In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
No Law Prohibiting or Abridging, Shall Not Infring
Matchshot
Member Posts: 452 ✭✭✭
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791
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.
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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.
In the context of the Constitution, phrases like "shall not be infringed," "shall make no law," and "shall not be violated" sound pretty unbendable, but the Supreme Court has ruled that some laws can, in fact, encroach on these phrases. For example, though there is freedom of speech, you cannot slander someone or shout "fire" in a crowded theater; though you can own a pistol, you cannot own a nuclear weapon.
With the right to Vote, our society has limited that right to citizens and taken it from Felons and the Mentally Ill.
My point is that throughout our history our country has infringed on the rights and freedoms and rights of people. Criminals and traitors lose their freedom or their lives and many of their rights. Aliens may be imprisoned and deported, even if here legally. Felons lose their right to vote and own fire arms.
The use NIC's checks and 4473's in of themselves do not infringe on anyones rights. The information gathered from them can be used to infringe and is used to infringe on the rights of Felons, etc.
In the Founders' time, the mentally ill were locked up, essentially forever. Today, they are not but we keep them from owning firearms. Both are infringements on their rights with cause. The same can be said for Felons.
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.
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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.
In the context of the Constitution, phrases like "shall not be infringed," "shall make no law," and "shall not be violated" sound pretty unbendable, but the Supreme Court has ruled that some laws can, in fact, encroach on these phrases. For example, though there is freedom of speech, you cannot slander someone or shout "fire" in a crowded theater; though you can own a pistol, you cannot own a nuclear weapon.
With the right to Vote, our society has limited that right to citizens and taken it from Felons and the Mentally Ill.
My point is that throughout our history our country has infringed on the rights and freedoms and rights of people. Criminals and traitors lose their freedom or their lives and many of their rights. Aliens may be imprisoned and deported, even if here legally. Felons lose their right to vote and own fire arms.
The use NIC's checks and 4473's in of themselves do not infringe on anyones rights. The information gathered from them can be used to infringe and is used to infringe on the rights of Felons, etc.
In the Founders' time, the mentally ill were locked up, essentially forever. Today, they are not but we keep them from owning firearms. Both are infringements on their rights with cause. The same can be said for Felons.
Comments
You are factually incorrect with your usage of the word infringe. Properly stated, Form 4473 does not deny the right to most Americans, but it does infringe upon that right for all Americans. The 2nd Amendment clearly states that the right shall not be infringed. At least have the decency to acknowledge that you accept infringement rather than simply attemptting to re-define the word and through that, the Constitition.
Brad Steele
You cannot compare yelling 'fire' to form 4473. The accurate comparison would be that in order to be granted the privilege to speak at all, one would have to be pre-vetted by the Government. At that point, you would then still be held liable for improper use of that privilege, just as with firearm ownership.
You are factually incorrect with your usage of the word infringe. Properly stated, Form 4473 does not deny the right to most Americans, but it does infringe upon that right for all Americans. The 2nd Amendment clearly states that the right shall not be infringed. At least have the decency to acknowledge that you accept infringement rather than simply attemptting to re-define the word and through that, the Constitition.
Requiring registration to vote does not infringe on the right to vote. Requiring a test to register does. Requiring a poll tax does. NIC's check and the 4473 do vet the gun owner in that felons and the mentally ill may not own a gun. Taking the information from the 4473 or the NICs check to come after a gun owner to take away his guns is an infringement. Do you also believe that the NIC's checks should be done away with?
And yes, I do believe that the RTKBA for felons and the mentally ill should be infringed upon. Don't you?
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
You cannot compare yelling 'fire' to form 4473. The accurate comparison would be that in order to be granted the privilege to speak at all, one would have to be pre-vetted by the Government. At that point, you would then still be held liable for improper use of that privilege, just as with firearm ownership.
