The Democrat’s Folly with Gun Control

[MongGrel]

I personally believe that Democrats should not be allowed to own guns since most mass murderers are Democrats.

I don't imagine any Democrats would oppose codifying this into law since they don;t like guns anyway.

Well, nothing you say usually makes sense anyway 🙂

 

[Bart*Simpson]

A car must be registered

A car does not have to be registered if you don't plan on having it leave your property. Off-road vehicles do not have to be registered, either.

 

[Bart*Simpson]

Well, nothing you say usually makes sense anyway, so who cares really 🙂

 

[sandorski]

You know it's trivial to go out and see what the authors of the Constitution meant with the 2nd amendment.

Once you educate yourself on their writings, you simply cannot get any cleared on what was meant.

Saying that it's debatable is really just saying you're either ignorant, or willfully playing ignorant.


"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788


"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824


“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

It was based upon the failed hypothesis that a Militia was sufficient to defend the Nation and States. The War of 1812 rendered that whole notion false.

 

[ivwshane]

A car does not have to be registered if you don't plan on having it leave your property. Off-road vehicles do not have to be registered, either.

Actually it's dependent on the state.

 

[Artdeco]

Actually it's dependent on the state.

Which state requires taxes and tags if it's only on your property?

 

[Fenixgoon]

No. A car must be registered the same with land.
This is the second dumbest argument I've heard from a gun Nutter.

you completely missed what i said.

also, vehicles not operated on public roads *generally* do not have to be registered.

i wouldn't call myself a gun nutter, but i definitely like my rights. why attempt to turn me into a criminal with silly laws that won't do anything to lower the homicide rate?

again, if an exemption for private sales is written into the law by design, that is not a loophole. and that's currently how federal firearms are.

 

[shady28]

It was based upon the failed hypothesis that a Militia was sufficient to defend the Nation and States. The War of 1812 rendered that whole notion false.

You got a link to that stupid self-serving idea there, Sparky.

How about you check the date on one of those quotes - plenty more where that comes from too.

"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution."
Thomas Jefferson

 

[ivwshane]

you completely missed what i said.

also, vehicles not operated on public roads *generally* do not have to be registered.

i wouldn't call myself a gun nutter, but i definitely like my rights. why attempt to turn me into a criminal with silly laws that won't do anything to lower the homicide rate?

again, if an exemption for private sales is written into the law by design, that is not a loophole. and that's currently how federal firearms are.

That by definition is a loophole. Can you explain why, when you buy a gun from a dealer, a background check is required but when you buy that same gun via a private sale no background check is needed? Are people who buy guns from dealers more likely to be the "wrong kind" of person? Its a loophole in that it negates the effectiveness of a law.

It's basic fucking English, which, I know, already puts gun nutters at a disadvantage, so look it up in a the dictionary.

As to cars generally not having to be registered if they aren't driven on public roads (which is bullshit), let's assume your premise is true. Then you should be totally fine with people not being able to transport guns anywhere outside of their property, no open carry, no concealed carry. Are you good with that?

As to your other bullshit point about turning you into a criminal. I don't even understand your twisted logic on this one. Requiring background checks for every exchange of guns doesn't make you a criminal no more than having to register your car makes you a criminal.

 

[ivwshane]

Which state requires taxes and tags if it's only on your property?

How about you tell me which states don't. California and Georgia do. Now you can name two that don't.

 

[AMCRambler]

Tired of liberals trying to give up our rights. When they're gone they're gone for good. There's no getting them back. This is why I have to get molested to board an airplane and why kids ride in car seats till they're 10. So that you pantywaists can have the illusion of safety. News flash, life is not safe. You are far more likely to get hit by a car or die from heart disease than you are to get shot by a nut job with a gun.

You live in what you think is a civilized society but it is a thin strip of civilization that can crumble so quickly. It should scare the crap out of you that in reality we're a stock market crash and a couple months of food shortage away from total chaos. Look at Venezuela and take notes. When the government folds up and the police aren't there to protect you, you'll be wishing you hadn't given away the best personal protection device ever invented. When the looters come to take your food and kill your ass to get it, remember your stupidity and lament.

