Background checks for gun purchases?

[canndo]

Except for that dead document that makes keeping and bearing arms a right... And one of the most important rights. No matter what your opinion is...

Well we certainly agree, you and I have a fundamental right to keep and bear arms, but even that right is, as all other rights, subject to regulation and moderation. That seems to be something that those who, when they think of the Bill of rights, think only of the 2nd, tend to ignore. No rights in the Constitution are absolute and unfettered. What makes anyone believe that the 2nd is an exception?

 

[NLXSK1]

Well we certainly agree, you and I have a fundamental right to keep and bear arms, but even that right is, as all other rights, subject to regulation and moderation. That seems to be something that those who, when they think of the Bill of rights, think only of the 2nd, tend to ignore. No rights in the Constitution are absolute and unfettered. What makes anyone believe that the 2nd is an exception?

Because the last part says "Shall Not Be Infringed (PERIOD)"

There were no exceptions listed.

 

[canndo]

You can't seriously be that dumb are you?
Do you really not get it?
A gun free zone disarms law abiding citizens, making them easy pickings for those intent on breaking laws and harming others
also a gun free zone is unconstitutional

Aparently berdo, I can be that "seriously dumb", except that I refuse to insult you that way and I'd thank you from refraining as well.

I am aware of what a "gun free zone" is. I am a firm believer in local laws. I take issue with those who believe, for instance, that a church is free from government regulation (lately having to do with birth control coverage). So you might take issue with any government insisting that contraceptives be issued in religious institutions but you don't have a problem with that same government mandating that a mosque or a city park MUST allow guns on it's premisis. Seems like either compartmentalization on your part, or simply a case of multiple standards, depending upon YOUR standards alone.

I can't see how a gun free zone is unconsitutional. The law says you have the right to keep and bear, it does not say anything about your ability to bear everywhere, even in other people's property. I hold that property and ownership trumps that portion of the 2nd. If you wish to visit my home or workplace I will insist that you leave your gun behind. thereupon you will be forced to make a decision. You can abandon caution and go into a place unarmed - even though there has never been a shooting let alone an altercation in either of the places referenced,or you can opt not to visit those places.

That, is constitutional to my way of thinking.

 

[NLXSK1]

Aparently berdo, I can be that "seriously dumb", except that I refuse to insult you that way and I'd thank you from refraining as well.

I am aware of what a "gun free zone" is. I am a firm believer in local laws. I take issue with those who believe, for instance, that a church is free from government regulation (lately having to do with birth control coverage). So you might take issue with any government insisting that contraceptives be issued in religious institutions but you don't have a problem with that same government mandating that a mosque or a city park MUST allow guns on it's premisis. Seems like either compartmentalization on your part, or simply a case of multiple standards, depending upon YOUR standards alone.

I can't see how a gun free zone is unconsitutional. The law says you have the right to keep and bear, it does not say anything about your ability to bear everywhere, even in other people's property. I hold that property and ownership trumps that portion of the 2nd. If you wish to visit my home or workplace I will insist that you leave your gun behind. thereupon you will be forced to make a decision. You can abandon caution and go into a place unarmed - even though there has never been a shooting let alone an altercation in either of the places referenced,or you can opt not to visit those places.

That, is constitutional to my way of thinking.

The term "Bear" arms means to carry them. If the federal government made carrying guns illegal then it would interfere with the 2nd amendment.

That being said, I have no issue with gun free zones on private property and even in protected federal buildings. However, the government does not have the right to bar free citizens bearing arms from going about their daily business.

 

[cannabineer]

Their notion however is a correct one. The fewer available guns there are in a society, the fewer gun deaths would be the result. What they have yet to realize is the massive number of guns in circulation in this country and the futility of banning all of them even given an absence of a guarantee that we are able to own weapons regardless of the consequences to society as a whole.


I don't believe that any but the most rabid and thoughtless of the anti's seriouly condone widespread gun confiscation. However, I recently read of a local gun buyback initiative. It was a community effort, it depended upon monies independent of the government itself and it was to be conducted by civilians and police officers who were off duty at the time. Now why would the gun toting community act to put a stop to such a program? Yet that is exactly what they did.