You are factually incorrect with your usage of the word infringe. Properly stated, Form 4473 does not deny the right to most Americans, but it does infringe upon that right for all Americans. The 2nd Amendment clearly states that the right shall not be infringed. At least have the decency to acknowledge that you accept infringement rather than simply attemptting to re-define the word and through that, the Constitition.
Requiring registration to vote does not infringe on the right to vote. Requiring a test to register does. Requiring a poll tax does. NIC's check and the 4473 do vet the gun owner in that felons and the mentally ill may not own a gun. Taking the information from the 4473 or the NICs check to come after a gun owner to take away his guns is an infringement. Do you also believe that the NIC's checks should be done away with?
And yes, I do believe that the RTKBA for felons and the mentally ill should be infringed upon. Don't you?
Run, before the Canary * get you! They insanely believe in absolutely NO gun control laws what-so-ever. In their mind, known violent criminals, insane people, small children, illegal aliens, etc. can buy, own and carry around in public fully automatic firearms. And if and when the 2A gets repealed, they will then claim that they have a God given right to own guns. Kinda like the Taliban thinks it has an Allah given right to slaughter non-Muslims.
But don't get me wrong. I am more on the side of those poor, ignorant * than I am on the side of the gun grabbers or the anti-2A enemies. I am just not as insane as those poor *.
Run, before the Canary * get you! They insanely believe in absolutely NO gun control laws what-so-ever. In their mind, known violent criminals, insane people, small children, illegal aliens, etc. can buy, own and carry around in public fully automatic firearms. And if and when the 2A gets repealed, they will then claim that they have a God given right to own guns. Kinda like the Taliban thinks it has an Allah given right to slaughter non-Muslims.
But don't get me wrong. I am more on the side of those poor, ignorant * than I am on the side of the gun grabbers or the anti-2A enemies. I am just not as insane as those poor *.
[/quote]
I am absolutely against the gun grabbers. I do not fear them as I am, as many are, preparing for the day that they come. Living in NJ, I am all too aware of the conflict and the path down which we are traveling. This state is further down the road than many.
It is essential that if you are going to be an absolutist on the 2A then you also need to be an absolutist on the entire Bill of Rights. Is there any speech you wouldn't allow, any religious expression, any assembly you would break up?
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=343914
Run, before the Canary * get you! They insanely believe in absolutely NO gun control laws what-so-ever. In their mind, known violent criminals, insane people, small children, illegal aliens, etc. can buy, own and carry around in public fully automatic firearms. And if and when the 2A gets repealed, they will then claim that they have a God given right to own guns. Kinda like the Taliban thinks it has an Allah given right to slaughter non-Muslims.
But don't get me wrong. I am more on the side of those poor, ignorant * than I am on the side of the gun grabbers or the anti-2A enemies. I am just not as insane as those poor *.
[/quote]
I am absolutely against the gun grabbers. I do not fear them as I am, as many are, preparing for the day that they come. Living in NJ, I am all too aware of the conflict and the path down which we are traveling. This state is further down the road than many.
It is essential that if you are going to be an absolutist on the 2A then you also need to be an absolutist on the entire Bill of Rights. Is there any speech you wouldn't allow, any religious expression, any assembly you would break up?
[/quote]
You make a very good point. One I probably should have brought up long ago. And if someone were to interpert the bill rights as absolute rights, then child porn could not be outlawed. For just one unpleasent example.
Convicted felons, after serving their time and their parole, should have their rights reinstated. The mentally ill? Who are they? And how do you exactly find out ? Your next door nieghbor could be the next nut bag to go on a rampage. So how do you stop that?? That 4473 you fill out is nothing but a tracking tool to find out who you are and what you have. They disguise it as a background check to save guard the public. Fertilizer. The mentally ill you are talking about don't look or act any different than you or I. For the most part. And what mental illness should we be looking for ? What kind of history should we check? The guy who comes back from the sand with PTSD? Yeah great. The guy just gave his best only to come home and have his constitutional rights taken from him. Now that will send a good message. You get the right Doctor's to play ball and you can knock out...What? 50 thousand or so gun owners?? Well trained ones at that. What about the guy that served in Nam. Came back and had some issues so he went and got help. Everything is good now. No troubles in 40 years. But it's a matter of record. Is he mentally ill? Because he saw a shrink 40 years ago? What about the cop who retires due to job related stress? Mentally ill?
