universal background checks are a common sense solution to gun violence - how is this not true?

[little2add]

It's not the availability of guns it's the depraved indifference to our fellow man  that kills 

blaming guns is sort of like blaming a car for a  fatal accident caused by a drunk driver

[Socrates]

1) You cannot purchase a gun in the US without a background check.

2) Any laws that prevent a US citizen from their RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS is unconstitutional.

3) The guns used in Chicago or LA are not coming from gun friendly states, but are purchased via the black market. Guns, as well as bullets, are traceable.

4) There is no law, no regulation, nothing that can stop a person from committing a crime. 

This is a tired conversation. It matters not what stats are provided that show where crime happens (illegal gun control) and where it doesn't. This is simply part of the checklist of the anti-American who needs to cross of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, etc. 

The Federal government does not provide rights, it is restricted by this very Constitution. Unfortunately, Democrats and progressive Republicans seem to ignore that.

You do not have a right to protection from the government.

The government cannot magically bring you or your loved ones back to life after you have been shot by a criminal.

The government does not protect your property.

The government does not do anything but take your money and your liberty, if you so choose.

Please, St. Mike.  Didn't you get the memo?

Everyone knows the U.S. Constitution is nothing but an old piece of paper that a bunch of Dead White Guys scribbled on a long time ago to Oppress the Masses or something, and has absolutely no relevance to the modern, progressive People's Democratic Republic of Amerika and its governance.

We need to simply trust our Betters in Washington, D.C. to always know what is best for us lowly subjects, and keep dangerous toys out of our reach.

 

[Winchester]

I like watching the Republicans and Democrats switch sides on central planning as the topics change from gun control to drugs to immigration. I think it's just grand.

[Anomaly]

I like watching the Republicans and Democrats switch sides on central planning as the topics change from gun control to drugs to immigration. I think it's just grand.

Like listening to an anti-government blowhard rail about the fundamental illegitimacy of "government" while cashing his government paycheck for years or having a bird teaching fish about swimming.

Strictly for entertainment if you've already watched your sitcom and your sock drawer is neat.  

[Winchester]

Like listening to an anti-government blowhard rail about the fundamental illegitimacy of "government" while cashing his government paycheck for years or having a bird teaching fish about swimming.

Strictly for entertainment if you've already watched your sitcom and your sock drawer is neat.  

"Anti-State blowhard" is the term I prefer.

 

[dairygirl4u2c]

i changed my position as i read more on the subject of gun rights. it'd be interesting to see some people here willing to change their stance. my legal arguments on the second amendment seem like pretty iron clad logic. 

it'd also be interesting to see the most ardent gun supporters answer this.... how many lives are you willing to let die in the name of gun rights before you consider so much gun rights as not the greatest idea?

 

it'd

Edited October 23, 2015 by dairygirl4u2c

[Nihil Obstat]

my legal arguments on the second amendment seem like pretty iron clad logic. 

You make a lot of claims that end with "I am obviously right on this, there is literally no other possible answer." If that were true, one would think you would have a bit more success in convincing people of your positions. 

[Peace]

2) Any laws that prevent a US citizen from their RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS is unconstitutional.

What about laws that prevent convicted criminals from buying guns? They are still citizens are they not? The right to bear arms is not an absolute right, of course.

3) The guns used in Chicago or LA are not coming from gun friendly states, but are purchased via the black market. Guns, as well as bullets, are traceable.

I'd be willing to bet that at least a few come from gun friendly states as well.

4) There is no law, no regulation, nothing that can stop a person from committing a crime. 

But laws and regulations can drastically reduce the amount of crime.

The Federal government does not provide rights, it is restricted by this very Constitution.

But the Federal Government can sometimes be the only means by which a person can exercise her rights. Just ask the Little Rock Nine.

[Winchester]

What about laws that prevent convicted criminals from buying guns? They are still citizens are they not? The right to bear arms is not an absolute right, of course.

Such laws, at the federal level, are unconstitutional.

 

Could you show me where else in the constitution the right of the people to keep and bear arms is addressed? In the second amendment, there's no mention of the right not being absolute, so you must be getting this description from elsewhere in the document.

[Peace]

Such laws, at the federal level, are unconstitutional.

Maybe. I don't think that issue has been decided. Besides, the O/P wrote any laws, he did not write any federal laws, so I don't quite see the relevance. What is it?

Could you show me where else in the constitution the right of the people to keep and bear arms is addressed? In the second amendment, there's no mention of the right not being absolute, so you must be getting this description from elsewhere in the document.

We were not discussing the right of the people to keep and bear arms. We were discussing the right of an individual US citizen to keep and bear arms. And you are right - my conclusion on that matter comes from outside of the document, as it must.

You think that a convicted rapist, bank robber, or kidnapper should be allowed to buy a gun when he gets out of jail? I do not.

