Why doesn't Gun Control or Right to Carry affect the crime rate significantly?

[les_aker]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

I just proved it, parenthetically, above. Have fun.

Actually, you proved that it isn't. If you really live in CA, and have a CA driver's license, you acknowledged it is a privilege yourself when you accepted your license from the state.

http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/dl600.pdf

There are a multitude of references in the CA driver's handbook regarding how driving is a privilege in California.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Funny turn this thread took. Funnier still that marshaul and I agree on something.



les_aker wrote:

marshaul wrote:

I just proved it, parenthetically, above. Have fun.

Actually, you proved that it isn't. If you really live in CA, and have a CA driver's license, you acknowledged it is a privilege yourself when you accepted your license from the state.

http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/dl600.pdf

There are a multitude of references in the CA driver's handbook regarding how driving is a privilege in California.

By this logic carrying a gun is aprivalage because states license it. :quirky

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

I think where this is getting mixed up is that the simple act of driving on private property might well be looked upon as a right, but driving on a public road may not be.

Just as you can own a car and never have to register it for plates if you never take it off private property. You would also be free to drive the car in your own yard. Now there is provision in most state laws to allow a "farm use" truck to operate under limited conditions without a registration on public roads, but that is not a right it is an allowance.

However, in order to drive on public roads, you must have a license from the state. There is no way that issue of that license is a "RIGHT" so long as you must pass a test and pay a fee to get one, and repeat the process for renewals. If it was a right to have one it would be issued for the asking without fees or testing, and it would never expire and could not be revoked or suspended.

Not issuing a DLor revoking onein no way restricts a persons ability to move freely anywhere they might choose to go. You can walk, you can use a bike, you can hitch, you can use a bus, taxi,or take a train. The simple act of not allowing a person to drive in no way restricts their freedom of movement. If having a DL was a right, so would having a pilots licence and trust me that is not a right either.

But the right to own a firearm and to bear it is written right into the Bill of rights. It is an enumerated right, not a right assumed by omission. Because things not mentioned are left to the people or the states, in the case of driving the state has taken authority over driving on public roads. I have never seen a state driving manual that does not specify that driving is a privilege extended by the state to qualified applicants who pass a test.

AS such regulating of DUI is NOT the same thing as regulating firearms.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

There is no way that issue of that license is a "RIGHT" so long as you must pass a test and pay a fee to get one, and repeat the process for renewals. If it was a right to have one it would be issued for the asking without fees or testing, and it would never expire and could not be revoked or suspended.

No no no. Where this is getting mixed up is you not understanding it.

Using your logic, carrying is a "privilege" in manystates because you need a license to do it.

What you're not getting is that driving IS a right, but the government has chosen to license itin the name of public safety,just like they have chosen to license carrying of a firearm.



You can't seem to understand that just because the Constitution doesn't expressly recognize a right, doesn't mean the right doesn't exist.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Funny turn this thread took. Funnier still that marshaul and I agree on something.


...SNIP...
By this logic carrying a gun is aprivalage because states license it. :quirky

Actually you have this backwards.

They can only LEGALLY an CONSTITUTIONALLY licence things which are not rights, which was the point of all of this. You gave DUI as an example of something that was a regulated right, that justifies regulating the enumerated right of firearms carry and ownership.

What we have shown is that driving is NOT a right, and therefore it can be regulated under the Constitution, and your comparison of driving to firearms ownership is flawed.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Funny turn this thread took. Funnier still that marshaul and I agree on something.


...SNIP...
By this logic carrying a gun is aprivalage because states license it. :quirky

Actually you have this backwards.

They can only LEGALLY an CONSTITUTIONALLY licence things which are not rights, which was the point of all of this. You gave DUI as an example of something that was a regulated right, that justifies regulating the enumerated right of firearms carry and ownership.

What we have shown is that driving is NOT a right, and therefore it can be regulated under the Constitution, and your comparison of driving to firearms ownership is flawed.

Once again, you don't understand.

I'm FOR firearms regulation, hence my argument. I used driving as an example because driving is a regulated right, just like firearms ownership is a regulated right. DUI is a victimless crime associated with the regulated right to drive, just as firing shots into the air would be a victimless crime associated with the right to bear arms.

Do you get it now?

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

...SNIP

Once again, you don't understand.

I'm FOR firearms regulation, hence my argument. I used driving as an example because driving is a regulated right, just like firearms ownership is a regulated right. DUI is a victimless crime associated with the regulated right to drive, just as firing shots into the air would be a victimless crime associated with the right to bare arms.

