Hawaii becomes first U.S. state to place gun owners on FBI database - Polidicks

The problem with this list being a violation of due process rights is because it is being called a criminal list. If the government decided to call this list of gun owners the "Good Boy Points List" but then use it for the same purposes it would not be a violation of due process if the government takes people to court before they confiscate their arms. Being put on a non-criminal list is not a violation of due process, but rather the seizing of property is a violation of due process rights. The No Fly No Buy bill is a clear example of such a violation considering the government is holding citizens' second amendment rights hostage until they submit an appeal which is the exact reverse of how due process works. Being put on a terror watch list is not the violation however, it is the law prohibited members of the list from purchasing firearms that is a violation. There are better arguments against this list like historical precedent from previous registrations and lists from other states like New York, but due process rights are irrelevant until the state threatens to confiscate. Although, precedent tells us the state is going for a Hawaiian gun grab. If this gets shut down, watch them reintroduce this as some euphemistic safety list or registration. It will pass.

[QUOTE=Matthew0505;50609158]Do what better, the confiscating of the guns?[/QUOTE] Is that what what "doing it better" means to you? To me it means actually getting some useful results out of it.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50608332]And if they are used to commit a crime, then what? The crime has been committed. What has this prevented?[/QUOTE] It makes people feel good that's all.

I have a question: why do US citizens treat the Constitution as some sort of sacred document written by the infallible Founding Fathers? This especially seems to be the case for gun owners and the Second Amendment. [editline]28th June 2016[/editline] It seems especially odd considering these same people often have a deep distrust of the current government.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50610063]I have a question: why do US citizens treat the Constitution as some sort of sacred document written by the infallible Founding Fathers? This especially seems to be the case for gun owners and the Second Amendment. [editline]28th June 2016[/editline] It seems especially odd considering these same people often have a deep distrust of the current government.[/QUOTE] I think it's because Government back then was for the people by the people and now it's only for certain people by the elite. [QUOTE=Code3Response;50608614]This is the worst comparison ever.[/QUOTE] It's not that far fetched considering these poor young people (Fedora SJWs) need to fill the void somehow. Cultural Marxism is a great filler as we've seen in Universities in the west.

The Constitution is more than the Bill of Rights. It's also a set of Articles which describe how our country is to be set up and run. Wikipedia says it well: [quote]The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America.[1] The Constitution, originally comprising seven articles, delineates the national frame of government. Its first three articles entrench the doctrine of the separation of powers, whereby the federal government is divided into three branches: the legislative, consisting of the bicameral Congress; the executive, consisting of the President; and the judicial, consisting of the Supreme Court and other federal courts. Articles Four, Five and Six entrench concepts of federalism, describing the rights and responsibilities of state governments and of the states in relationship to the federal government. Article Seven establishes the procedure subsequently used by the thirteen States to ratify it.[/quote] [quote]The Constitution has twenty-seven amendments. Structurally, the Constitution's original text and all prior amendments remain untouched. The precedent for this practice was set in 1789, when Congress considered and proposed the first several Constitutional amendments. Among these, Amendments 1–10 are collectively known as the Bill of Rights, and Amendments 13–15 are known as the Reconstruction Amendments. [/quote] The Constitution is an attempt to put into words the foundation that the United States as an idea sit upon. It sets up the framework for government, the separation of powers, how people are to be elected, how the Congress and Senate are to be set up, and what your rights are as a person here. Among them are the Right to assemble, Freedom of religion, right to a fair trial, right to bear arms and form militia, right to free speech, due process of the law, no unreasonable searches or seizures, no cruel and unusual punishment, etc, etc, etc. If you don't at least hold it in high regard, why bother having law in the first place when you don't take the defining document seriously. It can be changed, but it has to be changed through the proper methods. We can't, and shouldn't just pass laws that restrict things expressed in the Constitution, even if it seems like the right thing to do. Go through the proper channels.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50610063] It seems especially odd considering these same people often have a deep distrust of the current government.[/QUOTE] Because having a democratic state is exceptionally great to have, but at the same time the downside to it is it opens the government to the abuse of those seeking power and corruption. I don't see how anyone could fully trust a democratic state; "distrust of government" at times is the only check against those willing to gain votes for bad causes.

