Compromise - background checks in exchange for . . .

[Squire]

I think I'll pass. It just seems un-American.

But at least you had the balls to come out and say it.

Worse than the Statists and their aggressive rights infringement is the average American citizen who thinks it's fringe extremism to distrust Government, much less entertain the thought experiment that the People would have to exercise the Natural Rights they are blessed with as TJ reminded us ("...it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it...") The Statists know this and they exploit it, and it manifests itself as "background checks are common sense gun control".

 

[cekim]

Blackstone answers this question for us:

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" - William Blackstone

We must answer, "no", for the same reason the Constitution refuses to infringe on the rights of even the most heinous criminal without due process. To protect the innocent and persecuted from government.

Anyone who hasn't figured this out hasn't looked closely enough at history. I am not saying that dismissively, but objectively and I mean that for many people who claim to support liberty, but support "indefinite detention" and other dumb things this nation has done since 9/11.

It is a moot conversation - akin to asking "what guarantees/promises of money, housing and privilege would you require to submit to enslavement to a benevolent master?

That is how I would respond at this point to someone who asks me, because that is where we are already with our current laws.

 

[xtry51]

Blackstone answers this question for us:

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" - William Blackstone

We must answer, "no", for the same reason the Constitution refuses to infringe on the rights of even the most heinous criminal without due process. To protect the innocent and persecuted from government.

Anyone who hasn't figured this out hasn't looked closely enough at history. I am not saying that dismissively, but objectively and I mean that for many people who claim to support liberty, but support "indefinite detention" and other dumb things this nation has done since 9/11.

It is a moot conversation - akin to asking "what guarantees/promises of money, housing and privilege would you require to submit to enslavement to a benevolent master?

That is how I would respond at this point to someone who asks me, because that is where we are already with our current laws.

I prefer Samuel Adams.

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

 

[cekim]

I prefer Samuel Adams.

Sam's version works too...

This compromise is a siren song that has us crash on the rocks. They are not negotiating in good faith even if such a middle ground were possible. NFA34, GCA68, FOPA86, AWB, etc.... are all proof of that.

 

[42!]

Un-American to overthrow tyrannical government?

I think you should slowly re-read the DOI.

Overthrowing the American government is by definition un-American.

Just as overthrowing the British government is un-British.

The DOI was definitely un-British.

 

[Squire]

Overthrowing the American government is by definition un-American.

Just as overthrowing the British government is un-British.

The DOI was definitely un-British.

Not sure about that. DOI was un-King, not un-British, per se. un-American is not believing in the Constitution, which is the law of the People. You can be un-Government and not be un-Constitution (therefore, pro-American [citizens and values]).

 

[xtry51]

Overthrowing the American government is by definition un-American.

Just as overthrowing the British government is un-British.

The DOI was definitely un-British.

Well of we're being all historically accurate, I'd argue there hasn't been a real American since the first civil war where the federal government decided it was going to start a new country where states arent countries (which they were when the constitution was signed) and instead became subservient lands.

 

[cekim]

Overthrowing the American government is by definition un-American.

Just as overthrowing the British government is un-British.

The DOI was definitely un-British.

Wrong, the DOI, Constitution and BoR define a unique concept in human governance that simply does not map to prior forms of governance as it declares the government subject to the will of the people, not the other way around.

They (Brits) were and are subjects, we are citizens.

One of many intentional "tensions" of our system of governance was pitting "the people" against politicians (along with executive against judicial and legislative, legislative against executive and judicial, states against federal, etc... ). The various branches of government are put in conflict with their respective division of and limitation of power. The people and politicians are put in conflict with elections and ultimately their inability to lawfully disarm the people.

It is most American to constantly remind government who works for whom - it is the very definition of the balance of power described by our Constitution.

Our long slip back into serfdom since then is the problem here.

You may be mistaking the people in office for our "governance". They are place/office holders, we govern ourselves - they push the mop. The courts answer to a jury. The politicians answer to a ballot or they answer to a jury or, if they press the issue to tyranny, they answer to the angry mob.