Do you get it now?

I understand perfectly what you are saying, you are just flat wrong. I know in California things might work the way you think they do, but in free America they don't. The fact is that driving is regulated by the state because the Constitution says they can regulate it (because it is reserved to the people or the states). Firearms may NOT be regulated because to do so is an infringement.

Now we have a few citations supporting my side of this argument from some others in the discussion, so how about one singe pieceof code that supports yours.



Now do YOU get it?

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Now do YOU get it?

Nope.

How about I provide you with some "citation" from my state's law that says I need a permit to carry. I guess that will prove that carrying is apriviledge and not a right. :quirky


You can't "cite" laws to prove the constitutionality of things when half the laws out there are unconstitutional to begin with.

 

[bugly]

imported post

According to Black's Law Dictionary, a privilege is a "peculiar right" , it is a right, nonetheless, just peculiar to a certain situation, not a granted "favor" from a government office.
BTW, Blacks Law Dictionary is where the courts get most of their definitions, get a copy of the seventh edition if you can find one and look up "haircut", you'll get a rude awakening as to how the courts put the screws to us by redefining common words.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Funny turn this thread took. Funnier still that marshaul and I agree on something.


...SNIP...
By this logic carrying a gun is aprivalage because states license it. :quirky

Actually you have this backwards.

They can only LEGALLY an CONSTITUTIONALLY licence things which are not rights, which was the point of all of this. You gave DUI as an example of something that was a regulated right, that justifies regulating the enumerated right of firearms carry and ownership.

What we have shown is that driving is NOT a right, and therefore it can be regulated under the Constitution, and your comparison of driving to firearms ownership is flawed.

Once again, you don't understand.

I'm FOR firearms regulation, hence my argument. I used driving as an example because driving is a regulated right, just like firearms ownership is a regulated right. DUI is a victimless crime associated with the regulated right to drive, just as firing shots into the air would be a victimless crime associated with the right to bear arms.

Do you get it now?

That explains why your arguments are in the same vein as the arguments from anti-gun advocates.

You have not provided a case for driving=right. You have only agreed that it is something that is not enumerated in the Constitution. You have not proven that driving is a right in any way.

To bring it to the front, what portion of the act of using an automobile as a means of conveyance from point a to point b do you see as fitting of the term "right?"

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

^Did you miss this post? I know you didn't miss this post. I know you're just ignoring because you don't agree.



marshaul wrote:

wrightme wrote:

What amendment recognizes or affirms a "right to drive?"

The 9th Amendment to the Constitution wrote:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

There really is no sound logic by which there can be construed "no right to drive". For many people driving is getting around; restriction thereof would be tantamount to denial of the right of unrestricted movement. End of story.

(Remember, government has a forced monopoly on roads and highways. There is no competition, and in many circumstances no alternative to using public roads, which form the backbone for our society due to long-term government use of force to appropriate wealth in order to actively relocate society on and alongside public thoroughfares, by extensive and anticompetitive construction thereof. This discussion would, of course, be quite different in a world with private roads).

Unless you reject incorporation outright and believe the states should have unlimited authority to trample the rights of individuals within their boundaries, I don't believe your position has a leg to stand on.

I believe the Bill of Rights is intended to reflect individual human rights which no governing body within the Republic may reject. The Constitution does not create rights, it only enumerates a few of them, and reserves the rest without qualification. It is quite clear on this.

All precedent to the contrary is wrongly decided.

Period.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

^Did you miss this post? I know you didn't miss this post. I know you're just ignoring because you don't agree.

No, I did not "miss that post."



I am also not "ignoring because I don't agree.

Both you and marshaull are attempting to equate the specific act of driving with "right," without providing any evidence to support that contention. Thus, "creating out of whole cloth."

One attempt to quote an amendment that does recognize that not all rights are enumerated in the US Constitution does not automatically cause "driving is a Right" to be a correct assumption. Provide some basisfor your assumption in case law. Should driving be a Right, there should definitely be case law to back it up, as this "Right" that you claim it to be is infringed upon daily.



Challenge: Find ONE case law item that supports your claim. Otherwise, you may wish to reconsider your contention.

