H.R. 1093--The "BATFE Reform Act" Introduced

[NikatKimber]

The old gay porn to kids : plastic gun comparison is to show that there are times when it is justifiable to restrict someone's constitutional rights, even if they are mentally capable, over 18, and have never committed a crime in their life. You're essentially holding a double standard; it's ok to sometimes restrict 1A rights, but it's never ok to restrict 2A rights. I'm pointing out that you should rethink your stance from an objective view point.

There is a HUGE difference in those two situations. One is infringing on someone else's safety (showing gay porn to children). Merely possessing a plastic gun doesn't hurt anyone. The comparison should be:

Possessing gay porn vs possessing plastic gun

and

Showing said porn to children vs carrying plastic gun through security

Are YOU saying we should restrict 1A rights to possess explicit material in our own home? After all, it's all right to restrict 2A even if it doesn't affect others, right?

 

[Koshinn]

There is a HUGE difference in those two situations. One is infringing on someone else's safety (showing gay porn to children). Merely possessing a plastic gun doesn't hurt anyone. The comparison should be:

Possessing gay porn vs possessing plastic gun

and

Showing said porn to children vs carrying plastic gun through security

Are YOU saying we should restrict 1A rights to possess explicit material in our own home? After all, it's all right to restrict 2A even if it doesn't affect others, right?

The same argument could be made with possession of consensual child pornography. For example, all those high school kids sexting eachother. If kid A sends a picture of his or her genitals to kid B, kid A is guilty of possession and distribution of child pornography and B is guilty of possession. At what age is that ok? According to law, 17 yr olds doing that will most likely be branded sex offenders. So will 12 yr olds. This is consensual, kids doing it on their own.

Or hell, if kid A sends "obsecene" pictures, voluntarily, to an adult. The adult is possessing child porn, which is illegal.



Should we restrict 1A rights in certain situations? Yeah I think so. Not very often, but there are situations. Then again, there is a material difference between saying something when no one is around and owning an object. It's just like how owning cocaine is illegal, even if it can be proven without a doubt that the owner has never sold cocaine, has no plans to sell cocaine, and has never taken cocaine.

 

[NikatKimber]

The same argument could be made with possession of consensual child pornography.

...

Should we restrict 1A rights in certain situations? Yeah I think so. Not very often, but there are situations. Then again, there is a material difference between saying something when no one is around and owning an object. It's just like how owning cocaine is illegal, even if it can be proven without a doubt that the owner has never sold cocaine, has no plans to sell cocaine, and has never taken cocaine.

That went down the wrong road.

drop the porn and drugs argument; this isn't the place. Sorry for turning it that way.

As you seem to have a grasp of legalese, let's go this way.

Is, or is not, the Constitution a limiting powers document? As in, does the government have all power except what is protected, or is the government limited to only what power is granted to it in the Constitution?

If it is a limiting powers document, then where in that does the Constitution grant the government power to infringe on the citizens' ability to own weapons? Not to mention the specific protection given in the 2A.

Also, depending on wording, some rights in the BoR do protect in more general that others.

Finally, I'm not looking for current legal (congress, supreme court) opinions or precedent, as they, just as any other human, can be wrong. What is your reasoning for your position?

 

[vdub]

On the flip side, there are states that ALLOW the ownership of suppressors without registration and without the stamp tax, and also allow the possession of brand spankin new machine guns for private owners... as long as the suppressors and machine guns were made in-state and never left the state. And that is legal because the federal congress has power over interstate commerce only. As long as the suppressors or machine guns don't ever cross state borders, state laws apply.

While there have been states that passed laws like you talked about, I would like you to point to a case were someone actually did just that. I bet you cannot find one gun manufacturer or person who has tested the state law. The ATF came out and said that they will be ignoring the laws and any gun dealer or manufacturer would be proceeding under those laws at their own risk. I do not think anyone has taken them to task since everyone knows how dirty the ATF can really be and don't want a Waco raid at their house.

The laws were generally looked at as postering by the state to tell the feds to stop overstepping their powers listed out by the Constitution. So to say this is federally legal is somewhat incorrect. It is legal in the state but the federal level doesn't see that way. More than likely these laws will end up in front of the Supreme Court and then it will interpret the Constitution and whatever else they want in the way that supports the majority opinion on the court.

Personally, I think your general view on this matter is what has brought the country to the point it is at now. You seem to try and find a way to rationalize the reduction of your rights by using different scenarios. Rationalize it anyway you want, it doesn't change the fact the federal government is overstepping their authority and taking away or restricting our rights. It is funny the comparisons you are making to try and pass off your rationalization of gun right restrictions.

