Subject:
|
Re: Million Mom March
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 14 May 2000 03:51:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
455 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
>
> > I would be in favor of a gun "license", however, I would like to see any
> > group who can show that their are serious about how they give out the
> > license being able to give them out (a huge advantage of this beyond the
> > economic advantages of competition, is that the government won't be able to
> > have a list of all licensed people, probably a good thing).
>
> I'm not sure, but is what you are envisioning, like firearms rights insurance?
> Where the licensing authority would be liable for misuse of the firearms by
> holders of their license?
I guess that could be part of it, but my main thought was that the
organization issuing the license would need to be sufficiently recognized as
having good requirements, but maybe that's unworkable without something very
specific. Of course this type of issue is one of the things which will be
tricky in moving functions regulated by the government to being regulated by
market forces. The trick is how do you create the independant agency without
pre-existing market forces to regulate that agency.
> > I'd also like
> > for there to be some way to revoke the license for appropriate crimes.
> > Having a good system here could eliminate the need for background checks.
>
> Do you mean at the time of purchase? Presumably the licensing authority would
> perform background checks at the time of license.
Yes, that's basically what I meant (though there is an issue of what sort of
background check is reasonable, the 2nd amendment doesn't help too much here,
though the "a well regulated militia" part does suggest that there is an
expectation of training [which is the largest part of what I believe that
phrase is getting at - that not only do the people need the right to bear
arms, but they need to be trained in their use]).
> > I would be in favor of some way to trace the ownership history of guns. One
>
> Not I. That is specifically something that I'm against. I can't imagine a
> system of this type that wouldn't be prone to abuse. On the other hand, there
> are serial numbers and if a business started that kept track of such things, I
> wouldn't claim that they didn't have the right to...I'd just try to get guns
> that aren't in their database.
Ultimately it would be nice for guns to not need to be traceable, but one of
the largest source of guns to criminals is poorly secured guns. I'd like to
see some way to weed out the folks who take no thought at all to the security
of their guns. Ownership of a gun is certainly a right, but it also carries
responsibility. Perhaps there are other ways to insure this responsibility
though.
> > Unfortunately, I'm
> > not sure how this could be done without the feds having access to a list of
> > who owns what guns...
>
> Right.
>
> > I also respect the rights of individuals and organizations to restrict the
> > ability to carry weapons onto their property
>
> Me too. But I support the right of property owners to do almost anything on
> their property.
>
> > (and this I think includes the governments right to not allow them
> > into court houses).
>
> Oh. I don't have a strong stance on this, but my first reaction is to
> disagree. In an ideal world, the courts would be private, so I'd agree. But
> as far as I'm concerned, I'm an owner of the courthouse, so who is some other
> owner to regulate me like that. OTOH, I think it's better that people not
> have guns in court...in general. So, I'm not sure.
Can courts be totally privatised? How do you make the courts work at all if
they are privitized? How would their judgements be enforced? This is an
interesting side topic.
But back to a more current issue, since the courts are certainly going to be
governmental insitutions for some time to come, even if tomorrow we started on
a serious path towards Libertopia...
I think that the fact that the purpose of a court ultimately being to settle
issues without violence (I won't say without force, because obviously force is
involved in bringing a criminal to justice), that the tools of violence need
to be removed from the stage as much as possible. There is also an issue of
choice of being there. I can chose to go to the mall which doesn't let people
carry (and has metal detectors at all its doors or whatever) if I want to not
have to worry much (of course risk can never be eliminated) about a gunfight
breaking out (of course it may very well be that the mall which hands everyone
a gun as they enter would be the safer mall - something of course for the
market to settle), but I can't chose which court go to (either because someone
else is forcing me to be there or because I have to use a particular court for
jurisdictional reasons - and this issue is still applicable with privitized
courts).
> > As far as what weapons should be allowed to the citizenry, I can see a point
> > in arguing that any weapon should be allowed, but I do fear what the state
> > of world nuclear weaponry would be if the US was basically unable to
> > participate in treaties: ("Well, we can agree to limit what our army has,
> > but sorry, due to our constitution, Billy has the right to own nuclear
> > missiles, so we can't limit the privately owned ones.")
>
> The US could shoot it down. And shoot Billy down. If Billy goes off
> half-cocked and fires his missile at Mexico City, it can pretty clearly be
> taken by the US as trying to get some other nation to attack the US. So
> Billy's in trouble.
My point was not so much what happens when Billy fires the missile, but how
are other countries going to react when they realize they can't make a treaty
with us on such issues because the government ultimately doesn't matter
(though I guess in an almost perfect Libertopia, people would enter into
voluntary "governments" for just this purpose, to have negotiating strength
for such issues - and in a perfect Libertopia you don't have to worry at all
because the whole world is a Libertopia, and everyone plays essentially the
same game because of market forces [though said game may not be without war,
it could turn out that in a perfectly free market, that war, or something like
it is necessary to have the most efficient world community - but I suspect
that would not be the case since everyone should have a fair share of
resources, and the market should regulate the birth rate to have a stable
population])?
> Doing things right is often more trouble. That's not a good reason to do
> things wrong. (I'm using right and wrong in a semi-moral sense here.)
Of course in a perfect Libertopia, doing things right is the least trouble,
otherwise you're probably misguided as to what is right.
> > don't think the stockholders would take well to a major corporation making
> > such a purchase (hmm, just where is Microsoft planning on aiming that ICBM -
>
> I'm not sure that I'd feel that way as a stock holder, but I'd want a pretty
> strong degree of prudence in how such things are being handled. But if the
> gubmint can handle it, surely large corporations can.
True. I still doubt many corporations could justify a strategic nuke, but I
bet a lot of international could justify a private army of some sort (and I
think some actually do to some extent, I know I've read various things which
suggest that, but can't speak to the veracity of such, but it sure seems to
make sense to me that if you are operating in certain parts of the world that
you need to see to your own defence, beyond the point of having a few rent-a-
cops).
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Million Mom March
|
| (...) I think that a strict reading of the 2nd goes against background checks entirely. It doesn't say "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless they don't think the same way that you do." (...) I think the first (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Million Mom March
|
| (...) I'm not sure, but is what you are envisioning, like firearms rights insurance? Where the licensing authority would be liable for misuse of the firearms by holders of their license? (...) Do you mean at the time of purchase? Presumably the (...) (25 years ago, 13-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
24 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