At the same time Britain And Australia have shown us that when guns are removed from civilians, overall violent crime goes up even as gun crime goes down. Gun crime as a focus is a selective presentation, and "selective" harms "correct".

So the folks in NY State advocating a confiscation are among that élite class of the most rabid and thoughtless of antis? Cold comfort that. Jmo.

Finally, I have nothing against gun buybacks, so long as participation is voluntary. If you can provide a link to this buyback program you mentioned, I can probably find the feature that offended the gun toters. cn

 

[rooky1985]

the point is that there is something driving gun owners ( many of them) that has yet to be addressed. It is almost as though when a gun owner is confronted by ANY legislation, ANY limit, any percieved threat, he sees it as a threat to his individuality, his manhood, his personality.

His/Her Rights??

 

[canndo]

Because the last part says "Shall Not Be Infringed (PERIOD)"

There were no exceptions listed.

A lot of them contain that sort of language NL

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Your right to speech shall not be abridged- and yet there are places you may not speak (like, for instance, in my place of business), you may not incite to violence although language that incites is a part of free speech. Slander is prohibited in speech, liable is prohibited in our freedom of the press. There are limits as to where we can assemble, how many can assemble and how we are to go about expressing our gievances.

Why do so many believe that it is only the 2nd is limitless in the extreme?
"

 

[cannabineer]

the point is that there is something driving gun owners ( many of them) that has yet to be addressed. It is almost as though when a gun owner is confronted by ANY legislation, ANY limit, any percieved threat, he sees it as a threat to his individuality, his manhood, his personality.

We see that when a rightist authoritarian is confronted by an idea that he is not equiped to contend with. He responds violently, as though the wholeness of his perrsonality is in jeaporday. He sees it as a threat to his ego or his very being. Unless this reaction is well understood and I confess I do not, then this argument is not about mere ideological or political lines but something far more fundamental.

Sometimes it feels like the gun toters are mishearing statements in support of gun control, it seems almost as if they are hearing "we intend to take away your manhood" Watch and see if you do not sense it yourself.

I do not see it as an assault upon (my) manhood but a definite assault on the idea that guns are something decent people want and get to have.

The Ratchet is real, and that informs my passion. Not my manhood or any fantasies of doing commando-type stuff. Just the vibrant knowledge that changes in gun rights go in one direction. cn

 

[NLXSK1]

A lot of them contain that sort of language NL

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Your right to speech shall not be abridged- and yet there are places you may not speak (like, for instance, in my place of business), you may not incite to violence although language that incites is a part of free speech. Slander is prohibited in speech, liable is prohibited in our freedom of the press. There are limits as to where we can assemble, how many can assemble and how we are to go about expressing our gievances.

Why do so many believe that it is only the 2nd is limitless in the extreme?
"

I am not arguing it is limitless. I am comfortable with the automatic weapon ban. I am not interested in obtaining grenades, missiles, nuclear weapons, etc.

I have a right to keep and bear arms. Semi-automatic rifles and handguns should be left alone. It is the people and not the guns that is the problem. Figure out a way to reduce the crime while not attempting to reduce my rights to my weapons of choice and the ability to defend myself.

 

[canndo]

the point is that there is something driving gun owners ( many of them) that has yet to be addressed. It is almost as though when a gun owner is confronted by ANY legislation, ANY limit, any percieved threat, he sees it as a threat to his individuality, his manhood, his personality.

His/Her Rights??

Really? yet many have no qualms about "infringing" on the ability of a woman to obtain an abortion. Those who balk at a waiting period of several days in order to purchase a firearm have no problem imposing just such a waiting period on a woman's right to an abortion. There are those who are considerably dismayed when any test or "background check" is proposed in order to obtain a firearm but enthusiastically impose requirements of vaginal ultrasound and other invasive procedures if a woman wants to abort.