If everyone would be responsible for themselves, their children, their family and their property, there wouldn't need to be half the laws we have, half the social welfare programs, and half the prisons. However, everyone wants to blame someone else, lives off someone else and steal things from others.

 

[Koshinn]

As you seem to have a grasp of legalese, let's go this way.

Is, or is not, the Constitution a limiting powers document? As in, does the government have all power except what is protected, or is the government limited to only what power is granted to it in the Constitution?

If it is a limiting powers document, then where in that does the Constitution grant the government power to infringe on the citizens' ability to own weapons? Not to mention the specific protection given in the 2A.

Also, depending on wording, some rights in the BoR do protect in more general that others.

Finally, I'm not looking for current legal (congress, supreme court) opinions or precedent, as they, just as any other human, can be wrong. What is your reasoning for your position?

The Constitution obviously limits the power of the federal government in that it grants the government certain powers with limits.

But again, there is a difference between "infringing upon the citizens' ability to own weapons" and "infringing upon the citizens' ability to own any weapon."

As with everything, there is a balance between the public interest and personal rights. I don't generally want to pay taxes, for example, because it eats up a chunk of my paycheck. But those taxes go towards public projects. Knee-jerk reaction is to say that's socialist and you'd be right. You cannot have a completely capitalist nor a completely socialist system, it has to be balanced. More on topic, if I lived in a dense city, would I fight hard against ownership of a Mk19 (automatic 40mm grenade launcher) by civilians? Yes. People are stupid or careless - no matter how careful that person is, the chance of a ND or that weapon being stolen and used to destroy buildings of people is not worth the risk. But I understand that many people here are from a more rural area and by simply visiting okshooters.com, you're of a more responsible breed. Have you ever lived in Los Angeles? If a Mk19 was possible to own by civilians there, you'd see entire neighborhoods go up in flames, I kid you not. But at the same time, getting rid of Cali's ridiculous small arms laws and allowing concealed carry (with criminal background checks) would go a long way towards reducing the hold that gangs have on much of the city.

We're not disagreeing on basic principles, we're disagreeing on where to draw the line. Our views on that come from our background. I'm from very urban areas filled with a dense population of idiots. Allowing the purchase of new machine guns WOULD lead to the acquisition of these weapons by "evil" people, regardless of background checks, and WOULD lead to more deaths, at least at some places where I have lived.

If I were to rewrite firearms laws, I'd consider allowing new machine gun ownage, but with a $500 tax, a 3 month wait period, and punish criminal use with death. For suppressors, I'd only require a background check, which should take all of 10 minutes. SBR, SBS, and AOWs I'd not restrict. If you're going to criminally use one of those, you'll do it without the stamp tax, and restricting the sale doesn't stop someone with a hacksaw from making one.

While there have been states that passed laws like you talked about, I would like you to point to a case were someone actually did just that. I bet you cannot find one gun manufacturer or person who has tested the state law. The ATF came out and said that they will be ignoring the laws and any gun dealer or manufacturer would be proceeding under those laws at their own risk. I do not think anyone has taken them to task since everyone knows how dirty the ATF can really be and don't want a Waco raid at their house.

The laws were generally looked at as postering by the state to tell the feds to stop overstepping their powers listed out by the Constitution. So to say this is federally legal is somewhat incorrect. It is legal in the state but the federal level doesn't see that way. More than likely these laws will end up in front of the Supreme Court and then it will interpret the Constitution and whatever else they want in the way that supports the majority opinion on the court.

(I'll come back to this in a bit)

Personally, I think your general view on this matter is what has brought the country to the point it is at now. You seem to try and find a way to rationalize the reduction of your rights by using different scenarios. Rationalize it anyway you want, it doesn't change the fact the federal government is overstepping their authority and taking away or restricting our rights. It is funny the comparisons you are making to try and pass off your rationalization of gun right restrictions.

So I'm responsible for everything wrong with this country, is that what you're saying?

You're wrong here and probably very emotional, so I won't take it personally.

Rationalize it anyway you want, it doesn't change the fact the federal government is overstepping their authority and taking away or restricting our rights.

You're basically saying "think whatever you want, but you're wrong and I'm right." If I really thought the federal government was overstepping their authority on an issue, I would not rationalize it. But my interpretation of their authority, from my legal studies, is different than your interpretation. And there are huge portions of the population that believe like I do, and huge portions of the population that believe like you do.

You're seeing my examples as rationalization, which I don't get. They're examples that set the framework for my argument.