It also sets in stone that the US government is intended to be a servant of the people and not the other way around. "We The People in order to for a more perfect union ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." I think the current leadership is a far cry from what the writers intended. If they were alive today they would probably have many concerns. Owning AR-15s would probably be low on that list of concerns.

[QUOTE=catbarf;50605392]I recently [URL="https://medium.com/@rossradford/why-common-gun-control-proposals-fail-and-how-to-do-better-c4fe47717f60#.7amz395s9"]wrote an essay[/URL][/QUOTE] I just got to reading this, this is exceptionally well written. I hope you don't mind if I post this around Facebook a bit and it get circulated through the web a little.

[QUOTE=paul simon;50607873]That's kind of sad, you know. I think the US needs massive changes in many ways, and stricter gun control eventually should be a product of these changes. But man, those trust issues you all have. It's kind of insane. Do you really think your government will suddenly start killing you? What exactly are you afraid of? (genuinely curious) I just hope for a future where nobody needs guns to protect themselves from everything they're afraid of.[/QUOTE] It's not a matter of being afraid it'll happen soon, is a matter of eventually it will happen. It's not an if. It's a when. Look at Europe and how much it has changed in just the last 200 years. At the end of the day no matter how many laws you put into place and all sorts of checks and balances and what have you there's still the human element. There are always people who are going to want more, who are going to bend and abuse the system, and take advantage of others. To believe that today we are beyond having to worry about 1st world countries becoming corrupt or becoming dictatorships is a very optimistic opinion. The reason gun owners bring that stuff up is because it's a matter of when, and when it does happen the people should be able to do something about it. The argument that the government has such advanced tech and weapons and that they'd steamroll over any resistance so theres no use trying is bullshit, sure you might not stand a chance but you still have something to fight back with as apposed to cowering in fear and letting whomever do whatever they want with you.

There's also the simple fact that if push came to shove with the government in the extremely unlikely scenario of a revolution I sincerely doubt our armed forces would be in a hurry to shoot their families.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50610063]I have a question: why do US citizens treat the Constitution as some sort of sacred document written by the infallible Founding Fathers? This especially seems to be the case for gun owners and the Second Amendment.[/QUOTE] The Constitution is explicitly designed to characterize the nature and limitations of the federal government. It does not just lay out what the government can do; the Bill of Rights lays out what the government [i]can't[/i] do. It defines the system of checks and balances that underlie our governmental system, and it establishes the principle by which all other laws are based. The First Amendment, for example, is not just one law on the books saying that printing presses shouldn't be restricted. It firmly establishes that the government cannot restrict the principle of free speech and that it must respect the rights of all individuals to speak their minds even in ways critical of the government. While we may occasionally stumble in this regard (at one time sedition was illegal), as a guiding principle the First Amendment is a bedrock of our society. The Constitution isn't a sacred, untouchable document- that's why there are amendments. But it [i]is[/i] the single most important document in our entire country, and that means that if you're going to overturn a guiding principle that has existed for over two centuries you better have a damn good reason for it. 'Technology isn't what it used to be' is not a good reason. 'Your dreams of rebelling against the government are ridiculous' is not a good reason. These arguments fundamentally miss the point- the Second Amendment is not about muskets and it's not about Red Dawn. It's about the fundamental principle that the [i]people[/i], not the state, guarantee the safety and security of the public. Now, maybe that's due for a change. There seem to be a lot of people who feel that way, and if the founding fathers were here today they'd probably be shocked at how big the federal government has grown, and how different modern American society is from how it was in the 18th century. But if that's going to be how it goes, it has to be done through the legislature as a proper amendment to the Constitution, [i]not[/i] as some politician or judge or pundit deciding they don't like the laws on the books and ignoring them. Changing the law through the proper legislative process is one thing, outright ignoring it through judicial or executive fiat is quite another. Put another way: Gun owners don't cling to the Constitution as a sacred, infallible document. They hold the Constitution as a legally-binding, culturally-important document that can't be simply ignored if it happens to conflict with your political ideals. [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50610229]I just got to reading this, this is exceptionally well written. I hope you don't mind if I post this around Facebook a bit and it get circulated through the web a little.[/QUOTE] By all means, go ahead.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;50611009]It's not a matter of being afraid it'll happen soon, is a matter of eventually it will happen. It's not an if. It's a when. Look at Europe and how much it has changed in just the last 200 years. At the end of the day no matter how many laws you put into place and all sorts of checks and balances and what have you there's still the human element. There are always people who are going to want more, who are going to bend and abuse the system, and take advantage of others. To believe that today we are beyond having to worry about 1st world countries becoming corrupt or becoming dictatorships is a very optimistic opinion. The reason gun owners bring that stuff up is because it's a matter of when, and when it does happen the people should be able to do something about it. The argument that the government has such advanced tech and weapons and that they'd steamroll over any resistance so there use trying is bullshit, sure you might not stand a chance but you still have something to fight back with as apposed to cowering in fear and letting whomever do whatever they want with you.[/QUOTE] Under normal conditions a country cannot just go from democratic to a dictatorship. There are way too many checks in place already. The country would have to be in ruins already for something like that to occur, and the people would be the ones to give them power. Gun rights advocates like to bring it up as a fear mongering scenario, or maybe like you they actually believe it may one day happen.

