A Civilized Facebook Gun Conversation between a Right and a Left

This past week, I've been speaking with a friend on facebook. I want to share it because of I think we had a very civilized conversation and because it helped me understand his perspective. For a bit of background, we both went to school together and he leans right while I lean left.

It started when he posted a link to the following on Facebook to https://www.dailywire.com/news/27491/every-single-government-authority-failed-parkland-ben-shapiro:

So I commented:

Hey,

I watched the clip last night and I have a few questions. I agree with Dana that we need to keep people with mental issues or are reported to be dangerous should not be allowed to ever have a fun. There are a few situations that I can see happening if we dig deeper into this and I'm curious to hear your opinion on it.

1. Dana talks about how people with mental issues or are known to harm themselves should not be allowed to pass background checks. To do this, we would need to gather more data on them. What type of data are we allowed to gather without breaching privacy?

2. It's beens said that this kid has been reported that he will be potentially dangerous. How should police respond to this kind of scenario? Should someone who is known to be dangerous have this on public record? Should they be arrested or sent to an institution if it's been reported by more than a certain # of people?

3. I don't quite understand why many think that it should not be harder to get a gun. What if we had a 6 month course that people would need to take to get a license to get a gun? They would need to submit a multitude of physical and mental tests. There would be an age limit. Similar to getting a license to drive a car. What are you thoughts on that?

4. I'm not a huge fan of arming everyone with guns because the idea of open carry for all is scary to me. Just the idea of everyone carrying a kitchen knife on their body everyday with the intention of protecting themselves is scary to me. Would you advocate for more people carrying a gun, including the students and teachers at the school to protect themselves? Might this increase the number of accidents?

I don't have the answers. I'm just curious on the opinion of someone who leans right.

His response:

Hi Stanton. Thanks for the questions. They're good questions, some to which I do not have the answers to since I'm not a lawyer/policy maker. I'm also aware that these won't necessarily prevent all future shootings. Here's my opinion though:

1 & 2. I see these two going together. For minors: if a family/guardian suspects that their child is potentially dangerous and have proof (police records, texts, FB messages or other records that demonstrate potential acts of violence to others or one self) in court, the child would be detained for a period of time for monitoring and undergo psychiatric examination. Depending on the results of the psych exam, the parent would be able to commit the child if they are a danger to society. For adults I would suspect other adults reporting the "proof" I listed above. I think the police should report these incidents so that parents/guardians or the public would be able to use these incidents as part of their proof in the court of law. Currently, I think that if there are a certain number of people or incidents that occur, law enforcement should detain the person for a certain period of time so they could get a psychiatric evaluation. Based on that evaluation, the person would either be released, monitored or committed based on a judge and jury's decision with the evidence at hand. I believe that a lot of this is already under the Baker Act (not 100% certain). And as far as information being sent to a data base for the FBI to update their background checks, all states should participate so that people who have known domestic abuse, mental illness or criminal charges wouldn't be able to purchase a gun.

3. The reason is simple:I don't like the proposed restrictions on guns because they are barriers to law abiding citizen's natural right for self defense. It's the individual's responsibility to teach themselves and their family how to safely use a gun or respect the gun. That's why groups like the NRA are helpful in that they provide resources and classes that teach people to be responsible firearm owners. I would argue that this is a cultural issue. I'm a big proponent of teaching values of individual responsibility instead of abdicating responsibility to the state. Also, regulation can be used by the government to infringe on our right to have guns for political purposes. The 2A was written to protect our natural rights from the government, so suspicion of the state is inherent in the Bill of Rights.

4. I would advocate for people who want to arm themselves to arm themselves. Children shouldn't have guns since they're minors but certain teachers should from K-12. That way if they are in a situation where someone is shooting at them, they can fire back to slow down, distract or eliminate the shooter. If a teacher is irresponsible with their gun an accident is possible.

These are some of my general thoughts.

My response to his response.

Thank you for the reply. I believe that it's obvious that everyone wants to lower the number of shootings. It just comes down to what we're willing to sacrifice for it.

The conversation that should be had is what are reasonable ways at lowering the number of shootings from all different angles.

I agree with 1&2. That is a good angle to tackle it. I think it should be proposed that there is a proper way to gather this data and for all states to share this information at a national level.

Not much to say about 4. I'm comfortable with disagreeing here. I do want to ask a few more questions about 3.

3. I completely understand the sentiment of the second amendment, but I personally don't think it makes any sense in today's world anymore. Any scenario that involves a fight between the people and the government are not going to be solved by guns. I cannot see a scenario where we would want civilians or militias to be fighting police or the national military with automatic rifles. If it ever got that bad, I think that the U.S. will look like Syria or other countries in the Middle East where law does not quite matter anymore. You're going to get guns and bombs without much worry.

In addition, is there a line that we draw somewhere in regards to how effective a weapon is? Do you think semi-automatic rifles should be allowed? What about automatic rifles? Or something bigger, like a minigun or a rocket propelled grenade? Sniper rifles? Drones with weapons? I don't doubt that there is a line. I think we just need to agree with where that line is drawn.