 

[ivwshane]

Tired of liberals trying to give up our rights. When they're gone they're gone for good. There's no getting them back. This is why I have to get molested to board an airplane and why kids ride in car seats till they're 10. So that you pantywaists can have the illusion of safety. News flash, life is not safe. You are far more likely to get hit by a car or die from heart disease than you are to get shot by a nut job with a gun.

You live in what you think is a civilized society but it is a thin strip of civilization that can crumble so quickly. It should scare the crap out of you that in reality we're a stock market crash and a couple months of food shortage away from total chaos. Look at Venezuela and take notes. When the government folds up and the police aren't there to protect you, you'll be wishing you hadn't given away the best personal protection device ever invented. When the looters come to take your food and kill your ass to get it, remember your stupidity and lament.

So liberals shouldn't be scared because... reality but they should get guns because.... fantasy?

Lol

 

[Zaap]

Personally, as you may have read in other threads, I think the Second Amendment requires a literal translation and allows only people in militias to carry guns, presumably government approved militias like the separate state militias that existed at the time. Feel free to fight me on this, but I’ve heard it all.

LOL. Whatever it is you heard, you didn't actually understand, or it was before 6 years ago, as this has been decided. Hint: gun-grabber side lost!

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

"District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states..."


Oh, and:

The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed.

As for the states? Not to worry....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago

"McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states."


😛

 

[adairusmc]

There are no sales that occur at gun shows that couldn't be done in your local police dept lobby, supervised by a law officer.

Every sale by a dealer is subject to a background check, I live in Colorado, and every sale, private or dealer is subject to a background check.

The states that allow private sales can write laws like Colorado did, or if Obama had any balls, he'd do it by EO.

It's not a loophole, those states have decided, as well as the federal government that it's 100% legal.

It's just some BS term that's been made up that sounds terrible.

You tell me, are there sales in those states not prohibiting private sales outside of gun shows?

Since its legal, and I know of quite a few people that do sell guns in a Police Dept lobby or parking lot, let's call it a "police dept lobby loophole for scary black guns that may in fact be pink"

Our state passed a law last summer that required background checks for all private sales. However, since we have an awesome county sheriff here, he has forbidden his deputies from enforcing the law, so we just continue to sell and trade away on our local facebook group. I love our sheriff, 1-3 day turnarounds for concealed carry permits too.

 

[ivwshane]

LOL. Whatever it is you heard, you didn't actually understand, or it was before 6 years ago, as this has been decided. Hint: gun-grabber side lost!

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

"District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states..."


Oh, and:

The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed.

As for the states? Not to worry....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago

"McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states."

😛

As I'm sure you are well aware, before Heller, there was 100+ years of precedent that viewed the 2nd as a collective right and not an individual right. So, while you may be happy now, that ruling is one judge away from overturning both those unprecedented precedents. And since gun nuts are hell bent on blocking any potential solutions to a problem the public sees as a serious issue, instead of getting reasonable solutions they will get exactly what they don't want.

 

[Kwatt]

That by definition is a loophole. Can you explain why, when you buy a gun from a dealer, a background check is required but when you buy that same gun via a private sale no background check is needed? Are people who buy guns from dealers more likely to be the "wrong kind" of person? Its a loophole in that it negates the effectiveness of a law.

When you buy from a dealer you are buying from someone with a federal license. When you buy from a individual within the same state. It is up to the state to require a background check. Federal law applies to interstate sales and the manufacture of firearms.

I live close to the GA/SC state line. When a firearm is listed for sale in the classified adds they always specify which state ID is needed before proceeding with the sale.

If someone sells to another person from a different state they are in violation. Unless they have a FFL.

.

 

[ivwshane]

When you buy from a dealer you are buying from someone with a federal license. When you buy from a individual within the same state. It is up to the state to require a background check. Federal law applies to interstate sales and the manufacture of firearms.

I live close to the GA/SC state line. When a firearm is listed for sale in the classified adds they always specify which state ID is needed before proceeding with the sale.

If someone sells to another person from a different state they are in violation. Unless they have a FFL.

.

You didn't answer the question. You explained how it works, so thanks for that though.

 

[Kwatt]

As I'm sure you are well aware, before Heller, there was 100+ years of precedent that viewed the 2nd as a collective right and not an individual right. So, while you may be happy now, that ruling is one judge away from overturning both those unprecedented precedents. And since gun nuts are hell bent on blocking any potential solutions to a problem the public sees as a serious issue, instead of getting reasonable solutions they will get exactly what they don't want.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If the right is for the state militia or the right is for an individual. The shall not be infringed part would seem to remove it from federal jurisdiction....