You see Tr,, thats the trick. The Government would use and will use such laws to restrict and infringe on our rights to own guns in this country.And they get this crap passed with the help of guys like you that have bought the BS that it will save lives. You think it will stop with just the really nutty guys ? No. It will get to the piont that if you and the wife saw a Marriage counseler, that will count be cause YOU had to go in for councleing. You can't look at what YOU think the law was designed for. You have to look at what THEY will use the law for. The package is allways so pretty, but you can wrap fertilizer to look nice. But it still stinks. Honestly, how many REAL Mentally disturbed people went on a mass killing spree BEFORE such laws were passed to stop them from owning a gun? Before the "cooling off" Waiting periods, exactly how many people got pissed off at their boss went down town, bought a gun,, came back to work and killed him with it? I've been around for some 50 years now and I don't recall ONE incident of that nature. Did it happen? Yeah Maybe. But not enough to support a law mandating a "cooling off" period. In fact they decided that, yeah that was pretty stupid to do that so they changed the reason to allowing enough time to do a good background check. FERTILIZER. I'm telling you man, you can not fall for the BS that they are selling, have sold and will continue to seel you. IT IS A LIE> It is NOT to save lives. It is NOT to save our children. Is IS to regulate, restrict and to infringe. It is to CONTROL. Period. But they wrap a pretty bow around it and sell it because they "care". Feritilizer.
Finally. All this crap that IF we made it legal for people toown full auto weapons they be walking down the street with them everyday. BULL FRIGGIN FERTILIZER. That the same BS that they anti gun crown has used for years,(unsuccessfully), to fight CCW laws. "Ohhhh, Ooooo, There will gun fights at the stop lights if we allow this to happen. There will be blood in the streets. Oh My God NO." Again, FERTILIZER. Doesn't happen, hasn't happed, and will not happen. But you have bought into the myth that it sure as hell will happen if we allow people to buy full auto guns. People will be walking into WallyWord with their AK's slung over their shoulder. BULL. Like the Government, you don't give the American public enough credit to be able to act responsibly with a gun. ANY gun.
Convicted felons, after serving their time and their parole, should have their rights reinstated. The mentally ill? Who are they? And how do you exactly find out ? Your next door nieghbor could be the next nut bag to go on a rampage. So how do you stop that?? That 4473 you fill out is nothing but a tracking tool to find out who you are and what you have. They disguise it as a background check to save guard the public. Fertilizer. The mentally ill you are talking about don't look or act any different than you or I. For the most part. And what mental illness should we be looking for ? What kind of history should we check? The guy who comes back from the sand with PTSD? Yeah great. The guy just gave his best only to come home and have his constitutional rights taken from him. Now that will send a good message. You get the right Doctor's to play ball and you can knock out...What? 50 thousand or so gun owners?? Well trained ones at that. What about the guy that served in Nam. Came back and had some issues so he went and got help. Everything is good now. No troubles in 40 years. But it's a matter of record. Is he mentally ill? Because he saw a shrink 40 years ago? What about the cop who retires due to job related stress? Mentally ill?
Your point about mental illness is a good one. But using the hard cases of the vets with PTSD and others while true, does not necessarily answer the question of what to do about the dangerously psychotic. Are there people who should not have the opportunity to own guns?
Convicted pedophile does his time, serves his parole, wants to go back and teach elementary school, is this OK? Can society infringe on his right to assembly if he wants to spend time around playgrounds and public parks? Can the state infringe on any first amendment right to the free expression of religious faith?
As Tr Fox said, Child Porn and its dissemination is a free speech issue, can we infringe on that first amendment right based on your absolutist belief in the 2nd?
