quote common sense un-quote weapon control

***
"quote common sense un-quote weapon control": Solving the weapons violence issue and some guidelines for "common sense" weapon control
***

---

I am a Classical-Liberal Left-leaning-Libertarian Social-Democratic-Republican Constitutional-Moderate; Secular Agnostic.

I just want to start off by stating that I am absolutely against any and all weapon control, save for their possession and use by minors without an accompanying adult, and within courtrooms and penal institutions. That being said, I will explain my perspective an give examples of why I consider it to be reasonable, then proceed to play "devil's advocate" given heed to my position.

---

An armed population can defend against and most likely stop virtually any existential threat to their rights and themselves as individuals.

There must be a "happy medium" that we can communicate through in the weapon control debate. On one side, you have people like me who don't believe that weapons should be controlled (Period!), and we have good reasons, some of which I will outline in this document. On the other side, you have the folks that believe that the world would be a better place (Including being safer), if indeed all weapons were to disappear from the face of the earth. Then I suppose we could only beat eachother senseless or to death, until our right to bear actual arms (and legs!) is "removed". However, people are just naturally fucked, they have been killing eachother for ages, and all the prevention and punishment in the world is not going to stop that. Slightly closer to the "middle" are the individuals who insist that police and military should be armed but not citizens. How can the government posses a right that the people do not themselves? A tyrannical authoritarian despot dictatorship is certainly possible (it has happened before, time after time, again and again) and is indeed in the cards for the future. Somewhere between the two extreme lines of thinking lies an approach to limiting/restricting weapons rights that may be entirely beneficial and still preserve the core values of freedom and liberty that only anarchy can truly espouse. There must be a constitutional means for devising quality weapon control, and by constitutional, I mean in the sense of the constitution being an amendable living document, through using the most inclusive and broadest interpretation yet also concise and narrowly construed, and an emphasis on the rights that are possessed by the people and the limitations on enumerated powers in the government.  Most of those insisting on implementing weapon control seek to regulate and restrict every aspect of a weapon. In the spirit of constitutionality, we must also remember related teachings, such as that a government is "of, by, and for 'the people'", "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither", or “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost”, and do our best to heed them in our discourse on weapon control.

What legitimizes a government to place restrictions on a freedom/liberty of the people? Is it providing for the common Defense and promoting general Welfare? What is the precedent we set when we say that some limitations are reasonable, and only enable legitimacy through submission to an administrator who may or may not issue a permit for what would otherwise be "unlimited" freedom/liberty? What is to prevent the issuance of a permit from becoming denied arbitrarily?

What can we do to prevent the loss of people's lives who would otherwise be unable to defend themselves or others because of vetting or other weapon regulations or restrictions?

Some will say: "If you aim for freedom and liberty, you must also aim to prohibit actions that may limit the freedom and liberty of the common people"; Having a weapon in and of itself does not limit the liberty of anybody else, though aggression against them however does; This is further explained below...

---

Lets talk a little bit about the basis of constitutional law: Securing the natural rights (and rights in general) of individuals as well as delegating limited powers and restrictions to the government.

-

All people have a natural right to life. All people have a natural right to self-security and self-defense as well as to voluntarily secure or defend or aid in the security or defense of others. The right of life along with self-security and self-defense goes as far as the right to procreate and to treat and resist one's own illnesses and to potentially have another person voluntarily assist in treating one's illnesses, as well as the right to end one's life such as euthanasia (this also covers suicide) or to re-initiate one's life such as resurrection (also covers potential porting of consciousness/awareness into a clone or other surrogate).

All people have a natural right to liberty/freedom. Every Person is free to do that which they will, provided that they infringe not the equal freedom of any other Person. All people have the right to self-determination and autonomy.

All people have a natural right to privacy. A Person's right to keep their personal lives to themselves and possibly as well to keep secrets, which expands a bit into the related right to not self-incriminate.

All people have a natural right to self-ownership and personal property. All people have a natural right to securing and defending their property and to voluntarily secure and defend or aid in the securing and defense of others'.

All people have a natural right to the pursuit of Happiness. Ideally, anybody can pursue the path they choose to embark upon, to their own peril, and to change the path they embark upon, to their own peril. This also covers not being inflicted or suffer any cruel or unusual punishment.

-

The most fundamental principles behind all constitutional law are the following:

...governments are instituted to secure the rights of People and derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and of the Constitution. Therefore, as all power of governance is inherent in the People, all Persons who form a social compact are equal in right; that all power is inherent in the People, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; and they have at all times a right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.

No law shall abridge the right of each Person to do as they choose with their own Person and property, so long as they do not interfere, by force or fraud, or the threat thereof, with the equal right of others to do as they choose with their own Person and property; Every Person is free to do that which they will, provided that they infringe not the equal freedom of any other Person; A Person's right to live their life the way that they choose to do so goes so far as to not impede another Individuals right to do the same; All persons are entitled to the full and unrestrained use of all their natural and acquired powers and capacities, but such use by the individual, or by aggregations of individuals, shall never extend to infringement upon, or abridgment of, the same use in other persons; All people have the right to self-determination and autonomy.

No law shall create victimless and/or consensual crimes.

No one may threaten or commit violence against another person or their property; Violence may be employed only against the individual who commits such violence, that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another; No violence may be employed against a non-aggressor.
AND
No law shall abridge the right of self-defense against initiators of aggression, including the agents of the Public Administration where acting unlawfully, including the right, to own, manufacture, sell, and bear armors and arms.
AND
All Persons shall have the right of self-defense as well as defense of their property and Constitutional Rights, and others who are under a direct and real threat, against initiators of aggression, including any Agent of the Public Administration acting un-lawfully or in error; no Person shall be convicted of any criminal offense for any act or omission which took place on their property and which is a direct response to another Person trespassing on that property and acting in breach of the law or the Constitution resulting in such threat as described in this provision.

---

"Not to be disabled in the exercise, or deprived, of Life, Liberty, Freedom, Privacy, or Property, without due process of law, by unanimous verdict of a jury of twelve"; We have already criminalized harming and killing individuals, and that has not stopped weapons violence, it has at best merely deterred some of the individuals who would otherwise perpetrate harming and killing other individuals, and given the government authority to detain, bring to trial, and incarcerate those who perpetrate those crimes.

---

All powers delegated [in the Constitution] are constrained to be exercised only for a proper, or reasonable, rational, and legitimate, public purpose, as a fiduciary trust for the general benefit of all the People and not for the special benefit of any part of them, partially but not completely Stated in the Preamble. No power is plenary or without limits, and no power may be extended to accomplish a purpose without amendment. Relative to the people, no branch of government has inherent or reserved powers, implicit or assumed prerogatives, or presupposed attributes of sovereignty. Powers must be expressly granted to government by the people, and the extent and range of such powers shall be strictly, narrowly construed.

Powers not delegated by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people thereof. Relative to the people, no branch of government has inherent or reserved powers, implicit or assumed prerogatives, or presupposed attributes of sovereignty. Powers must be expressly granted to government by the people, and the extent and range of such powers shall be strictly and narrowly construed.

---

The right to bear arms in the United States espoused in the second amendment is the central topic of debate regarding weapon control. It prescribes the regulation of the militia, not people. Regulating the people would infringe their rights (You can regulate commerce). The right of the people, not the militia, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, and the right of the people to form a militia shall not be infringed but subject to the regulation which is stated by the amendment. Regulation is a restriction of the militia and the right of the militia members. The power of regulation of the militia lies with Congress and is enumerated as organizing, arming, and disciplining, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the nation, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. Only those in the militia in actual time of service are subject to such regulation, a part of martial law. Each State respectively shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining it's own Militia, whensoever Congress shall omit or neglect to provide for the same. That the Militia shall not be subject to Martial law, except when in actual service, shall be subject only to such fines, penalties and punishments as shall be directed or inflicted by the laws of its own State. Security of a free state means defense from invasion, attack, insurrection, rebellion, standing army, etc... Also the right of the people to initiate a revolution to alter, reform, and abolish the government as they deem suitable.

-

The second amendment to the United States constitution:

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.

-

An updated version of the 2nd amendment with more provisions is provided below:

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; Rights are insured to the People to keep and use any type of armor including wearing body armor as well as keep and bear a diversity of arms in all variations, whether black powder fired or otherwise, in times of peace or war.

Individuals eighteen years or older may own firearms for personal use and for use in the militia. The use by others, less than eighteen years, of firearms must be under the supervision of someone eighteen years or older and in conformity with what is set forth here, and elsewhere in this Constitution.