Ponder this for a moment if you don't believe me:

What would happen if the Supreme Court said slavery were legal, but a jury refused to convict a runaway slave of any crime relating to his resistance of this enslavement?

What is the court or government's lawful recourse if jury after jury will not convict?

The answer is NONE.

Granted, that's a high bar of liberty and American bad-assery for all of us to strive, but that's the system to which our government is bound if we so demand it.

 

[calsdad]

Overthrowing the American government is by definition un-American.

Just as overthrowing the British government is un-British.

The DOI was definitely un-British.

According to a number of the Founding Fathers of this country - overthrowing the government is about as American as it gets.

 

[42!]

Worse than the Statists and their aggressive rights infringement is the average American citizen who thinks it's fringe extremism to distrust Government, much less entertain the thought experiment that the People would have to exercise the Natural Rights they are blessed with as TJ reminded us ("...it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it...") The Statists know this and they exploit it, and it manifests itself as "background checks are common sense gun control".

I certainly don't trust the government, wherever did you get that idea?

What exactly is a "natural" right. Unless you're referring to some God given right, which is a little outside this discussion, the only natural right I can think of is our right to die. It happens to everyone sooner or later. "Rights" were created along with government to define what should be. My government, the USA, defined certain rights and we need to defend those rights, and the USA. I want to fix my government, not overthrow it, thus insuring a better future for my children.

I encourage anyone who wants to peacefully overthrow the government of the United States to go ahead and try. As for those who wish for civil war, I oppose you. Wishing for or supporting civil war is just as un-American as our revolt against British rule was un-British.

 

[Squire]

What is the court or government's lawful recourse if jury after jury will not convict?
The answer is NONE.

The Government's unlawful recourse is suspending habeas corpus and generally becoming tyrannical. Which is why we have the Second Amendment.

I should note that suspension of habeas corpus is unlawful (Section 9, Article I of the Constitution) "unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

So, the Constitution passes some judgement on who is on the right side of a rebellion, which was tested in the Civil War.

 

[42!]

Wrong, the DOI, Constitution and BoR define a unique concept in human governance that simply does not map to prior forms of governance as it declares the government subject to the will of the people, not the other way around.

They (Brits) were and are subjects, we are citizens.

One of many intentional "tensions" of our system of governance was pitting "the people" against politicians (along with executive against judicial and legislative, legislative against executive and judicial, states against federal, etc... ). The various branches of government are put in conflict with their respective division of and limitation of power. The people and politicians are put in conflict with elections and ultimately their inability to lawfully disarm the people.

It is most American to constantly remind government who works for whom - it is the very definition of the balance of power described by our Constitution.

Our long slip back into serfdom since then is the problem here.

You may be mistaking the people in office for our "governance". They are place/office holders, we govern ourselves - they push the mop. The courts answer to a jury. The politicians answer to a ballot or they answer to a jury or, if they press the issue to tyranny, they answer to the angry mob.

Ponder this for a moment if you don't believe me:

What would happen if the Supreme Court said slavery were legal, but a jury refused to convict a runaway slave of any crime relating to his resistance of this enslavement?

What is the court or government's lawful recourse if jury after jury will not convict?

The answer is NONE.

Granted, that's a high bar of liberty and American bad-assery for all of us to strive, but that's the system to which our government is bound if we so demand it.

I don't think I'm wrong, I don't think you got my point, and I don't think we disagree as much as you think we do.

 

[42!]

Not sure about that. DOI was un-King, not un-British, per se. un-American is not believing in the Constitution, which is the law of the People. You can be un-Government and not be un-Constitution (therefore, pro-American [citizens and values]).

Now you're just playing word games. Get back on subject, I enjoy that much more

 

[cekim]

I certainly don't trust the government, wherever did you get that idea?

What exactly is a "natural" right. Unless you're referring to some God given right, which is a little outside this discussion, the only natural right I can think of is our right to die.

Natural Rights are often conflated with a theological God, but this is irrelevant and specious.

