Obama: executive action to expand background checks
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-12-2015, 05:57 AM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
I would have more respect if people took ahold of the 9th amendment and pushed that as a stronger reasoning for such more explicit clear arguments of it being established we have the right for guns, regardless of people of military able bodies having guns to help the military reason or not.

It's like people forget there's a legitimate right that says you have rights not listed... but they ignore it and so focus merely on the written write as end all be all. In many ways this goes, as well as people bickering over IF Voting/driving are rights. (I know there is rulings that the rights to travel on highways through & through states was viewed this way in pre-driving court cases and it kinda holds that weight to make it matter)

But also having the right to own guns doesn't mean it has to be super easy to get them and shouldn't be witheld through several degrees of checking/testing if that is what becomes a way laws unfold.

"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
15-12-2015, 06:00 AM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(15-12-2015 03:27 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(15-12-2015 02:59 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  And you don't find it simpler to register the felons???

I've posted this a couple of times.......

GUN CONTROL --- DOING THE MOST, THAT WILL WORK.

1. Scrap all current gun laws.
2. All convicted felons - and anyone stripped of their gun rights by a court of law shall be required to have identification that clearly states that they are not allowed to purchase, own, or have guns in their possession.
3. ALL gun sales will require a show of identification. It's a felony to sell to someone who has "no guns" on their identification.
4. Make it a felony not to comply with the above parts.


That's all you need. A real solution that does the maximum that can be done to "keep the guns out of the hands of bad people"

It doesn't inconvenience the legitimate, legal buyers. It makes it a felony for "bad people" to have a gun.

But, somehow - that isn't going to be enough for some people......


Well, that doesn't stop 'bad people' who already have guns, or can have them gifted to them, or otherwise employ a middle-man buyer.


If people aren't held accountable for the weapons in their legal possession (registration, and one would also hope liability insurance), legal middle-men is the largest and most obvious loop hole to your plan.


Plus, I'm not keen to the idea of being a felon limiting or removing Constitutional protections. It's already a tool of social inequality by taking away the right to vote through non-violent drug convictions. If the person is enough of a threat to society that they shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, they probably should't be released back into the general population in the first place; but if you're good enough for the general population and have served your time, you shouldn't have a restriction like that applied to you. And honestly, preventing felons who have served their time, or otherwise having a court rescind individual Constitutional rights, is actually a far more egregious violation of the Constitution than anything being suggested or imposed by registration.

Get used to it....

We take away people's rights all the time...

We can take their life, their liberty, their pursuit of happiness ---and yes -- their right to own firearms ------ IF these rights are adjudicated by a court of law...

I see no problem at all from taking away a problem child's toys......

Just as long as it's done legally -- on a case by case basis.................

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2015, 06:14 AM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
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!

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SYZ's post
15-12-2015, 06:55 AM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(15-12-2015 05:32 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  
(14-12-2015 11:18 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  That's your opinion. It's an opinion the courts and most Americans, including non gun owners, disagree with.

[Image: individual%20right%20poll_zps98gyjqq5.jpg]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

There are opinions and there are facts. The fact is the wording of the 2nd Amendment does not make individual gun ownership a right. There is another fact: the gun lobby will always distort the true meaning.

I would like to know how you have come to this conclusion.

The 2nd amendment reads: "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."

Well regulated militia. Who makes up the militia? The people. Who are the people? Individuals. The constitution makes it very clear that the militia is not the same thing as the regular army. Section 2 of Article 2: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia..."

And who makes up the militia? The people.

..."that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms." -Alexander Hamilton

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms." - Richard Lee

"As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia." - James Madison

"I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." -George Mason

"The people" specifically means individuals. The First Amendment (free speech, religion) ensures "the right of the people" to petition the government and to assemble peacefully; the Fourth Amendment protects "the right of the people" against unreasonable searches and seizures; and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments reserve to "the people" non-enumerated rights and powers. In all of those instances, "the people" means an individual right. The preamble to the constitution says "We the people."

It's very clear. The people are individuals.