[QUOTE=No_Excuses;50611614]Under normal conditions a country cannot just go from democratic to a dictatorship. There are way too many checks in place already. The country would have to be in ruins already for something like that to occur, and the people would be the ones to give them power. Gun rights advocates like to bring it up as a fear mongering scenario, or maybe like you they actually believe it may one day happen.[/QUOTE]Removing those checks is what we're arguing against, which is something you don't seem to be getting here. Hell yeah we think it may one day happen, see the previous page for the reasons why we're distrustful of our government to have our best interests at heart.

[QUOTE=No_Excuses;50611614]Under normal conditions a country cannot just go from democratic to a dictatorship. There are way too many checks in place already. The country would have to be in ruins already for something like that to occur, and the people would be the ones to give them power. Gun rights advocates like to bring it up as a fear mongering scenario, or maybe like you they actually believe it may one day happen.[/QUOTE] Your home, especially with modern building standards, is not likely to go up in flames, yet you are required to have a fire extinguisher. You're not likely to get hurt or get extremely ill, but you can pay for health insurance to mitigate the cost of a hospital visit. Your PC isn't likely to die overnight, but you can still set up backups so that you only lose time if your PC crashes. Why is planning for one scenario worse than planning for the other? The probability is very low, but it's still feasible.

[QUOTE=No_Excuses;50611614]Under normal conditions a country cannot just go from democratic to a dictatorship. There are way too many checks in place already. The country would have to be in ruins already for something like that to occur, and the people would be the ones to give them power. Gun rights advocates like to bring it up as a fear mongering scenario, or maybe like you they actually believe it may one day happen.[/QUOTE] That's not always the case. By the time the Nazis began to come into prominence in Germany the whole country, while still recovering from WWI, was not in shambles. Their rise to power was slow and steady, brought by popular vote, and their actions were legal or made legal. This was done under 20 years, all under the guise of making their country great again. It doesn't take a shit economy and terrible conditions to turn a country into a totalitarian state. All it takes is a complacent population that slowly and willingly give away their rights to the government.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;50611734]Your home, especially with modern building standards, is not likely to go up in flames, yet you are required to have a fire extinguisher. You're not likely to get hurt or get extremely ill, but you can pay for health insurance to mitigate the cost of a hospital visit. Your PC isn't likely to die overnight, but you can still set up backups so that you only lose time if your PC crashes. Why is planning for one scenario worse than planning for the other? The probability is very low, but it's still feasible.[/QUOTE] But those 3 things happen on daily basis to thousands of people so it's logical to prepare for them. The probability of this scenario is so small that preparing for it is foolish. There's so many other things you should be worried about in your life. [QUOTE=UncleJimmema;50611874]That's not always the case. By the time the Nazis began to come into prominence in Germany the whole country, while still recovering from WWI, was not in shambles. Their rise to power was slow and steady, brought by popular vote, and their actions were legal or made legal. This was done under 20 years, all under the guise of making their country great again. It doesn't take a shit economy and terrible conditions to turn a country into a totalitarian state. All it takes is a complacent population that slowly and willingly give away their rights to the government.[/QUOTE] So the people, who majority support this government, are going to band together to overthrow it? Do they just wake up one day and realize something is wrong? Do you think the German people didn't revolt against Hitler because they didn't have enough guns?

