Obama: executive action to expand background checks
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-12-2015, 09:38 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.

It may not stop them, but it makes all of those acts illegal.

Quote: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.

There would be no legal middle-men, so there is no loophole.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2015, 09:39 AM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(15-12-2015 05:28 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  
(14-12-2015 05:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  You are wrong and SCOTUS said so.

SCOTUS also says corporations are people who are allowed free speech through bribing politicians. Your argument is rendered invalid.

And:
[Image: c63e6c91b715ccd4c94deaffd673b1a6.jpg]

There really is no more excuse to continue to manufacture weapons of mass destruction for private citizens. Sorry, not sorry. Drinking Beverage

Then let's stop manufacturing cars. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2015, 09:41 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.

That is your opinion, it is not a fact.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
15-12-2015, 09:57 AM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(15-12-2015 09:08 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(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.

As far as straw purchases being illegal -- yes --- that is national already.....

.............
If you're against limiting rights --- when a sex offender gets out of prison - should they be allowed to hang out in the schoolyard?????? The point being - there's logistical limits that allow us to lock people up... We simply don't have the room - and can't afford it. There needs to be other options..(and I agree the "war on drugs" was a total failure)

.......

There are times where limiting rights makes sense - including the right to owning firearms....

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

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, 10:12 AM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(15-12-2015 09:57 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  
(15-12-2015 09:08 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Are those across the board federal laws? How strictly are those enforced? What measures are in place to enforce them?




Good. Now let's do that nationally.




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.

As far as straw purchases being illegal -- yes --- that is national already.....

.............
If you're against limiting rights --- when a sex offender gets out of prison - should they be allowed to hang out in the schoolyard?????? The point being - there's logistical limits that allow us to lock people up... We simply don't have the room - and can't afford it. There needs to be other options..(and I agree the "war on drugs" was a total failure)

.......

There are times where limiting rights makes sense - including the right to owning firearms....

All hypothetical debates aside, I'm more concerned about (and unwilling to abandon my gun culture because of) the fallout from the war on drugs than I am about the government or otherwise random acts of crime.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes yakherder's post
15-12-2015, 11:46 AM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(15-12-2015 09:41 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(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.

That is your opinion, it is not a fact.

Erxomai's continued application of the word fact to his opinion is beginning to make me wonder if he knows what it means.

Here are a few facts. The term "the people" appears in the US Constitution multiple times including five times in the Bill of Rights. In order for Erxomai's opinion on the meaning of the Second Amendment to be fact you have to apply a different meaning to the term "the people" in the Second Amendment than is generally applied elsewhere in the Constitution.

SCOTUS has really only offered an opinion on the meaning of the term "the people" twice. Once in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez in 1990 and again in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008. In the Verdugo-Urquidez decision SCOTUS defined "the people" as “persons who are part of a national community,” or those who have “substantial connections” to the United States. It is a rather broad definition and has been used by the lower courts to extend some other constitutionally guaranteed rights such as those guaranteed under the First and Fourth Amendments to illegal immigrants that have been here for a while and/or have family here.

Some who take Erxomai's position on the meaning of the Second Amendment would like to believe the Heller decision broadened the meaning of "the people" to extend it to those who are not part of an organized militia. The reality is the Heller decision didn't broaden the meaning of the term. It narrowed the definition. Heller essentially defined the term "the people" in the Second Amendment as law abiding citizens. That decision is already having ramifications in the lower courts. It is being used as an excuse by some lower courts to deny some constitutional rights to non-citizens.

The moral of the story is simple. Be careful what you wish for because you might get it. If SCOTUS narrows the definition of "the people" in the Second Amendment to members of a militia it might not be long before some judge decides to start denying other constitutional rights to non-militia members.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2015, 01:42 PM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
I think some people need to look up the meaning of the word "militia".

No where in that definition does it imply just a regular person.

It doesn't mean "people".


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
15-12-2015, 01:53 PM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
The word militia like most words can have multiple meanings depending on use, but traditionally it is a fighting force composed of non-professionals.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2015, 02:02 PM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(15-12-2015 01:42 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  I think some people need to look up the meaning of the word "militia".

No where in that definition does it imply just a regular person.

It doesn't mean "people".

It doesn't say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia is simply provided as a reason for that right.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2015, 02:12 PM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(15-12-2015 01:42 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  I think some people need to look up the meaning of the word "militia".

No where in that definition does it imply just a regular person.

It doesn't mean "people".

I posted this earlier. The militia are the people of the United States, according to the people that wrote the Constitution or were alive at the time it was ratified.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: