3 day waiting period and Background Check

[Vast LWC]

Which is why, for instance, we discourage the ownership of a Nuclear Weapon by an individual.

Even though that individual's purpose in having such a weapon could be not to kill people, but to put on a "pretty fireworks show".

 

[M14 Shooter]

Really. So MLK2 was wrong, and so long as we let colored people -eventually- exercise their civil rights, their rights arent violated. Interesting that you think so, but good to see you admit it.

Is someone being given preferential treatment in the scenario I describe, where some people don't have to have a background check and waiting period and other people do?

Irrelevant to what I said.
You're arging that so long as people are eventually allowed to exewrcise their rights, they aren't infringed. You therefore disagree with MLK2 and agree that it -was- OK to 'eventually' allow colored people to exercise their rights.

There are all kinds of rights that are temporarily abridged in the interest of public safety.
One must stop at a red light...

Fail. You have no right to drive a car.

The question is whether the public safety precaution is needed, and whether the abridgment of rights is reasonable, given the circumstances.

No... the question, since the right to arms is a fundamental right protected specifically by the Constitiion, is if the waiting period is the least restrictive means to meet a compelling state interest. Feel free to show that this is the case.

Please note that "compelling state interest" has a specific and rather stringent meaning, and that 'least restricive means' is a necessary component to the issue.

You have also completely ignored:

[you]And I can't think of any situation where a man who isn't legally completely nuts, or a convicted felon, would have an issue with a standard background check.

Funny... because you have to be completely nuts to NOT take issue with:
- A precondition on the exercise of a right not inherent to same
- A precondtition on the exercise of a right that presupposes said exercise is illegal, and held until shown that to not be the case - that is, a form or prior restraint.

 

[Vast LWC]

Irrelevant to what I said.
You're arging that so long as people are eventually allowed to exewrcise their rights, they aren't infringed. You therefore disagree with MLK2 and agree that it -was- OK to 'eventually' allow colored people to exercise their rights.

It's a false comparison. MLK2's was wrong in that everything does not apply to it equally. Therefore, for his particular circumstances, it applied, but cannot be used as a blanket statement for all circumstances.

Fail. You have no right to drive a car.

But you do have a right to move around the nation freely. And therefore, a red light is an impediment to that right. You have to stop at a red light whether you're walking, riding a bike, or whatever means of transportation you decide to use.

No... the question, since the right to arms is a fundamental right protected specifically by the Constitiion, is if the waiting period is the least restrictive means to meet a compelling state interest. Feel free to show that this is the case.

Please note that "compelling state interest" has a specific and rather stringent meaning, and that 'least restricive means' is a necessary component to the issue.

Exactly. I have put forth what I believe to be the best means to this end, with the least amount of restriction.

Do you have a solution that will achieve the stated goal more effectively? If you do, I'd love to hear it.

You have also completely ignored:

[you]And I can't think of any situation where a man who isn't legally completely nuts, or a convicted felon, would have an issue with a standard background check.

Funny... because you have to be completely nuts to NOT take issue with:
- A precondition on the exercise of a right not inherent to same
- A precondtition on the exercise of a right that presupposes said exercise is illegal, and held until shown that to not be the case - that is, a form or prior restraint.

I have actually addressed that in past posts. However:

The precondition in question does not assume something is illegal.

It does not allow someone to detain you until the action is complete. Nor does it levy any other kind of punitive measure on the buyer as a precondition to purchase.

Asking you to wait 3 days to purchase a gun is not a restraint that didn't already exist before the buyer went to purchase the gun.

And it is NOT an unreasonable request.

With the background check for gun purchase, the only thing that will stop the sale of said gun is proof of either insanity or prior felonies. There are no other preconditions that would stop said purchase.

It's not like a background check for a security clearance. They don't go around to your family's and friends homes asking questions. They don't take the fact that you may be a Communist into account, etc., etc.

Therefore, if you're not a felon, or legally insane, there should be no reason why you would want to avoid said check.

 

[Gadawg73]

I worked 2 insurance cases recently where people were killed at the job.
1. A large flooring retailer employee had a forklift with over 2000 pounds of tile on it. It shifted and fell on another employee and killed her.
2. Man was changing a tire off the rim at a tire store. The pin that goes in the middle of the rim broke and sent the tire into his chin and part of his face and the pin went through the roof killing him.

We need a 3 day waiting period on forklifts and tire changing equipment.

A gun is specifically designed to kill. It has no other purpose but to kill.

All of the other situations you mentioned killed out of negligence, or accidental death.

There is no comparison.

You don't buy a forklift and think to yourself "I'm going to use this to kill something or someone."

That being said, again, I fully support the right for every law-abiding, sane, citizen to purchase and "open carry" a firearm wherever they want (except on private property, where the property owner asks them not to, of course).

