Obama: executive action to expand background checks
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-12-2015, 02:25 PM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(17-12-2015 11:37 AM)Gatheist Wrote:  
(15-12-2015 06:14 AM)SYZ Wrote:  The US needs to immediately initiate a gun buyback scheme as the Australian federal government did 19 years ago.

In 2012, the Guardian published new statistics drawn from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and Small Arms Survey showing only "30 homicides by firearm" annually in Australia, or "0.14 per 100,000 population."

Over the same period, Americans suffered "9,146 homicides by firearm," at a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 population. And 60% of murders in the US are committed with a gun, according to the Guardian, compared to 11.5% in Australia.

—And the figures don't lie. Wake up America!

The gun buyback was a confiscation scheme that paid the citizens that owned gun with their own money via taxes.

But sure, we could have a confiscation scheme by Obama. I give it about three months before "rebels" find where he is drag him behind a pick up and lynch the barely alive body from a nice oak tree.

I will be watching with a cup of tea and play strange fruit from my Ipod. Perhaps I will even use Obama's dead corpse as target practice if he orders confiscation of firearms.

No violence towards our dear leader while he is alive of course.

Drinking Beverage

Sometimes I truly wish I could just put people on ignore, my life would be so much nicer.

But internet trolls come in all flavors.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2015, 02:36 PM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(17-12-2015 02:19 PM)Gatheist Wrote:  
(17-12-2015 01:55 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  The point of a licence is to demonstrate you pass the qualifications to legally drive determined for the safety of yourself & others

So you don't care much for the 9th amendment?

Is there a license required to OWN (BUT NOT DRIVE) a fully functioning car?

How are others harmed by merely owning a gun but not carrying it in public?

Safety of yourself too... the people in private may be harmed still which is part of the justification of such concepts, but either way, A seller in plenty of these situations has no functional knowledge of whether one would do nothing or anything with the product sold.

Do you think if things are not explicitly labeled as a right, they are not a right?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2015, 02:45 PM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(17-12-2015 02:36 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(17-12-2015 02:19 PM)Gatheist Wrote:  Is there a license required to OWN (BUT NOT DRIVE) a fully functioning car?

How are others harmed by merely owning a gun but not carrying it in public?

Safety of yourself too... the people in private may be harmed still which is part of the justification of such concepts, but either way, A seller in plenty of these situations has no functional knowledge of whether one would do nothing or anything with the product sold.

Do you think if things are not explicitly labeled as a right, they are not a right?

I drove all the time on my uncles ranch in Texas. Pulled right up along the property line to the store and got groceries.

One does not need a license to drive on private property .

P.S. My view does not violate the 9th Amendment.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2015, 02:30 AM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(17-12-2015 11:37 AM)Gatheist Wrote:  The gun buyback was a confiscation scheme that paid the citizens that owned gun with their own money via taxes.

But sure, we could have a confiscation scheme by Obama. I give it about three months before "rebels" find where he is drag him behind a pick up and lynch the barely alive body from a nice oak tree.

I will be watching with a cup of tea and play strange fruit from my Ipod. Perhaps I will even use Obama's dead corpse as target practice if he orders confiscation of firearms.

No violence towards our dear leader while he is alive of course.

Hyperbole: The fastest way to prove you have no point.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2015, 10:00 AM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(16-12-2015 01:29 PM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  It's my opinion that original intent should be part of the equation but not the only consideration. Others disagree. That's more or less where this conversation started when you commented that what 200 years dead men thought didn't matter. I disagree. SCOTUS considered original intent in Heller and rendered a decision I agree with. That decision was that the second amendment protects an individual right. Once again others disagree. At least one other individual on this forum has been insisting that it is a fact that the second amendment only applies to militia members. That's opinion not fact, and as long as SCOTUS is of the opinion the second amendment protects an individual right that's the law of the land until either they overturn it or it is amend it whether or not you believe their decision is correct.

At this point we inevitably have to step back to, "what does original intent mean?" In the narrowest interpretation that's fetishistic legalism. In the broadest sense it's asking what the purpose of a provision was, and how best to ensure that same purpose (if we even choose to!) in a vastly different society.

