Background checks: presumption of guilt

Gabrielle Giffords was in Portsmouth talking about increasing gun control laws.

First, it is important to recognize that something bad happening to you does not make you a de facto expert on the topic. When I speak out against seat belt laws, many people respond by saying, “My friend/uncle/mom/brother died in a car accident.” How can I respond by saying, “I’m sorry that that happened, but it doesn’t change the laws of logic, ethics, or government. Bad things will continually happen, and if a new law were enacted every time a bad thing happened, we would eventually be living in a world where nothing is left to individual human volition.”

It’s interesting how Portsmouth Police Commissioner supports increasing gun laws and supports Maggie Hassan, who regularly seems to vote for things that favor police unions. The police commissioner makes no reference in his statements to the NH constitution, which states

All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, and the state. 

Nowhere does it say, “…as long as they pass a background check.” Is the commissioner intent on violating his oath? Who knows? Who cares anymore, because government is nothing but those in power imposing their own will on those not.

To get back to the central issue: are gun control laws ethical? My answer is absolutely not. A background check is a requirement for me to prove to the government that I am not a criminal. Guilt is assumed, and innocence must be proven. This is completely backwards, and it’s a shame that so many people are swindled into supporting background checks because of the sad stories that are told.

More faulty gun logic

Yet another person is writing about gun laws. He asks, "Can someone tell me what the age is for a child to carry a handgun or an assault rifle?" He talks talks mockingly about arming all the "vulnerable" people in society and then claims that if one objects to any of it, one should advocate gun control.

This is not a logical conclusion. Rather, it is an empty plea playing on people's emotions. If I oppose a child obtaining a gun, I do not necessarily support more (or any) gun laws. If the former is my position, I could support trying to convince parents not to give guns to their kids. I could support a privately owned store banning parents who do.  Their are many nonviolent ways of protesting something. But, that I dislike something does not necessarily imply that I support it being banned by the force of law. I oppose kids' being fed lots of sugar, but I don't oppose a ban on sugar for kids. (Does Bill Kingston?)

Here is a logical statement: IF you support the universal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, THEN you must oppose criminal background checks for gun purchases. Where do you stand on this, Mr. Kingston?