Let's have another gun debate, shall we?

We haven't had one of these in a while, so I think it's high time for another one.

Today, A person I know was arrested for purchasing firearms for persons who were otherwise unable to "legally" purchase them. Apparently this occurred 8 times. It just so happens that one of these guns was used by someone to murder a police officer a few weeks ago. The killer shortly afterward took his own life. My acquaintance now faces up to 60 years in prison. There has been no information put forth that would lead anyone to believe my acquaintance knew what the killer intended to do.

The majority of my friends are of the opinion that our mutual acquaintance should get life in prison.

Now here is my stance on this:

Guns are tools, just like a hammer, a chainsaw or anything else. Yes it is a tool designed to kill or injure. But it is still a tool none the less, and it requires someone to operate it to perform that function. If my acquaintance had acquired some other implement and provided it to the killer, unknowing of the killers intentions. He would not be facing charges right now. But because of the idea that guns are these evil devices being put forth in the media, and by legislators. Guns are being unconstitutionally restricted and controlled.

Amendment II.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Bill of Rights is very clear. Any type of law, regulation, or restriction is an infringement and therefore unconstitutional.

My second beef, is this idea that my acquaintance is being held accountable for the actions of the killer. This is just absurd. It is my belief that my acquaintance is being prosecuted because a police officer was killed, and the murderer took his own life. I think the legal system just wants a scapegoat they can parade around and make an example of.

Yes, my acquaintance performed a stupid act. And I think being stupid should be punished. But I do not think that up to 60 years in prison is an equal punishment for this "crime".

What are your thoughts?

While I agree wholeheartedly with your interpretation of the 2nd amendment, I must add that your friend who made those 8 straw purchases is an idiot. That person will go away for a long, well-deserved vacation.

reply to post by watchitburn


Enter a man from the north...

I think Guns should be outlawed in all countries...

Guns are tools, just like a hammer, a chainsaw or anything else. Yes it is a tool designed to kill or injure. But it is still a tool none the less, and it requires someone to operate it to perform that function.

And heres a good reason why... Tools don't kill people by accident or by a twitch of a finger...

example...

A few years ago in the city i live... A man was cleaning his rifle in his house... It went off by mistake, and unfortunatly killed a 5 year old boy sleeping in the next room...

Yes its true it takes an operator to use a gun... but if said gun wasn't in the house in the first place... that boy would still be alive...

Tragic but preventable...

Of course this isn't USA... so my opinion doesn't matter

You outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. And the government who clearly wants absolute power, with no threat of revolution.

My opinion and my understanding of the intent of the framers of the Bill of Rights leads me to the belief that government has no legitimate right to infringe on what is supposed to be an inalienable right. I do not recognize the federal government's "right" to prevent US citizens from owning firearms. If a person is too dangerous to own a firearm after committing a "crime", then they belong in jail. Additionally, too many things are now a felony. At one time, felony was a term reserved for only the most serious crimes. Now, everything is a felony. I believe that this was done purposely to restrict as many people as possible from firearm ownership. At the time that the Bill of Rights was framed, the "militia" was every adult(white) male, approximately 16 and older, in the country. I would say that the "militia" today should consist of all able bodied adult citizens in the country and that we should be able to own any weapon we desire. I include military and law enforcement quality weapons in this category.

reply to post by Akragon


But it wasn't the guns fault. It was the fault of the man negligently cleaning his rifle. For which there is no excuse. I'm willing to bet that man faced charges of negligence right?

If used properly a gun is not going to harm anyone unintentionally.

reply to post by DarthMuerte


That is exactly they way I see it.

The purpose of the Second Amendment is for the people to have the means to defend themselves from and throw down a tyrannical government.

Therefore the People should have equal access and opportunity to posses any type of Arms the government might have.

I think your aquaintance made a grave error, and a very stupid mistake. Surely he knew how "law enforcement" would react in a case like this. It doesn't matter if your aquaintance is morally or constitutionally right or wrong. What matters is those who have the ability to enforce unjust and unconstitutional "laws".

As to guns in general. Another thread with a long list of the same old arguments from all sides of the debate. Bottom line... History has shown us that only governments with the goal of tyranny and terror disarm the people.

Gun control does work. But only for those in control of the guns.

He purposefully subverted the gun laws to enable someone that shouldn't have a gun, have one.

The end result was someones death.

He is culpable to some extent in the matter, just as if you let a friend who is drunk drive your car you too would be responsible in any accidents that occur.

Your right a gun is a tool, and you don't let your friends who aren't capable of using one responsibly , use one.

Originally posted by benrl
He purposefully subverted the gun laws to enable someone that shouldn't have a gun, have one.

This is an interesting statement coming from someone who says

benrl
If a law is unjust a man is not only right to disobey it he is obligated to do so Membe

The federal government has no right to violate the second amendment. They are directed not to INFRINGE upon the right of American citizens to keep ad bear arms. They overstep their authority not only with the second amendment, but with the 1st, 4th, 5th and 10th as well.

reply to post by Akragon


If people didnt go swimming no child would ever drown in a pool lake river or stream.
If people didnt eat food nobody could ever choke to death on food.
If people didnt drive cars nobody would ever die in an auotmobile accident ( which kills far more children every ear than guns BTW)
If people didnt have pets then they could never attack and kill people.
If people didnt go ouut in a lightning storm they wouldnt get struck and killed.
If people didnt live in earthquake zones then nobody would ever die in one.
If people didnt live near the ocean hurricanes wouldnt kill them.
If people didnt live in the cold areas of the earth they wouldnt die from freezing to death.
If people didnt require food to live then nobody would ever starve to death.
If people didnt do many stupid kinds of things then nobody would ever die from their ignorant actions.
If people didnt live there wouldnt be any of these things to worry about in the first place.
If people didnt blame other peoples actions on inanimate objects then we wouldnt be having this conversation.

reply to post by DarthMuerte


I believe that felons and the mentally ill should not have the right to own a fire arm, I am a big believer in the 2nd amendment.