Here's an example:
Do you think that the government has the right to require an x-ray scan of you and your belongings before you enter the terminal of the airport? Or do you think they're taking away your 4th amendment rights? It's just a regular x-ray scan that takes not 2 seconds and that has been in use as long as I can remember. I can already see your response as knee-jerking towards the reduction of rights and the government overreaching with its powers. But say you accept that an x-ray scan is ok because it's quick and painless, and the small inconvenience is worth the chance to stop a terrorist from bringing a weapon onboard a plane. Ok, so let's take it a step further, do you accept the backscatter or patdown option? Probably not, but maybe you do. If you do, would you accept a strip search of every airline passenger and a manual inspection of all their luggage?

See the balance between the public good and individual rights? Now apply that to guns. You want all guns for everyone all the time. I'm saying that it's not unconstitutional to restrict some of those rights for some situations, and even to remove those rights altogether from certain people. You agree that the mentally ill, criminals, and children should not be allowed to own a gun? Where do you draw the line for who is and is not allowed to own a gun? Or do you think a mentally handicapped, 12 yr old, prior felon should be able to steal $500, go to H&H and buy a pistol?


See, now you're making rationalizations for the reductions in your liberties too.

If everyone would be responsible for themselves, their children, their family and their property, there wouldn't need to be half the laws we have, half the social welfare programs, and half the prisons. However, everyone wants to blame someone else, lives off someone else and steal things from others.

This is kind of like communism; it works in theory in the perfect world, but the world isn't perfect.

 

[vdub]

(I'll come back to this in a bit)

Please do.

So I'm responsible for everything wrong with this country, is that what you're saying? You're wrong here and probably very emotional, so I won't take it personally.

No emotions involved in my response. You can take the response however you want because this is a free country. However what I said was regarding to your train of thought. Obviously no one person is probably to blame. However, a lot of people, doing what you are doing, by rationalizing the taking away of rights by making the connections you did are to blame.

You're basically saying "think whatever you want, but you're wrong and I'm right." If I really thought the federal government was overstepping their authority on an issue, I would not rationalize it. But my interpretation of their authority, from my legal studies, is different than your interpretation. And there are huge portions of the population that believe like I do, and huge portions of the population that believe like you do. You're seeing my examples as rationalization, which I don't get. They're examples that set the framework for my argument.

I don't think anywhere in there I said "I am right, you are wrong." If I wanted to say "I am right, you are wrong.", then I would have just said it. The thing is with the way I believe, I wouldn't impose restriction on yours or anyone's rights based on how I believe. With the way you believe, it seems like you are fine with restricting mine and others' rights because you think it will prevent something from happening.

Do you think that the government has the right to require an x-ray scan of you and your belongings before you enter the terminal of the airport? Or do you think they're taking away your 4th amendment rights? It's just a regular x-ray scan that takes not 2 seconds and that has been in use as long as I can remember. I can already see your response as knee-jerking towards the reduction of rights and the government overreaching with its powers. But say you accept that an x-ray scan is ok because it's quick and painless, and the small inconvenience is worth the chance to stop a terrorist from bringing a weapon onboard a plane. Ok, so let's take it a step further, do you accept the backscatter or patdown option? Probably not, but maybe you do. If you do, would you accept a strip search of every airline passenger and a manual inspection of all their luggage?

See the balance between the public good and individual rights? Now apply that to guns. You want all guns for everyone all the time. I'm saying that it's not unconstitutional to restrict some of those rights for some situations, and even to remove those rights altogether from certain people. You agree that the mentally ill, criminals, and children should not be allowed to own a gun? Where do you draw the line for who is and is not allowed to own a gun? Or do you think a mentally handicapped, 12 yr old, prior felon should be able to steal $500, go to H&H and buy a pistol?

The examples you stated with the X-ray, pat downs, and searches are exactly how it all starts. The question is where does it end? This is exactly what I commented on how people accept the very slow erroding of their rights. I make the decision to not fly unless it is the only logical solution to get where I need to go. If I make the decision to fly I realize I will have to follow all the restrictions. Do I agree with all of them? Nope. I think there are plenty of other ways to eliminate the need for X-rays, pat downs, and searches but we don't want to offend anyone do we?!?

I do not believe I said I want all guns for everyone as you seem to want to suggest. Obviously that is not going to happen with our current system so to think it can all go away is not logical. I do want all guns for everyone that can legally own them under the current system. That would be the first step under this system and would be a great step forward. For children, their parents should be more active in knowing what their kids are doing and the parents should be the judge if the kid should have a gun. My dad bought me a 22 before I was 12. Did I end up shooting someone or committing crimes? No!! I think if more parents were proactive and part of their kid's daily life, a lot of the problems wouldn't exist. Instead of letting Playstation or Xbox or TV babysit your kid, why don't the parents get involved? This country has become the "Wasn't my fault" or "My baby didn't do nothing" country because everything that happens is not anyone's fault.