There shall be no National, State, or Local registry, neither shall a permit, background check, or psychological evaluation be a requirement, nor any regulations be enacted limiting the freedom of the People, to manufacture or modify, purchase, sell, or otherwise own any armaments, armor, or attachments and accessories, neither shall any law or penalty obstruct a Person from their Constitutional right to bear arms.

There shall be no National, State, or Local limitation on private citizens weaponry; National and State government are not allowed to ban private citizen arms based on classification of the weapon or ammunition. National, State, and Local laws are not allowed to limit the People's private arms. There shall be no tax on armors, weapons, ammunitions, attachments or accessories.

ALSO

No law shall abridge the right of self-defense against initiators of aggression, including the agents of the Public Administration where acting unlawfully, including the right, to own, manufacture, buy or sell, and bear armors and arms.

---

Since weapons rights stem out of the right to self-defense, then people must only have the "right" to weapons that are an efficient means of self-defense. Ideally, we'd be looking for something that could only work against "bad people," but that will probably be always beyond our science; for now, we have to leave that job up to the human brain. This means a few things: most importantly, it means that the weapon in question must be capable of use with discretion, that is, it must be possible to use the weapon only against aggressors. If the weapon has any nasty side effects like inevitably killing innocent bystanders, killing the user, killing at random, killing people who happen to be in the same general area fifty years later (and are hence inevitably also innocent bystanders,) or some such similar flaw, then it can't be considered a "just" weapon, because its use would inevitably violate the non-aggression principle. For an individual armament to be an "efficient" means of self-defense, then, it has to be controllable by an individual; the individual user must have the capability to specify targets. Therefore we have our rule: people have the right to own whatever weapons they can obtain and use, provided that those weapons are of the sort which can be used without aggressing against innocents.

So that tells us what people don't have a right to; and deals with the "mystic weapons of mass destruction exception" along the way. There still remains one important question, though: we've settled what people shouldn't have, but we haven't settled the question of what they should. The other key thing to determine in choosing a weapon, besides efficiency, is "effectiveness"; a sword is an efficient means of self-defense, in that it can be used with a great deal of discretion, but it is relatively ineffective in our world of advanced body armors and full-auto rifles. The problem is that there are a multitude of self-defense situations, and a multitude of different individuals who are going to have different needs and requirements for their personal self-defense. A person who walks their dog in a "rough" park might simply find a canister of pepper spray to be the best choice for her situation; a victim of an oppressive third-world regime might have need of a rocket launcher, to fend off the helicopters of the oppressive government under which they labor. Now, clearly, only a given individual is going to be capable of making this kind of decision; no outside group, government, or organization is going to be capable of telling an independent individual what is and isn't an efficient and effective choice of instrument with which to defend themselves. Furthermore, though, even if they could, there would be an obvious conflict of interest; all those outside of the individual are, after all, potential aggressors against that individual. This is why the second amendment exists, and it's also why the fourth does, for that matter; the government is not only prohibited from infringing on the individual's right to keep and bear the generalized "arms," they are also specifically prohibited from searching your possessions, home, or person without just cause. The founders weren't stupid; they knew that the first thing an oppressive regime tends to de-legitimize and confiscate is the means with which to resist that regime, so they made it danged hard for that regime to regulate those means.

-

The only weapon control that I can accept and even support is the following:

If the National government has weapons of mass destruction, the National government shall reduce its weapons of mass destruction arsenal by fifty percent every year, and attempt through sincere diplomacy to have other countries to do the same.

The construction or use of Radiological, Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical weapons of mass destruction by the People or their government is hereby prohibited. Congress shall have power, on territory under its exclusive jurisdiction, and State legislatures, on territory under their exclusive jurisdiction, to forbid unsupervised possession of destructive devices or weapons each discharge of which can produce the death or injury of more than one-thousand Individuals over a space of one-thousand square meters and a time of one hour.

-

The thing to remember is, again, the basic principle that people have the right to defend themselves against unjust aggression. If we operate with that as our starting point, and maintain sound logic, we cannot go wrong. The important thing to think about here is the word "aggression." What constitutes it? "The initiation of force" is one answer, but it doesn't really settle the question; a slightly better answer is "the initiation of force or the threat of force". Another good way to look at the question, bearing that answer in mind, is that one should not unduly escalate the situation; if someone threatens, you're justified in taking steps to cope with the threat. This is, of course, a matter of degree and response in kind; there's a far cry between someone who says "you better not be comin' round here this time tomorrow" and someone who shoves a gun into your back in a dark alley. In the first situation, simply informing the aggressor that you're armed, and hence not someone for them to interfere with, might be the best course of action; in the latter, you'd be justified in shooting to kill, because you'd be dealing with a direct and immediate threat to your life. As always, the basic principle of non-aggression remains the guide. When we extend this to the consideration of "weapons of mass destruction" and other indiscriminate killers, then, the answer becomes obvious; the very existence of such indiscriminate killing tools is a threat to everyone. It's as if someone had a pistol that randomly fired at any bystander within fifty feet of the bearer. Such a weapon would be useless for self-defense, and on top of that, if the owner were so foolish as to inform those bystanders that he had possession of such a weapon, or if he were even to simply load the thing and carry it on his person, such an act would justify the taking of aggressive action by those bystanders against its bearer, because it would be an immediate threat to their lives. Likewise, then, if an individual were to obtain a weapon of mass destruction such as a nuclear device, biological agent, or what have you, and then were to in any way threaten to use same, or to in any way harm others with it or allow others to discover that they had such in their possession, then those others would be justified in taking action to defend themselves from same, because they would be by that act taking aggressive action against them.

---

What do we have to burn at the stake with weapon control ablaze at hand? About weapon control...:

It may increase the risk of invasion, and definitely increases the possible casualties in an attack as well as the chance of the enemy being successful in "conquering" the nation and its territories. The more citizens are armed, and given equality among the availability weapons as of those used primarily in the military, the greater chance of success in repelling any invasion or attack. This is the primary reason we have citizen militias, for defense of the homeland (also to repel insurrections and somewhat ironically rebellions).

Speaking of invasion, a tyrannical authoritarian despot dictatorship is exactly that, but (most likely) instead of being from the outside, it occurs from within. Disabling citizens from owning weapons to any degree threatens to ultimately overthrow the will of the people, enabling the government to operate without their consent. Tyrants hate armed populations, and almost always seek to disarm the populace, as having an armed citizenry literally "kills" them. The more citizens are armed, and given equality among the availability weapons as of those used primarily in the military, the greater chance of success in completing a "righteous" revolution. This is the secondary reason we have citizen militias, for preserving/defending our rights, overcoming standing armies and overthrowing tyrants, and renewing/reestablishing our government.

It is imposing another artificial force against true anarchy and absolute freedom, which is the state that all of nature is in, within the greater state of chaos that is the multi-verse. Research has found that individuals who live within far less restriction, or otherwise posses a greater level of "un-bounded" freedom, are less likely to commit any crimes particularly violent ones, and not for the lack of crimes on the books, but because there are far fewer or no laws and corresponding crimes on the books "bounding" freedom or which are product of such restrictions. What is the greater crime, exercising true freedom and liberty and propagating it everywhere, or the overthrow as well as constriction and ultimate death of freedom and liberty. Surely the former is not a crime, and the greatest crime is the latter.

---

The first steps towards fixing the weapons violence problem:

Proper education and training about weapon safety and self-defense.

Adequate access to psychological healthcare, potentially making it publicly funded for equal access of all citizens. People would be far more likely to get the help they need, which would most likely reduce the amount of people lashing out or committing suicide.

Aside from education and psychological healthcare, we need more armed citizens to defend themselves against violent crime.

In the case of weapon violence in schools, the solution includes employing armed security guards as well as encouraging teachers and all other school staff to carry their personal firearms, and to place digital gunsafes in all classrooms for the teachers to be able to access during a lockdown. This could be extended in practical ways for more than just schools.

Empower the government collect and study information about trends in weapon violence.

---

Procedural:

Adequate access to psychological healthcare, potentially making it publicly funded to enable equal access for all citizens. People would be far more likely to get the help they need, which would most likely reduce the amount of people lashing out or committing suicide.

Require psychological checks; This one is tricky, because what are the red flags, what is severe mental illness, and what qualifies a person as ineligible? Anybody scoring negative points such as psychopathy and lack of empathy or thoughts and expressions about hurting animals or people, as well as mental deficiency such as retardation and wildly un-predictable behavior would definitely need to be scrutinized.