Rights seem to be valuable to some and not so much to others. Liberty itself is a strangely viewed thing. Folks will claim patriotically and vehimantly that their most valuable right is that of liberty, hte ability for one to come and go as one pleases. It is the pincacle of what a human holds himself to be - at liberty, and yet when that singularly valuable right is removed from a criminal, all those who hold liberty as the most dear suddenly asert that the removal of that most profoundly valued right is empty of meaning and a prisoner is not really being punished at all when that right is removed from him.


THose who hold the 2nd as most sacred see the right to ownership as equal in importance yet they don't see one's right to ownership of one's own body as being of mcuh value at all when it comes to another's right to that same thing.


No, it goes deeper than simply a right when it comes to guns.

 

[beardo]

Really? yet many have no qualms about "infringing" on the ability of a woman to obtain an abortion. .

Murder is not a right, why should someone have the right to commit murder or to conspire to kill another just because they are a woman or a doctor?
Just because a person is unable to defend themselves or survive on their own does not mean they should be victimized.

 

[Budwolf77]

Dude I totally agree. Seems to me that Mr. Obama is taking this time to promote himself more while trying to change the 2nd amendment. What crap. How many people are killed by assault weapons during the course of a year. Very little. That goes for high round mags as well. What the hell does that have to do with someones mental condition? They are going to create a larger black market for the weapons in the pretense of doing good, what garbage. What happened to all the arms that the u.s government lost in mexico? Look at all the people who never had a gun that are now running to buy one. Hence more guns out there. Now that a new black market MAY be created it gives the frick n law another reason to hassle the public. And what about the street wise criminal element how is this banning gonna stop them. It won't. Hell you can buy part's for an assault weapon and make your own and according to the law a weapon like that does not have to be registered. All of that serial number stuff is for retail and tracking purposes, just in case someone goes ballistic. They can say o here's the guy he just bought this gun at walmart...I hope the NRA burns Obama a new one..

 

[canndo]

I am not arguing it is limitless. I am comfortable with the automatic weapon ban. I am not interested in obtaining grenades, missiles, nuclear weapons, etc.

I have a right to keep and bear arms. Semi-automatic rifles and handguns should be left alone. It is the people and not the guns that is the problem. Figure out a way to reduce the crime while not attempting to reduce my rights to my weapons of choice and the ability to defend myself.

AH! YOU are "comfortable" with the banning of fully automatic weapons and grenades. Why? why have you drawn the line at these things? Isn't removing your ability to defend yourself by any means available your constitutional right?

One more thing, I notice you have been keeping on the subject and you are to be commended but you get nearr to the theoretical with your last statement. "figure out a way to reduce crime...". The gun toters tend to switch to the theoretical when things get close to home, when we begin to talk about children's heads and arms being blown off and rather than contend with that reality they opt to speak of "crime". There are many on the left who see this conversation as a way to "reduce violent crime". They are in the wrong argument. These laws have nothing to do with reducing crime or even violent crime in the conventional sense - they cannot. We will not reduce conventional armed assault or the killling of one or two people at a time in passion or greed. What is being talked about here is the reduction of the ability for crazy people to take dozens of lives simply because of the technology that is easily aquireable currently. That is the reality of he national discussion.

 

[rooky1985]

Obama will have to depend on individual state laws being passed, i don't think congress will play the gun ban game. New York pretty much tried to set the tone but I doubt many other states will follow such a radical path.

 

[canndo]

Murder is not a right, why should someone have the right to commit murder or to conspire to kill another just because they are a woman or a doctor?
Just because a person is unable to defend themselves or survive on their own does not mean they should be victimized.

And here we go with the "murder" thing. Abortion is not murder as murder is the illegal taking of a human life. My comparison is quite valid.

What you seem to be willing to do is remove the rights of the mother do do as she wishes with her own body in the interest of preserving the life of the child.

Now how is that so different than my wanting to remove your weapons from you in the interest of preserving the life of someone who otherwise might be shot on her school ground.