The difference between having a firearm just in case and having a computer backup just in case is that even if you never need the firearm, you can have fun with it. That also doesn't address people who collect historic firearms for preservation.

[QUOTE=No_Excuses;50612801]But those 3 things happen on daily basis to thousands of people so it's logical to prepare for them. The probability of this scenario is so small that preparing for it is foolish. There's so many other things you should be worried about in your life.[/QUOTE] Who are you to say what is foolish and what is not? If their contingency plan seems odd to you, but those people aren't hurting anyone, what's the problem?

[QUOTE=Protocol7;50612906]Who are you to say what is foolish and what is not? If their contingency plan seems odd to you, but those people aren't hurting anyone, what's the problem?[/QUOTE] They're [I]scaring[/I] him... That's really all this boils down to. People don't like the idea of guns around them, likely ignorance towards the actual topic. So in retaliation, they want to get rid of them. It's almost reverse-religious how it works.

[QUOTE=No_Excuses;50612801]But those 3 things happen on daily basis to thousands of people so it's logical to prepare for them. The probability of this scenario is so small that preparing for it is foolish. There's so many other things you should be worried about in your life. So the people, who majority support this government, are going to band together to overthrow it? Do they just wake up one day and realize something is wrong? Do you think the German people didn't revolt against Hitler because they didn't have enough guns?[/QUOTE] The people supported the Nazis, mostly because the Nazis didn't start doing bad shit until it was too late and the general population didn't know of the holocaust or sided with it. The people that resisted did, with guns and weapons provided by the US and Great Britain. That is besides the point, my point is it can turn into one with the support of the majority leaving a minority to suffer. If the far right had their way being gay would be illegal and the national religion would be protestant Christianity. Millions would be in support of this, and while millions may protest it if it's the law there's not much you can do through your government other than vote it away. If that can't happen at all due to things such as unlimited terms in office being made legal, or if the government now decides being gay/muslim/jewish/whatever is punishable by death, if there's no way to physically fight it then there's not a lot of options for those people.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;50612906]Who are you to say what is foolish and what is not? If their contingency plan seems odd to you, but those people aren't hurting anyone, what's the problem?[/QUOTE] I would say some of the most violent and dangerous groups/people in the past have been hardcore anti government. Random militia groups, free separatists and terrorists in general. Preparing for the the inevitable corruption of the government seems like it would have some overlap with those groups ideals. [QUOTE=Revenge282;50612938]They're [I]scaring[/I] him... That's really all this boils down to. People don't like the idea of guns around them, likely ignorance towards the actual topic. So in retaliation, they want to get rid of them. It's almost reverse-religious how it works.[/QUOTE] People love accusing me of that. I live in a rural town in western Canada. I have friends with guns, all the farmers have guns, and the many hunters have them as well. I've shot them for fun and shot animals with them. They're scary when violent or mentally unstable people have them which at least in the US's case includes a lot of people.

So you've enjoyed shooting but think it's foolish to own them what Like I'm perfectly aware this thing can be enjoyed safely and responsibly, and have even enjoyed it myself, but it's still dumb!