Exactly as I expected, as we come ever nearer the ultimate grab by the government.
They are staking out their position...aiding and abeting the government.
Your point about mental illness is a good one. But using the hard cases of the vets with PTSD and others while true, does not necessarily answer the question of what to do about the dangerously psychotic. Are there people who should not have the opportunity to own guns?
Yes, those who advocate gun control.
quote:Originally posted by Matchshot
Convicted pedophile does his time, serves his parole, wants to go back and teach elementary school, is this OK? Can society infringe on his right to assembly if he wants to spend time around playgrounds and public parks?
Has nothing to do with gun control. Relevancy.
quote:Originally posted by Matchshot
Can the state infringe on any first amendment right to the free expression of religious faith?
Not it can't.
quote:Originally posted by Matchshot
As Tr Fox said, Child Porn and its dissemination is a free speech issue, can we infringe on that first amendment right based on your absolutist belief in the 2nd?
Asinine. Child porn has nothing to do with free speech.
The gun grabbers are becoming ever more ....insane with their 'rebuttals' of the facts concerning the Second Amendment.
Exactly as I expected, as we come ever nearer the ultimate grab by the government.
They are staking out their position...aiding and abeting the government.
Insults? You can do better Highball. Answer my question, are there any infringements allowed on any amendments in the Bill of Rights?
quote:Originally posted by Highball
The gun grabbers are becoming ever more ....insane with their 'rebuttals' of the facts concerning the Second Amendment.
Exactly as I expected, as we come ever nearer the ultimate grab by the government.
They are staking out their position...aiding and abeting the government.
Insults? You can do better Highball. Answer my question, are there any infringements allowed on any amendments in the Bill of Rights?
I'll answer.
There are NO infringement allowed on any amendment. BUT, and listen close, not everything IS covered UNDER the amendments. Kiddie porn, being one example. THAT was a modern "right" propped up by the ACLU, NOT covered under the first amendment.
You don't think before you speak sometimes do you?
Perhaps, down the line... AFTER you have progressed enough to understand "Shall Not Be Infringed"...We can discuss other issues.
Meanwhile, you still do not have the slightest comprehension about those four words.
Square one.
I'll answer.
There are NO infringement allowed on any amendment. BUT, and listen close, not everything IS covered UNDER the amendments. Kiddie porn, being one example. THAT was a modern "right" propped up by the ACLU, NOT covered under the first amendment.
You don't think before you speak sometimes do you?
[/quote]
So, not everything is covered under the amendments? You had better think a little before you head down that road. Machine guns weren't considered by the founders either. I believe they should be legal, for the record.
Going back to Child Porn, vile and disgusting as it is, why isn't it covered? Again, for the record, I believe society should outlaw it, but constitutionally can it?
You are indeed right.
However...I am a one note charlie. Absent the Second...all the rest are history.
A man unable to understand those four simple words is so mentally challenged as to be unthinkble...which is why I believe that gun controllers are mentally ill, not low IQ...or flat-out traitors.
, but constitutionally can it?
Does it infringe on another individuals rights?
That vicious animals need to be executed;
That children are the responsibility of parents.
He persists in coming back time after time after time and making the exact same accusations. He is unable to grasp a simple concept because of his own fears and night terrors.
He is also UNABLE to believe in and support the Constitution.
quote:Originally posted by Matchshot
, but constitutionally can it?
Does it infringe on another individuals rights?
The perv who downloaded off the internet onto his home computer didn't infringe on anyone.
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
quote:Originally posted by Matchshot
, but constitutionally can it?
Does it infringe on another individuals rights?
The perv who downloaded off the internet onto his home computer didn't infringe on anyone.
But a CHILD was endangered to PRODUCE the porn. Ergo, NOT a covered RIGHT.
The childs rights as a human WERE infringed.
AND to answer your first smart alec remark:
The time the second Amendment was written, there were only cannons and flintlocks in existance.