Natural Rights stem from our existence. You may choose or choose not to ascribe that to God, Gods, or flying spaghetti monsters, it matters not for our purposes.

The concept of Natural Rights are an ethical (or moral if you please) boundary across which no person or government calling themselves civilized, just and legitimate should cross.

The Constitution attempts to provide some context to how one might identify such boundaries, but ultimately outside those specifically enumerated - life, liberty, property, due process, keeping and bearing of arms, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, freedom from forced boarding of soldiers, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure without warrant and cause, etc... - outside of those specifically enumerated items, they left it as an exercise for the reader.

That might be a problem if we had managed to color within the above lines up to this point, but frankly, we've failed to even observe any of them properly much less does the broader public understand the broader presumption of freedom with the burden to show otherwise on the state.

Witness "is this legal?" in MA.

 

[cekim]

I don't think I'm wrong, I don't think you got my point, and I don't think we disagree as much as you think we do.

See my response to your Natural Right question above.

 

[drgrant]

On some things yes and others no, its COMPLICATED. I'm guessing you're the same. Or are you saying someone convicted of 12 DUIs and a couple manslaughter while DUI should be allowed a drivers license after a 2 year slap on the wrist sentence.... It's an example, no need to go on about how the state handles these.

It's a shitty example because you're comparing something which isn't clearly a right (driving) with something that is incontrovertibly a right (the ability to keep and bear arms).

Really?
A bit off the rails don't you think?

Not really, if your argument is that these people are dangerous and shouldn't have guns- if we're sticking to that meme I'd rather see these people dead or in jail forever. That's the only 100% way to keep them from being a danger to the public, isn't that the entire argument?

No one is saying we should go to extremes. In fact this kind of going to extremes is part of the problem.

Punishing the entire population with a ****ING BACKGROUND CHECK is pretty extreme. Particularly the way the system is right now. There is no other right on the BOR that is subject to a ****ing background check.

I see criticism but no practical suggestions. And no, saying no laws is not a practical suggestion. Those of us in the real world know we can't bring back the old west. We need to work within the reality that is.

If "practical suggestions" include things like more systems which effectively make our rights more vulnerable, then no, I don't have any of those.

I can think of a bunch of in-between ideas which would improve things but none of them involve compromise, they all involve the government or antis having to give things up, though, which probably will never happen.... ideas like:

-Making Prohibited Person constrained to convicted violent felons or known violent mental cases. No other categories allowed.
-Prohibited Persons can regain their rights via a court appeal with the option of a judge or jury review.
-NICS must be open 24/7/365. No exceptions. NICS data on proceeds is destroyed at midnight every day.
-NICS must proceed or deny within 10 minutes of the phone being answered. A false denial is a de-facto civil rights violation and if a citizen catches the .gov in a false denial it can be held liable for $10,000 per day between the NICS check and when the error is corrected. "Delays" are no longer allowed.
-NICS must answer, if the system is down or there's a busy signal its an automatic proceed. (It's 2015, for ****s sake. )
-State issued CCW which respects the PP standard outlined above acts as a NICS bypass as long as the permit has a picture, is facially valid and not expired.
-SBS, SBR, AOW, DD Shotguns, MGs, Suppressors - all completely removed from NFA. (I mean let's be serious, these categories are ****ing stupid. ) ExpDD's are still regulated (there's a community danger argument that's at least slightly
plausible here, which doesn't fly with ANY of the other categories. )
-Description of "Straw Purchase" is now CONSTRAINED to "attempting to purchase a firearm with the intent to transfer it to a prohibited person." Anything outside of this is NOT a straw purchase.
-No more "handguns only in state of residence" bullshit. Any person who is not a PP can buy any type of firearm in any of the US states or territories.
-Import bans of firearms, ammunition and parts are revoked/illegal.
-All 4473 forms older than 5 years must be destroyed by licensees or the government.
-All MHP/MRP forms are gone. Not legal.

Of course not a single one of these things will ever happen. Not even with a veto proof GOP congress and president, because most politicians don't really believe in civil rights. Things like the Patriot act, etc, prove that. We had significant
time under Bush Jr. where pro gun laws could have been passed and there was no traction anywhere. All we got was
manufacturer indemnification from civil suits.

