Troubling Public Opinion Trends for Gun Rights and Civil Liberties

[Lucille]

::sigh::

Troubling Public Opinion Trends for Gun Rights and Civil Liberties
http://blog.independent.org/2013/01/24/troubling-public-opinion-trends-for-gun-rights-and-civil-liberties/


On how to respond to mass shootings and violent crime, the public opinion trends frighten me, especially when broken down by political identification. Predictably, Democrats are in favor of gun control by wider margins than Republicans. But still, 92% of Republicans favor universal background checks, which I consider as bad a proposal as any being offered. It will mean the death of gun shows as we know them. The relative freedom with which Americans private trade firearms is one of the greatest spheres of liberty in the country, something that sets the United States apart from most places. Ninety-one percent of the population want to abolish the freedom (independents being slightly more reluctant than either Democrats or Republicans to support such a measure). This would be the most significant strike against gun rights, and one of the most important violations of the Bill of Rights in general, in modern times.

One theme I try to focus on in these discussions is how gun control is merely one of many core elements of the police state, and that those who oppose criminal justice and police abuses should be more skeptical of gun laws, and those who favor the right to bear arms should be much more skeptical of militarized policing, prosecutorial shenanigans, the prison system, the drug war, and so many other heavy-handed government measures that contribute to violent crime and boost the rationale for gun control. It never made sense to me that those who favor gun control would decry racism in the courtroom and those who see gun rights as a bulwark against tyranny would deny the pervasiveness of police brutality.

Well, for once, at least these poll results enjoy some internal consistency. 63% of Republicans want to see 15,000 more police on the streets. Not to be outdone, 81% of Democrats back the same proposal.

[Deborah K]

They are pushing us into the black market. Which will, before too long, I predict, be the new free market.

[Acala]

Background checks, no matter how universal you make them, will be ineffective at disarming criminals. That should be reason enough for not bothering. But there is a deeper problem.

The reason people think background checks are a good idea is because we have accepted the ridiculous idea that it is okay to allow people that have been proven to be dangerously violent to walk free. That is a failed notion. A given person is either safe to be free in society or not. You can't have a middle ground where people that we know are dangerous are allowed to roam free in the hopes that the clerk at the gun store will keep them from getting a gun.

The idea of prohibited persons is to blame for the idea of background checks. And the whole idea of prohibited person is based on the idea that criminal violence is a hardware problem rather than a software problem such that violent people can somehow be made safe if you can keep them from getting a gun.

So if you want to get rid of the background check (which I do), you must get rid of the idea of the prohibited person. But to do that you must draw a line and people who cross the line through their criminal conduct don't get to come back into free society again.

[DamianTV]

Background checks to buy a gun...

Oh how obvious it is that our leaders do not make any effort to think. If someone is going to rob a convenience store, they arent going to go purchase that gun legally. They seem to have in their thick fucking skulls that criminals do background checks on each other when they sell each other guns. Guess what. They don't.

If they are aware of the ineffectiveness of their actions, then the ineffective laws they are trying to shove down our throats are intended on disarming the law abiding public while leaving the criminals with guns, and making everyone more and more dependant on cops for a protection, which they definitely do not provide.

[bolil]

Background checks, no matter how universal you make them, will be ineffective at disarming criminals. That should be reason enough for not bothering. But there is a deeper problem.

The reason people think background checks are a good idea is because we have accepted the ridiculous idea that it is okay to allow people that have been proven to be dangerously violent to walk free. That is a failed notion. A given person is either safe to be free in society or not. You can't have a middle ground where people that we know are dangerous are allowed to roam free in the hopes that the clerk at the gun store will keep them from getting a gun.

The idea of prohibited persons is to blame for the idea of background checks. And the whole idea of prohibited person is based on the idea that criminal violence is a hardware problem rather than a software problem such that violent people can somehow be made safe if you can keep them from getting a gun.

So if you want to get rid of the background check (which I do), you must get rid of the idea of the prohibited person. But to do that you must draw a line and people who cross the line through their criminal conduct don't get to come back into free society again.

Ah, but where to draw the line and who interprets whose crossed and who hasn't. Perhaps it could be contingent on: A. The victims sentiments and B. The method, instrument, and extent of violence. C.Repeat offenses.

Victims sentiments should be major factor though, and if the victim dies they should have a document that directs an agent of their choosing in actions to be taken.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Background checks to buy a gun...

Oh how obvious it is that our leaders do not make any effort to think. If someone is going to rob a convenience store, they arent going to go purchase that gun legally. They seem to have in their thick fucking skulls that criminals do background checks on each other when they sell each other guns. Guess what. They don't.

If they are aware of the ineffectiveness of their actions, then the ineffective laws they are trying to shove down our throats are intended on disarming the law abiding public while leaving the criminals with guns, and making everyone more and more dependant on cops for a protection, which they definitely do not provide.

Background check is more like being added onto a "THIS GUY IS A TERRORIST TRYING TO BUY A GUN" list.

[pcosmar]

So if you want to get rid of the background check (which I do), you must get rid of the idea of the prohibited person. But to do that you must draw a line and people who cross the line through their criminal conduct don't get to come back into free society again.

I am a Prohibited Person. And from my experience,,most people in prison are there for non violent crimes. Though prison is a violent place, and violence is sometimes necessary for survival.

The entire system needs to be addressed,, from Prohibition (huge issue) to alternative punishments for petty crimes.

