Spotted at Whale.

The state should disarm thugs, not non-violent criminals. But the problem with your second question, and why I answered "No," is that licensing weapons and every other form of regulation won't prevent violent criminals from obtaining them. It would be in the interests of gun retailers to create a register of persons deemed not suitable to be supplied weapons, but you can immediately see that this could be circumvented.

The state should check known crims as they find them. Searches etc.

Greg, you answers are opaque. Not all crims are in prsion.

A) does the state have a right to use force to prevent criminals from buying weapons. (Without bothering to define what a criminal is)

B) does the state have a right to disarm criminals? (Again, not bothering to define what i admit is a very vague description)

I think your answer to both are no.

You have said prohibition does not work.

C) if Gandalf could wave a wand and remove guns from criminals, would you allow him to do so?

Crims won't have need for guns inside. Meanwhile citizens should be able to take precautions against murderous crims who haven't yet been jailed.

Do you agree with the Gipper then?

That the state should disarm the thugs and the criminals?

"You are assuming that outlaws have guns"
"The extension is that I, or by extension the state, has a right to prevent a criminal having a gun, but you do not say this, nor do you say that the state should do nothing to preventing criminals from buying guns."

I presume that the average reader can join the rather obvious dots.

Outlaws will always get guns if they require guns.

http://www.video.theblaze.com/...

Ok. So your view is akin to sandi's. That the state should take no actions to prevent unsuitable people from owning weapons but can become involved once a crime has occurred.

Objectively? No. The state should only get involved if an initiation of force is used. 

Ignore what is, Jules.

What do you think it should be. I am interested in understanding what you think it should be, not your commentary on what is.

Should the state be allowed to prevent the sale of weapons to someone who, objectively, is unfit to own a gun?

Police powers to confiscate is an IDEA of preventative law in action.  It happens to be policy.

Separation 

Sorry for typo it would not let me edit.

I am interested in the ideas, not anecdotal stories.

When police have been sent to a residence 12 times and the battered wife refuses to press charges?

Or the alcoholic who is a "nice guy" when he is sober? No I do not believe they should own guns.

On the other hand I have witnessed people who have had their guns confiscated for the crime of divorcing their wives, have never had any history of violence and left their wives because the woman was actually the abuser.  And because the courts in Canada always look for excuses to disarm its lawful gun owners the police have confiscation powers simply because you went theough a arparation or divorce in the last year.  Complete bullshit.

you think that there are some cases where it is permissible for the state to prohibit some people from owning guns?

And if you say yes, (as I would) how do you reconcile that with the non-initiation of force principle?

By doing so, isn't the state doing what Binswanger decries:

In particular, the government may not descend to the evil of preventive law. The government cannot treat men as guilty until they have proven themselves to be, for the moment, innocent. No law can require the individual to prove that he won’t violate another’s rights, in the absence of evidence that he is going to.

Only if he is attempting to PROCURE the weapons that are illegal for him to own.  If he has not actually done anything you cannot arrest him..(until of course obamullah passes that law too.) 

Ok.

If, on a case by case basis, the decision is no, do you have a right to initiate force to prevent that person from obtaining a weapon?

He's talking about each individual gun owner having the right to self-protection for times when government agents are not able to protect. This a corollary of the right to life. Every individual's right to life is compromised when there are outlaw citizens constituting an objective threat to life and liberty. Do criminals have the right to bear arms? They do not because they've become an objective threat

Here is where I get stuck with your position. You are not saying, as Sandi appears to, that banning guns is immoral. You are saying that we are entitled to a right to life and that this is threatened when outlaws have guns.

You are assuming that outlaws have guns, you are also assuming that only outlaws use guns to commit murder, (of course, they become outlaws once they do this, but prior to this act they may simply be mentally unsuitable to be gun owners.)

You say criminals have no right to have access to guns. The extension is that I, or by extension the state, has a right to prevent a criminal having a gun, but you do not say this, nor do you say that the state should do nothing to preventing criminals from buying guns.

I put my view here. "each individual gun owner having the right to self-protection for times when government agents are not able to protect. This a corollary of the right to life."

The type of gun control we're hearing about is immoral just as all force is immoral.

So your position on gun control is based on the axiom that regulating guns does not work and is therefore wrong?

You do not seem to be saying "gun control is immoral in itself and I would oppose it even if it could be done"

That appears to be Sandi's position. She opposes any restriction, possibly including nukes. She has yet to say.

This is different from what I would except you to say on drug controls.

Controls never work. It's like being asked "If men are unthinking robots, is Marxism OK?" It's a hypothetical. I would never support banning guns for self-protection for law abiding people.

Are you saying if gun control did work you would support it?

What you don't seem to grasp is that prohibition has never worked in the known universe.

I understand that.

What I do not understand is the statement that criminals should not have guns but no formal measures to prevent this.

Law abiding citizens having legitimate access to self-protection is the moral position.

So you are saying that criminals not having access is a moral position only?

Violent criminals shouldn't have guns, but they will have guns, and I wouldn't give them guns, though you would.

You have stated before that criminals should not have guns.

What is the distinction?

I disapprove of this fishing expedition. I prefer the fisherman to come up with his catch first.

1) Should a person with convictions for violence be allowed to purchase a gun?

Unanswerable. He can buy knives and baseball bats. Think of cases like Bob Jones punching out that TV journalist whilst salmon fishing, or a man punching a lout from his property being wrongfully convicted.

2) If the convictions were over ten years old, would your view change?

No.

3) Should a person with no convictions, but an alcohol problem who lives with her son who has convictions for violence be allowed to purchase guns?

Yes. She may need protection from her son.

4) Should Al Jazz Emir Amin, who arrived yesterday from Pakistan on a tourist visa, be allowed to buy a gun?

No. A tourist has no use for guns, and probably can't take them with him. If you'd asked about hiring, that would be different. Both give citizens with concealed weapons the opportunity to take him out. But it's analogous to learning how to take off but not to land.

5) Should his brother, who was born here, a Muslim, no convictions and who lives a quiet life as a computer programmer with his wife and their young son?

Yes. Notwithstanding what the hell he's doing here during wartime.

6) Should Ms Poppins, who is be threatened by her ex-husband, be allowed to buy a gun?

Yes. Two or three, in case he brings his friends.

7) Would your view change if Ms Poppins was charged and acquitted of stabbing her previous husband?

No.

8 ) Should 17 year olds be allowed to buy guns?

Yes, but with restrictions. This misses the point that they could be purchased for him. As does this quiz, by not setting the scenario. Is it what we wish, or is it how we wish present laws to be?

Ok.

That is consistent.

Does this view extend to nukes?

For anything.

I would say depending on circumstances.  For example an 18 year old young man gets in one bar fight, lets say some asshole and 2 friends grab his girlfriends breast(or ass) and then provoke him, he takes the first swing and is charged with assault(and had a shitty crown lawyer because he could not afford a good one).  15 years go by, he is married, has 2 kids, a good job, stable family life etc.  He has become a good productive member of society who has not had any problems with the law other than that one incident.  I believe it should be case by case.

You believe it is permissible to allow someone with probable Jihadist sympathies to purchase weapons?

(I am not saying you are wrong, just seeking clarity)

You keep looking for compromise. There is no compromise when it comes to freedom. I do not support gun licensing (I do not support any licensing), there is no virtue in the use of force. "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security........ et al

I'd rather play outside with risk than within the safety of a pre-approved playpen.