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;50613049]The people supported the Nazis, mostly because the Nazis didn't start doing bad shit until it was too late and the general population didn't know of the holocaust or sided with it. The people that resisted did, with guns and weapons provided by the US and Great Britain. That is besides the point, my point is it can turn into one with the support of the majority leaving a minority to suffer. If the far right had their way being gay would be illegal and the national religion would be protestant Christianity. Millions would be in support of this, and while millions may protest it if it's the law there's not much you can do through your government other than vote it away. If that can't happen at all due to things such as unlimited terms in office being made legal, or if the government now decides being gay/muslim/jewish/whatever is punishable by death, if there's no way to physically fight it then there's not a lot of options for those people.[/QUOTE] And the vast majority of people in favor of that that would also be pro gun so what happens then? A civil war? Or does the military simply stomp them out because the gay/muslim/jewish minority is causing terror to the law abiding citizens. [editline]28th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Grenadiac;50613128]So you've enjoyed shooting but think it's foolish to own them what[/QUOTE] I think it's foolish to own them for the thought that you may one day overthrow the government with them. Personal protection would be the only valid reason for me to own one. As a hobby they're not mentally stimulating enough. I'd rather build them then shoot them, given the choice.

That's the legal precedent that allows us to own them and prevents the right to own from being stripped away. If we were talking about rewriting the Constitution there's a huge chance firearms protections would be stripped out and the extremely vocal anti-gun crowd, which isn't afraid of manipulating statistics (VPC for example says there are only 259 self defense cases a year - in actuality that number is [B]justifiable homicides[/B] and the real number of confirmed yearly firearm self defense cases is more like 70,000 but possibly up to 2 million [that sounds high, even to me, but you know]), would have a ball banning everything it could without the second amendment in the way. My hobby interest in firearms is primarily in antiques but building is fun as well for those with the tools. I own an AR-15 which was a gift and is fun to tear things up with but I wouldn't have bought it myself [I]simply because[/I] I would have used that money to buy an older AR-15. :v:

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50613161]That's the legal precedent that allows us to own them and prevents the right to own from being stripped away. If we were talking about rewriting the Constitution there's a huge chance firearms protections would be stripped out and the extremely vocal anti-gun crowd, which isn't afraid of manipulating statistics (VPC for example says there are only 259 self defense cases a year - in actuality that number is [B]justifiable homicides[/B] and the real number of confirmed yearly firearm self defense cases is more like 70,000 but possibly up to 2 million [that sounds high, even to me, but you know]), would have a ball banning everything it could without the second amendment in the way. My hobby interest in firearms is primarily in antiques but building is fun as well for those with the tools. I own an AR-15 which was a gift and is fun to tear things up with but I wouldn't have bought it myself [I]simply because[/I] I would have used that money to buy an older AR-15. :v:[/QUOTE] But even if you lose the right to own them you can still own them by going through a process which I'm in favor of. It's just no longer guaranteed that you will get one.

In Canada, yes, and even then y'all's ability to own firearms is constantly being eroded by RCMP's bullshit. I'd rather not risk it in the US. We have a guarantee and I'm sticking to my guns on that. I own a rare piece, 101 years old, valued at about two and a half grand, that would be victim to many proposed variants of the AWB. It's an irreplaceable piece of history, having defined in some small way the course of the first world war. I'm not going to risk supporting a measure that could get that chucked in a furnace for arbitrarily meeting some Californian's idea of a scary gun.

[QUOTE=No_Excuses;50613185]But even if you lose the right to own them you can still own them by going through a process which I'm in favor of. It's just no longer guaranteed that you will get one.[/QUOTE] So why would we willingly give up our rights to comfort you? Like if there was an actual compromise in the deal, then maybe you'd get a more positive response. But so far, we have only lost out.

[QUOTE=No_Excuses;50613131]And the vast majority of people in favor of that that would also be pro gun so what happens then? A civil war? Or does the military simply stomp them out because the gay/muslim/jewish minority is causing terror to the law abiding citizens. [editline]28th June 2016[/editline] I think it's foolish to own them for the thought that you may one day overthrow the government with them. Personal protection would be the only valid reason for me to own one. As a hobby they're not mentally stimulating enough. I'd rather build them then shoot them, given the choice.[/QUOTE] What happens doesn't matter, as in the outcome to your hypothetical question may or may not go in the favor of whoever. What does is the ability for those to at least have a chance to fight whatever; to at least have an option, no matter how bleak, to resist.