.

 

[Kwatt]

You didn't answer the question. You explained how it works, so thanks for that though.

I answered the part I bolded. It is not within federal jurisdiction. Not all states require a background check.


.

 

[ivwshane]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If the right is for the state militia or the right is for an individual. The shall not be infringed part would seem to remove it from federal jurisdiction....


.

Here we go again. Do you understand the meaning of context? A well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. Now why would that be necessary? At the time of the amendments writing, the US had a standing army right? So if we were attacked on our homeland as opposed to attacked on the sea, surely our federal army would be there to protect us, right? No! There was no standing army, there was no way to protect the homeland! But we did have a navy!

The second amendment is not about individual rights as that fat fuck scalia perverted it to be, it was about the necessity of the state's to maintain a well regulated army in order to protect this country. It was necessary because the framers did not want a federal standing army and looking at the abuse, waste, and misuse of our current military it seems pretty fucking obvious to me why they didn't want a standing army that was controlled by the federal government.

However, if context is a foreign concept to you and you are a fat fuck who perverts the constitution and who contradicts himself from case to case, then yeah, the second amendment only means people have the right to bear arms and all that other text was simply added because...well who the fuck cares why it was added, it holds no significance to the amendment! /S

Oh and just in case you didn't know, because most supporters who hold the 2nd amendment so dear to their hearts don't know shit about anything else in the condition, we have this little gem:

Article 1 section 8 clause 1 - 8

Clause 1:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Clause 2:

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

Clause 3:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Clause 4:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Clause 5:

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Clause 6:

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

Clause 7:

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

Clause 8:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Clause 9:

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

Clause 10:

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

Clause 11:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Clause 12:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 13:

To provide and maintain a Navy;

Clause 14:

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Clause 15:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Clause 17:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

Clause 18:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

[ivwshane]

I answered the part I bolded. It is not within federal jurisdiction. Not all states require a background check.


.

Its, obvious now that reading comprehension isn't your thing so I'll try to limit what I write to just the question itself:

Why are there background checks?

 

[shady28]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If the right is for the state militia or the right is for an individual. The shall not be infringed part would seem to remove it from federal jurisdiction....


.

You'd be best advised to ignore that one. He's one of half a dozen or so here who engage in circular arguments and self-serving revisionist history.

There is no way any reasonable person who reads what the framers of the Constitution said on the 2nd amendment, can come to the conclusion that the Federal government has any power whatsoever to regulate firearms.

Originally the states did - ie "Congress shall pass no law" originally meant the Federal Congress. SCOTUS started applying federal power limitations to states about 100 years ago though. Double edged sword. Now states should not have that power either, by giving states that power SCOTUS is horribly inconsistent.

That aspect aside, the purpose and meaning of the 2nd is laid out clearly in many writings and letters from the founding fathers.

 

[Tombstone1881]

 

[Artdeco]

You'd be best advised to ignore that one. He's one of half a dozen or so here who engage in circular arguments and self-serving revisionist history.

There is no way any reasonable person who reads what the framers of the Constitution said on the 2nd amendment, can come to the conclusion that the Federal government has any power whatsoever to regulate firearms.

Originally the states did - ie "Congress shall pass no law" originally meant the Federal Congress. SCOTUS started applying federal power limitations to states about 100 years ago though. Double edged sword. Now states should not have that power either, by giving states that power SCOTUS is horribly inconsistent.

That aspect aside, the purpose and meaning of the 2nd is laid out clearly in many writings and letters from the founding fathers.

But, but, you're twisting their words, if the founding fathers were gay and trapped in a nightclub and being shot at...

Oh, wait, they'd want to be able to shoot back.

The 2nd is rather clear, and the intent is clear.

 

[LegendKiller]

As I'm sure you are well aware, before Heller, there was 100+ years of precedent that viewed the 2nd as a collective right and not an individual right. So, while you may be happy now, that ruling is one judge away from overturning both those unprecedented precedents. And since gun nuts are hell bent on blocking any potential solutions to a problem the public sees as a serious issue, instead of getting reasonable solutions they will get exactly what they don't want.

Curious, which period was that?