Those two beliefs are not contradictory, if we followed the constitutions blindly women wouldn't have the right to vote, and slavery would still be ok.

Not to mention this case is the exact reason we have the limits, this man subverted the existing laws and someone died, seems like they where valid in the safety concern that a felon should not have one.

Putting aside the validity of gun laws.

Facing a sentence of up to 60 years in prison for providing a gun to someone, is extreme and unjust.

And if what has been revealed about the "Fast and furious" operation is accurate, the Govt. has been doing the same thing for years. I haven't heard of anyone involved facing prison time for it.

Perhaps i'll rephrase...

Stupid people and guns don't mix....

So lets just kill all the stupid people.... so you guys can keep your guns

Fair?

reply to post by benrl


I can understand your position on the mentally unstable and felons. But I think the process for removing a person's right to bear arms should be more involved and tedious.

I think the act of removing a Right should only occur by a trial in front of a jury of peers. And it should be done separately from any type of criminal court proceedings.

Take that power away from bureaucrats and give it to the people on a case by case basis.

reply to post by Akragon


I have already thought out an entire system for killing off all the stupid people.
It will even create jobs.

I'll see if I can find it.

Originally posted by benrl
reply to post by DarthMuerte

 

I believe that felons and the mentally ill should not have the right to own a fire arm, I am a big believer in the 2nd amendment.

Those two beliefs are not contradictory, if we followed the constitutions blindly women wouldn't have the right to vote, and slavery would still be ok.

Not to mention this case is the exact reason we have the limits, this man subverted the existing laws and someone died, seems like they where valid in the safety concern that a felon should not have one.

edit on 10-10-2012 by benrl because: (no reason given)

There are a ton of nonviolent crimes that are felonies, such as possessing over an ounce of grass. So, you're telling me that a person convicted of such a charge, has no right to defend himself, because of a grass charge? I'll tell you this, I'm no felon, but if I were, I'd have a gun to protect myself and my family, and to hell with the law. Everyone has a right to defend themselves, and I don't need the government to give me permission to do that. If a person is mentally ill, or a violent criminal, I can understand not putting a weapon in their hands. These days, the term, felon, is very broad.

This is a sticky situation.

On one hand, never help somebody subvert the law, even if you disagree with it, because if they screw up, you're left twisting in the wind. In that sense, your friend messed up, badly.

On the other hand, 60 years is ridiculous. I do believe that the punishments for certain crimes have been upped to the point of insanity. If I get my gun out, shoot my husband, and then convince a jury that it was simply a crime of passion because I snapped after tripping over his shoes for the umpteenth time, I could get 13 years, and be out in 9 for good behavior.

We need to get back to "make the punishment fit the crime". And buying a gun for a dumbass who kills a cop and then kills himself, doesn't deserve 60 years. Let's face it, for an adult, a sentence that long is equivalent to a life sentence. It costs approximately $35,000 per year to house, guard and feed a prisoner. The US has more people in prison than any other country. No wonder we're broke.

reply to post by FissionSurplus


I agree.
He definitely did not use good judgement. My friend is 30 right now. So tax payers should expect to spend $2.1 million dollars to carry out a 60 year sentence.

Punishments and justice have gotten completely twisted and turned upside down.
About 10 years ago, I got myself into a LOT of trouble. I should still be in prison right now. But because of the situation I was in. I received 2 $75.00 non-traffic citations. I'm not going to complain, but justice was definitely not served.

Originally posted by watchitburn
reply to post by benrl

 

I can understand your position on the mentally unstable and felons. But I think the process for removing a person's right to bear arms should be more involved and tedious.

I think the act of removing a Right should only occur by a trial in front of a jury of peers. And it should be done separately from any type of criminal court proceedings.

...

It is, when you are a felon you have been tried in a court of law, by either you admitted to guilt, or by being tried by a jury of your peers who have than found you guilty.

Its not like "surprise!" your a felon, you had your day in court, with a lawyer and 12 men and women of your fellow citizens.

Having a second trial to determine your 2nd amendment right is silly, its all wrapped up in being a felon, same with the right to vote being taken away.

There are processes in place that allow the right to be restored, the people who your friend "helped" could of gone and gotten the conviction expunged or reduced.

They didn't, which means the crimes they had convicted of where either violent or otherwise sever enough that no judge would restore their rights.

either that are they where just to lazy to go through the fair and legal process.

Is 60 years a long time for selling guns, Yes, but a man died as a result of your friends direct criminal negligence.

reply to post by poloblack


And most times if its a first offense you can have the charge reduced after you have served your time and probation.

Getting a first time weed conviction reduced from a felony after the terms have been met is not that hard, it requires filling some paper work.

It is repeat offenders that could have a problem, as is being a "drug" user is prohibited in the questionnaire when you get the gun in the first place. Its right there next to the mental illness questions.

Don't like it work to get the laws changed that surround weed, not circumvent the existing gun laws, remember this case in the OP directly resulted in a death.