This one is my favorite. It is often argued that even if the people are the militia, and the people have the right to use arms in a militia, they should be forced to keep the guns at an armory or on a military base and only use them when needed. This pretty much settles where the militia (the people) should keep their weapons.

"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" - Patrick Henry (the guy that said "Give me liberty, or give me death!")

Obviously he meant that we should have those arms with us, "in our own hands" not kept by the government for use later.

The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" so they can join the militia if necessary, to either repel a foreign army or their own government. It is what makes us truly free. The people who signed the constitution wrote or spoke on multiple occasions about their intent. Writers, philosophers and patriots of the time wrote repeatedly what the meaning of the 2nd amendment was all about.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Lord Dark Helmet's post
15-12-2015, 06:57 AM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(15-12-2015 06:00 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  
(15-12-2015 03:27 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Well, that doesn't stop 'bad people' who already have guns, or can have them gifted to them, or otherwise employ a middle-man buyer.


If people aren't held accountable for the weapons in their legal possession (registration, and one would also hope liability insurance), legal middle-men is the largest and most obvious loop hole to your plan.


Plus, I'm not keen to the idea of being a felon limiting or removing Constitutional protections. It's already a tool of social inequality by taking away the right to vote through non-violent drug convictions. If the person is enough of a threat to society that they shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, they probably should't be released back into the general population in the first place; but if you're good enough for the general population and have served your time, you shouldn't have a restriction like that applied to you. And honestly, preventing felons who have served their time, or otherwise having a court rescind individual Constitutional rights, is actually a far more egregious violation of the Constitution than anything being suggested or imposed by registration.

Get used to it....

We take away people's rights all the time...

We can take their life, their liberty, their pursuit of happiness ---and yes -- their right to own firearms ------ IF these rights are adjudicated by a court of law...

I see no problem at all from taking away a problem child's toys......

Just as long as it's done legally -- on a case by case basis.................


That still addresses almost none of the concerns or objections I raised. Consider

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2015, 07:01 AM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
Double post.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2015, 07:03 AM (This post was last modified: 15-12-2015 07:07 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(15-12-2015 05:32 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  There are opinions and there are facts. The fact is the wording of the 2nd Amendment does not make individual gun ownership a right. There is another fact: the gun lobby will always distort the true meaning.


I agree with the sentiment, but as we're not Supreme Court Justices, that's not our call to make. The separation of powers leaves interpretation up to the Supreme Court, and they are the final word on it; but there are other things we can do to circumvent or otherwise change things. Now we can vote in elections to get people into office that play an integral role on nominating and approving new Supreme Justices, or lawmakers that can create and propose legislation up to and including Constitutional amendments. Those are the avenues we have open to us.

This is why we need an amendment to overturn the bullshit that is corporate person-hood. But before we can do that, we need free and fair elections; we need to get money out of politics. Unfortunately I fear that having an intelligent national level gun debate won't happen until after the NRA and the larger military industrial complex can no longer dump unlimited money into the political process. The system is fundamentally broken and unduly influenced by money, and the Supreme Court is not exempt from this systemic problem.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
15-12-2015, 07:15 AM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(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!

Laughat

Laugh out load

No.

Disclaimer: I do not own a gun, nor have I ever owned a gun. I have held exactly three such items in my entire life.

The information not explained above is the difference in population density. The difference percentage of fire-arms owned per population density. A whole rang of other stuff.

It also doesn't report on the fact that pretty much the only weapons going into the crushers of the "Gun buy back" were antiques and rare pieces of metal work who's owners either could no longer afford the price of now owning said pieces due to the 'New' changes to the classifications of their weapons.. or were the 'Old antique gun Grand-dad used to won' that people found themselves now liable of/with or had inherited.

There wasn't just the "Buy back" scheme. The government 'RE-CLASSIFIED' a huge amount of what could and could not be owned. Changed the definitions of what was and was not an 'antique'. The list goes on. Most owners at the time simply found the new laws too much of a hassle and effectively 'threw away' their weapons for some money.

It also doesn't mention the systemic (Note* I am now personally going from a hazy memory and one off reported incident) of corruption WITHIN the buy back system. Of weapons being handed in, then registered as destroyed only to then be sold back onto the black market for a profit.

