Somebody please explain Ron Paul's logic to me

[Rookie]

BOR, you're last sentence is exactly the point I'm trying to make. Thank you.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

What part of the concept of personal responsibility do you not understand?
Saying it isn't doing it. The thought isn't the deed (except to God). The word is just an abstract of the thing it represents.

Selling a weapon to someone who says he will use it to kill someone creates a potentially deadly situation. Selling a corvette to someone who brags about how fast he's going to drive it creates another potentially deadly situation. But both situations are "potential" only; they may not happen. And, while you may consider it your responsibility to look out for that unknown potential victim, are you going to extend that sense of responsibility to every potentially deadly situation you may encounter? How far will you go to stop a mother from murdering her unborn baby? Will you stop a bullet for your next door neighbor, or defend the guy down the block from a mugger? How about that homeless guy under the bridge getting beaten to death by the ball bat you sold on E-bay? How ridiculously far do you want to take these examples?

At the end of the day, the responsibility for the harm caused to others belongs to the ones who chose to harm them or whose actions brought harm to them through negligence. Remember the old saw: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

No, it engages the seller in a conspiracy to commit murder.

You might be charged with knowingly aiding the person, however by notifying someone of the buyer's stated intent, you will have voluntarily abandoned and thus at least attempted to prevent its commission.
IC 35-41-3-10
Abandonment
Sec. 10. With respect to a charge under IC 35-41-2-4, IC 35-41-5-1, or IC 35-41-5-2, it is a defense that the person who engaged in the prohibited conduct voluntarily abandoned his effort to commit the underlying crime and voluntarily prevented its commission.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.15.

A person who buys a gun might use it as this example stated, or he might just be blowing steam and would instead use it for some completely lawful purpose. To start charging crimes on the basis of "mights" and "coulds" gets into thought-crime (or if you prefer, "pre-crime".) We can consider possibilities all day, and in this litigious society, sure, it's very probable that the seller would be charged criminally, sued civilly, or both; That just makes it current practice, it doesn't make it right.

Blessings,
Bill

Or the FFL does the intelligent thing and just refuses to sell the firearms.

Why do we always have to have the same discussion you and I? I am not talking about the fairness of the law. I am talking about what the law is. You pose a hypothetical where the FFL seller would clearly be in violation of the law, yet continue to pretend like it would be OK based upon some personal belief system I fail to understand. There is absolutely no legal basis for your position.

The first aiding and abetting statute in the US was passed in 1790 by our Founders when George Washington was President. The Founders are always correct, right? Does that make it OK now?

 

[firehawk1]

What part of the concept of personal responsibility do you not understand?
Saying it isn't doing it. The thought isn't the deed (except to God). The word is just an abstract of the thing it represents.

Selling a weapon to someone who says he will use it to kill someone creates a potentially deadly situation. Selling a corvette to someone who brags about how fast he's going to drive it creates another potentially deadly situation. But both situations are "potential" only; they may not happen. And, while you may consider it your responsibility to look out for that unknown potential victim, are you going to extend that sense of responsibility to every potentially deadly situation you may encounter? How far will you go to stop a mother from murdering her unborn baby? Will you stop a bullet for your next door neighbor, or defend the guy down the block from a mugger? How about that homeless guy under the bridge getting beaten to death by the ball bat you sold on E-bay? How ridiculously far do you want to take these examples?

At the end of the day, the responsibility for the harm caused to others belongs to the ones who chose to harm them or whose actions brought harm to them through negligence. Remember the old saw: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

We weren't talking thoughts, we were talking spoken threats to kill someone. Are you saying that someone selling firearms has no responsibility in a senerio where someone has threatened to kill someone? The actions of someone selling a firearm to a buyer who directly threatens to kill another isn't negligence? Words have meaning. If you were the seller of that firearm, and this buyer told you he was going to kill someone and did you can honestly tell me you would feel no regret over it? Come on now.

Selling someone a Corvette and them stating they like to drive fast is NOT a direct threat to kill someone. Try to keep this as apples to apples. Same applies to the baseball bat, IF a buyer told me he was buying it to kill someone with, as a RESPONSIBLE member of society I suppose I would refuse to sell it to them. That is not denying someone their freedom... only the freedom to buy it from me.

