And yet another Unconstitutional Push against the 2nd Amendment

reply to post by NavyDoc


and those words in the text of the bill of rights?

or they are there due to an interpretation of the courts?

reply to post by rickm


So, I have stated I want laws done away with, because I support the 2nd?
Clueless. truly clueless.

reply to post by rickm

So, there are no laws governing private sales in your home state????

Now I know you have been trolling this thread, but now you are just flat out lying.

Every state has laws revolving around private gun sales.

reply to post by rickm


So, have the laws worked for drugs? Very simple question really.

I bet you will avoid answering this as well.

reply to post by Galvatron


crimepreventionresearchcenter.org...

Need I say more???

reply to post by NavyDoc


Ah, but are we looking at double punishment once the debt is paid to society, in the form of incarceration/fines or what have you?

Should a person, that served their time and paid their debt, not return back to full status once said punishment is completed.

rickm
and i call it ignorance for anyone to quote the 2nd amendment verbatim and yet then say it's ok to keep felons and mentally unbalanced from owning guns. they don't see that they are saying it's ok for some limitations but not others.

I think when a 'felon' is released from prison ... it's because s/he is 'square with the house.' I truly believe holding the past over someone's head is simply a course of action we're familiar with and perpetuate. If one believed a 'felon' was going to continue his/her life of crime ... well ... maybe that person should simply remain behind bars, unless they agree to comply with a conditional release.

People who are mentally ill, by their very nature, do not fit into society. We should not expect societal norms to be adjusted to accommodate special interests. That, by its very nature, goes against sanity (I don't care what any do-gooder thinks). Until society speaks as one, we are stuck with the mentally ill ... and we are at risk. That is just another 'round in the magazine' for why I feel the need to be armed.

Just my opinions ... and I am sure many would find reason to disagree. Our laws are nowhere near perfect. One thing I've come to know about myself, and that is I am not even smart enough to propose a law. I am smart enough to be VERY concerned when ideologies are used in attempts to influence our Constitution.

rickm
not everyone is mature enough to handle the destructive nature of a gun.

The above statement is the "most" appropriate one you made in-thread. Allow me to add that age is in no way a determining factor of maturity. Allow me to add that maturity itself is not enough to properly conduct oneself with a firearm (think Dick Cheney), but it's a decent start.

I appreciate your exchange here with Galvatron (I have a great deal of respect for that young man). I have been well-armed for over 40 years and yet I have nowhere near his capacity for dialogue on this subject, and every time he posts on ATS, I learn a little more.

macman
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Ah, but are we looking at double punishment once the debt is paid to society, in the form of incarceration/fines or what have you?

Should a person, that served their time and paid their debt, not return back to full status once said punishment is completed.

That's a valid point. If one is released, then one can make the argument that they should be integrated back into society with all of their rights intact. If they are not trustworthy to release with all of their rights, they shouldn't be released at all.

reply to post by macman


100% success? no
but they have vastly slowed down the flow of drugs.

rickm
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

and those words in the text of the bill of rights?

or they are there due to an interpretation of the courts?

LOL. Okay. Take a step back and think logically. If the law states that nothing shall be removed without due process, a part of that statement is the implication that those things can be removed WITH due process.

reply to post by macman


there are
but they are so lax and full of loopholes anyone can easily get a gun with no problem what so ever.

reply to post by macman


that is partially my point.
no where in the bill of rights does it state prisoners lose their rights.

but then again, with the recidivism rate, why take chances?

reply to post by NavyDoc


so now you are inserting words in the bill of rights?

my entire point is the constitution and the bill of rights are very vague and much interpretation by courts are needed.

and that interpretation all depends on who the judges are.

rickm
reply to post by Galvatron

 

and that is a moot point.
i have never said firearms should be made illegal.

i have stated numerous times that they should be made harder to get.
unlike him, who wants them easier to get with no limitations on who gets them

Harder to get? How? Through legislation against a constitutional guarantee? Why make them harder to get when they are quite easy to get in places with the strictest local legislation? Like the knucklehead news anchor who held an illegal magazine on his show. How did he get it? Why make them harder to get when, as already explained, the incidents at sandy hook and aurora theaters were, from a statistics point of view, a drop in the bucket?

People are having their reason hijacked by the exploitation of their feelings. There is scant evidence in the US that restricting legal access to firearms does anything. The correlation is very very weak. The Newtown and Aurora incidents give almost no weight to any of the major statistical trends involving gun crime. As stated before, again, there are much much much bigger drivers of gun crime than accessibility. The top three are diversity demographics, IQ demographics, and economic demographics. Those three are so strongly correlated with violent crime that you can use them to accurately predict gun crime in countries with outright firearm bans.

So you accept that guns are already easy to get. How on earth would legislation prevent this? Why are you willing to legislate against one guarantee and keep the others intact unmolested?

rickm
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

so now you are inserting words in the bill of rights?

my entire point is the constitution and the bill of rights are very vague and much interpretation by courts are needed.

and that interpretation all depends on who the judges are.

No, they are not vague. They are very plain and well described by those who wrote them.

intrepid

burdman30ott6
reply to post by macman

 

Shorthand of new law:
1. Requires background check approval before you can build your own firearm, then registers home-manufactured firearm.
2. Requires background check approval for private 'P2P' firearm sales/transfers, then registers firearm to new owner.

And why should that be a problem?

Because it's unenforceable without widespread, constant spying. How does the government know one person is selling a firearm to another person in their living room? How will they detect those who do not conduct a background check for this type of transaction?

reply to post by Galvatron


a drop in the bucket? so you could care less about stopping those events?

there are many studies that show the more legaly guns, the more murders.

www.deepdyve.com...

www.hsph.harvard.edu...

40% of people who are in prison used guns to commit their crime.

www.bjs.gov...

a large number of federal gun dealers will sell to people who can't pass current background checks.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

and if those sellers are punished and lose their federal license, those guns are then considered private sales and they can sell to whomever they wish.

and mentally ill are still purchasing guns easily from licensed dealers.

online.wsj.com...

reply to post by NavyDoc


really? so it says in the bill of rights that mentally unstable people can't have guns? or that mentally unstable people do not have the same rights as everyone else?
it says a 10 year old can't go buy a pistol on his own?

it says all of that in the bill of rights?

where?

reply to post by intrepid


With the feds constantly redefining what a mental issue is to be able to own a weapon this is a major problem as I see it. I read an article a few days ago that said they consider ADHD a disqualifying condition. What a load of BS!!

reply to post by Christian Voice


i would like to see that article.