Did it say "arms" meaning troop served weapon, OR did it mean ONLY flintlocks?
It said arms. It means troop served weapons.
The idea of the law pornhibiting Child Porn is to stop the trafficing in same. And to prevent new victims. AS long as there is a "need" for such material...............Well you get the picture.
Just as an example...there is a poster above that has had it explained a hundred times on these forums that mentally ill people need to be kept in asylums ;
That vicious animals need to be executed;
That children are the responsibility of parents.
He persists in coming back time after time after time and making the exact same accusations. He is unable to grasp a simple concept because of his own fears and night terrors.
He is also UNABLE to believe in and support the Constitution.
Highball, hundreds of times? We have told you a million times, don't exaggerate!
Our Founders, men of intellect and honor, discussed, fought and reasoned together. Shutting down discussion with invective and insults is not in their way nor should it be in ours. Most of us who come to this forum are concerned about our rights and freedoms as they are being eroded by the state. Those who self-profess to be more ideologically pure while the rest are unworthy and mere lick spittle are like the Maoist during the Great Leap Forward who saw their countrymen die in re-education camps that sought to make them as pure as they were. Calling everyone who doesn't agree with you simple minded and/or a traitor says more about the speaker than anyone else.
But a CHILD was endangered to PRODUCE the porn. Ergo, NOT a covered RIGHT.
The childs rights as a human WERE infringed.
AND to answer your first smart alec remark:
The time the second Amendment was written, there were only cannons and flintlocks in existance.
Did it say "arms" meaning troop served weapon, OR did it mean ONLY flintlocks?
It said arms. It means troop served weapons.
[/quote]
I agree with you concerning the infringement of the child if the child could not consent. There are those, however, in this society that would tell you that a child could consent and they are fighting for it. What absolute authority says they cannot?
As to your second point, I did not mean my answer as a "smart alec" one but one that merely answered your insult that I do not think before I speak. The Beast, as Highball calls it, is scared. We are a well armed populace and, I believe there will never be the frontal assult on the RTKBA that is often talked about. We will have, instead the slow erosion of rights that we have seen for the last 75 years. The only way that we can fight them is through the structures that are in our society, courts and government. Who would have thought 20 years ago that the AW ban would come and then would die and CC laws would be in place in the majority of states.
The gun banners are in all parts of our governments. We can try to overcome them or we can sit back and wait for them to completely strip away all of our rights. First guns, then Assembly, Speech etc.
It is a pessimistic view to think that the trend we are in now cannot be reversed. And besides, we have all the guns if it can't be[:D]
if and when the 2A gets repealed, they will then claim that they have a God given right to own guns.
We do not have to wait for repeal of the 2nd to claim that. That said, I will pose this question to you again, tr, as you have failed to answer it on numerous occasions:
What will YOU do when the 2nd is repealed?
But don't get me wrong. I am more on the side of those poor, ignorant * than I am on the side of the gun grabbers or the anti-2A enemies.
No, you are not. You support the NRA, and vehemently defend their actions, even when they work in concert with Schumer, Pelosi, Feinstein, Kennedy, etc. Until you cease and desist from supporting organizations that are hell-bent on destroying liberty, and until you see the RTKBA for what it truly is, you will never be on our side.
I am just not as insane as those poor *.
That statement, that YOU made, just proved the point I made in the preceeding paragraph. You have assigned the 'insane' label to a group of individuals who espouse the beliefs of the Founders, and take the Constitution at face value.
I have more respect for the rabid ant-RTKBA advocates than I do for you. Why? Because they have more integrity. They make no bones about who they are and what they wish to accomplish. You straddle the fence. You claim to support the RTKBA, yet you side with those who attempt to undermine it. It shows a complete lack of integrity, character, and loyalty on your part.
Now, once again, back to your cage, fool.
Then I suggest that you get the Second Amendment out and re-read THAT..since you think that we should still be debating what the Second Amendment means.
