal government}.
| New Mexico State Constitution Art II, Sec 6. [Right to bear arms.] |
|---|
| No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.) |
| Art II, Sec. 4. [Inherent rights.] |
| All persons are born equally free, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, among which are the rights of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and of seeking and obtaining safety and happiness. |
Now, despite the obvious prohibition laid upon the state in Art 2, Sec 6 there are laws which restrict the rights of the citizen to keep and bear arms for defense; some may argue that the "and for other lawful purposes" restricts the right for the citizen to bear arms for defense in [say] elementary schools or courthouses: this twisted reading of Section 6 may be put to rest, utterly and completely, by reading Section 4. According to Section 4 the State recognizes as an "inherent and inalienable" right the defense of life and liberty.
Now, let us look at an existing state law, one of several that conflicts with these:
| NMSA 30-7-2.4. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises; notice; penalty. |
|---|
A. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises consists of carrying a firearm on university premises except by:
B. A university shall conspicuously post notices on university premises that state that it is unlawful to carry a firearm on university premises.
|
This statute abridges the right of citizens to bear arms on the university campus: students, teachers, your quirky cousin who lives just outside of town... but it also bars the right of the Citizens who live in on-campus housing from the right to keep arms as well. And finally, as some are given to doing defending university anti-gun policies by framing them as private property rights; this state statute is in nowise contengent on the university's authority; that is a state policeman or county sheriff could cite my violation of this law if I were to open carry on campus as justification for arresting me with no action on the part of the University whatsoever. {Though the university's own policy should qualify criminal conduct under Conspiracy Against Rights concerning the 2ND Amendment.}
Does this answer your question about where I stand on the status quo?
Then I fail to see what your objection is to my proposal. By the way, contrary to your assertion, New Mexico does restrict ownership of weapons. Minors under 18, felons, and people having a problem with drugs and alcohol cannot legally own a weapon there. Every state has similar restrictions. The lowest age at which a minor can own a gun in the United States is 14 in Montana. There are exceptions from state to state, but only with the permission of parents or guardians.
>Then I fail to see what your objection is to my proposal. By the way, contrary to your assertion, New Mexico does restrict ownership of weapons.
Not LEGITIMATELY!
>Minors under 18,
Can STILL be citizens!
>felons,
Are those who have been convicted of a felony and are still serving their sentences.
You probably mean ex-felon; someone who having been convicted of a felony has ALREADY served their sentence.
That is a terrible and horrible injustice; it is the moral equivalent of going into a store, buying an item, and being unable to leave with that item because if you do you *will* be shoplifting.
>and people having a problem with drugs and alcohol cannot legally own a weapon there.
Oh, another invalid restriction! How surprising [/sarc].
And a “drug and alcohol” exception on the bar against restricting weapon ownership can be SERIOUSLY abused; imagine a “crazy tea-totaling Baptist” in charge of the definitions who thinks that *any* consumption of alcohol is a problem... well, I guess Catholics and Episcopalians [IIRC] and Jews cannot keep and bear arms!
Interestingly, a state-wide [total] prohibition on Alcohol is forbidden in the State’s own Constitution:
Art XX, Sec. 13. [Sacramental wines.]
The use of wines solely for sacramental purposes under church authority at any place within the state shall never be prohibited.
>Every state has similar restrictions.
Oh, yes! “All the OTHER kids are doing it!!” That MUST make it ok!
[/sarc]
>The lowest age at which a minor can own a gun in the United States is 14 in Montana. There are exceptions from state to state, but only with the permission of parents or guardians.
Oh, ok... i think I get it now!
Someone must meet Government QUALIFICATIONS in order to exercise their INHERENT and INALIENABLE rights!
I think someone here has trouble with definitions; let me help.
INHERENT –adjective
1. existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute: an inherent distrust of strangers.
2. Grammar. standing before a noun.
3. inhering; infixed.
INALIENABLE –adjective
not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights.
REPUDIATE -verb (used with object), -at·ed, -ating.
