Posted on 11/12/2002 5:10:09 PM PST by chuknospam
Giving a gun to an insane person is as much a crime as giving an insane person razor blades and knives, or allowing an insane person to drive a car.
This issue isn't about gun ownership. It's about wreckless endangerment on the part of a steward or guardian.
Well I didn't say insane, I said mentally deranged. And many of these people do not have stewards or guardians. If you have doubts just spend some time downtown on the streets of any major city.
Should these people have a right to carry firearms?
Wrong. There's a very important difference: there's no provision in the Constitution providing for an absolute right to vote.
What's the difference? In either case the people in question are incapable of advocating their own rights.
If you have doubts just spend some time downtown on the streets of any major city. Should these people have a right to carry firearms?
I have to wonder what insane people are doing wandering the streets.
Anyone who lacks sufficient mental capacity to advocate their own rights, or who is incapable of appreciating the consequences of their actions, should not be permitted to have a weapon of any kind let alone a gun. Anyone who gives an insane person a weapon should be charged with a crime.
As it has been so frequently pointed on this forum Libertarians are not Conservatives.
Voting Republican does not advance my agenda. Voting Republican rewards Republicans for making government bigger and intrusive. It says to Republicans, "I like your prescription drug program. I like your interventionist foreign-policy. I want stricter enforcement of existing gun-control (but not the repeal of any gun-control). I want the government to continue to meddle in education and health care. I want to preserve Social Security."
Your best bet is to infiltrate the Republican party, run your candidates under the Republican banner for the lower offices allowing them to develop campaign skills and get name recognition.
Libertarians neither need nor want any help from Republicans. We want Republicans to simply continue doing what they've always done. That's all the help we need.
...you can't understand that we can't roll back 50 years of Socialist advances overnight!
Oh, but we can roll it back overnight. We need people with integrity like Ron Paul who will vote consistently against big government.
...you help the Socialists make more advances?
The last Republican president to preside over a reduction in the federal budget was Warren G. Harding 80 years ago. Since then we've had 9 Republican presidents all of whom have made government bigger.
Republicans held a majority of seats in both Houses of Congress from 1995 through 2001 during which time the federal budget grew from $1.4 trillion to $2.1 trillion. Were they working to roll back 50 years of Socialist advances?
Uhhh...It's already a crime to give an insane person a weapon. We don't need any more laws.
I won't give him an effective way?
I'm reminded of something a wise man once said.
"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.
We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."
The purpose of this law is to jusfity bigger, more intrusive government. It is intended to make certain politicians look like they're tough on crime. As with every government program it will invariably fail, facilitate misuse and abuse, and give politicians a reason to increase funding in the future when it doesn't produce the desired results. It will become a political football. Once it gets enacted it will become nearly impossible to repeal. Any attempt to cut funding will bring accusations from the opposition of being soft on crime or of being gun fanatics.
My definition is irrelevant. Here's the definitions that matter:
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person -
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien -
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) who is subject to a court order that -
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C) (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
The restriction also applies, under 18 USC 922(n), to anyone under indictment for a felony.
In other words, convicted felons and abusers, fugitives, illegal drug users/addicts, mental defectives or those who have been committed to a mental institution, illegal aliens, dishonorably discharged ex-military, those who have renounced their citizenship or are under indictment for a felony, and those subject to certain types of restraining orders where the restrained person was found by a court to pose a credible threat.
By the way, if I was king, I would at the very least modify the language of 922(g) to apply only to those convicted of violent felonies, or something along those lines.
The increase in crime in this country is primarily attributable to the War on Drugs and gun-control. Ending the war on drugs and repealing all gun-control would result in an enormous decrease in violent crime. Open-carry and concealed-carry should be allowed without the need for a license or any government interference whatsoever.
It's misleading to say I don't want to give somebody the means with which to accomplish something. Government is not the fix-all, cure-all for societal problems. Appealing to government for help is asking for trouble. No law or program will ever be written and enforced exactly the way you imagined it. It will invariably result in waste and abuse for the reasons I previously outlined.
Government should be the last place you go seeking solutions.
Would the Sons of Liberty be considered "peaceable"? How about the TRT?
It seems to me that you are using the Founding Fathers words to support today's gun control. That is not honest use of their words.
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.