Rant all you want, but the hippies eventually learned they needed to work within the system. Now we call them liberals. We need to work within the system as well or we will lose.

I'm not ranting at all, merely stating that most of the time compromises don't get us anywhere. A compromise that ends up in a net advance for gun rights is usually rare; and the only time it works is when the antis are dumb enough to take the carrot. (For example, in TX, people sucked for binding signage in order to get CCW, however, the antis didn't realize that PC 30.06 makes it very difficult to actually post binding signage. ) The only way compromise ever works is if we can trick
antis by giving them something that effectively amounts to nothing. (The only time I've ever seen this work is like with the manufacturer protection bill- we said "oh but we'll make it the law to have gun locks with guns" which basically every manufacturer was already doing voluntarily anyways.". These opportunities are RARE to nonexistent, however.

-Mike

 

[42!]

Natural Rights are often conflated with a theological God, but this is irrelevant and specious.

Natural Rights stem from our existence. You may choose or choose not to ascribe that to God, Gods, or flying spaghetti monsters, it matters not for our purposes.

The concept of Natural Rights are an ethical (or moral if you please) boundary across which no person or government calling themselves civilized, just and legitimate should cross.

The Constitution attempts to provide some context to how one might identify such boundaries, but ultimately outside those specifically enumerated - life, liberty, property, due process, keeping and bearing of arms, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, freedom from forced boarding of soldiers, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure without warrant and cause, etc... - outside of those specifically enumerated items, they left it as an exercise for the reader.

That might be a problem if we had managed to color within the above lines up to this point, but frankly, we've failed to even observe any of them properly much less does the broader public understand the broader presumption of freedom with the burden to show otherwise on the state.

Witness "is this legal?" in MA.

Agree or disagree, eloquently expressed.

 

[cekim]

Rant all you want, but the hippies eventually learned they needed to work within the system. Now we call them liberals. We need to work within the system as well or we will lose.

I assume this was 42!? I took from drgrant's post...

I disagree - they did not learn to work within the system, they learned to pervert the system with massive and systemic fraud and misinformation.

They learned that you can indoctrinate large numbers of people to the most absurd ideas, even convincing them to enslave themselves to a ruling class if you play on their fears without mercy.

What we need to learn from them is the importance of education - they use it for evil, we must use it for good.

 

[usp45ct]

Would your anti friend give up 1 st, 4th or 5 th amendment rights if it meant he felt safer?

 

[cekim]

Would your anti friend give up 1 st, 4th or 5 th amendment rights if it meant he felt safer?

Does he realize he already has?

 

[drgrant]

I certainly don't trust the government, wherever did you get that idea?

What exactly is a "natural" right. Unless you're referring to some God given right, which is a little outside this discussion,

If you don't understand the concept of natural rights (and it's pretty clear from what you wrote, that you don't) then this discussion isn't going to go anywhere. It's not outside at all, it's pretty integral to the whole damned thing. The founders created the constitution to provide a legal construct to recognize and protect natural rights.

I encourage anyone who wants to peacefully overthrow the government of the United States to go ahead and try. As for those who wish for civil war, I oppose you. Wishing for or supporting civil war is just as un-American as our revolt against British rule was un-British.

The founders hoped people would blow up the government periodically and re-create it, unfortunately I think they were too optimistic in that expectation. There's nothing "un american" about revolution. None of this matters anyways because it's not going to happen, at least not in any of our lifetimes, unless some weird event occurs that causes the televisions to shut off and the fabric of our society to deteriorate into 110% crap. People will keep putting up with shitty government in this country until the quality of life deteriorates past a tipping point. I don't think we're quite there yet to get joe sixpack motivated into doing anything.

-Mike

 

[cekim]

...unfortunately I think they were too optimistic in that expectation. There's nothing "un american" about revolution.

I think they hoped, as I do, that people can learn to be free and expect freedom so that each election is revolution toward the peaceful end of the spectrum of overthrow...