Also, jumping back a little bit, I think additional restrictions are good. For example, how about we require everyone who wants to buy a gun to get certified by the NRA or a course by the NRA before they are allowed to purchase a gun under their name? My example for this is car ownership and driving. I don't think people would be very happy about relaxing the requirements for getting a drivers license to just a background check.

His response to my response to his response:

Hi Stanton,
If it came down to an actual government tyranny I guess I'd get my automatic rifles and RPGs from whatever state sponsors the "Rebels" or find the nearest gang or cartel to buy weapons off of them. But since we're not in that hypothetical, I draw the line at semi-automatic rifles. It's so I can protect myself from the state and other people when the state fails or cannot protect me.

I don't understand why the NRA would agree to requiring certifications or sell guns. That would be akin to requiring black people to be certified by the NAACP to vote. The NRA isn't a government body so a license wouldn't make sense through them and they don't sell weapons. Car ownership is a privilege, not a right. Owning a gun is a right, and not only a right, it's the safeguard for the 1st amendment. The Founders knew that the state would be unable or unwilling to help you, so they wanted individuals to be responsible and protect their rights.

My response to his response to my response to his response:

In regards to drawing the line, what would you say is the difference between drawing the line at handguns vs. semi-automatic rifles vs. automatic rifles? Why does it make sense to draw the line at semi-automatic rifles?

In regards to the NRA certifying, I was just trying to connect the point where you were saying that the NRA has courses for educating gun owners. I agree that it doesn't make sense that they would be regulating this for the reasons that you mentioned.

I don't quite understand why car ownership would be considered a privilege except that it costs money to buy one. Can you give me examples of what other physical objects or the use of a physical object would be considered a privilege vs. one that is considered a right?

I also don't understand how guns are going to safeguard the 1st amendment in today's world. If the government really wanted to implement something that is against the freedom of religion or freedom of speech, I can't see how guns will be able to help prevent that. Bringing people together to fight for the cause via communication makes sense to me.

In regards to guns being a right, do you own a firearm and do you carry it with you? I believe California law allows for open carry, but no concealed carry. If you do, do you carry it to church? If you don't, would you like the people around you in church to be carrying guns?

His response to my response to...you get the point:

If the debate was about automatic weapons then my opinion is that it would put us on more even footing with the police and military if it ever came down to full scale war against a tyrannical government. How that tyranny will develop is a bigger question (our rights slowly being stripped away over time versus an actual military dictatorship coming to power relatively quickly and attacking its citizenry). Since automatic weapons have been heavily regulated since the 80s and it appears that argument has been won, I'm willing to cede ground and fight for the right to own a rifle.

With regards to how semi-automatic rifles can be effective against the state: whether or not you agreed with the Bundys or their allies, they were able to hold off with the federal government with their rifles. With regards to self-defense: in the event of a natural disaster like Katrina or Harvey or riots like in LA, I think having a semi-automatic rifle to defend your store, yourself or family is more helpful than a handgun. In the event someone tries to break into your home, it'd be nice to have a semi-automatic rifle to protect your home with since it is easier to handle and shoot.

There isn't a right in the Bill of Rights that says you have a right to a form of transportation. It's a natural right for you to be able to defend yourself with a gun.

The guns would be a last resort when the government violates your natural rights. In the meantime we would use the system in place to prevent a lawful infringement of our rights.

CA prohibits open carry and you need to apply for a concealed carry license, which is very difficult to get, at least where I live. So even if I fill out the application, go through the course, get a psych eval, get my thumb prints and spend hundreds of dollar for a concealed carry license, last I checked, if I do not show "good cause" for having a CCW they would deny my application. "Good cause" basically has to show that my property, my family or I am in imminent danger. If I had a CCW license and my church allowed it, I'd carry. If someone at my church carried, I'd feel safer.

And finally, my last response:

Thank you for sharing your opinion, Peter. I understand your position.

On a final note, I want to note that the Ninth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Just because a right is not explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights does not mean that it is not a right.

In conclusion, this discussion helped me understand a lot about my friend's position. He feels very strongly about maintaining control over his freedom and rights and believes that guns are one of the pieces to helping him maintain this control. I completely disagree with the usefulness of guns in today's world to make effective change, but I understand where he's coming from. He cares more about protecting his freedom and rights than the increased rate of danger and accidents that easier access to weapons will create. I believe the exact opposite.

For these kinds of conversations, there is no subjective right or wrong. Both sides believe themselves to be right and it is almost impossible to convince one side of the other. For me to convince my friend, it would require a tragic event on his side that had to do with firearms and for me to completely believe him, I would need to be attacked and that for some reason, having a gun saved my life.

One important thing to note though is that there is middle ground. We both believe that guns should be kept away from people with mental health issues or people who might be considered dangerous. This moves into the privacy debate, but a national database of potentially dangerous people should be used for the background checks when purchasing a firearm. The database should require states to contribute and there should be a plan for how to gather data. I think both my friend and I can at least agree on this step.