1. to reject as having no authority or binding force: to repudiate a claim.
2. to cast off or disown: to repudiate a son.
3. to reject with disapproval or condemnation: to repudiate a new doctrine.
4. to reject with denial: to repudiate a charge as untrue.
5. to refuse to acknowledge and pay (a debt), as a state, municipality, etc.
RIGHT
–noun
18. a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral: You have a right to say what you please.
19. Sometimes, rights. that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.: women’s rights; Freedom of speech is a right of all Americans.
&
22. a moral, ethical, or legal principle considered as an underlying cause of truth, justice, morality, or ethics.
So the question becomes: Why do you advocate that weapon-ownership should be repudiatable?
Ah, you’re simply an anarchist. That explains a lot. ;^) Right now we have de facto registration of firearms. Do you think that background check paperwork when you buy a gun is shredded and forgotten? I want a system that satisfies the need some see to restrict ownership without having a requisite record of who owns the darned things (and, for the record, I carry all the time, even to church, and have made sure my wife and kids know how to handle and use weapons).
Look, you can raise as many objections as you want to any restriction on owning firearms. I am simply trying to address a fact: there are GOING to be restrictions on gun ownership in this country whether we like it or not. The question is, how do we handle it in such a way that it is least onerous and intrusive?
>Ah, you’re simply an anarchist. That explains a lot. ;^)
How is advocating that the government be bound by laws itself the position of an anarchist?
Either words mean specific things or they do not; if they do not the the law [which is transmitted via words] is meaningless, because the words themselves cannot convey meaning.
Only if words can have specific meanings can the [written/spoken] law have meaning itself; and if this is the case then how can the law stand if the law is divided against itself? — Unless, perhaps, there are some laws which have greater precedence [read ‘authority’] than others.
We now get to the point of Constitutional law, which says that there are specifically delineated authorities under which a government may make a law and any overstepping of that law is invalid.
Something like New Mexico’s State Constitution forbidding laws which abridge rights based upon religion:
Art 2, Sec. 11. [Freedom of religion.]
Every man shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and no person shall ever be molested or denied any civil or political right or privilege on account of his religious opinion or mode of religious worship. No person shall be required to attend any place of worship or support any religious sect or denomination; nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.
IOW, this is a law that is meant to prohibit the State itself from making a law which makes the right to vote (among other rights) contingent on the religious beliefs of that particular Citizen.
Does this mean that a state law prohibiting Baptists or Catholics from demonstrating against abortions on University Campuses would be legal? Even though the protest is a civil right and it would be “molesting or denying” that right? {Please justify and give full reasoning for an affirmative answer.}
>Right now we have de facto registration of firearms.
Indeed there is.
>Do you think that background check paperwork when you buy a gun is shredded and forgotten?
Considering that the government requires, by law, the owner to keep the records forever (and turn them in if he should go out of business) no,I do not.
>I want a system that satisfies the need some see to restrict ownership without having a requisite record of who owns the darned things (and, for the record, I carry all the time, even to church, and have made sure my wife and kids know how to handle and use weapons).
I want neither. The determination of whether or not I am qualified is NOT the state’s business at all.
>Look, you can raise as many objections as you want to any restriction on owning firearms. I am simply trying to address a fact: there are GOING to be restrictions on gun ownership in this country whether we like it or not.
Rather you simply will rollover and acquiesce to the assertions and assumptions of authority of the state.
Either the law is binding or it is not; you who say that it is not by ignoring the supremacy of a Constitution to laws made under that Constitution are the true Anarchist here.
>The question is, how do we handle it in such a way that it is least onerous and intrusive?
By utterly denying the state powers over which it has been denied.
Well, you seem to have elevated yourself as sole arbiter of what the law is, rather than ceding that authority to the courts. Since you and I are not going to agree on this, I think I’d rather be ruled by the courts. LOL! I admire your stand on this issue; we need men of firm resolve to keep those of no resolve from ruling. I wish you well!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.