Either you believe in and support that document...or you DO NOT.
If you do not...you are not my countryman.
Is that simple enough for you ?
I would suggest that before you run your mounth...you read through all the forums and tally up the number of times TRfox has made these accusations...and we have been forced rebutt them.
Then I suggest that you get the Second Amendment out and re-read THAT..since you think that we should still be debating what the Second Amendment means.
Either you believe in and support that document...or you DO NOT.
If you do not...you are not my countryman.
Is that simple enough for you ?
Highball, the discussion started with whether keeping felons and the dangerously mentally ill from owning firearms constituted infringement. No more than that. I believe this is consistent with other areas in the Bill of Rights that have seen clarification to protect society. How that makes me a traitor and not your countryman is troubling. Since there are many who do not believe exactly as you do, it must be a mighty small country you live in.
Highball, the discussion started with whether keeping felons and the dangerously mentally ill from owning firearms constituted infringement. No more than that.
Matchshot,
Therein lies the problem. 'Who' specifically will be charged with defining 'dangerously mentally ill', and what about non-violent felons?
You see, Match, this slope is steep, and slippery.
'Dangerously mentally ill' can be used with a broad brush to paint many folks as disqualified from owning firearms. Anything from a childhhod diagnosis of ADHD to a veteran with PTSD.
'Felon' also describes many. What about the folks who have been charged with possession of marijuana in quantities sufficient to warrant a felony? What about the folks who have been charged with tax evasion, or other financial crimes of a non-violent nature?
You see what I'm getting at?
originally posted by Matchshot:
Highball, the discussion started with whether keeping felons and the dangerously mentally ill from owning firearms constituted infringement. No more than that.
Matchshot,
Therein lies the problem. 'Who' specifically will be charged with defining 'dangerously mentally ill', and what about non-violent felons?
You see, Match, this slope is steep, and slippery.
'Dangerously mentally ill' can be used with a broad brush to paint many folks as disqualified from owning firearms. Anything from a childhhod diagnosis of ADHD to a veteran with PTSD.
'Felon' also describes many. What about the folks who have been charged with possession of marijuana in quantities sufficient to warrant a felony? What about the folks who have been charged with tax evasion, or other financial crimes of a non-violent nature?
You see what I'm getting at?
I do see what you are getting at and do understand the danger of the slippery slope. Most of us will never be on that slope as we have not committed a felony and had to pay a debt to society by losing our freedom in prison. Felons also lose their right to vote in most juristictions. I can't work up much sympathy for a convicted felon, non-violent or violent.
The slippery slope we are on is the one where firearms are banned by type that started with the National Firearms Act of 1934 where machine guns were banned.
So be it. I can't work up the desire to work hand in hand with other gun owners who have a perverted view of liberty, without having the urge to vomit.
The slippery slope we are on is the one where firearms are banned by type that started with the National Firearms Act of 1934 where machine guns were banned.
No, the slippery slope we are on is due to so many willingly accepting a watered down version of the RTKBA; the same ones who criticize those of us who will not compromise.
Not in a free country, you don't.
The utter moral ROT of deciding that we will punish HUNDREDS of millions of decent people because most have not the courage to demand that the guilty pay for their mis-deeds.
The utter INSANITY of those hundreds of millions of decent people going ALONG with that perverted morality totally escapes me.
CRIMINAL CONTROL...NOT weapon control.
Just goes to prove..treat people like criminals and mentally unbalanced...and they start to act like it. Witness the gunowner that supports gun control.
We really SHOUD disarm those types of people.
"Small World" ??/ Yeah..we only represent 3 % of the population.
Strong, courageous, resolute, and ABSOLUTLY believing that the Constitution is the route to freedom, yet again.
I stand proudly in the shadow of those great men, the Founders..and back to back with any man that understands and believes in it today.
Damn precious few...and every one worth a thousand Beast-lovers.