We have so much power that we don't use to force them into compliance with the Constitution right now - the trouble is that people mistakenly believe violent revolution to be easier than electing someone other than the usual batch of criminals we put up there every election season.

We don't use it because we've failed as a society to educate our kids to expecting, demanding, "feeling entitled to" freedom. We've failed to provide the correct expectation that maintaining liberty without violence is only fractionally easier than with violence.

If you think legally changing the way elected critters darken our government is hard, think about living on bark in a New England forest for the winter...

 

[42!]

It's a shitty example because you're comparing something which isn't clearly a right (driving) with something that is incontrovertibly a right (the ability to keep and bear arms).

Did I not say it was just an example.

Not really, if your argument is that these people are dangerous and shouldn't have guns- if we're sticking to that meme I'd rather see these people dead or in jail forever. That's the only 100% way to keep them from being a danger to the public, isn't that the entire argument?

Maybe you missed my comment on truth in sentencing and harsher punishments. There is no 100% in anything, all we can do is make it more or less likely (its a philosophical concept). And I support making it less likely.

Punishing the entire population with a ****ING BACKGROUND CHECK is pretty extreme. Particularly the way the system is right now. There is no other right on the BOR that is subject to a ****ing background check.

-Making Prohibited Person constrained to convicted violent felons or known violent mental cases. No other categories allowed.
-Prohibited Persons can regain their rights via a court appeal with the option of a judge or jury review.
-NICS must be open 24/7/365. No exceptions. NICS data on proceeds is destroyed at midnight every day.
-NICS must proceed or deny within 10 minutes of the phone being answered. A false denial is a de-facto civil rights violation and if a citizen catches the .gov in a false denial it can be held liable for $10,000 per day between the NICS check and when the error is corrected. "Delays" are no longer allowed.
-NICS must answer, if the system is down or there's a busy signal its an automatic proceed. (It's 2015, for ****s sake. )

Now I'm confused. You are against background checks but also suggest them in the same post. NICS is nothing if not a background check. IIRC you're also against PPs, but support them here. And how do you sort the PPs from the non-PPs if not a background check?

Of course not a single one of these things will ever happen. Not even with a veto proof GOP congress and president, because most politicians don't really believe in civil rights. Things like the Patriot act, etc, prove that. We had significant
time under Bush Jr. where pro gun laws could have been passed and there was no traction anywhere. All we got was
manufacturer indemnification from civil suits.

I don't give up so easy.

Sometimes I think you're just trying to stir things up, particularly when I compair comments in different threads. Just my opinion.

 

[drgrant]

I think they hoped, as I do, that people can learn to be free and expect freedom so that each election is revolution toward the peaceful end of the spectrum of overthrow...

We have so much power that we don't use to force them into compliance with the Constitution right now - the trouble is that people mistakenly believe violent revolution to be easier than electing someone other than the usual batch of criminals we put up there every election season.

We don't use it because we've failed as a society to educate our kids to expecting, demanding, "feeling entitled to" freedom. We've failed to provide the correct expectation that maintaining liberty without violence is only fractionally easier than with violence.

If you think changing the way elected critters darken our government is hard, think about living on bark in a New England forest for the winter...

I agree, and when I say "revolution" I mean of any type- it doesn't necessarily even have to be violent. People are too lazy for that, even.

I think a big part of the problem is these days people simply don't assign the level value to freedoms that they should. It is too easy for people to get complacent, and distracted, and too easy for people to be in a position where they rarely if ever use (or value) their freedoms. People are too busy getting wrapped up in stupid shit like whether gays get married or not, whether we blow up brown people 3000 miles away or not, or how much money they want to get the government to steal from the producers on their behalf. Things like "Civil Rights" are only marginally important in the minds of most.

-Mike

 

[42!]

Over a hundred posts, I think its all been said, I'm done. I enjoyed the exchange

 

[drgrant]

Did I not say it was just an example.

It is, but it's pretty much a strawman.