Edited October 24, 2015 by Peace

[little2add]

I have no problem with a universal background check and or drug testing.   As a matter of fact I think it should be used to get a library card or using public transportation.  They are a lot of sickos in our society, the prisons are full of rapist and murderer's and lowlife cretins.  There's nothing wrong with keeping them people away from law abiding citizens, especially from children.

Drug testing and criminal background checks are commonplace in today's working environment and I gladly have submitted to such testing to be employed.

Have at it

[Winchester]

Maybe. I don't think that issue has been decided. Besides, the O/P wrote any laws, he did not write any federal laws, so I don't quite see the relevance. What is it?

We were not discussing the right of the people to keep and bear arms. We were discussing the right of an individual US citizen to keep and bear arms. And you are right - my conclusion on that matter comes from outside of the document, as it must.

You think that a convicted rapist, bank robber, or kidnapper should be allowed to buy a gun when he gets out of jail? I do not.

Go read the primary sources. Certainly the feds haven't "decided", since their decisions are a mess of opinions, mostly based on secondary and tertiary sources. They are muddled, contradictory, and often downright dishonest. The states aren't much better, since they have subscribed to the myth that the US are a nation with a national government of unlimited powers.

 

Citizenship isn't an issue in this. You are not granted free speech by the constitution. You are not granted the right to keep and bear arms. You have those rights (among others) prior to the constitution. It isn't dependent upon your US citizenship.

That isn't the issue. The issue is whether the feds have an enumerated power to abridge the right of the people to keep and bear arms. I've read the constitution. There is no such enumerated power. That leaves the power in the states or to the people themselves.

I can narrow your search for you. Article I, Section 8. Look there. Show me the enumerated power. If it exists, it will be there.

Edited October 25, 2015 by Winchester

[Socrates]

 

It's indeed ironic how a lot of the same bleedin' hearts who claim their deep concern for protecting human life leads them to support banning or all kinds of restrictions on gun ownership, also oppose pretty much any and all legal restrictions on killing unborn babies.

(Oh, but that's because, unlike the right to keep and bear arms, killing babies is an inalienable constitutional right!   I mean, it's all somewhere in the emanations of the penumbra . . . or something . . . Just trust the Men in Black!)

[Socrates]

Maybe. I don't think that issue has been decided. Besides, the O/P wrote any laws, he did not write any federal laws, so I don't quite see the relevance. What is it?

We were not discussing the right of the people to keep and bear arms. We were discussing the right of an individual US citizen to keep and bear arms. And you are right - my conclusion on that matter comes from outside of the document, as it must.

You think that a convicted rapist, bank robber, or kidnapper should be allowed to buy a gun when he gets out of jail? I do not.

What would decide the issue in your opinion?  Apparently, you don't accept the Supreme Court's latest rulings on the issue, though that seems to "decide" the issue on other matters for you, at least where the Court's majority opinion agrees with your own.

Do you regard the words written in the Constitution as having any actual objective meaning outside the whims of the SCOTUS justices?

And if individual U.S. citizens do not have the right to keep and bear arms, who does?  Only those whom the government chooses to deem worthy?

[Peace]

Go read the primary sources.

 Please be more precise. What documents would you like me to read? What specific question is it that you want me answer?

Citizenship isn't an issue in this.

When you say "this" - what exactly are you referring to? This is what the St. Michael wrote: "Any laws that prevent a US citizen from their RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS is unconstitutional." That is what I responded to.

You are not granted free speech by the constitution. You are not granted the right to keep and bear arms. You have those rights (among others) prior to the constitution. It isn't dependent upon your US citizenship.

 I never said that those rights were granted by the constitution. Those are natural rights. The question I put to St. Michael was - are those rights absolute, or can they be limited?

You cannot walk into a crowded movie theater and shout "FIRE!" And a convicted rapist cannot buy a gun when he gets out of jail. That is just basic common sense, is it not?

That isn't the issue. The issue is whether the feds have an enumerated power to abridge the right of the people to keep and bear arms. I've read the constitution. There is no such enumerated power. That leaves the power in the states or to the people themselves.

That might be the issue as far as you are concerned. It was not the issue that I was attempting to with St. Michael, before you decided to inject yourself into the conversation. St. Michael wrote "Any laws that prevent a US citizen from their RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS is unconstitutional." "Any laws" is not limited to federal laws. "Any laws" includes both federal laws and state laws.

It is possible that someone can write something in the forum without intending to refute or support the specific assertion that you were attempting to make.

I can narrow your search for you. Article I, Section 8. Look there. Show me the enumerated power. If it exists, it will be there.

What search are you referring to? I do not recall having agreed to conduct any search. Nor do I know what search it is that you desire for me to conduct. And again - the issue that I was attempting to discuss with St. Michael is not the same issue that you appear to desire to discuss here (whether or not the Federal Government has a right limit the right to bear arms).