And, trivially, all rights given by law are necessarily accompanied by restrictions.

(16-12-2015 01:29 PM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  I believe it is SCOTUS's job, one ceded to them by congress on prior precedent, to interpret the constitution. I'm OK with that even though it isn't specifically written into the constitution because it is the only check to a super majority in congress passing any law they want. Both congress and the states have the ability to overrule a decision by SCOTUS they don't agree with by amending the constitution.

It's ironic that in

(16-12-2015 01:29 PM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  Yes, SCOTUS has the ability to change their mind. West Coast Hotel v. Parrish overturned Lochner v. New York. Keyishian v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York overturned Adler v. Board of Education. Lawrence v. Texas overturned Bowers v. Hardwick. These were all, in my opinion, good decisions. In the case of Lawrence v. Texas I doubt if the likes of Pat Robertson would agree. I doubt many here would agree with a decision by SCOTUS to overture Roe v. Wade. It could certainly happen though if public opinion were to swing heavily against abortion rights. According to the last poll I saw public opinion heavily supports the second amendment as an individual right. Public opinion is by no means the final word, but SCOTUS seldom overturns a prior decision without the support of public opinion. They could overturn Roe or Heller, but of the two overturning Heller would be much more unpopular with the citizens of the United States.

The court changes its opinion only insofar as its members turn over or change their minds. Although technically while US Supreme Court's existence is constitutionally mandated, its composition derives from the legislature...

(16-12-2015 01:29 PM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  None of this means the government can't pass laws that ban certain people from having firearms, assault rifles, high capacity magazines or oodles of other restrictions including more in depth background checks. A ban on handguns in general would probably go a lot further in lowering gun violence than banning assault rifles, but it would be difficult because that would mean overturning Heller. About all it does mean is that the government at any level can't pass laws that keep the majority of law abiding citizens within their jurisdictions form owning firearms in general.

Right, but you originally heavily implied that nebulous "people" - including on this forum! - wanted to ignore due process. I still can't get to that from anything I've seen.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2015, 04:03 PM (This post was last modified: 18-12-2015 05:32 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(17-12-2015 02:19 PM)Gatheist Wrote:  Is there a license required to OWN (BUT NOT DRIVE) a fully functioning car?

I don't know about where you're from but in the People's Republic of Maryland there sure as shit is. It's called a title and it has to be registered with the state so they can collect their sales tax.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
20-12-2015, 09:20 PM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(10-12-2015 09:06 PM)Alla Wrote:  I want to understand what's wrong with background checks? Why many do not want it? it must be some reason.
All gun sales at stores and through businesses at gun shows with booths already require background checks. The only exception currently are private sales through individuals. The main issue here is placing liability on individuals to run a background check when that's not even available to most individuals without a hassle. I can't just call up and get a background check in 10min when selling a gun.

Better without God, and happier too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2015, 09:23 PM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
"Innocence being proven" that's not how shit works in this country. You prove guilt, not innocence.

Better without God, and happier too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2015, 09:25 PM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
You not liking it is irrelevant. You and the other gun-grabbers are interpreting a meaning that didn't exist in the amendment - the phrase wasn't setting a requirement for owning guns, it was expounding upon why it was necessary for the people to be allowed to keep and bear arms.

Better without God, and happier too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2015, 03:29 AM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(20-12-2015 09:20 PM)Azaraith Wrote:  The main issue here is placing liability on individuals to run a background check when that's not even available to most individuals without a hassle. I can't just call up and get a background check in 10min when selling a gun.

This is not the first time this argument came up. But that is not how background checks works. You don`t do a background check at the moment of the purchase but in the moment of applying for the permit.

You apply for a permit at your local licensing office, then they do a background check ( that can and should include a psychological evaluation ) and they grant or refuse to issue a permit. Then you take that permit and buy a gun in the gun store or from a private seller.
No hassle for the seller whatsoever.

Also, you apply for the exact type and number of the guns you want to purchase.

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: