CDZ GUNS: a challenge to both liberals and conservatives

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Foxfyre, Feb 24, 2018.

?

Of the choices offered to liberals and conservatives in the OP. . .

  1. I don't need to compromise as I can accept all or most.

  2. I can't accept any or most of the choices.

  3. I can accept the options for compromise given the liberals but not the conservatives.

  4. I can accept the options for compromise given the conservatives but not the liberals.

  5. Other that I will explain in my post.

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. LoneLaugher
    Offline

    LoneLaugher Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    53,384
    Thanks Received:
    7,277
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Inside Mac's Head
    Ratings:
    +23,131
    --kids need role models that demonstrate some of the best to which we can aspire instead of heaping admiration and fame, making heroes out of, or generating sympathy for those who promote hate, anger, violence, and lawless behavior.


    Liberals already agree with this sentiment. Bogus.
     
  2. LoneLaugher
    Offline

    LoneLaugher Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    53,384
    Thanks Received:
    7,277
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Inside Mac's Head
    Ratings:
    +23,131
    -kids need to be taught personal responsibility and accountability in which the norm is educating yourself, staying away from illegal substances and activities, meriting a good reputation, learning a trade, getting married before having kids, and contributing to your family, your community, your country. Such people are rarely involved in any kind of bad acts.

    Liberals already agree with this sentiment. Bogus.
     
  3. LoneLaugher
    Offline

    LoneLaugher Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    53,384
    Thanks Received:
    7,277
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Inside Mac's Head
    Ratings:
    +23,131
    kids need video games, television programs, and movies that promote real heroism, good triumphing over evil, and rejection of violence except in self defense. When video games have the player having to do bad, even evil things to win, how can that not translate how they relate to their real world? When what passes for entertainment promotes the worst kind of violence, promiscuity, immorality, and sympathy for the bad guys, it is no wonder that children become desensitized to violence or the pain of others and see bad acts as glorious acts. It all is teaching the kids and it is invariable that some of them will be motivated to act on it.

    There has never been any proof that video games lead anyone to become violent. Japanese kids have every violent video game there is and
    they don't go around shooting up schools and concerts. Bogus.
     
  4. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    64,902
    Thanks Received:
    11,444
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +46,576

    Heller clearly states that guns that are in common use are protected......the 4th Circuit completely ignored not only Heller, but Caetano, and Miller.....they should have been slapped down by the Supreme Court, but the SJWs on the court want guns banned regardless of the Constitution....

    From Heller....

    We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
    ------------

    In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

    ---

    We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.

    That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939.

    We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179.

    The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.”

    State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Secon
    -----

     
  5. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    64,902
    Thanks Received:
    11,444
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +46,576

    And then the 4th ignored Caetano....again....after they were slapped for trying to ban stun guns....here is Caetano v. Massachusetts...

    There is no way that any real justice could say that AR-15s can be banned....they are the most common rifle in the United States and are used for common, and lawful purposes....


    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

    Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

    ----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


    That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

    Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

    Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


    Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

    If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

    The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.


    But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.
    Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.

    Our left wing UN-Constitutional scholar, clayton, pretends these Supreme Court rulings do not exist, and that they do not protect AR-15s or semi automatic weapons...
     
  6. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    64,902
    Thanks Received:
    11,444
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +46,576


    Heller actually addresses that argument specifically....

    Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

    We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
     
  7. task0778
    Offline

    task0778 Gold Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2017
    Messages:
    3,292
    Thanks Received:
    703
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Texas hill country
    Ratings:
    +3,099
    Maybe so, but it's hard to argue with the 4 US Courts of Appeal who said in essence that the 2nd Amendment does not extend to AR-15s and the like, and there's no Court at that level that has ruled otherwise. That's all I'm saying, I don't support a federal ban on them myself.

    I could live with the universal background checks that the Dems want though, or are they asking for more than I thought?
     