Maybe you missed my comment on truth in sentencing and harsher punishments. There is no 100% in anything, all we can do is make it more or less likely (its a philosophical concept). And I support making it less likely.

Yeah, its's philosophical, meaning its nebulous and not backed up by fact. People who are intent on doing harm to others don't really give a shit about gun control, and that IS a fact.

Now I'm confused. You are against background checks but also suggest them in the same post. NICS is nothing if not a background check. IIRC you're also against PPs, but support them here. And how do you sort the PPs from the non-PPs if not a background check?

I think I should have qualified that portion of my post by stating I was going to entertain playing your game a little bit- EG- making suggestions that I think the "average retard in the public" could live with, based off something resembling "reasonable restrictions" that are minimal infringements compared to what we have now. If the level of oppression we have now is like an 8, my suggestions at least bring it down to a 3.

I don't give up so easy.

Neither do I but I am being realistic. Without a huge paradigm shift in american politics away from the current 2 party
system, or at a minimum, away from the dumpster fire the GOP has become, it's not very realistic to think that most politicians will entertain passing laws which repeal gun control. Right now our only recourse really is to get the courts to act and punish the gov with the constitution as much as they are able to.

Sometimes I think you're just trying to stir things up, particularly when I compair comments in different threads. Just my opinion.

What other thread?

-Mike

 

[cekim]

Over a hundred posts, I think its all been said, I'm done. I enjoyed the exchange

Word <- the last one.

 

[drgrant]

Would your anti friend give up 1 st, 4th or 5 th amendment rights if it meant he felt safer?

The problem in america is most people would gleefully give up their rights to feel "safe and warmy". The acceptance of the TSA anal probe exams after 9/11 is living proof of that, and the majority of the population won't even question the legitimacy of even part of that
horror show. They accept it because they're all caught up in the belief that security theater will keep them" safe and warmy. "

-Mike

 

[calsdad]

Yeah, I really don't want anyone vetting me so I can exercise a natural right. What if I want to go to temple, but all my neighbors are muzzies?

Admittedly - that is a problem. But nothing is perfect - and neither was the US back when there was a militia. There were state sponsored churches - and if you didn't go - you were likely a pariah in your community - and while you likely could easily own a firearm - you might not have served in the militia and had access to the best of weaponry.

I think my point with the militia suggestion is this: We're dealing with two things here. There's personal self defense - and then there's defense against the government. Over the many years since the Constitution was written - things have changed. A good example of this is the term "well regulated" - which the antis constantly use as an excuse to pass laws and take away firearms - which meant "well trained" at the time it was written.

Imagine trying to make the argument to somebody in colonial America that they should not be able to personally defend themselves - because that was the job of the police......

The Police - LARGELY DIDN'T EXIST.

So that whole leftie argument about personal self defense is a new one - which entirely rests on the existence of an entity not conjured up at the time of the writing of the Constitution. Their argument also rests on completely ignoring the actual court rulings that say the Police are NOT responsible to protect you from crime.

The other side of the second amendment - is the right to self organize into militias - and NOT be prohibited to do that by the FEDERAL government. I think that is the part that has been lost - and it's the MAJOR part. It's also the root of the contention between 2nd amendment supporters and the antis. Because while they DO bitch about pistols - what they really bitch about is machine guns and semi autos and "assault weapons" and so forth. They typically justify their bitching by saying - "if you want to own these then join the military". But the current day military we have - is in direct opposition to the intent of the founding fathers who were VERY against a "standing military".

So what I'm saying is : undercut their arguments by saying "fine - you want restrictions on semi-autos and machine guns and so forth - well we want the militia back. THE REAL MILITIA. Once that is back in effect - then anybody who wants to own that stuff can join up and be free to own it. Everybody else will be able to freely buy firearms that are directly applicable for personal self defense.

Let them twist in the wind on that one for a while.

 

[GM-GUY]

This is the place for that Illustrated Guide to Gun Control cartoon - "I want my damn cake back - ALL OF IT !!!!"

The problem inherent in this is that you are making a deal with known, demonstrated, proved LIARS.