Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)

Homespun Inc. wrote:
Bama Brian:

No right is absolute.

Placing limitations on rights is entirely necessary and consistent with
living in civilized society. And the presence of recognized
limitations does not downgrade a right to a "privilege."

Okay. My compromise is that you don't get to read pornography, the Apocrypha, Mein Kampf, or the Communist Manifesto, or any other such books. That should reassure both the religious and the current government that you don't intend to upset the status quo.

Further, only men get to vote now because women are just too, too warm fuzzy inside and don't vote rationally, especially when it comes to bringing Democracy to the heathen. Oh, and BTW, in war time, the right to vote is hereby suspended because we must maintain consistency toin the presidential and congressional leadership .

It is extremely important that in war time, the government must know who it can trust - so each citizen will have a dossier built on them and ID cards will only be given to those who pass the righteousness test.

Yes, you have the right to free speech. No you don't have the right to
wrongfully yell fire in a crowded theater.

Actually, you do. But in a true civilized society - and not a nanny state - you'd be fully responsible for whatever harm that yell brought about.

Yes, you have the right to assemble. No you don't have the right to
assemble on my front lawn at 2am.

That's only because it would violate your property rights. Now, do free citizens have the right to assemble on the courthouse steps at 2 AM?

Yes, you have the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure.
No you don't have the right to walk on an airplane full of people
without being searched.

Why not? It used to be that way, back in the '60's. Until 9/11, it was the case that the airlines could not require that you provide a government ID before you boarded. They could require that you ID yourself in other ways.

That society may place reasonable restrictions on basic human rights--
and sometimes, more accurately, vary in the legal protections created
for those rights-- is a given. All the ranting and raving to the
contrary will not change that FACT. The question is, what are
REASONABLE limitations?

That's a very good question. Except that there are NO reasonable restrictions on inalienable rights. When you allow the government to put such restrictions on "rights", then those rights have become government controlled privileges

You stick to your dogma and say that NO restrictions are reasonable--
talk about me wearing chains "proudly." And that pretty much puts you
out of the debate while politicians in California say, well, look at
these unreasonable people-- obviously we have to make the laws without
their input.

Which is EXACTLY what the politicians did. In fact, Dan Lundgren, the former Attorney General once arbitrarily lengthened the firearm waiting period from two weeks to three weeks. But the public outcry was too much, even for that particular gun-grabber, so he dropped it back down to two weeks.

Your position doesn't allow the other side any room to even voice their
concerns.

You've got free speech, yes?

I posit-- as the first of many questions to decide what is reasonable
gun control-- this:
Does the policy keep me from lawfully carrying a concealed firearm
suitable for personal protection in places where I could conceivably
need it? If the answer to this is yes, then the policy is wrong. If
the answer is no, then there are more questions that must be posed
concerning the policy.

For example, does the policy's overall benefit to society-at-large
outweigh the disadvantages that are placed upon the most disadvantaged
individual affected by the policy? Is there a better policy that can
acheive a similar benefit without placing individuals at a
disadvantage? Is the policy necessary and will it likely be effective?

While anti-gunners have tried to use the slippery slope to strip
Americans of their protections, the tug of war has, I think, slowly
gone the other way. But it hasn't gone the other way through an All or
Nothing approach. Grass roots movements in several states have made
some definite progress in helping to protect the individual right to
keep and bear arms-- even where California is like a foreign country
about it-- but it's been one step at a time.

You got it. The anti-gunners and the government have managed to get us to this point by introducing ever-more "reasonable" gun control; frequently on the heels of some tragedy. It was Bobby Kennedy's murder that brought about the Gun Control Act of 1968 - a nasty bit of legislation that was heartily sponsored by the NRA.

Some of the gun-grabber battle-cries of the time: "If it saves just one life"; "It's for the children"; "We're making the streets safer"; "Gun owners aren't willing to compromise"; etc; etc; ad nauseum.

Now it's an uphill crawl to restore what was, back in the 1960's. So far, we're nowhere close to it. Back then, it was possible to legally carry a pistol in your pocket in states such as California without a license - but the media and the government brought us the Black Panthers and then the gun control railroad, all in the name of "safety" and "compromise".

I don't intend to produce a pamphlet full of compromises. I know that
somewhere between my right to self-defense with a concealed carry
handgun and those frightened anti-gun folk there is a policy playing
field that provides for protection of my rights and protection of
their-- mostly fear-motivated-- societal interests.

BTW, where in your state laws does it say that your CCW licensing is an absolute thing? How do you know that the tide won't turn and a new administration/state assembly won't strip that license away?

And, I hear you. And I get your message. I'm just trying to let you
know-- if you don't already-- that All or Nothing isn't going to part
of the last draft of anybody's realistic agenda.

Actually, that isn't true. It may not be part of your "realistic" agenda - but true pro-gun organizations recognize that compromise is no longer possible. It was to their sorrow that they found that compromise itself was just an enemy's tool.

So now you come along with the idea of a new compromise. Well-a-day, I say you're wrong. All folks like you will do is to make the anti-gunners think that they have a chance again.

Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: DC v Heller: Amicus Brief of the Real Linguists, Part I
    ... the protection of their individual as well as their collective rights. ... In the formation of a government, the people may confer upon it such ... powers as they choose. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)
    ... Placing limitations on rights is entirely necessary and consistent with ... limitations does not downgrade a right to a "privilege." ... suitable for personal protection in places where I could conceivably ... If the answer to this is yes, then the policy is wrong. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can we use DAPs to access remote MDB files?
    ... a Major Human Rights Violation? ... If government does not enforce it then the individual will use ... An eternal term for patent protection? ...
    (comp.databases.ms-access)
  • Re: Heller.
    ... Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. ... their protection, safety, prosperity and happiness require it. ... frame of government, to cause their public officers to return to ... community; of all the various modes and forms of government that is ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Fourth Amendment
    ... The Fourth Amendment protection against warrant search and ... >> power retained by the states. ... >> central government does nothing to enhance our freedom, ... those words "unalienable rights granted ...
    (alt.politics)