quote common sense un-quote weapon control

***
Solving the firearms 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.

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 gun 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, specifically of the rights that are possessed by the people and the limitations on enumerated powers in the government. In the spirit of constitutionality, we must also remember related teachings, such as that a government is "of, by, and for 'the people'", or "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither", and do our best to heed them in our discourse on gun control.

What legitimizes a government to place restrictions on a freedom/liberty of the people? Is it providing for the common Defense and 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 and delegating limited powers 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 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.

---

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, 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 "unbounded" 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 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, 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 would definitely need to be scrutinized.

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?

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

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

-

Optional:

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

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

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

---

"Substantiative":

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:

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

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

If the background check comes back bad and the individual is denied, they can file an appeals with the courts

-

The process needs to be transparent and appealable to a jury of their peers

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".

---

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:

The answer will never be more laws. People will still be capable of procuring weapons for whatever purpose, no matter how much you try to de-legitimize, regulate, and restrict them. 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.

---

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/