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

[Peace]

What would decide the issue in your opinion?  

Let's clarify the issue first. The issue was whether a federal law that prevented a convicted rapist, bank robber, or kidnapper from buying a gun would be unconstitutional. Are we on the same page?

I am not sure what would decide that issue for me. If the question were specifically put to the Supreme Court and it issued an opinion on the matter that was sound, that would likely decide the issue for me, unless I had a strong reason to believe otherwise.

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.

Exactly what are you basing that conclusion on? I assume that you are talking about this case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

What exactly is it in that opinion that you believe I disagree with? And how did you draw that conclusion? Was it a knee-jerk reaction on your part?

I believe that individual people have a right to own guns. I will probably buy a gun myself when I buy a house.

But I believe that right is not an unlimited right. For example, a state law may prohibit a convicted rapist or kidnapper from buying a gun. Both of those things are stated in the SC case cited above. So I am not sure what it is what you think I disagree with.

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

Yes.

I also believe that men and women who have devoted 20+ years to studying it are generally more likely to interpret it correctly than a random person on the internet named Socrates.

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?

Again - I am not sure why you seem to have concluded that I believe that individual U.S. citizens do not have a right to own guns. But I will state it again for you:

I, Peace, a member of Phatmass, do hereby on October 25, 2015, solemnly declare that individual U.S. citizens have a right to keep and bear arms.

[Winchester]

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

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.

 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 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.

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).

Then don't.

[Peace]

Then don't.

Then don't what? Sorry buddy. I cannot read your mind. . .

[Winchester]

Then don't what? Sorry buddy. I cannot read

fxd

[Peace]

fxd

Those are the sorts of insults that immature people resort to when they have lost an argument or have nothing of substance to say.

[Winchester]

Those are the sorts of insults that immature people resort to when they have lost an argument or have nothing of substance to say.

I'm perfectly okay with that.

[Peace]

I'm perfectly okay with that.

I bet you are.

[Socrates]

Let's clarify the issue first. The issue was whether a federal law that prevented a convicted rapist, bank robber, or kidnapper from buying a gun would be unconstitutional. Are we on the same page?

I am not sure what would decide that issue for me. If the question were specifically put to the Supreme Court and it issued an opinion on the matter that was sound, that would likely decide the issue for me, unless I had a strong reason to believe otherwise.

Exactly what are you basing that conclusion on? I assume that you are talking about this case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

What exactly is it in that opinion that you believe I disagree with? And how did you draw that conclusion? Was it a knee-jerk reaction on your part?

I believe that individual people have a right to own guns. I will probably buy a gun myself when I buy a house.

But I believe that right is not an unlimited right. For example, a state law may prohibit a convicted rapist or kidnapper from buying a gun. Both of those things are stated in the SC case cited above. So I am not sure what it is what you think I disagree with.

 

 

My mistake. I thought you were arguing more generally about an individual right vs. a "collective right" to keep and bear arms.  (I hadn't carefully followed the thread far back enough.  That was sloppy of me.  I apologize.)

However, from a constitutional perspective, I think Winchester is correct regarding the federal government and limited and enumerated powers.  And, yes, I'm also aware that the government, including federal courts, has long ago abandoned that principle in practice.  

Personally, I have no problem with states punitively depriving convicted murderers and rapists of the right to buy guns (just as they, by their crimes forfeit other legitimate rights and freedoms).  But, constitutionally, the power to make such laws belongs to the states, rather than to the federal government.

 

Yes.

I also believe that men and women who have devoted 20+ years to studying it are generally more likely to interpret it correctly than a random person on the internet named Socrates.

An appeal to authority non-argument.  I base my claims on the research of those who have spent far more time studying these matters than either you or I.

And it doesn't take 20 years of law school to realize that there are plenty of folks with long legal careers --yes, including SCOTUS justices-- who don't in reality give a rat's rear end about the actual meaning of the constitution or the framers' original intent, but only about using their position of power to twist the law to advance their own political ideology.

 

Again - I am not sure why you seem to have concluded that I believe that individual U.S. citizens do not have a right to own guns. But I will state it again for you:

I, Peace, a member of Phatmass, do hereby on October 25, 2015, solemnly declare that individual U.S. citizens have a right to keep and bear arms.

Groovy.

[Winchester]

I bet you are.

Unfortunately for you, dus+ shut down the PM betting page about eight years ago.

[StMichael]

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.

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

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

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

The right to bear arms is an absolute right. 

Bet all you want, show me the facts. 

How are laws and regulations working in LA & Chicago?

Actually, local government would be best, not central government. The over reach by the Federal government is insane. Obama just gave his speech this past weekend on having schools limit tests to 2% of the school time. This is not how the Federal government is to function.

[Peace]

The right to bear arms is an absolute right. 