  8. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    64,902
    Thanks Received:
    11,444
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +46,576

    The 4th completely ignored all of the previous Supreme Court rulings.....they are wrong on all levels, so no, it isn't hard to argue with them since the argument they make doesn't even come close to being Constitutional or even backed by legal precedent......I just quoted Heller, Caetano and Miller...and they ignored all 3.........

    Why would you support a universal background check?

    Criminals do not go through them, and mass shooters pass them.

    Criminals use straw buyers to buy guns from gun stores...that means their straw buyers can pass any federal background check...that means they will pass a background check on a private sale too.......

    Criminals will also steal guns, which goes around any and all background checks.

    Criminals do not buy guns from private sellers, because they don't know if they are cops or federal agents, they use the straw buyers because they are friends and family, they also buy from other criminals who use straw buyers or steal the guns....

    The only reason anti gunners want universal background checks is because it gives them the power to come back and demand universal gun registration.......they will say universal background checks do not work unless we know who originally owned the gun...and we cant do that unless all guns are registered....

    Universal background checks are just a way to get to registration......
     
  9. task0778
    Offline

    task0778 Gold Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2017
    Messages:
    3,292
    Thanks Received:
    703
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Texas hill country
    Ratings:
    +3,099
    Ok, your knowledge in this area probably exceeds mine, but here's the thing: UBCs would not make it impossible for a criminal or nutcase to acquire a gun but it does make it harder. How many people know somebody on the black market or somebody who will sell them an AR-15 in a private sale? In most if not all of the mass shootings we read about in the papers we eventually find out where the weapons that were used got into the hands of the shooter/killer. If you're a private citizen and there is a UBC req't to sell your AR-15 to somebody and you do not require that person to get a background check through an authorized dealer, then presumably you're in big legal trouble, no? A UBC law would have to have a penalty under the law for that. So what if it costs an extra $25 bucks or so to pay the dealer to do the check, what's that compared to the several hundred bucks you have to pay to the seller?

    As for gun registration that's a separate issue, you don't automatically get that as part of the deal IMHO. I wouldn't support gun registration but that's not a reason to deny UBCs.
     
  10. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    64,902
    Thanks Received:
    11,444
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +46,576

    Sorry, none of what you posted on UBCs makes a difference to criminals or mass shooters, it just doesn't.

    All mass shooters except for 1 or 2 got their guns legally, through gun stores...that means they went through background checks...federal background checks the same check you would go through for a private sale.....the others got their guns illegally or by killing someone.

    Criminals use straw buyers....who can already pass background checks, so they will pass a UBC for a private sale......so right there, your point is done. As far as criminals who buy from people willing to sell without a background check, they are doing that already, the girlfriends, sisters, mothers, grandmothers of criminals who straw buy for their criminal boyfriend......the problem is not that we don't catch these people..the problem is that prosecutors do not want to prosecute the single mother of 4 kids who had to buy the gun for the gang banger baby daddy or he would beat her or kill her.....

    And on top of that...I list stories all the time of straw buyers getting caught through current police and federal gun stings....

    They do this using the old fashioned techniques of "snitches." So we don't need UBCs to do this, we are already doing it.

    And I am telling you, the only reason the anti gun extremist leaders want UBCs is to be in a position to demand gun registration.....that's it...it is the only reason since criminals and mass shooters will not be effected by UBCs....

    And according to Murdoch v. Pennsylvania...you cannot charge a fee for the exercise of a Right...so a fee to do a background check would be unConstitutional in a real court.....

    Here.....some articles to read....

    Straw Purchasing Guns: US Needs to Take It Seriously | [site:name] | National Review

    Wisconsin isn’t alone in its nonchalance. California normally treats straw purchases as misdemeanors or minor infractions. Even as the people of Baltimore suffer horrific levels of violence, Maryland classifies the crime as a misdemeanor, too. Straw buying is a felony in progressive Connecticut, albeit one in the second-least-serious order of felonies. It is classified as a serious crime in Illinois (Class 2 felony), but police rarely (meaning “almost never”) go after the nephews and girlfriends with clean records who provide Chicago’s diverse and sundry gangsters with their weapons. In Delaware, it’s a Class F felony, like forging a check. In Oregon, it’s a misdemeanor.