It's no wonder society is crumbling around us. This do/say anything I want with no concern for the result is one reason why. This country was NOT founded on that type of thought. I guess I outgrew my teenage idea that no one was going to tell me what I could and could not do. Life has never worked that way for anyone past or present.

 

[other guy]

This has been an interesting thread. Myself, I am a liberal, but would consider voting for Ron Paul if he can win the nomination. Although I don't agree with a lot of his positions, I think he would be the best president of the other options we have including Obama. I hope he wins the nomination . He is really the only one that makes sense to me. All the others just say what they think you want to hear. Paul says it like it is. I think he could win the election, I just don't think he can win the Republican nomination. Yes I know, I'm rambling......

 

[rambone]

This.

This has been an interesting thread. Myself, I am a liberal, but would consider voting for Ron Paul if he can win the nomination. Although I don't agree with a lot of his positions, I think he would be the best president of the other options we have including Obama. I hope he wins the nomination . He is really the only one that makes sense to me. All the others just say what they think you want to hear. Paul says it like it is. I think he could win the election, I just don't think he can win the Republican nomination. Yes I know, I'm rambling......

This is why Ron Paul can beat Obama, and make a better president.

He unites liberals and conservatives on the best of their respective positions.

 

[jeremy]

We weren't talking thoughts, we were talking spoken threats to kill someone. Are you saying that someone selling firearms has no responsibility in a senerio where someone has threatened to kill someone? The actions of someone selling a firearm to a buyer who directly threatens to kill another isn't negligence?

Words have meaning. If you were the seller of that firearm, and this buyer told you he was going to kill someone and did you can honestly tell me you would feel no regret over it? Come on now.

I would feel absolutely no Regret at all for selling the Weapon to someone and then Finding out that they used it to kill someone. Absolutely none. What you do with anything in your Possession is your business and none of mine.

Selling someone a Corvette and them stating they like to drive fast is NOT a direct threat to kill someone. Try to keep this as apples to apples. Same applies to the baseball bat, IF a buyer told me he was buying it to kill someone with, as a RESPONSIBLE member of society I suppose I would refuse to sell it to them. That is not denying someone their freedom... only the freedom to buy it from me.

And that is your Privealage as the Current Owner of item XX, to sell it or not.

It's no wonder society is crumbling around us. This do/say anything I want with no concern for the result is one reason why. This country was NOT founded on that type of thought. I guess I outgrew my teenage idea that no one was going to tell me what I could and could not do. Life has never worked that way for anyone past or present.

Yeah, Personal Responsibility is rough concept to accept.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Or the FFL does the intelligent thing and just refuses to sell the firearms.

Why do we always have to have the same discussion you and I? I am not talking about the fairness of the law. I am talking about what the law is. You pose a hypothetical where the FFL seller would clearly be in violation of the law, yet continue to pretend like it would be OK based upon some personal belief system I fail to understand. There is absolutely no legal basis for your position.

The first aiding and abetting statute in the US was passed in 1790 by our Founders when George Washington was President. The Founders are always correct, right? Does that make it OK now?

Why do we? Because the law is the law, but that does not make the law right. You seem committed to the idea that we must just accept it and work within it because it is the law. I agree that we must work within it, but not that we must just accept it.

I'm reminded of the piece of art I've seen in many lawyers' offices:

​

To pursue justice, I am of the opinion we must find what is wrong and rather than just accept it, we must work to change it until it is right. I don't recall stating the hypothetical, but I did answer it.

Can the FFL refuse to sell the gun to the prospective buyer? Sure, that's his right as a seller and businessman. I just don't think that he should be denied the choice to sell the gun if he chooses to do so, while from your stated positions, I infer that you think he/you should be denied that choice.

I'm reminded of the LA riots; the Hollywood types that lobbied so hard for waiting periods were then delayed in their taking possession of the guns they later wanted when they needed them. On the one hand, "play stupid games, win stupid prizes", but on the other, more human level, I would have had a major problem leaving people defenseless before the mobs when I had the means to allow them to protect themselves while still protecting my own interests. (That is, I'd not just give away the inventory in my store solely because I had it and there was a need, I'd expect to sell what I had. For others without cash, there's always barter and there are always Hi Points. Mercenary? Perhaps, but I prefer the term Capitalist.)