A gun is designed TO PROTECT.
PEOPLE KILL, not the gun.

 

[Gadawg73]

Which is why, for instance, we discourage the ownership of a Nuclear Weapon by an individual.

Even though that individual's purpose in having such a weapon could be not to kill people, but to put on a "pretty fireworks show".

When has a gun or a nuclear weapon ran off and killed someone by itself?

People have to be the ones doing the killing.

 

[Gadawg73]

should be on folks prescribed hardcore pyschotropic pharmeceutical drugs. Folks can wait 3 days for their dope.
After all, people do not kill people. Guns and drugs do.

Didn't you specifically write PRESCRIBED? That means that a medical professional authorized that drug regimen.

When is a gun "prescibed"?

THE US CONSTITUTION
An interesting document. You should try reading it.

 

[Vast LWC]

A gun is designed TO PROTECT.
PEOPLE KILL, not the gun.

That's not even accurate. A gun is not designed to protect specifically.

Since much of it's intended use is for hunting. What are you protecting yourself against while hunting? Deer?


Wait, I'm having a South Park flash...

"IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!"

 

[Gadawg73]

And see, this is the problem here...

You people are so intractable, that even someone like me, who fully supports and encourages gun ownership and open carry laws, is shouted into the ground for suggesting that reasonable methods be used in the distribution of guns.

Do we not all agree that we don't want felons and psychopaths to have weapons easily available to them to purchase and kill people instantly?

Is it so unreasonable to ask that we take some simple measures to eliminate that danger?

A 3 day waiting period is really not an onerous requirement. Neither is a simple background check.

I went through both to purchase the hunting rifles that I own. It really wasn't difficult.

"You people"
I read you loud and clear.

Are you really so naive that you believe a 3 day, a 5 day, a one year, a total ban on guns will stop a criminal from getting a gun?

LAWS DO NOT STOP CRIMINALS FROM OBTAINING GUNS.

 

[Vast LWC]

When has a gun or a nuclear weapon ran off and killed someone by itself?

People have to be the ones doing the killing.

I never said they did, nor would I.

I said that the gun was designed, by a person, to allow an act to occur.

That act being the killing of someone, or something, at a distance.

The gun has no consciousness, obviously.

 

[Nosmo King]

should be on folks prescribed hardcore pyschotropic pharmeceutical drugs. Folks can wait 3 days for their dope.
After all, people do not kill people. Guns and drugs do.

Didn't you specifically write PRESCRIBED? That means that a medical professional authorized that drug regimen.

When is a gun "prescibed"?

THE US CONSTITUTION
An interesting document. You should try reading it.

Prescribed means you should have something. The constitution does not prescribe a gun. It says your right to keep and bear one should not be infringed. Don't read it to say you MUST have one. If a doctor prescribes insulin, you should have insulin. If the law says your right to keep and bear insulin should not be infringed, it doesn't mean grab the syringe!

 

[Gadawg73]

A gun is designed TO PROTECT.
PEOPLE KILL, not the gun.

That's not even accurate. A gun is not designed to protect specifically.

Since much of it's intended use is for hunting. What are you protecting yourself against while hunting? Deer?


Wait, I'm having a South Park flash...

"IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!"

Again, read THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
We have a right to protect ourselves owning guns.

 

[Vast LWC]

"You people"
I read you loud and clear.

Are you really so naive that you believe a 3 day, a 5 day, a one year, a total ban on guns will stop a criminal from getting a gun?

LAWS DO NOT STOP CRIMINALS FROM OBTAINING GUNS.

"You people" being extremist NRA Radical-types, who will accept absolutely no compromise on this matter, no matter how large the threat to public safety.

And no, I do not. The waiting period serves 2 purposes:

1. It allows time for a background check to work it's way through federal criminal databases, which is what will stop guns from getting into the hands of criminals.

and

2. It allow time for some hothead to cool their jets for a couple of days before the buy a gun to shoot someone.

Finally, are you actually saying that you're in favor of allowing individual citizens to possess Nuclear Weapons?

 

[LilOlLady]

should be on folks prescribed hardcore pyschotropic pharmeceutical drugs.
Folks can wait 3 days for their dope.
After all, people do not kill people. Guns and drugs do.

People, guns and drugs kill people. People don't always have to be on drugs or have a gun to kill. How many murders have accured without guns or drugs involved?

If there had been a background check on the colorado killer, he woudl have passed with flying colors. Backgroud check do not tell us who will kill and when.

AK47 assault rifle designed and used primary to kill humans, lots of humansand should not be sold and should be destroyed.

 

[Gadawg73]

Didn't you specifically write PRESCRIBED? That means that a medical professional authorized that drug regimen.

When is a gun "prescibed"?

THE US CONSTITUTION
An interesting document. You should try reading it.