[Acala]

I am a Prohibited Person. And from my experience,,most people in prison are there for non violent crimes. Though prison is a violent place, and violence is sometimes necessary for survival.

The entire system needs to be addressed,, from Prohibition (huge issue) to alternative punishments for petty crimes.

Agreed. I don't think punishment has a proper role. In my opinion, restitution to the victim and protecting the community from further attacks on persons and property should be the mission.

[Anti Federalist]

You mean close to a million non violent "non approved" drug offenders will have to be released?

O' the Horror.


Background checks, no matter how universal you make them, will be ineffective at disarming criminals. That should be reason enough for not bothering. But there is a deeper problem.

The reason people think background checks are a good idea is because we have accepted the ridiculous idea that it is okay to allow people that have been proven to be dangerously violent to walk free. That is a failed notion. A given person is either safe to be free in society or not. You can't have a middle ground where people that we know are dangerous are allowed to roam free in the hopes that the clerk at the gun store will keep them from getting a gun.

The idea of prohibited persons is to blame for the idea of background checks. And the whole idea of prohibited person is based on the idea that criminal violence is a hardware problem rather than a software problem such that violent people can somehow be made safe if you can keep them from getting a gun.

So if you want to get rid of the background check (which I do), you must get rid of the idea of the prohibited person. But to do that you must draw a line and people who cross the line through their criminal conduct don't get to come back into free society again.

[shane77m]

http://youtu.be/7O7sE1f8NA8

Backs are being pushed against a wall.

[Anti Federalist]

Well, for once, at least these poll results enjoy some internal consistency. 63% of Republicans want to see 15,000 more police on the streets. Not to be outdone, 81% of Democrats back the same proposal.

Well, how about that?

Bi-Partisan agreement to strip more freedom away and increase the Standing Army.

What a fucking surprise.

I give up...fuck it.

[phill4paul]

Well, how about that?

Bi-Partisan agreement to strip more freedom away and increase the Standing Army.

What a fucking surprise.

I give up...fuck it.

No shit. The endless time spent on "URGENT" counters of endlessly repetitive end runs of legislation while the school system and Boob tube turn out "General" welfare Dems and "Common" defense Reps is an exercise in futility.

[James Madison]

Agreed. I don't think punishment has a proper role. In my opinion, restitution to the victim and protecting the community from further attacks on persons and property should be the mission.

Prisons should function as a means of isolating those who simply cannot coexist with society -- sociopaths, psychopaths, and their ilk. Punishment, rehabilitation, etc. have no role in the law of nature. The doublespeak of criminal databases, background checks is that we are saying that such individuals can be trusted amongst the general public, though they cannot be trusted with arms. We force sex offenders into a database because they are a 'threat', yet if they are a 'threat' why have they been given parole? Defenders of the system would say they have been punished and rehabilitated, but clearly they have not for they cannot be trusted with the same freedoms as non-offenders. The current legal system is broken because it hasn't a clue as to it's purpose. It simply exists and will go on existing because some are easily beguiled.

Consider a man who abducts and murders a young woman, whose father then tracks down said murderer and returns the favor. The man is technically guilty of murder, but does he pose a threat to society? No. He is simply nature's way of evening the score. If those who cannot function in society are dealt with as such, there will come a day within several generations where societal pressures, in collusion with natural selection, will effectively eliminate these brands of evil from the Earth. A task punishment and rehabilitation cannot accomplish.

[Acala]

Prisons should function as a means of isolating those who simply cannot coexist with society -- sociopaths, psychopaths, and their ilk. Punishment, rehabilitation, etc. have no role in the law of nature. The doublespeak of criminal databases, background checks is that we are saying that such individuals can be trusted amongst the general public, though they cannot be trusted with arms. We force sex offenders into a database because they are a 'threat', yet if they are a 'threat' why have they been given parole? Defenders of the system would say they have been punished and rehabilitated, but clearly they have not for they cannot be trusted with the same freedoms as non-offenders. The current legal system is broken because it hasn't a clue as to it's purpose. It simply exists and will go on existing because some are easily beguiled.

Consider a man who abducts and murders a young woman, whose father then tracks down said murderer and returns the favor. The man is technically guilty of murder, but does he pose a threat to society? No. He is simply nature's way of evening the score. If those who cannot function in society are dealt with as such, there will come a day within several generations where societal pressures, in collusion with natural selection, will effectively eliminate these brands of evil from the Earth. A task punishment and rehabilitation cannot accomplish.

Well said

[Deborah K]

Prisons should function as a means of isolating those who simply cannot coexist with society -- sociopaths, psychopaths, and their ilk. Punishment, rehabilitation, etc. have no role in the law of nature. The doublespeak of criminal databases, background checks is that we are saying that such individuals can be trusted amongst the general public, though they cannot be trusted with arms. We force sex offenders into a database because they are a 'threat', yet if they are a 'threat' why have they been given parole? Defenders of the system would say they have been punished and rehabilitated, but clearly they have not for they cannot be trusted with the same freedoms as non-offenders. The current legal system is broken because it hasn't a clue as to it's purpose. It simply exists and will go on existing because some are easily beguiled.

Consider a man who abducts and murders a young woman, whose father then tracks down said murderer and returns the favor. The man is technically guilty of murder, but does he pose a threat to society? No. He is simply nature's way of evening the score. If those who cannot function in society are dealt with as such, there will come a day within several generations where societal pressures, in collusion with natural selection, will effectively eliminate these brands of evil from the Earth. A task punishment and rehabilitation cannot accomplish.

This is a very interesting take.