jillian
Princess
Because the laws/rights are irrelevant if the Court won't enforce them....
(kind of like warrantless wiretaps)
(kind of like warrantless wiretaps)
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Uh huh, that's what I thought too....but tell that to those that lost their homes due to the Kelo v. New London case...
Um... why did you lie about that being your last post?
Just so i could hear you ask, sweetypie.
Background checks, like licensing and registration, are preconditions to the exercise of the right to arms that are not inherent to said right.So some think background checks are bad?
Background checks, like licensing and registration, are preconditions to the exercise of the right to arms that are not inherent to said right.
Thus, they are infringements.
Its illegal for them to have guns, presuming that their right to same has been taken away under the law. I have no probelm with that, as not everyone has the right to own a gun.That aside, do you think it a good idea that a person with a history of violent mental illness be allowed to get a gun?
Its illegal for them to have guns, presuming that their right to same has been taken away under the law. I have no probelm with that, as not everyone has the right to own a gun.
You can't pre-empt crime, and you can't infringe the rights of others when you try to do so.But the only way to find out if they have or do not have, that right, is for a background check, no?
You can't pre-empt crime, and you can't infringe the rights of others when you try to do so.
You can't pre-empt crime, and you can't infringe the rights of others when you try to do so.
I have to disagree with you on this one. Common sense has to apply. There are weapons civilians just don't need and "I want one" doesn't cut it with me compared to the potential danger than weapon presents.
Background checks are not an infringement on any law-abiding citizen's rights. It is a method of establishing who is a law-abiding citizen and denies criminals with records and/or kooks with records the option of obtaining firearms legally.
If you think about it logically, if criminals/kooks can obtain firearms legally, the end result of that will be NO ONE will be allowed to obtain them legally. One of the base arguments of gun owners now is that most criminals obtain their firearms illegally.
You want to remove that argument from the equation? Not me.
But adding more restrictions to law abiding citizens to make it harder for them to obtain weapons only aids the criminals who do not follow those rules in the first place.
Assault weapons may be illegal, but I can assure you all of the crooks have them. If you hang around Phoenix on the 4th of July, Cinco De Mayo or New Year's Day, you'll find out just how well armed the crooks are.
Not without infriging on the rights of the people.Of course you can pre-empt crime
I answered your question. You're asking a new one, a question about how I would feel. How I feel doesnt make any difference to my political positions, as my political positions aren't based on feelings.So, to answer my question...
The same reason you have an objection to the government listening in on your phone conversations w/o a warrant -- it violates your rights.That aside, if you have no criminal history, what is your objection to a background check?
Sure they are -- they're a form of asking permission to exercise your right.Background checks are not an infringement on any law-abiding citizen's rights.
They -can't- obtain them legally.If you think about it logically, if criminals/kooks can obtain firearms legally...
Not without infriging on the rights of the people.
I answered your question. You're asking a new one, a question about how I would feel. How I feel doesnt make any difference to my political positions, as my political positions aren't based on feelings.
The same reason you have an objection to the government listening in on your phone conversations w/o a warrant -- it violates your rights.If the greater good is more important than the selfishness of the one, you shouldnt have an objection to those taps - right?
Ah - a red herring.Exactly.So what do you think of the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq?
No. It doesn't. And as such, my orignal answer to your original question stands:Of course it makes a difference, unless you are an unfeeling autobot.
So, you DO have an objection to your 4th amendemnt rights being violated, even though you have nothing to hide.You know you are sooo right. There is a history of violent phone tappers beating people to death with the tap wires......
Ah - a red herring.
Any other apple and oranges you want to compare while you're at it?
No. It doesn't. And as such, my orignal answer to your original question stands:
Its illegal for them to have guns, presuming that their right to same has been taken away under the law. I have no probelm with that, as not everyone has the right to own a gun
So, you DO have an objection to your 4th amendemnt rights being violated, even though you have nothing to hide.
And you expect me to have no oibjection to my 2nd amendment rights being violated, even though i have nothing to hide, because...?