OK. So then you believe that any form of background checks should be prohibited, and you believe that rapists, kidnappers, and bank-robbers should be allowed to purchase guns when they get out of jail? This is what it means if the right to bear arms is an absolute right. Are you OK with that?

Bet all you want, show me the facts. 

OK. When I have nothing better to do than find facts to support the obvious - I will post them in this thread. Please don't hold your breath.

How are laws and regulations working in LA & Chicago?

I do not know. I have not conducted research on them.

Actually, local government would be best, not central government.

No arguments with you here - as a general principle.

The over reach by the Federal government is insane. Obama just gave his speech this past weekend on having schools limit tests to 2% of the school time. This is not how the Federal government is to function.

Does this have anything to do with gun control? If you could explain the connection it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

[StMichael]

OK. So then you believe that any form of background checks should be prohibited, and you believe that rapists, kidnappers, and bank-robbers should be allowed to purchase guns when they get out of jail? This is what it means if the right to bear arms is an absolute right. Are you OK with that?

OK. When I have nothing better to do than find facts to support the obvious - I will post them in this thread. Please don't hold your breath.

I do not know. I have not conducted research on them.

No arguments with you here - as a general principle.

Does this have anything to do with gun control? If you could explain the connection it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

1) Each state sets out its own laws. If you have been extracted from society for preying on society, you lose many rights, including freedom, so this does not play into the conversation whatsoever.

2) If you only have time to bloviate based on nothing, then we can move on. 

3) I have and I have posted links on this board. 

4) Actually, that is the law of the land (US). Not a theory. Not a general principle.

5) Certainly, the Federal Government, including the President CANNOT seize power that was not specifically granted it. The Constitution leaves the schooling of our children to the States. So, this is highlighting the unconstitutional behavior of the Federal Government.

The ONLY way for this absolute right to be removed is via the amendment process. Anything else is unconstitutional as these rights are not to be infringed upon by the Federal Government.

[Peace]

1) Each state sets out its own laws. If you have been extracted from society for preying on society, you lose many rights, including freedom, so this does not play into the conversation whatsoever.

So then you agree that a state government may pass a law that may limit gun ownership. We agree.

2) If you only have time to bloviate based on nothing, then we can move on. 

Do you honestly believe that not a singe weapon used in a crime in Chicago or LA came from a "gun-friendly" state? Please be reasonable.

3) I have and I have posted links on this board. 

You have done research concerning the effectiveness of gun laws in LA and Chicago? Where would that be exactly? The only information I saw that you posted was "353 have been shot & killed in 2015." on the first page of this thread. That is not research. Research, for example, might be where you compare the number of homicides before a specific gun law is passed and after the gun law is passed. Posting that XYZ number of people were killed in Chicago in any given year does not tell us anything about the effect that gun laws in that state have had. The number could have been 1000 without the gun laws, for all you know.

4) Actually, that is the law of the land (US). Not a theory. Not a general principle.

Exactly where is it written that "local government would be best, not central government." in the "law of the land"? I do not recall having seen that written in any state/Federal constitutions or laws. How about the US military? That is as Federal as it gets. Shall we get rid of the US Military and have each state provide for its own defense?

5) Certainly, the Federal Government, including the President CANNOT seize power that was not specifically granted it. The Constitution leaves the schooling of our children to the States. So, this is highlighting the unconstitutional behavior of the Federal Government.

The ONLY way for this absolute right to be removed is via the amendment process. Anything else is unconstitutional as these rights are not to be infringed upon by the Federal Government.

Well of course. But what does that have to do with gun control? The vast majority of gun control laws are laws that are enacted by the states, not the Federal Government.

[dairygirl4u2c]

"Do you honestly believe that not a singe weapon used in a crime in Chicago or LA came from a "gun-friendly" state? Please be reasonable."

half of the guns in chicago come from gun friendly states. that's a fact. the chicago police chief wants at least universal background checks to help curb the problem of so many guns. 

i know you guys are on a tangent, but to clarify my stance. 'the people' have a right to be in the militia. that's what i think the second amendment provides. because "bear arms" has military connotations as courts have found, such as that state supreme court in the opening post..... even hunters don't bear arms when they hunt. 
this way of looking at it gives emphasis to everyone having a right as "the people" argument is said to infer by modern day conservatives.... but it grants a different right than they'd give, the right to milita membership v the right to a gun period. 

[Peace]

half of the guns in chicago come from gun friendly states. that's a fact. the chicago police chief wants at least universal background checks to help curb the problem of so many guns. 

Well. Apparently 50% come from outside the state. Those would include "gun-friendly" states and non "gun-friendly" states. From the map it appears that a good chunk of those are coming from states like Indiana, KY, TN, ARK, TENN, MISS, ALA, GA, TX, so I think the point is proven well enough.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/29/us/where-50000-guns-in-chicago-came-from.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/us/strict-chicago-gun-laws-cant-stem-fatal-shots.html

Edited November 7, 2015 by Peace