When it comes down to it, an answer to your question of why is that I don't just accept the law as it is as the be-all and end-all. I want to see law reflect justice and right, not just the actions of a body of legislator/politicians.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Why do we? Because the law is the law, but that does not make the law right. You seem committed to the idea that we must just accept it and work within it because it is the law. I agree that we must work within it, but not that we must just accept it.

I'm reminded of the piece of art I've seen in many lawyers' offices:


To pursue justice, I am of the opinion we must find what is wrong and rather than just accept it, we must work to change it until it is right. I don't recall stating the hypothetical, but I did answer it.

Can the FFL refuse to sell the gun to the prospective buyer? Sure, that's his right as a seller and businessman. I just don't think that he should be denied the choice to sell the gun if he chooses to do so, while from your stated positions, I infer that you think he/you should be denied that choice.

I'm reminded of the LA riots; the Hollywood types that lobbied so hard for waiting periods were then delayed in their taking possession of the guns they later wanted when they needed them. On the one hand, "play stupid games, win stupid prizes", but on the other, more human level, I would have had a major problem leaving people defenseless before the mobs when I had the means to allow them to protect themselves while still protecting my own interests. (That is, I'd not just give away the inventory in my store solely because I had it and there was a need, I'd expect to sell what I had. For others without cash, there's always barter and there are always Hi Points. Mercenary? Perhaps, but I prefer the term Capitalist.)

When it comes down to it, an answer to your question of why is that I don't just accept the law as it is as the be-all and end-all. I want to see law reflect justice and right, not just the actions of a body of legislator/politicians.

Blessings,
Bill

I am committed to the proposition that the law is the law until it is not the law. If you violate it you may suffer consequences. This is what being a nation of laws means. It is the foundation of our Constitution, and to reject it is to reject the Constitution.

You seem to be committed to the proposition that the law is only the law if you personally find it pleasing to be the law; a nation of lawlessness. That is not how this nation was founded.

All all laws just? Hell no. Are all laws fair? No again. Are all laws the law? Yes. Is a law that holds an accessory accountable for his actions just? Yes, and it have been for thousands of years, and since the founding of this nation.

Under your scenerio who would you hold responsible for 9/11? Just the pilots who actually flew the airplanes to their demise? All terrorists on the plane? They didn't actually fly the planes into buildings, did they? Were the financiers criminally liable? The people that organized and planned? After all they weren't even in the country at the time. The go betweens? Other people that provided aid and comfort?

Accessory liability dates back to English common law, and was codified into federal statute when Washington was President. What say ye to that? Were our Founders Republicrats hell bent on controlling the sheep?

I would not deny the FFL the choice to sell the weapon, however choices have consequences, and neither would I shield him from the consequences of his actions if that weapon was used to commit murder as disclosed to the FFL.

I won't even get into the additional duties that FFLs have to ensure that weapons are only transferred to proper persons, and the extra extent that an FFL must go through at times according to federal statute and ATF regulations.

 

[Bitter Clinger]

So what business is it of the United States if Iran does want to blow Israel off the map? You dont think israel wants to do the same?

Let them duke it out, we have our own problems to take care of. Its about time we stop cleaning up other peoples houses who dont want us to and start taking care of our own house that is crumbling from the foundation.

LOL - you can't be serious. Israel is the only civilized country in the Middle East, and one of our two closest allies in the world (Great Britain being the other one). I'm all for cutting off aid to places like Pakistan, but certainly not Israel.

By the way, here is one place you can find Dr. Paul's foreign policy quotes.

Ron Paul on Foreign Policy

 

[Bill of Rights]

...
You seem to be committed to the proposition that the law is only the law if you personally find it pleasing to be the law; a nation of lawlessness. That is not how this nation was founded.

You've misread my position if that's what you think of me. The law is the law, yes. It must be obeyed while it remains the law, yes. Efforts must continue to change it so long as it remains unjust.

