I do try to avoid arguments in comments sections of articles, but I broke my own non-binding rule last week and engaged in a discussion on this PJMedia story. The conversation was with a Disqus user called “This Guy.” Just for shits and grins, I reproduce that conversation, unedited but for restricting comments and replies to “This Guy” and myself, here for your enjoyment. To make it easier to follow, his text is in blue, mine in red. Watch the amazing moving goalposts, True Believers!
This Guy: What does it matter if he was gay or not? The new gun control measures that are trying to be passed would have prevented Mateen from getting his weapons by legal means. He was on an FBI watchlist twice and was still allowed to purchase these guns.
Animal: Which other constitutional rights are you in favor of taking from people without due process?
This Guy: I can’t think of any.
Anyway, I never said to take away someone’s rights, I’m just saying that the amendments are there for a reason.
Animal: Yes, you certainly implied to take away someone’s rights with no due process. You said:
“The new gun control measures that are trying to be passed would have prevented Mateen from getting his weapons by legal means. He was on an FBI watchlist twice and was still allowed to purchase these guns.”
He wasn’t on any watch list when he purchased the guns. In fact, he was a licensed armed security contractor. None of the laws proposed would have prevented his purchase.
Further down the thread, you said:
“Despite that, it’s upsetting that someone could be on a watchlist and still acquire guns legally.”
So, you think that someone should be denied a fundamental, Constitutionally defined liberty because some unelected, unaccountable bureaucrat placed them on a list – a list that:
1) We have no idea what the criteria are for being placed on the list
2) There is no defined appeal process for being wrongly placed on the list
3) There is no defined due process for being placed on the list.
So, the only way I can read this is that you are in fact in favor of denying people a fundamental, Constitutionally defined liberty, one upheld as such by the Supreme Court, because of their inclusion on an undefined, unaccountable list.
Can you not see the horrible precedent this sets?
This Guy: Okay. Do you believe he should have had access to those guns?
Animal: Answer my question first. Can you see the precedent set by the policy you 
propose? Do you think people on a terror watch list should be prohibited from speaking in public? From crossing state lines? Do you think they should be subject to warrantless searches?
It’s easy to say *now* that “no, that guy shouldn’t have had access to a gun.” But **at the time he bought them,** the sellers had no indications. He passed the background check. He was a licensed armed security contractor. He was not at that time on any list. So, your question doesn’t address anything.
This Guy: I can see it; but aren’t other people restricted by their past as well? Criminal records, employment history, medical history.
If you were a gun store owner and knew that some guy was on some sort of watchlist, would you sell to them?
Animal: Let’s take a look at what you just said:
“I can see it; but aren’t other people restricted by their past as well? Criminal records, employment history, medical history.”
As far as Constitutional rights are concerned, people are (or, at least, should be) only restricted by the first – criminal records. Why? Because there is *due process* involved. They had their day in court, they were allowed to confront their accuser (also a Constitutionally defined right) and were convicted. And yes, I am in favor of denying convicted felons of their right to bear arms – at least, until they have served their time and demonstrated to a judge’s satisfaction that they are rehabilitated and deserve to have their rights restored by a court.
“If you were a gun store owner and knew that some guy was on some sort of watchlist, would you sell to them?”
I wouldn’t. And, in fact, back in the day when I was selling guns, before background checks, I did refuse to sell a few people guns because I didn’t care for their demeanor. But that would be my choice. Not enforced by an overbearing government policy. And, you may have noted, one store refused to sell ammo to Mateen, because they found him suspicious.
As a matter of public policy, we should – we must – defer to the principle of liberty. Any other course is unthinkable.
This Guy: One store refused. But as the saying goes, if you won’t, someone else will. I suppose that’s why it’s making it’s way up to the government level.
Animal: Yes, infringing on fundamental liberties requires government. Only government can legally compel behavior. That’s why our Constitution, as written, places strict limits on government
– among them, that they can not deny essential liberties without due process.
People on both sides of the aisle are increasingly in favor of ignoring that.
This Guy: Look, what’s clear is many gun owners are very responsible and have good reason to protect themselves and this country as necessary. The real problem is that the way all the laws/rules are written allows for people who do not have good intentions to access guns just as easily as those who are just.
Animal: So, you’re in favor of denying people fundamental liberties with no due process, based on their “intentions.” That’s what you’re saying. There’s a word for that type of thinking, you know.
While we’re at it, how do you define “intentions?” How do you qualify and quantify intentions? By what objective standard do you define if one’s intentions are good or bad?
(Note: Now it begins to cross over into the ridiculous.)
This Guy: Ok, then guns for no one.
Animal: Now you’re just being silly. Never mind that the Supreme Court has already struck that idea down; never mind that the Second Amendment says yes, we have the *right* to keep and bear arms. Setting all that aside for the moment: How do you propose to gather up 300+ million firearms from 200+ million gun owners, the vast majority of whom are law-abiding citizens who never have and never will commit a crime?
