Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Relinquishing Guns and Gun Rights

I recently wrote this comment on japete's blog.
I admit to Atrius and the Anonymous commenter that my idea of removing rights for an accident is extreme. In fact on Robert Farago's blog, I was swayed by his suggestion that the punishment should fit the crime, so to speak, and if no one is injured, that be taken into consideration concerning the jail time and probation. But in my opinion, anyone who "forgets" there's a round in the chamber, even once, has proven to be dangerous and irresponsible and therefore should relinquish his guns and gun rights. Same with dropping a gun, no second chances.

Please notice how you guys say there's no such thing as an "accident," but only "negligence" when it suits your argument. Now, all of a sudden we're talking about "accidents" that can happen to anybody.

I don't buy it. "I say one strike you're out." And I say with a policy like that the world would be a much safer place.
Any thoughts? Is that too severe? Please tell me why, but try to do it without a car comparison, I dare ya.

Please leave a comment.

11 comments:

  1. Simple. Just apply your idea to any other enumerated right and see how it fits.

    The first time you call for the denial of a Constitutionally protected right of a fellow citizen, you lose the right to free speech. No exceptions. One strike and your silenced.

    The first time you admit to jay walking or other any other violation of any law, you lose the right to Due Process and Self Incrimination protected by the 5th.

    Let's get weird. The first time you let a friend stay in your home that happens to be a soldier you lose the Third (quartering of troops)

    These all sound ridiculous right? There is no magic about the 2nd amendment. If you think that it is a bad amendment, then we have a process for fixing that but calling for the denial of a particular right to any citizen opens the door to the denial of other rights to all.

    Remember that the entire Constitution is about telling the Government what it may NOT do, not telling the people what they may do. The bill of rights is not a list of personal rights, but an ADDITIONAL note of specific restrictions on the Government. The people are assumed to inherently have all of those rights and any others not mentioned.

    Hamilton even argued AGAINST a bill of rights.

    His quote. "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Any thoughts? Is that too severe? Please tell me why, but try to do it without a car comparison, I dare ya."

    It's cruel and unusual punishment. In addition, you apparently favor criminalizing non-crimes, such as dropping a gun. Modern firearms will not discharge if dropped. While it is foolish to drop valuable property it is not dangerous. There is no reason to deny people their rights because they lost physical control of a tool.

    If someone drops their circular saw - should they be prohibited from carpentry?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Never.

    Gonna.

    Happen.

    Which, very obviously, is a very good thing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. How will you enforce such a law?

    Let's say I fire a round into the floor of my house. *BOOM!* I'm not going to call the cops because I don't want to lose my guns or gun rights. So the hurdle here is how are you going to get people to rat on themselves when there are no witnesses?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I feel that removing free exercise of rights for anyone is wrong, unless that person has abused their rights and infringed on the rights of others.

    If we are letting career violent criminals out of jail where they just go out and commit more crimes against innocent people, then something is wrong with that system and needs to be corrected.

    Taking away someone's free exercise of a right because they made a mistake or were negligent? Direct comparison with any other rights is difficult, because abusing the right to keep and bear arms is much more dangerous than abusing any of our other rights. However, the right needs to be just as strongly protected. We wouldn't stand for taking away someone's right to freedom of speech if they used improper grammar, or freedom of the press if they misspelled a word, would we? If someone's caught hiding something contraband, would we accept taking away the protections for their right against unreasonable searches and seizures?

    Just because firearms are misused at the expense of innocent people doesn't mean we should treat the right any different than the others.

    ...Orygunner...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Orygunner says, "I feel that removing free exercise of rights for anyone is wrong, unless that person has abused their rights and infringed on the rights of others."

    This is why I don't believe in the 2nd Amendment. You guys want to keep making comparisons to cars and circular saws when it's convenient, but you don't have a Constitutional right to own those things. When I start talking about taking your gun-tool away, suddenly it's a Constitutionally protected right.

    I don't believe in it. And the Supreme Court only clarified their position very recently and then only by the slimmest possible margin, 1 vote.

    In addition, the way things are now, with people being able to so easily buy guns, that very fact is infriniging on the freedom of others. Just ask the families of the 100,000 killed and injured last year by gunfire. That would add up to about a million people right there, and that's ONE YEAR.

    Enjoy your toys because it's simple demographics that your days are numbered.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Mikeb:
    You wrote: "...with people being able to so easily buy guns, that very fact is infriniging on the freedom of others."

    Wrong. I can go down and buy a firearm right now. Please explain how THAT ACTION IN ITSELF infringes on anyone else's rights?

    You're trying to pin the irresponsible or criminal actions of the relative few onto me and other responsible gun owners who are appropriately exercising our rights.

    Your statement makes as much logical sense as blaming the easy access to cameras for child pornography, or the easy access to telephones being responsible for phoned-in death threats.

    When are you ever going to start putting the responsibility where it actually lies, on the person committing the crime? Once you do, maybe you can start working with us at reaching our goals of reducing ALL violent crime.

    ...Orygunner...

    ReplyDelete
  8. MikeB302000,

    Once again Sparky you are wrong.

    This is why I don't believe in the 2nd Amendment. You guys want to keep making comparisons to cars and circular saws when it's convenient, but you don't have a Constitutional right to own those things.

    And I quote from the Constitution --
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    That is the 9th Amendment to the Constitution.

    I have a Constitutional right to own a car or a power tool.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Since this is only really targeted at gun owners and the pro-gun, how about we even the playing field and have a similar restiction on anti-gun folks?

    If an anti-gun group lies *once* in any of their press releases, they're forbidden to release any more or speak on any gun control matters.

    You'll never agree to that, because you can lose so much.

    No more references to "rapid-fire" or "weapons of war", no describing standard magazines as "high-capacity", no "cop-killer" scares, and that's just a small taste.

    The only difference is you seem hell-bent on prosecuting accidents, I'm suggesting restictions on deliberate and malevolent irresponsibility.

    Both your suggerstion and mine are equally unjustified. If you're honest, you'd be calling for this at the same time as your demand.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "You guys want to keep making comparisons to cars and circular saws when it's convenient, but you don't have a Constitutional right to own those things. "

    Yes we do. It's called the "right of property" and is enumerated under the 9th Amendment.

    "Enjoy your toys because it's simple demographics that your days are numbered."

    Guns are not toys. Your prejudice against guns affected your calculation. A great many people who are affected by gun violence respond not by advocating for gun control but rather by buying a gun. I was reading a gun forum thread today about "why do you carry" and a common answer was "my family member, friend, or neighbor was attacked, raped, killed, etc". It seems quite a few people recognize that bad guys with guns are a sound reason for the good guys to get guns.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The problem is that in spite of the pro-gun insistence, there are too many lawful gun owners misusing their rights. Many of these people should have been screened out, many have made mistakes before which could have resulted in their being disarmed.

    Why do you guys resist this so much? Are you afraid you'd be swept up in the clean-up?

    ReplyDelete