 

[canndo]

Obama will have to depend on individual state laws being passed, i don't think congress will play the gun ban game. New York pretty much tried to set the tone but I doubt many other states will follow such a radical path.

And you figure that it is radical to want large magazines made illegal and it is radical to expect national background checks and curtail the easy exchange of weapons at weapons shows.

 

[NLXSK1]

AH! YOU are "comfortable" with the banning of fully automatic weapons and grenades. Why? why have you drawn the line at these things? Isn't removing your ability to defend yourself by any means available your constitutional right?

One more thing, I notice you have been keeping on the subject and you are to be commended but you get nearr to the theoretical with your last statement. "figure out a way to reduce crime...". The gun toters tend to switch to the theoretical when things get close to home, when we begin to talk about children's heads and arms being blown off and rather than contend with that reality they opt to speak of "crime". There are many on the left who see this conversation as a way to "reduce violent crime". They are in the wrong argument. These laws have nothing to do with reducing crime or even violent crime in the conventional sense - they cannot. We will not reduce conventional armed assault or the killling of one or two people at a time in passion or greed. What is being talked about here is the reduction of the ability for crazy people to take dozens of lives simply because of the technology that is easily aquireable currently. That is the reality of he national discussion.

It has been stated and demonstrated with data from Australian and Great Britain that as you reduce the number of weapons you reduce gun crime while violent crime rises. What you are trading is freedom to defend yourself for a greater level of danger that society will beat you to death with a table leg. "An armed society is a polite society." You tilt the playing field toward brute force and disadvantage women and the elderly as they cannot fight back physically.

You are giving up freedom for the illusion of security.

My constitutional right is to keep and bear arms as stated in the bill of rights. It does not say anything about defending myself by any means. Grenades and such are area of attack weapons, it seems like a pretty clear line to draw. However, if you wanted to push the argument I would be more in favor of allowing all weapons rather than no weapons.

What I dont want is to give my government yet another way to track me, to make me a criminal through omission or ignorance, and possibly later down the line make me a target of either my government or someone else due to my weapons or lack thereof.

 

[beardo]

And here we go with the "murder" thing. Abortion is not murder as murder is the illegal taking of a human life. My comparison is quite valid.

What you seem to be willing to do is remove the rights of the mother do do as she wishes with her own body in the interest of preserving the life of the child.

Now how is that so different than my wanting to remove your weapons from you in the interest of preserving the life of someone who otherwise might be shot on her school ground.

Maybe she shouldn't get pregnant if she doesn't want t
r if she doesn't want the baby she should have the right to kill herself once the baby is born.
Why should she or a doctor be allowed to take the life of another.
It is murdered, because if not murdered the fetus will be someone
what gives someone the right to take the life of another other? Maybe if someone is trying to harm you you have the right to use lethal force, that's about it.

 

[canndo]

Dude I totally agree. Seems to me that Mr. Obama is taking this time to promote himself more while trying to change the 2nd amendment. What crap. How many people are killed by assault weapons during the course of a year. Very little. That goes for high round mags as well. What the hell does that have to do with someones mental condition? They are going to create a larger black market for the weapons in the pretense of doing good, what garbage. What happened to all the arms that the u.s government lost in mexico? Look at all the people who never had a gun that are now running to buy one. Hence more guns out there. Now that a new black market MAY be created it gives the frick n law another reason to hassle the public. And what about the street wise criminal element how is this banning gonna stop them. It won't. Hell you can buy part's for an assault weapon and make your own and according to the law a weapon like that does not have to be registered. All of that serial number stuff is for retail and tracking purposes, just in case someone goes ballistic. They can say o here's the guy he just bought this gun at walmart...I hope the NRA burns Obama a new one..

How, exactly do you figure that Obama is "trying to change the 2nd Amendment"?

And I think you will see that the NRA's intransigence and unwillingness to join in attempts to slow this sort of trend will reveal them for what they are - a master lobbying object for the arms industry. This battle will cost them dearly and afford Obama even more political power.

 

[kelly4]

Once they abolish the 2nd...they will start working on the 1st.