All all laws just? Hell no. Are all laws fair? No again. Are all laws the law? Yes. Is a law that holds an accessory accountable for his actions just? Yes, and it have been for thousands of years, and since the founding of this nation.

I'm not in agreement with a great many laws, yet I still follow them. For example, I don't agree, as we've discussed before, with laws against the use of marijuana. Regardless of that fact, I do not use it, not because of that law, but because I choose not to use it. Were that law to change tomorrow, you still would not find me with THC in my system, barring some unforeseen circumstance. (of note, I had "never" in that sentence, but speaking in absolutes is a good way to be called a liar. Suffice it to say that my choice to not use it would require a diagnosis of some disease of which I'd rather not speculate, or some similar situation, God forbid.) As for an accessory, yes, by the definition in our current laws, as you cited them, the seller would be such.

Under your scenerio who would you hold responsible for 9/11? Just the pilots who actually flew the airplanes to their demise? All terrorists on the plane? They didn't actually fly the planes into buildings, did they? Were the financiers criminally liable? The people that organized and planned? After all they weren't even in the country at the time. The go betweens? Other people that provided aid and comfort?

Interesting parallel. There is the matter of duress in re: the pilots, so no, I wouldn't hold them responsible. Those who provided aid and comfort? I'm sure you chose that specific wording to draw the parallel to a treason charge. If those who provided that succor were Americans, I would not charge them with the murders committed that day, however, by definition, those co-conspirators would be held for that conspiracy as well as for treason itself. The financiers, organizers, planners, go-betweens, and any others, I'd have to give more thought to. My question to you would be, "what about the flying school instructors?" Should they bear any of the blame or face any charges? What of the security people in the airports? The box cutters the terrorists used were not banned devices, but the tools obviously could be used to cause mayhem and destruction. Should they who allowed them through stand trial?

Accessory liability dates back to English common law, and was codified into federal statute when Washington was President. What say ye to that? Were our Founders Republicrats hell bent on controlling the sheep?

I recall hearing a quote that I cannot, at present, cite to you, but the gist of it was that we must consider law not by what its intended use is, but rather by to what abuse it could be put in the hands of someone with ill intent. If I recall, Mr. Jefferson was the speaker. As intended and as used at the time (and in some cases, as still used today), that law is being used correctly; say, when two break into a store and the owner shoots and kills one, the other will stand trial for the homicide. Why? Because he was engaged in the commission of a crime at the time of the death. That usage would be appropriate, IMHO. Arresting a bartender for one of his patrons drinking too much, however, is an abuse of that law, IMHO, because a bartender cannot possibly keep track of everyone in a crowded bar, nor of who else is buying someone drinks. Likewise, I don't think a FFL should be held responsible for what someone does with a product he purchases from the FFL, any more than should S&W, Ruger, or Colt.

I would not deny the FFL the choice to sell the weapon, however choices have consequences, and neither would I shield him from the consequences of his actions if that weapon was used to commit murder as disclosed to the FFL.

You seem to have glossed over my point about the seller giving notice of the buyer's stated intent. Does that count for nothing to you, or did you simply miss that point? (Honest question. Our discussions do tend to get involved and I recognize you might have missed that point.)

I won't even get into the additional duties that FFLs have to ensure that weapons are only transferred to proper persons, and the extra extent that an FFL must go through at times according to federal statute and ATF regulations.

Semper, I'm one who believes the entirety of the FFL system with or without ATF oversight, is an unConstitutional infringement. I still follow it; hell, for that matter, I have in my wallet a copy of my 03 FFL, C&R. I would shed not a single tear were the whole mess to be abolished by SCOTUS tomorrow and allow us to return to a day in which you or I could enter Ace Hardware and walk out with a new firearm... The days when school shootings were nearly unheard-of, and not because the MSM just didn't report them. I recognize the duties required of you. I know about the "youth" placards that must be visible, the "don't lie for the other guy", and of course, NICS. I make no attempt to circumvent them; that would be lawlessness... but surely you of all people recognize that the laws in place do not do what they claim to do. Why are you (or anyone) supporting the idea of maintaining laws that do not do what they were ostensibly designed to do?

Blessings,
Bill