As for the mentally handicapped, I would first ask the question how many do you think would actually go out and buy one in the first place? Is this more of preventing something that might not ever happen? As for felons, do you think the current laws actually stop felons from getting guns? They must be doing great huh!?!? Still reducing the rights of the law-abiding to prevent the criminals?!?! That does not seem to be working very well, even the ATF cannot follow this law.

About your communism comment, it is funny you say that because it worked for so long back in the past. Until this country started the welfare culture that exists today, that is exactly what was happening. However, it has slowly been erroded to what we have today. Kind of sad really.

 

[Werewolf]

We're not disagreeing on basic principles, we're disagreeing on where to draw the line. Our views on that come from our background. I'm from very urban areas filled with a dense population of idiots. Allowing the purchase of new machine guns WOULD lead to the acquisition of these weapons by "evil" people, regardless of background checks, and WOULD lead to more deaths, at least at some places where I have lived.

Well - HELL YEAH! Let's just go ahead and restrict the RIGHTS of the many to protect the rights of a few.

Damn man I think you're on to something. It's a fact that old people have more car accidents than young people so lets just draw a line at age 70 and say no one over 70 can drive. That'll save lives.

And while we're at it lots of lives lost every year due to drunk driving. Can't have that so lets just take away the priviledge to drive altogether. Guaranteed to save lives.

Knives are sharp - ban 'em. No more getting cut.

People drown in swimming pools. No more swimming pools and kids drown in buckets and bathtubs so lets just eliminate those too.

People choke on food and die all the time. So lets just eliminate food!

Getting kind'a rediculous huh?

Try to understand Koshinn. You punish people that irresponsibly exercise rights. You do not restrict the rights of those who exercise them responsibly because a few do not.

Freedom isn't free and it damn sure isn't safe. There's absolutely an inverse relationship between the amount of freedom a people have and how safe they are.

Personally I choose freedom. The Darwin award candidates will weed themselves out soon enough and the gene pool will be a lot cleaner. The irresponsible and criminally irresponsible and the evil ones among us will be taken care of by the law for actions that cause harm to others. Again the gene pool will be a lot cleaner.

But then mine is probably a minority opinion or we wouldnt' be where we are today with respect to gun rights. More's the pity for us.

 

[Koshinn]

Well - HELL YEAH! Let's just go ahead and restrict the RIGHTS of the many to protect the rights of a few.

We already do. We've been doing that since the dawn of mankind. At no point has the United States NOT restricted the rights of the many to protect the rights of a few.

Damn man I think you're on to something. It's a fact that old people have more car accidents than young people so lets just draw a line at age 70 and say no one over 70 can drive. That'll save lives.

And while we're at it lots of lives lost every year due to drunk driving. Can't have that so lets just take away the priviledge to drive altogether. Guaranteed to save lives.

Knives are sharp - ban 'em. No more getting cut.

People drown in swimming pools. No more swimming pools and kids drown in buckets and bathtubs so lets just eliminate those too.

People choke on food and die all the time. So lets just eliminate food!

Getting kind'a rediculous huh?

Try to understand Koshinn. You punish people that irresponsibly exercise rights. You do not restrict the rights of those who exercise them responsibly because a few do not.

Freedom isn't free and it damn sure isn't safe. There's absolutely an inverse relationship between the amount of freedom a people have and how safe they are.

Personally I choose freedom. The Darwin award candidates will weed themselves out soon enough and the gene pool will be a lot cleaner. The irresponsible and criminally irresponsible and the evil ones among us will be taken care of by the law for actions that cause harm to others. Again the gene pool will be a lot cleaner.

But then mine is probably a minority opinion or we wouldnt' be where we are today with respect to gun rights. More's the pity for us.

You're completely missing the point, but that's ok, I forgive you. You're also using the straw man logical fallacy, to which I won't respond to.

The point is that compromise is what makes us Human. You want something, I want something, so we compromise. If we were just animals, we'd growl and attack eachother until one of us backed down.

The point you're missing is that rights can exist on a continuum from 100% personal freedom to 100% safety, and everything in between. You're making a straw man by saying that I am advocating 100% safety, which I obviously am not.

