ctdonath
Member
Yes it absolutely does.Free speech does not allow you to yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theater.
You're confusing the right to free speech with the responsibilities of free speech. Don't.
Yes it absolutely does.Free speech does not allow you to yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theater.
Ya know, there's a whole bunch of people who feel exactly the same thing - and YOU are one of those "some folks" that they don't want (or trust) toting a firearm.There are just some folk's that I don't want (or trust) toting a firearm~!
So if my dear dog Millie dies, I should surrender my right of self defense? How utterly silly.Some people should flat-out not be allowed to own a firearm legally. This list includes gang bangers, criminals, people suffering from mental anguish, et cetera.
How does someone 'suffering from mental anguish' become a thug? To be a thug requires demonstrated prior actions/activities of a distinctly anti-social nature, and 'suffering from mental anguish' hardly qualifies.Currently these thugs get their guns from the streets that have been stolen or straw-purchased.
Dr. Peter Venkman said:How is making it even easier for them to get one (just walking into a store and buying one) going to make the situation any better?
rbernie said:So if my dear dog Millie dies, I should surrender my right of self defense? How utterly silly.
rbernie said:How does someone 'suffering from mental anguish' become a thug? To be a thug requires demonstrated prior actions/activities of a distinctly anti-social nature, and 'suffering from mental anguish' hardly qualifies.
rbernie said:More importantly, how is requiring a background check on LEGAL transfers going to stop or retard this very behavior of buying illegal firearms? You seem to be advocating a presumptively restrictive behavior, knowing in advance that it will offer no help, only because you find the alternative to be equally unattractive.
rbernie said:I should not have to demonstrate that I'm 'OK' - I am supposed to be PRESUMED to be OK.
rbernie said:How hard is that to grasp?
M Olson said:it may not make it any better, but its not gonna make it any worse either. so why give up our rights for a purely "feel good" infringement?
Some people should flat-out not be allowed to own a firearm legally.
+1. It bothers me more that I have to fill out a form to purchase a firearm than having to show my CCW permit to get it.no records kept
Dr. Peter Venkman said:How are your rights being infringed by an instant background check that does not inhibit you from purchasing a firearm if you are able to legally purchase one? We are not talking about "waiting periods" or "cool downs", lists of gun owners, or anything like that which are in reality the real breeches of the 2nd. All it is doing is verifying your identity, the same thing the gunshop will ask when you give him your state issued ID or Drivers License that without one you would not be able to purchase your said gun.
M Olson said:i have already stated, if that is all that comes along with it, guaranteed, under penalty of prosecution or something of that nature, then sure. but that is not reality, ask Pennsylvania gun shops right now if background checks are or are not an infringement (in case you are not aware, this thread explains the situation: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=297584 ). what happens when hillary and friends decide to defund or shutdown the database?
Dr. Peter Venkman said:When did I say the current background check system is good? Nowhere.
Dr. Peter Venkman said:You can throw a huge list of scenarios at me and I at you; it will accomplish nothing.
M Olson said:i never said you did. but i did say, or at least intended to say, that there is no background check system that is beyond abuse and corruption. therefore, advocating it for use in the real world is intellectually dishonest.
when it comes to basic civil rights, i only need to show one scenario. as long as that scenario shows an infringement, any others are unnecessary or invalid.
Dr. Peter Venkman said:There is no system that lacks a background check that is capable of avoiding abuse either
Dr. Peter Venkman said:which is why I point out it would allow people who should be banned from firearms by purchasing them through legal means, making it even easier for them.
Dr. Peter Venkman said:You might as well throw out the entire United States Justice System since it has made mistakes in the past. It's too broad of an argument. There are safeguards in the Constitution for this very purpose but even those safeguards for everything, such as checks and balances, habeas corpus, et cetera, are not free from mistakes. No system is perfect or ever will be.
What you "yes to background checks" people are not doing is explaining HOW, in a viable, Constitutional manner, they "should not have access to firearms".Rapists, Murderers, and the Delusional should not have legal, by de facto means or not, access to firearms.
OK, so which side would you rather err on?No system is perfect or ever will be.
But, evidently, they should be allowed to wander around among us in the general population.Rapists, Murderers, and the Delusional should not have legal, by de facto means or not, access to firearms.
M Olson said:how can a governmental authority that doesnt exist be abused? by definition the system would not be abused. the system may be violated or disobeyed by proxy if someone committed a criminal act with their firearm, but it would not be abused by the government. if both systems can be violated (just as easily, i might add), why would we go with the system that is also susceptible to abuse by the government?
M Olson said:side from the fact that you are handing over complete control with the whole "mental illness" thing (mental illness is highly subjective, will i be "mentally ill" at some point just for wanting a gun?), you are assuming that it is at all difficult right now to get a gun through illegal means.
M Olson said:mistakes of the past are no excuse for future or current mistakes. trying to justify them as such, only erodes our rights to the point of non-existence or irrelevance.
ctdonath said:What you "yes to background checks" people are not doing is explaining HOW, in a viable, Constitutional manner, they "should not have access to firearms".
ct donath said:Innocent until proven guilty. An absolutely fundamental premise to our legal system, yet you'll flippantly reverse that - knowing full well that the guilty can get guns anyway, and you're mostly checking the wrong people.
ct donath said:It's an awful lot like looking for your lost car keys under a street lamp at night - when you know full well you lost 'em in the dark alley. "But the light is better here!" you cry.
ct donath said:Tighten up the system, and you put the squeeze on the wrong people. "Oh, it's just a minor inconvenience" - aside from the end-all "shall not be infringed" rebuttal, the nuts and the crooks can get guns anyway.
ct donath said:Crack is totally illegal everywhere in this country, yet it is widely available.
No-guns countries still have criminals with guns (England banned handguns, yet gun crimes have doubled).
Apparently you'd be surprised who CAN get weapons, even with thorough background checks.
ct donath said:It's all kinda like "can I check your ID?" at a restaurant. It's pretty darned obvious I'm pushing 40, yet that stupid "background check" type reasoning means I have to prove I'm not a teenager. Why? because a teen might have the gall to try ordering - and consuming - a beer? ...as if this BS actually stops underage drinking.
It's stupid.
I'm tired of being "guilty until proven innocent" just to get a beer.
And I'm tired of being "guilty until proven innocent" just to get another gun.
As if that reversal of legal rights actually does anything other than simply harass the law-abiding.
Teens will find beer, and crooks will find guns.
Cope - and do so without pestering others.
ct donath said:OK, so which side would you rather err on?
- disarming the law-abiding while crooks get guns anyway?
ct donath said:- or respecting "shall not be infringed" and assuring the law-abiding can arm themselves, while crooks - who could get guns anyway - have a marginally easier time getting them?
ct donath said:Remember too: by making it harder for evil people to get guns, they're willing to harm & steal to get guns other ways. They're not going to toss up their hands saying "oh, I'd never pass a NICS check, guess I'd better shape up."
ArfinGreebly said:But, evidently, they should be allowed to wander around among us in the general population.
Kind of perverse, don't you think?
You've got a guy -- a murderer -- right there in front of you, under lock and key, and you know who he is and where he is. And you want to let him out into the world of free men who have done nothing to warrant restriction and you want the honest and free men to spend the rest of their lives proving they are not this murderer.
If a man TRULY has "paid his debt" to society, and we let him out, why do we continue to punish him?
And why -- if we mean to punish HIM do we instead punish everyone else