This is your opportunity to lay out your plan. Go for it.
This Guy: Never said I want to take guns away from anyone. Not sure where you got that idea.
On the other hand, it will probably require lots of surveillance before the government acts on taking guns away, or at the very least, register them.
Drones will be the primary methods of surveillance since human soldiers would be opposed to this.
Since the weapons will be tagged, as well as gun owners and non gun owners, they will be aware of any illegal transactions or theft.
Also, there is currently research on-going to find methods to read thoughts and/or emotions. This is what will be used to determine if you are fit to own a weapon, via a psychological profile.
Animal: “Never said I want to take guns away from anyone. Not sure where you got that idea.”
Then what did you mean by “OK, then guns for no one.” There’s really only one way to read that.
“On the other hand, it will probably require lots of surveillance
before the government acts on taking guns away, or at the very least, register them.”
Yeah. As long as we’re ignoring the Second Amendment, let’s ignore the Fourth Amendment, too, while we’re at it!
“Drones will be the primary methods of surveillance since human soldiers would be opposed to this. Since the weapons will be tagged,”
“Tagged?” How?
“as well as gun owners and non gun owners, they will be aware of any illegal transactions or theft.”
Now you’re proposing “tagging” people? How? Implanted micro-chips, or will you just settle for a number tattooed on the forearm?
“Also, there is currently research on-going to find methods to read thoughts and/or emotions. This is what will be used to determine if you are fit to own a weapon, via a psychological profile.”
Even if that technology existed – it doesn’t, and may never – you’re left with the idea that you are intending to deny people a fundamental individual liberty with no due process, based on the idea someone has that they *may* do something *someday.*
Do try to think a little harder about the road you’re headed down.
(Second note: Now he begins to cross into the surreal.)
This Guy: I said “guns for no one” because it seems like those are the only choices you’re proposing: guns for everyone or guns for no one.
Anyway, as far as amendments go, whether you like it or not, the Constitution can be altered, that’s what amendments are for. It’s not going to be an easy fight; however, this will take time. Hey, there was a time where interracial marriage or slave rights were unfathomable. Things change and, shoot, Bill O’Reilly has even called for changes to gun laws. It’s all happening now, and we may see some changes very soon.
As far as tagging. There’s no need for a physical tag. A drone could identify an item, register it’s location, and track it wherever it goes.
Regarding the technology to read thoughts and/or emotions, it’s certainly being worked on. Ever hear of biotechnology? If, at the minimum, one’s emotions can be detected, the powers that be will likely use that data to determine how stable you are and if you can be trusted with a weapon.
Animal: “I said “guns for no one” because it seems like those are the only choices you’re proposing: guns for everyone or guns for no one.”
So, you missed where I said that I’m in favor of denying gun purchases to convicted felons?
“Anyway, as far as amendments go, whether you like it or not, the Constitution can be altered, that’s what amendments are for. It’s not going to be an easy fight; however, this will take time.”
So propose altering it. I predict you’ll fail. But in the meantime, you *have to abide by it.*
“Hey, there was a time where interracial marriage or slave rights were unfathomable. Things change and, shoot, Bill O’Reilly has even called for changes to gun laws. It’s all happening now, and we may see some changes very soon.”
Or we may not. But nothing you say here addresses your idea of denying people fundamental rights with no due process. You’re engaging in all sorts of semantic wiggling to get around your advocacy of denying people their liberty based on suspicions.
“As far as tagging. There’s no need for a physical tag. A drone could identify an item, register it’s location, and track it wherever it goes.”
How many drones would that take? What happens if someone goes into heavy woods, or a subway?
“Regarding the technology to read thoughts and/or emotions, it’s certainly being worked on. Ever hear of biotechnology?”
Amazingly enough, I do a lot of business with biotech companies. I’m quite familiar with the state of the art in that field. The tech you describe doesn’t exist. And even if it did, it wouldn’t address the blatant unconstitutionality of your proposal.
“If, at the minimum, one’s emotions can be detected,”
They can’t. And now you’re proposing denying rights based on people’s **emotions?** Really?
You really, really don’t see what’s wrong with that?
“…the powers that be will likely use that data to determine how stable you are and if you can be trusted with a weapon.”
Based on what criteria? Decided by whom? Using what due process?
You’re going from bad to worse here.
I let it drop there.
As said, I normally don’t wander into these snake pits. But “This Guy” seemed at least a little more literate than most commenters, and I was interested in drawing him out; I think I did so, leading him to espouse support for a hyper-vigilant surveillance state, if not out-and-out tyranny. I’d prefer to think he’s just not thinking things through; but having listened to lots of pols talk on the issues, I’m afraid he may really think the drek he puts out is a good idea.
Sobering, eh?