There's a concept called preventative maintenance. Regarding firearms, it's cleaning and lubricating your weapon and checking it for damage. In the legal arena, it would be trading off as little freedoms as possible to get the best return on safety. An x-ray machine is an example of a decent trade off; your personal freedoms aren't being too infringed upon, and it helps the safety of everyone. On the flip side, do you only clean your guns when they break? No, of course not, you want to stop the problem before it has the chance to manifest itself. If a criminal kills your son, you can't bring your son back, you can only put the criminal away (or kill him). But what if you had the chance to prevent that from happening in the first place? Maybe a background check to get the firearm he used?

Again, I'm sorry you missed the point, but the world is not black and white.

 

[vdub]

You're completely missing the point, but that's ok, I forgive you. You're also using the straw man logical fallacy, to which I won't respond to.

I am pretty sure he doesn't care if you forgive him or not. I am also pretty sure you missed his point. You will have to ask him if he will forgive you then decide if you want to accept.

The point is that compromise is what makes us Human. You want something, I want something, so we compromise. If we were just animals, we'd growl and attack eachother until one of us backed down.

I don't think compromise is what makes us human. I think there is a lot more to us that makes us human, forgiveness being one of them. For that, I forgive you.

But what if you had the chance to prevent that from happening in the first place? Maybe a background check to get the firearm he used?
Again, I'm sorry you missed the point, but the world is not black and white.

I am pretty sure any criminal knows exactly where to get a gun, cash money, and no background check so your argument of background checks preventing criminals from getting guns is void. There are also plenty of crooked gun dealers who will sale guns to criminals off the books. Happens all the time, heck even the ATF forces gun dealers to sell to straw purchasers. Maybe you have not seen the "Fast and Furious" gun running scandal going on. No law on the books has or ever will stop a criminal from committing a crime. They don't care what the law says because they already know what they are doing is illegal. Why care how many levels of criminal your act is?

The answer to my question of "Where does it end?" is when the people stop taking it. Some try to find the people who will fight for their cause and fight for their rights. Others just try to rationalize the slow erroding of the rights they used to have because "we can prevent things" that "might happen" or "stop crimes from happening".

Lastly, 2002 called and wants its movie back!!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181689/

 

[Werewolf]

Again, I'm sorry you missed the point, but the world is not black and white.

Ahhhh...

Condesencion. Gotta love it.

Unfortunately it is not I that has missed the point, rather it is you.

Again: the point is that human beings can have the freedom to exercise their natural rights responsibly without a government stepping in and restricting the rights of those who do by simply punishing those who do not.

If a man shoots another he is guilty of assault. The man who does not is not. You take the gun away from the man who shot you so he can never do it again. Society has that right. What society does not have is the right to take it away from you or anyone else because they might at some point in the future shoot someone with it. Yet that is exactly what government does and on a regular basis and with the willing permission and participation of people like you who would rather be safe than free.

I will not argue that it is usually a loss to society when one of its members is lost but one must ask which cost is greater; the loss of a life or the loss to all of society members to freely and responsibly exercise natural rights. In the long run the answer is obvious to me.

You don't take the gun away from; prohibit the ownership of nor restricts one's right to use it because there is the potential that one might use it irresponsibly. Punish actions not the potential action. And that my friend is the POINT

And don't kid yourself. All those who wish to exercise their right to own a fully automatic weapon are being punished because of a misguided belief that it is better to restrict the rights of the many to protect a few*. Sorry but that dog just won't hunt. It is the misguided attempt to protect people from themselves that has led us down the road to gun control, drug control, business control, food control and on and on and on. The nut jobs are even trying to tell us what we can eat and are by threatening federal funding telling us what our children can eat.

*(yeah; I know. In OK we can own fully automatic weapons if we're prepared to jump thru all the hoops; beg for permission and pay an artificially high price created by a government concocted shortage but realistically how many people are gonna jump thru all those hoops?)



Where does it stop? I'll tell you. It won't stop. Ever. Every time a right is restricted and the people get used to it the powers that be step in and restrict it just a little more. just like turning up the heat in the pot with a frog in it until he is boiled to death; governments will continue to restrict rights until they have none left to restrict or the frog jumps out of the pot. And how do they do it? With silly catch phrases like reasonable gun control that most don't have the sense to question if the restriction really is reasonable.

Liberals are full of good intentions but as someone once said: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Its too bad that most people in our society today are perfectly happy with having their rights restricted in the name of safety for themselves or others. The USA has become a country of sheep, willing sheep because as time has gone by more and more like you Koshinn have bought into and believe the government is doing it all for us when nothing could be further from the truth.

Go ahead and bleat your way thru a safe and boring life. Its what sheep want. Its what they are; its what they do; at least until they're slaughtered and turned into stew.