Prescribed means you should have something. The constitution does not prescribe a gun. It says your right to keep and bear one should not be infringed. Don't read it to say you MUST have one. If a doctor prescribes insulin, you should have insulin. If the law says your right to keep and bear insulin should not be infringed, it doesn't mean grab the syringe!

Gun ownership rights are PRESCRIBED in the 2nd Amendment.

You need to know the definition of prescribed. The rights of citizens to own guns MUST BE PROTECTED under the 2nd Amendment.

Why are you arguing proven facts with googly gook?

 

[Nosmo King]

THE US CONSTITUTION
An interesting document. You should try reading it.

Prescribed means you should have something. The constitution does not prescribe a gun. It says your right to keep and bear one should not be infringed. Don't read it to say you MUST have one. If a doctor prescribes insulin, you should have insulin. If the law says your right to keep and bear insulin should not be infringed, it doesn't mean grab the syringe!

Gun ownership rights are PRESCRIBED in the 2nd Amendment.

You need to know the definition of prescribed. The rights of citizens to own guns MUST BE PROTECTED under the 2nd Amendment.

Why are you arguing proven facts with googly gook?

I asked when is a gun "prescribed" and you showed how little you know about both the constitution and the definition of the word "prescribed". With that track record of utter ignorance, why should we listen to you?

 

[Vast LWC]

Again, read THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
We have a right to protect ourselves owning guns.

I agree. 100%.

I just don't think same reasonable precautions while purchasing the guns, in order to protect the public interest, abridges that right overmuch.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's a false comparison. MLK2's was wrong in that everything does not apply to it equally. Therefore, for his particular circumstances, it applied, but cannot be used as a blanket statement for all circumstances.

For thatever reason, what I typed here was lost. Will return to this.

Fail. You have no right to drive a car.

But you do have a right to move around the nation freely. And therefore, a red light is an impediment to that right.

Fail. Your right to 'move freely' does not superceed - or even act on - the fact that driving a car is NOT a right.

Exactly. I have put forth what I believe to be the best means to this end, with the least amount of restriction.

So... where's the compelling state interest? recall that the term has a specific meaning.And... NICS operates witin 15 minutes or so - how is 3 days less restrictive than that?

I have actually addressed that in past posts. However:
The precondition in question does not assume something is illegal.

The entore point of the background checks is to see if you are purchasing a gun illegally.
The exercise of your right to do so is held until it is determined that you are not - it assumes that the sake is illegal until determined otherwise.
THAT is prior restraint.

Asking you to wait 3 days to purchase a gun is not a restraint that didn't already exist before the buyer went to purchase the gun.

LOL..... Is THAT what you think "prior restraint" means? LOL

EPIC fail.

 

[Gadawg73]

"You people"
I read you loud and clear.

Are you really so naive that you believe a 3 day, a 5 day, a one year, a total ban on guns will stop a criminal from getting a gun?

LAWS DO NOT STOP CRIMINALS FROM OBTAINING GUNS.

"You people" being extremist NRA Radical-types, who will accept absolutely no compromise on this matter, no matter how large the threat to public safety.

And no, I do not. The waiting period serves 2 purposes:

1. It allows time for a background check to work it's way through federal criminal databases, which is what will stop guns from getting into the hands of criminals.

and

2. It allow time for some hothead to cool their jets for a couple of days before the buy a gun to shoot someone.

Finally, are you actually saying that you're in favor of allowing individual citizens to possess Nuclear Weapons?

You have yet to provide ANY EVIDENCE that guns laws have made any difference in public safety.
I am not a member of the NRA, am not an "extremist" or radical.
You fancy yourself as a psychic but just as you do not know much about the Constitution you are a lousy psychic.
I work with law enforcement daily. The rank and file laugh at you guys with your "background checks will keep guns out of the hands of criminals".
News flash for the dumb masses and uninformed:
CRIMINALS DO NOT FILL OUT FEDERAL FORMS AND BUY GUNS FROM LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AND/OR RETAILERS.
WELL DUH!

 

[LilOlLady]

A gun is designed TO PROTECT.
PEOPLE KILL, not the gun.

That's not even accurate. A gun is not designed to protect specifically.

Since much of it's intended use is for hunting. What are you protecting yourself against while hunting? Deer?


Wait, I'm having a South Park flash...

"IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!"

Again, read THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
We have a right to protect ourselves owning guns.

But do you need an AK47 to do it? Who hunts with an AK47? and what?

 

[Gadawg73]

Again, read THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
We have a right to protect ourselves owning guns.

I agree. 100%.

I just don't think same reasonable precautions while purchasing the guns, in order to protect the public interest, abridges that right overmuch.

I wish criminals would obey the laws as I agree with you that they may be reasonable to the majority but the law does not operate that way.