 

[KansasMustang]

imported post

CHILDREN !!! Don't make me stop this car!! dammit,,why can't all Y'all quit yer bickering?? Anyhow whether or not it decreases crime, which IMHO it DOES, carrying either OC, or CC stops crime DEAD int the case of those of us that are doing so!!!
In Florida, the majority thereof anyhow, Dade county for sure (which was the 1st county with "Shall issue") the violent crime rates dropped rapidly as soon as it passed. Don't DEMAND stats from me, I ain't gonna provide em and Y'all can go love yourself. I just know from my brother's EXPERIENCE that it's true. IF in the instance that you even LOOK ike the type that's CC'in now, the BG's will steer clear. Anuhow, even if it DOESN'T decrease crime, it sure as hell will when crime comes to visit YOU!
Keep your powder dry !

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

Challenge: Find ONE case law item that supports your claim. Otherwise, you may wish to reconsider your contention.

Funny, I use this same arugment to try to get people to realize that the second amendment isn't unlimited. No one ever provides me with @#$%. That's because there isn't @#$% to provid and because things that go WITH the general concensus of this board don't need to be "proved" they're just accepted as fact.



If you simply reread and, this time, comprehend his post, you'll realize that all the proof is right in front of you. It isn't as simple as some judge saying "driving is a right" and it doesn't jump out and smack you in the face. You have to do a little thinking and brain excersing to understand it, but its there.


Plain and simple, driving is a necessary part of modern freedom. If the government is fully in control of your ability to move about, then they are in controlof yourlife. See how much you can accomplish without driving anywhere for a week.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

imported post

I agree that driving is more than merely a "privilege", but there is more to it than that. Have we considered that maybe the entire system is incorrect/wrong? How can we have things "correct" (knowing that driving simply is or isn't a right) within an "incorrect" system? maybe the government shouldn't be in charge of the roads at all, maybe they shouldn't be "government property", maybe we shouldn't have the roads that we do, maybe the government shouldn't subsidise certain industries so that there is such a monopoly on them forcing the public to use those particular industries in the manner the government desires. Maybe because the entire system is wrong, we can't find the truth of whether or not we have the right to drive, in these circumstances. Maybe we can't come to a firm conclusion, because the whole system surrounding driving is out of order. Maybe there isn't a right or wrong answer, because we're trying to find it WITHIN a system that isn't necessarily right itself.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

The 2nd is enumerated, and is not to be infringed. Your bleating to the contrary doesn't make it any different than the statement I provide.



You have not once articulated how you determine that driving is anything akin to a "right." Your attempts to simply state it as fact do not hold water, no matter how often you bleat it out.

It has nothing to do with how much a person can or cannot accomplish without driving, it has to do with whether the actual physical act of driving is a right or a privilege. When you attempt to call it a right because you do not see how you can accomplish something without driving, you are engaging in circular logic. WATA.



AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

Challenge: Find ONE case law item that supports your claim. Otherwise, you may wish to reconsider your contention.

Funny, I use this same arugment to try to get people to realize that the second amendment isn't unlimited. No one ever provides me with @#$%. That's because there isn't @#$% to provid and because things that go WITH the general concensus of this board don't need to be "proved" they're just accepted as fact.



If you simply reread and, this time, comprehend his post, you'll realize that all the proof is right in front of you. It isn't as simple as some judge saying "driving is a right" and it doesn't jump out and smack you in the face. You have to do a little thinking and brain excersing to understand it, but its there.


Plain and simple, driving is a necessary part of modern freedom. If the government is fully in control of your ability to move about, then they are in controlof yourlife. See how much you can accomplish without driving anywhere for a week.

 

[Gordie]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

Challenge: Find ONE case law item that supports your claim. Otherwise, you may wish to reconsider your contention.

Funny, I use this same arugment to try to get people to realize that the second amendment isn't unlimited. No one ever provides me with @#$%. That's because there isn't @#$% to provid and because things that go WITH the general concensus of this board don't need to be "proved" they're just accepted as fact.

Are youtalking about nuclear weapons again?

Look, if you ever read the Federalist Papers you would see what the Founders intended the 2nd amendment to be. Yes, they included military weapons beyond handguns and muskets. Cannons were frequently purchased privately by wealthy "Colonels" for their militiaunits. (Maybe this explains how they became Colonels in the first place.) If you have ever read about the Privateers (federally sanctioned pirates) you will see that entire warships were privately owned. These ships were able to take on just about any ship that sailed. The equivalent today would be owning a cruiser.

Would they have allowed chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, who knows? We can only speculate. I would opine no, but that is just an opinion based on nothing but my personal beliefs.

AWDstylezwrote:

If you simply reread and, this time, comprehend his post, you'll realize that all the proof is right in front of you. It isn't as simple as some judge saying "driving is a right" and it doesn't jump out and smack you in the face. You have to do a little thinking and brain excersing to understand it, but its there.

You have provided no proof, only opinion. It is you who needs to understand that it isn't comprehension that is the problem, it is the fact that we disagree with your statement. We understand what you are saying, we just think that you are wrong. Can you site anything that directlybacks up your position?

AWDstylezwrote:

Plain and simple, driving is a necessary part of modern freedom.

This is only your opinion, many people go about their daily lives without the use of a car and do just fine. It is more in how you set up your life than anything else, as I pointed out before, in large cities like New York, you can get by quite well using public transportation. In some parts of New York it is easier to get an apartment than a parking space. The trouble with car ownership in some locations outweigh the benefits.

AWDstylezwrote:

If the government is fully in control of your ability to move about, then they are in controlof yourlife.

Yourargument relies on the premise that a car is the only form of transportation available. You are free to walk, ride a bike, take a bus, take a taxi, etc. Putting limits on driving does not completely take away your right to move about.

AWDstylezwrote:

See how much you can accomplish without driving anywhere for a week.

This proves nothing. See what would happen in New York without the subway. Your condition does not apply to everyone. I have no use for a subway (I live in rural Nevada), just asmany people in New York have no use for a car. It's comparing apples and oranges.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

les_aker wrote:

marshaul wrote:

I just proved it, parenthetically, above. Have fun.

Actually, you proved that it isn't.  If you really live in CA, and have a CA driver's license, you acknowledged it is a privilege yourself when you accepted your license from the state. 

http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/dl600.pdf

There are a multitude of references in the CA driver's handbook regarding how driving is a privilege in California. 

 

You just don't get it, do you? You can't prove your point by asking me to look at state law. State law is wrong.


AWDstylez wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

There is no way that issue of that license is a "RIGHT" so long as you must pass a test and pay a fee to get one, and repeat the process for renewals. If it was a right to have one it would be issued for the asking without fees or testing, and it would never expire and could not be revoked or suspended.

No no no. Where this is getting mixed up is you not understanding it.

Using your logic, carrying is a "privilege" in many states because you need a license to do it.

What you're not getting is that driving IS a right, but the government has chosen to license it in the name of public safety, just like they have chosen to license carrying of a firearm.



You can't seem to understand that just because the Constitution doesn't expressly recognize a right, doesn't mean the right doesn't exist.

+1 It's quite simple. I'm surprised that AWDstylez is the only other person in this thread who seems to understand.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

The 2nd is enumerated, and is not to be infringed.  Your bleating to the contrary doesn't make it any different than the statement I provide.

The 9th Amendment to the Constitution wrote:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

For the last time: the Constitution does not create or even define rights. It merely articulates a few of them.

Understand the concept of rights before you once again assert that a judge's opinion or lack of enumeration in the Constitution can in any way nullify the reality of a right.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Gordie wrote:

You have provided no proof, only opinion. 

Same goes for you. You believe that the SCOTUS and the COTUS have the authority to create and concomitantly deny human rights, and this simply isn't so. Have you even read the anti-Federalist papers? Or were you too busy wasting your time with the monarchists?

Gordie wrote:

This is only your opinion, many people go about their daily lives without the use of a car and do just fine.  It is more in how you set up your life than anything else, as I pointed out before, in large cities like New York, you can get by quite well using public transportation.  In some parts of New York it is easier to get an apartment than a parking space.  The trouble with car ownership in some locations outweigh the benefits.

Completely irrelevant. Most people survive without owning firearms either. Yet, it's a right, because some will need guns and the government shouldn't prohibit that.

Driving is the same thing. It only takes a few people whose livelihood depends on the system which government has actively designed modern society around to require that dependency to be recognized as a right.

Gordie wrote:

Your argument relies on the premise that a car is the only form of transportation available.  You are free to walk, ride a bike, take a bus, take a taxi, etc.

Your argument relies on the premise that this is somehow remotely relevant in any way.

Gordie wrote:

Putting limits on driving does not completely take away your right to move about.

Putting limits on the kind of guns you can have, where you can use them, and how many rounds they can hold doesn't completely take away your right to own firearms. I guess that's OK too, then.

Gordie wrote:

(I like to repeat myself!)

I can see that.