    --------

    I visited Chicago a few years back to write about the city’s gang-driven murder problem, and a retired police official told me that the nature of the people making straw purchases — young relatives, girlfriends who may or may not have been facing the threat of physical violence, grandmothers, etc. — made prosecuting those cases unattractive.

    In most of those cases, the authorities emphatically should put the straw purchasers in prison for as long as possible. Throw a few gangsters’ grandmothers behind bars for 20 years and see if that gets anybody’s attention. In the case of the young women suborned into breaking the law, that should be just another charge to put on the main offender.

    Read mor

    Straw purchaser with 4 felony gun charges will not get jail time

    A Chicago-area woman arrested last year for her role in illegally selling guns to prohibited buyers, some with gang affiliations, was sentenced to probation and community service last week.

    Simone Mousheh, 23, of the Chicago suburb of Mount Prospect, will have to complete 15 days of community service in the Cook County Sheriff’s Work Alternative Program and 12 months probation after pleading guilty to illegal transfer of firearms last week, as reported by the Daily Herald.

    Mousheh was arrested last September and charged with four felonies after an investigation by the Chicago Police Firearm Investigation Team concluded she had bought handguns through the benefit of her state-issued Firearms Owners Identification card and then illegally resold them.

    One gun, a Glock 23 Mousheh later reported as stolen, was recovered by police from a juvenile offender on the West Side. Another Glock, a Model 22, was sold to Jayson Barber nine days after she bought it. Mousheh knew at the time that Barber was on probation for domestic battery, and did not have a FOID card which is needed to possess a handgun in Illinois. Police later determined Barber had gang ties. The Glock was the second gun she sold to Barber.

    Over a six-month period, Mousheh purchased four Glocks and put a $1,000 deposit on an FN 5.7 pistol. Police were only able to recover the Glock from Barber as well as one other gun and a box of 5.7x28mm ammunition from her home.





    ATF Lets Straw Purchasing Violent Criminal Walk In WV

    Travis Bishop has been working the past 13 years as a firearms dealer in West Virginia at Tannerman’s Weapon Systems. The store is not only his passion, but also a beacon of hope in his community.
    He has put on four food drives in the past 10 years, he’s active in his church through ministry work, he has helped countless heroin addicts though outreach programs, and recently helped 25-year old Britney Bretfield, a customer at Tannerman’s and an avid shotgun trap shooter suffering from cancer, by raising $5500 to help offset her medical bills.
    This man goes above and beyond, so when people heard he alerted authorities to break up a straw purchase in his store, it was no surprise. The surprise came after the individuals were spotted in a local liquor store only 14 hours after being arrested.
    On December 10th, Travis was working in his store as usual, when two individuals entered his store looking for a handgun. After approaching the two, asking if there was anything he could help them find, the woman indicated she was looking for a “gun with a beam”.

    After talking with them only a few short minutes, he alerted his store employees to go into “straw purchase” mode. This slows things down behind the counter and allows them time to further assess the situation and call law enforcement if necessary.
    Continuing to press for information, Travis asked if they had ever owned or handled handguns before and they both indicated, ‘oh yeah. yeah, we have guns.’ but neither one was able to say what kind or model they were. After perusing the store talking about several options and deciding on a handgun, they said, ‘yeah, we’ll take that one.’
    Confused, Travis asked, “What do you mean ‘you’ll both take that one’? Which one of you is going to be purchasing the gun?” to which she replied, “Oh, he’s gonna get it, I’m gonna pay for it.” So he takes them to the counter to start the process and asked, “Which one of you specifically is buying the gun?” Again she answered, “Well the gun is for him, but I’m gonna pay for it.”
     

Share This Page