"...I can control my new gun just fine without your meddling. I have no intention to violate the life, liberty, or property of anyone else; and declaring my purchase or ownership "illegal" only harms me while protecting no one."
So can I, control my guns if I owned one, and well might one day, and millions of others and who by all means have and should have a gun if they so wish. I would want to reserve that right. This article seems reasonable until it is critically examined. The questions I have is:
Why are proposals to simply perform a background check implicitly equated to banning guns or making gun ownership by law abiding citizens "illegal"?
In the past 12 years we have heard whinings and wranglings about someone taking guns away but in that time pretty much no guns have ever been taken away and instead ownership is at an all time high. Could it be some psychological link between those who feel like that right is been threatened when all outcomes show the opposite and some that recognize that human fear and exploit it or even sow those fears either to enrich themselves or use it to psychologically enlist the same people to the same ideological cause politically to gain votes?
If I as a gun owner have a right to protect myself and can, but do have a job I go to, should I be happy that the violent teen next door that has been in and out of institutions and ties cats together by their tails in the neighborhood has guns and exercises it in the backyard? All while I leave my kids at home sometimes so I can provide for them? Should I be happy they can avail themselves of a private sale? Or any other mental case? Where should the line be drawn? Am I a busy body to want to have only balanced law abiding citizens around my home having guns? Or driving cars around me? Or the kids in school my kids go to be mandated to be immunized from measles or any other harm that could be passed?
The point is that these issues are not as represented in this article at all. We all wish human liberty were absolute but they are not wherever we have shared resources and environment. If I lived in some homestead in Alaska would anyone check my gun rights? Or ask for my driving license when I drive my ATV around or on my ranch? Now that would be encroaching on liberty to the extreme. And a guy was once arrested from inside his house, even after it was established that he lived there, for been angry and rude and some normally in the liberty crowd cheered it.
Yes there are people on the extremes that want no one to have guns but they are in the minority, and there are extremes who would want side arms placed along school hallways just like fire extinguishers, (from this article clearly you don't go that far) also in the minority. And then maybe those less extreme allowing anyone to just buy or get guns from private sales, and perennially being worked up over some focus on someone taking their guns or making gun ownership illegal. In fact, as was demonstrated in NZ, its when there are no reasonable limits then greater chances of outrageous things happening, which then leads to some overreacting and going too far on the control side.
this is very simple,
it's none of anybody else's business whether I have a gun or not.
If I am a felon that is not supposed to have one, that will be revealed when I commit the crime I would commit regardless...because I am a felon with no self-control.
Then again, take a look around, gun charges against felons are dropped all the time by the same people who howl and froth at the idea that non-criminal citizens should not get politician and banker permission and oversight to own weapons.
The US government has a terrible track record in defining felony, and has consistently infringed on numerous rights through enforcing bad laws and performing poor paperwork. More importantly though, no right should be subject to government permission. Not speech, not marriage, and not gun ownership.
Many firearm models and features are illegal right now, and people are "felons" if caught in certain areas with the "wrong" magazine or stock. Trump's administration arbitrarily declared bump stocks "illegal," and demanded that people destroy or surrender their property without compensation. That is confiscation and infringement. It is more than just political rhetoric.
My liberty isn't up to your consent. Neither is anyone else's. If your neighbor is dangerous, deal with your specific neighbor, don't demand more power for corrupt government officials over others. You say we need "reasonable limits," but who decides what is reasonable? Not the people who claim a territorial monopoly in violence, that's for sure.
Thanks for the response. My last comment on this: The US government is nothing but a collection of people like you and I or someone that someone knows that we hire and fire at points to represent us collectively. It will never be perfect but is the way we agreed to run our community. To reject its authority is simply a rejection of the community and its laws. To reject it is also anyone's God given right. So anyone can walk away from that community and agreement. Why live in a community and with a government you don't agree with? Anyone can do the extent of liberty we want the right way and not the lazy way, like this guy below. I would do this if and when my kids leave home and I want to live with no more rules.
(From comments in https://steemit.com/steem-engine/@aggroed/scotbot-launch-time-to-make-your-own-custom-token-powered-by-proof-of-brain-on-steem)
Same for consent in a shared communities. My pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness should not infringe on yours and vice-versa. But it can and so we find reasonable rules to draw the boundaries. Those that have committed violent crimes or have medically diagnosed issues that prevent them from having guns are not allowed to by statute. I cannot blast my music loud at 1000 decibels at 2am while your children are sleeping because it makes me happy, because then I clearly infringe on your right to be happy. So the neighborhood I live in made that rule. If I don't like it, I have the liberty to move elsewhere. But some will always want to be part of a community but not its rules.
As far as "deal with our specific neighbor", what would that mean? A wild west? So I should find one to go live in if that's what I wanted. And would dealing with that neighbor be before or after said neighbor, or any individual for that matter, has completely foreclosed on your ability to be happy forever after they God-forbid sent your children back to their maker? There won't be any remedy or recourse you or anyone would have that could reverse or cure that. I believe that's why there's the need for the rules; even if some will keep breaking or trying to break it.
You conflate government and society. There is no representation. There is no "we" and no agreement in politics. Democracy is a myth used by the political class to justify their predatory behavior. Government monopolies guarantee waste and abuse. The premise of modern theories of government based on popular elections have no more inherent legitimacy than does the Divine Right of Kings.
I cannot rightly claim the authoritynto govern my neighbor. I cannot tax his property or exchanges. I cannot demand that he apply for my license before exercising his rights. All of these are obvious. How can I delegate to some third party a right I do not have?
I recommend this essay to further explore this line of thought: A Letter to Grover Cleveland, by Lysander Spooner