Requiring registration to vote does not infringe on the right to vote. Requiring a test to register does. Requiring a poll tax does. NIC's check and the 4473 do vet the gun owner in that felons and the mentally ill may not own a gun. Taking the information from the 4473 or the NICs check to come after a gun owner to take away his guns is an infringement. Do you also believe that the NIC's checks should be done away with?
And yes, I do believe that the RTKBA for felons and the mentally ill should be infringed upon. Don't you?
Identifying voters is necessary so as to ascertain that they are eligible to do so. You may note, that the 15th and 19th Amendments do not state 'infringe', they state 'denied or abridged'. In short, there is no Constitutional basis for your comparrison, as the privilege to vote can, in fact be infringed upon.
'Infringe' is a totally different animal, and either must be respected or amended away. In that regard, yes, I do believe that NIC's should be done away with. They serve only to inconvenience the law abiding. Example - we had a gun show recently, where perhaps half the sellers (a guess on my part) were private sellers. Amazingly, there has been no increase in violent crime, and loonies are not running through the streets shooting up the place. With the existence of private sale, the NICS system targets only those who need not be targeted, and, as pointed out in your first paragraph, provides a data base for for the tracking of firearms imperpetuity. Therefore, to make your denial to loonies program work, we will have to outlaw all private sales. Is that your intent?
This is not a problem that can be solved overnight. The elimination of restriction must be accompanied by an overhaul in our criminal justice system. Protecting society must be done by eliminating those that have proven they are a threat, either by killing or permanently incarcerating them. Those that are released should be released as whole men, as they can then re-join society. This partial release and permanent tagging only feeds the criminal sub-culture that exists today.
Lastly, regarding the 1st and 2nd Amendment comparisons that are being made:
1. As it is illegal to yell fire in a theater, it is also illegal to shoot a firearm in a theater. Both would incite panic, and threaten the lives of others.
2. The abuse of children is illegal whether it be done with a camera or a glock.
In short, the 'infringements' that are cited as restricting these other rights are already applied to the use of firearms. Additional restrictions of any kind are not comparable as they are in addition to all use restrictions that are in place in our society.
Brad Steele
45long;
You are indeed right.
However...I am a one note charlie. Absent the Second...all the rest are history.
This is my believe also!
Match,
But the 4473 does nothing to 'protect' us! It is just one more step to 'total control'! There are many who are 'denied' for minor and trivial reasons from purchasing a gun. The minor DV complaint for example. The fact court records are 'incomplete' just to name a few. No the 4473's serve no real purpose in 'protecting' us.
Yes we do need some 'restrictions and exceptions' but this is not one of them.
You got that wrong.
Yes we do need some 'restrictions and exceptions'
You got that wrong.
I think he got it exactly right: they need 'restrictions and exceptions', and they got them. Except now they are victims and the rest of the country are the perpetrators. Yeah, this makes just as much sense as the logic of CA "gun owners".
Yes we do need some 'restrictions and exceptions'
You got that wrong.
No I do not firedude. You are an 'idealist' and I am a 'realist'.
Like it or not.
ALL RIGHTS HAVE SOME RESTRICTIONS AND EXCEPTIONS! [;)]
Denial will not change reality!
Like it or not.
ALL RIGHTS HAVE SOME RESTRICTIONS AND EXCEPTIONS![;)]
Denial will not change reality!
You got that wrong.
The fact of the matter is that, no matter what the Constitution enumerates or does not enumerate, and irrespective of what laws are passed, basic human rights exist; government being allowed to grant or revoke human rights at will is the problem, not a few armed miscreants that are easily controlled by an armed populace.
No I do not firedude. You are an 'idealist' and I am a 'realist'.
Like it or not.
ALL RIGHTS HAVE SOME RESTRICTIONS AND EXCEPTIONS![;)]
Denial will not change reality!
You got that wrong.
Shane,
Put your money where your mouth is!!
Show me just ONE example now or ever where there have rights without SOME restrictions or exceptions. [}:)]