Require all eligible individuals go through education and training about weapon safety and self-defense and to pass a "non-prohibitive" test to acquire their permit, and to periodically be re-educated and retrained with expedition, and to be tested, for acquiring a renewal permit.

Require proof of identification (possibly citizenship) to buy and own a gun. If you are going to require proof of citizenship to buy and own a gun, allow foreigners and legal residents to bear (posses and use) arms for self-defense as well as defending others.

Require criminal background checks; Nation-wide accessible criminal records; Standardize mandatory background checks and requirements across all states; Set a standard for denial, such as a history with at least one violent crime, or more extreme, any felony charge. Recognize that people can rehabilitate over time, and allow previous offenders who were once ineligible to be able to obtain a weapon after a successful appeal, given a suitable amount of time has gone by, a sort of "statue of limitations".

Prohibit “high-risk” individuals from acquiring weapons (I.e. Anyone with an active restraining order filed against them for a threat of violence).

Require weapons permits with periodic renewal, and endorsements for concealed weapons; This is a bit tricky: They would definitely be required for ownership, but not for handling and use of the weapon, such as that of a minor learning from an adult, or two or more adults going out on the firing range or hunting together; Should all weapons require a permit? What about tools like knives and machetes? Do airsoft, BB, and paintball guns qualify as toys or weapons?

Have a national weapons registry (In particular for firearms and explosives) and require all weapons bought and sold be mandatorily entered upon the registry.

Individuals are not allowed to posses on their person nor use weapons while under the influence of recreational psychoactive substances (I.e. Not prescribed medications for illness or disease).

Restrict possession and use of weapons by minors without an accompanying adult, and within courtrooms and penal institutions.

-

Optional:

Waiting period from moment of complete eligibility to ability to purchase and moment of ownership.

Mandatory weapon insurance so that every weapon owner has financial and liability protection.

Require all weapons manufactured be entered mandatorily upon the national weapons registry, as well as all weapons manufactured be made according to regulations in place such as the requirement of a unique serial number.

Limit the number of weapons any individual can own, particularly by type.

---

"Substantiative":

Need to ensure that citizens and the government have equal weapons rights; "the government cannot possess a right which the people do not", part of "a government of, by, and for the people". Maximize access to all weapons if you are going to have any "control" of them, except WMD's and the like (I.e. Radiological, Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical weapons of mass destruction).

---

Resolutions:

The process needs to be strictly defined, the powers of government to regulate and control must be specifically enumerated and narrowly construed, and both only subject to revision through constitutional amendment; must be transparent and appealable before a court to a jury of their peers.

People cannot be denied on the basis of psychological health issues alone.

People who are denied can file appeals with the courts and have their case be reviewed.

---

Psychological and background checks, “high-risk” prohibitions, requiring permits, using weapons registries, requiring weapon safety and self-defense education, restricting circumstances where a person may posses or use a weapon, etc..., or limiting weapons in any way other than their legal use (I.e. self-defense), will only be a long journey up a very slippery slope.

---

The bottom line:

It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment with our liberties. There are already so many laws in place that no average person can reasonably be expected to understand or follow all of them. We should take what we already have in place and suppose that it remained the same for the next one-thousand years; What would the effectiveness of them be and the ultimate outcome. "Progressivism" can definitely be repugnant to freedom/liberty. The answer will almost never be more laws. Criminals don’t obey laws, only law-abiding citizens do. If weapons are outlawed, only outlaws will have weapons. People will still be capable of procuring weapons for whatever purpose, no matter how much you try to de-legitimize, regulate, and restrict them. Criminals and terrorists aren't deterred by laws, they may have to work around them however. The government can’t legislate away all the things that could potentially be bad. But it sure can legislate a lot of bad laws into existence. Weapon control laws do not deter crime; weapon ownership deters crime. Weapon control laws give too much power to the government and may result in government tyranny and the government taking away all weapons from citizens.

Despite the naysayers, the Constitution, and the philosophy which underlies it, is as valid now as it was at the Founding. The Bill of Rights, amazingly enough, still works. Let's get back to it.

---

Have a look at the declaration of independence and draft constitution of Greenway @ https://operationgreenway.wordpress.com/2017/12/29/declaration-of-independence/ & https://operationgreenway.wordpress.com/2017/08/02/draft-constitution-of-greenway/