The whole exercise was (Venting opinion now) a cynical, political 'Quick buck" that did not stop a single gentleman from taking hostages and killing one of them. Did no stop a 15 year old boy from being groomed, given a weapon, who then went out and shot a 32 year old father in the back of the head.

I am not against "Gun laws", but what I see being presented when the whole "Look at Australia and their paragon of virtue" shtick? It annoys the fek out of me because of the lack of reporting about the ignorance of those here who are making the laws here about guns.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2015, 08:15 AM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
Well, that doesn't stop 'bad people' who already have guns, or can have them gifted to them, or otherwise employ a middle-man buyer.

There's already laws against felons owning firearms, there's already laws against giving, or providing felons with firearms, and there's already laws against using a middle-man buyer. (known as a straw purchase).

If people aren't held accountable for the weapons in their legal possession (registration, and one would also hope liability insurance), legal middle-men is the largest and most obvious loop hole to your plan.

In my state - Michigan -- a gun owner can be held civilly AND criminally liable if someone has guns stolen from them and they are used to commit a crime- if they are not in a locked, secure gun safe. So, that's already been done too..


Plus, I'm not keen to the idea of being a felon limiting or removing Constitutional protections. It's already a tool of social inequality by taking away the right to vote through non-violent drug convictions. If the person is enough of a threat to society that they shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, they probably should't be released back into the general population in the first place; but if you're good enough for the general population and have served your time, you shouldn't have a restriction like that applied to you. And honestly, preventing felons who have served their time, or otherwise having a court rescind individual Constitutional rights, is actually a far more egregious violation of the Constitution than anything being suggested or imposed by registration.

Pick one --- limiting some rights for felons --- or building more prisons, and having longer prison sentences.





Point by point - addressed.

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2015, 09:08 AM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(15-12-2015 08:15 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  Well, that doesn't stop 'bad people' who already have guns, or can have them gifted to them, or otherwise employ a middle-man buyer.

There's already laws against felons owning firearms, there's already laws against giving, or providing felons with firearms, and there's already laws against using a middle-man buyer. (known as a straw purchase).


Are those across the board federal laws? How strictly are those enforced? What measures are in place to enforce them?


(15-12-2015 08:15 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  If people aren't held accountable for the weapons in their legal possession (registration, and one would also hope liability insurance), legal middle-men is the largest and most obvious loop hole to your plan.

In my state - Michigan -- a gun owner can be held civilly AND criminally liable if someone has guns stolen from them and they are used to commit a crime- if they are not in a locked, secure gun safe. So, that's already been done too..


Good. Now let's do that nationally.


(15-12-2015 08:15 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  Plus, I'm not keen to the idea of being a felon limiting or removing Constitutional protections. It's already a tool of social inequality by taking away the right to vote through non-violent drug convictions. If the person is enough of a threat to society that they shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, they probably should't be released back into the general population in the first place; but if you're good enough for the general population and have served your time, you shouldn't have a restriction like that applied to you. And honestly, preventing felons who have served their time, or otherwise having a court rescind individual Constitutional rights, is actually a far more egregious violation of the Constitution than anything being suggested or imposed by registration.

Pick one --- limiting some rights for felons --- or building more prisons, and having longer prison sentences.


That's not a either-other proposition. Prisons are already filled with non-violent drug offenders. A person shouldn't have their life ruined, their rights revoked, their job prospects destroyed, over a pound of marijuana.

I can see the case for violent offenders have limitation on a case-by-case basis, maybe as a part of parole. I would hate to see it abused like mandatory minimum sentencing. Our prison are overflowing with non-violent drug offenders as is, we already incarcerate more people than China and Russia combined and doubled.

As a matter of principle, I'm of the opinion that if you've served your time and payed your debt to society, that should be the end of it. I'm against revoking a felon's right to vote, subjecting them to job hiring discrimination, or registering and tracking them in databases. You can be convicted of felony possession over a trivially small amount of weed, and be placed on the sex offender database for public urination; neither one of those serves the pursuit of justice in any meaningful way.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: