Privacy vs. Security vs. gun ownership rights

Liberal cries for Gun Control don't mesh with their concerns for privacy rights

from JoeUser Forums

There's an old saying that is favored by liberals: Those who trade privacy for security get neither.  Apparently some liberals that are incensed over the shootings at Virginia Tech seem to have forgotten the unintended consequences of their own zeal to protect privacy of individuals.

As we would expect it's a few days later and the Monday morning, nee Wednesday morning, quarterbacking has begun in earnest. We are seeing the news reports that now say that the shooter was a troubled individual, highly flawed, dark, brooding, obviously not "normal", etc.  And of course we have the shop owners that sold the shooter the weapons having to defend their actions in selling the weapons to him as they did in accordance with federal and state regulations that restrict gun sales and require background checks, etc.

Ooops, did I say background checks?  Yes, yes I did.  You see, the individual that planned the destructive rampage, went and bought weapons to carry out his plans, wrote poems and other materials about death, violence, destruction, etc., and apparnetly left behind a manifesto decrying wealth and priviledge passed the required background checks that are done before someone is permitted to buy a firearm.

What inspires a lot of my rant today is one Mr. Tony Kornheiser (link to podcast here) who climbed back on his soap box on his radio show today and decried the fact that we don't have stricted gun control laws, restrictions on buying ammunition, and other things that -- in the mind of Mr. Tony -- would have helped stop the rampage.

I'm not going to be cold, cruel, heartless, and extremely cynical and question why the victims of the shootings didn't act more heroically and help stop the rampage before as many people were fatally wounded.  It's in my mind, and I would think in others minds as well, but that isn't my point here today.

As always, those of the liberal persuasion are crying for more gun control.  They are crying even more because apparently there were signs that this was a very troubled individual and though some people along the way tried to intervene and get him to seek counseling and help, the signs were flashing enough or weren't factored into whether or not the shooter would be permitted to buy a weapon.

You see, the unintended consequences of the liberal mantra about protecting privacy and restricting government access to and usage of information about an individual seems to have come into play here.  The liberals demand that we protect personal privacy and keep information from being potentially misused by the government, but then they also demand restrictions on gun ownership and the rights of the individual to keep and bear arms (and, by extension, purchase them).

... more in the comments area.  Please continue there for the remainder of this article.

politics
5,180 views 13 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

... continued from the main article above.  Thanks for continuing here.

If, on the one hand, the liberals had their way, and the purchaser of a gun had to submit to more thorough background examations, including thorough investigations of the types that are supposed to be done for security clearances -- where friends, relatives, neighbors, and others around the individual are interviewed to compile a more complete profile of the individual -- then perhaps, just perhaps, this individual would have been prohibited from buying a firearm.   It might not have stopped his rampage, and in fact, based on the information that has come out about the individual, most likely wouldn't have stopped it.  Even based on relatively sketchy information, he seems to have been someone that planned the destruction that he caused and took actions to be able to make his plans to destroy others go as smoothly as possible.  If not firearms, then perhaps pipe bombs, or other destructive materials would have been used.

What level of investigation should be done before letting someone purchase a weapon?  Should they have to be interviewed before they can purchase ammo for the firearms?  Should their personal privacy be severely compromised because they desire to purchase a weapon?  There has to be some sort of trade off, a trade off that liberals normally won't make.

I support reasonable efforts at gun control.  The State of Virginia, which is still one of the easiest places in the country to buy a weapon, has toughened things a lot over the last many years.  Limiting purchasers of guns to one gun a month took a while to get passed in Virginia, but it did pass.  There are background checks (limited) required before a prospective gun owner is permitted to purchase a weapon.  So, there are somewhat reasonable gun control laws in effect now that should have, and did (realistically) help to keep the shootings at Virginia Tech to a smaller number than otherwise could have happened.

While liberals like Mr. Tony will point at the events at Virginia Tech and cry for tighter gun controls, will they be ready to sacrifice the personal privacy that would be gone for some of those controls to be put into place?

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
The stupidity of the calls is that even in countries that have much stricter gun control, these events happen.  And on a per-capita basis, about as regularly.  But those stats are swept aside in the rush to affix blame - not to the killer - but to society as a whole.  After all, no one is responsible for their own actions.
Galactic Civilizations IV
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

The stupidity of the calls is that even in countries that have much stricter gun control, these events happen. And on a per-capita basis, about as regularly. But those stats are swept aside in the rush to affix blame - not to the killer - but to society as a whole. After all, no one is responsible for their own actions.

but... but... but...  that can't be true!  The liberals have told us that other countries don't have these problems at all, and that other countries of the world are far more advanced in these areas than we are!?!

As a more realistic, and more local perspective on these problems, we might also consider Washington D.C., where only criminals could have guns (until a recent court decision, which is still to be fought over, overturned the trampling of D.C. citizen's second ammendment rights).  D.C. was for many years the "murder capital of the world" even though guns were illegal to own by citizens.

Consider also New York City with similarly restrictive gun laws which were again ignored by the criminals and typically only problematic for normally law abiding citizens.

To go even further, consider that though the weapons used by the shooter at Virginia Tech were legally obtained, that they were carried onto the campus by the shooter was a clear violation of the rules of the University.  In other words, it was basically a criminal act to carry the weapons onto the campus to begin with, much less use the weapons to inflict harm (which is also illegal) on anyone.

As some say -- guns don't kill people, people kill people.  Or perhaps, at times, people with guns kill people.  But there are also times that people with drugs kill people, or people with cars or trucks, or with boats, etc., that kill other people.  When push comes to shove someone that wants to harm others can and will find ways of doing it.  If they want to do so that badly, they will find a way.

Also as some say, if you make gun ownership illegal, only criminals will have and use guns -- for more details, just look at D.C. 

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Most of your country's gun laws could be fixed just by enforcing the constitution. If you possess a firearm and you're not part of a well-organised militia, you're breaking the law.

It's an easy solution - gun nuts get to keep their weapons and gun ownership will be more difficult.

As for banning guns of course it's not going to stop the highly determined, but a locked house door isn't going to stop a highly determined thief either. Gun laws weed out the idiots - ie in Australia we have a much lower rate of accidental or incidental gun injury than the US. Why? Idiots can't get their hands on guns. Only those with mid-level criminal links or spotless criminal records can. So gun-related accidents and robberies are less likely. Robberies in most places tend to be done with syringes or knifes, neither of which are well-suited to defend a baseball-bat led shopkeeper reprisal.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

Most of your country's gun laws could be fixed just by enforcing the constitution. If you possess a firearm and you're not part of a well-organised militia, you're breaking the law.

Please show me definitively where that is stated in the constitution or the bill of rights or any other ammendments to the constitution?

Me thinks you are pickin' nits and placing emphasis where there is none, and/or ignoring emphasis that is there.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Please show me definitively where that is stated in the constitution or the bill of rights or any other ammendments to the constitution?

Me thinks you are pickin' nits and placing emphasis where there is none, and/or ignoring emphasis that is there.


Sure. Here's the second amendment, found after typing in "constitution right to bear arms", which takes all of two seconds (you must be really lazy!):

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.


Leaving aside the horrendously poor expression of this sentence (and yes, it's bad even for the century it was written) it's saying, in a Yoda-like way, that because well-regulated militias are necessary to the security of a free state then the people should be able to bear arms.

Implied in that is that those arms should be wielded as part of a well-regulated militia. If that wasn't implied why have that first clause at all?

Now I'm sure there's some perfectly rational reason for arms to be owned outside of needing them for the well-regulated militias the constitution recommends, but that's not what the constitution calls for.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Most of your country's gun laws could be fixed just by enforcing the constitution. If you possess a firearm and you're not part of a well-organised militia, you're breaking the law.


Sorry but, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried. The "Supreme Court" has ruled on that very issue (just check on Wahington DC). And the vote was entirely opposite of what you're saying.

See you're saying that only the second amendment is a collective right and the other 10 admendments are individual rights? What a crock!
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Bzzzt, still doesn't support your statement that unless you are in a militia you shouldn't have the right to bear arms.

It says quite clearly, after giving reason why the rights shouldn't be infringed, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.  The rights are those of the people, and no additional requirements for those rights exist.  There's some reason why those rights shouldn't be infringed, but that is it.

Such is what most judicial scholars would find in reading the constitution and the ammendments to same.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Such is what most judicial scholars would find in reading the constitution and the ammendments to same.


Really? Okay then. I have always admired the ability of lawyers to think their way through a corkscrew in a whirlwind without touching the sides, so I guess this is just another aspect to respect. American constitutional law, I salute you!


See you're saying that only the second amendment is a collective right and the other 10 admendments are individual rights? What a crock!


I was giving my opinion. I didn't read the other ten amendments; the American constitution is really of very little interest to me. I'd just heard in the past that the right to bear arms is closely tied to the requirement of an armed militia and made the appropriate conclusion that was backed up by my reading of the relevent clause. You can cry a crock all you like, but it wasn't an attempt at bullshitting you.

Anyway I don't think it's important. As it so happens this particular individual was announced by a psych as a significant risk for harming others when he was committed prior to his little excursion, so I don't think gun control is really a part of this at all. A militia might have picked up on his craziness, but not necessarily.

Doesn't stop me from being in favour of gun control so that the stupids are weeded away from the gun-wielding citizenry.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
stupids are weeded away from the gun-wielding citizenry.


It did not work in Japan, England, or even in Australia. Stupids will always find a way to get them.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

A militia might have picked up on his craziness, but not necessarily.

Sadly, a militia might have preyed upon his craziness and we could have had this particular individual involved in something more along the lines of Timothy McVeigh and his friends, rather than being a lone individual.  Not that his destruction was not too high, but the thought that he might have teamed up with others of a similar mind leaves you thinking he could have done much worse with just a little more of the wrong kind of help.

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

Such is what most judicial scholars would find in reading the constitution and the ammendments to same.


Really? Okay then. I have always admired the ability of lawyers to think their way through a corkscrew in a whirlwind without touching the sides, so I guess this is just another aspect to respect. American constitutional law, I salute you!



See you're saying that only the second amendment is a collective right and the other 10 admendments are individual rights? What a crock!


I was giving my opinion. I didn't read the other ten amendments; the American constitution is really of very little interest to me. I'd just heard in the past that the right to bear arms is closely tied to the requirement of an armed militia and made the appropriate conclusion that was backed up by my reading of the relevent clause. You can cry a crock all you like, but it wasn't an attempt at bullshitting you.

Anyway I don't think it's important. As it so happens this particular individual was announced by a psych as a significant risk for harming others when he was committed prior to his little excursion, so I don't think gun control is really a part of this at all. A militia might have picked up on his craziness, but not necessarily.

Doesn't stop me from being in favour of gun control so that the stupids are weeded away from the gun-wielding citizenry.


The guy was a VERY sick individual! But in the end, what he ended up with was no more than he deserved. I feel more sorrow for those left behind than I ever will for him. I just wish the cops had done it instead of him.

And sorry to clue you...but gun control will NOT weed out the stupids or the crazies. Only a physc exam could do that. And "that" would NEVER fly in the USA.