Obama and Guns

[M14 Shooter]

I have no 4th amendment right. I am a NZ citizen.

Oh thatls right -- I had quite forgotten.
So, as far as American laws go, you're not worth talking to.

 

[jillian]

Oh thatls right -- I had quite forgotten.
So, as far as American laws go, you're not worth talking to.

So as far as NZ'rs... Iraqis... the French or anyone else, are Americans not worth talking to?

 

[M14 Shooter]

So as far as NZ'rs... Iraqis... the French or anyone else, are Americans not worth talking to?

I'm sorry -- I only talk to smart liberals that actually have something to say.

 

[Dr Grump]

Oh thatls right -- I had quite forgotten.
So, as far as American laws go, you're not worth talking to.

Translation: I just got my butt kicked and can't answer the questions, so I'll just go an cower in the corner like the pussy I am..

Thanks for playing M14. Next time, can you please put the "rules" up. You know Rule No 1 "I, M14 refuse to answer questions that make me look like an idiot or am incapable of answering".

would certainly save time, and stop me from wasting mine...

cheers

 

[Ravi]

Hey Dr. G, don't think all Americans look down their noses at everyone else. Not all of us have an inferiority complex.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Translation: I just got my butt kicked and can't answer the questions...

The usual respone from someone that, without any substantiation, thinks FAR too much of himself.

You arent here, and as such your thought on our laws are meaningless.
Further, the fact that you know nothing of our laws and rights make it impossible for you to carry on a knowledgeable conversation about same -- not that you knowing jack shit about something has ever stopped you before.

Give the fact that your opinions are meaningless and that you dont have the intellectual capacity to carry on a conversation about the subject matter, there's no need to dicuss it further.

You dont like it? Well, you dont't have to. Just don't delude yourself into thinking it isn't true.

 

[Dr Grump]

The usual respone from someone that, without any substantiation, thinks FAR too much of himself.

Actually, there was plenty of substantiation in my post, but you totally refused to answer anything in there.

You arent here, and as such your thought on our laws are meaningless.
Further, the fact that you know nothing of our laws and rights make it impossible for you to carry on a knowledgeable conversation about same -- not that you knowing jack shit about something has ever stopped you before.

On the contrary, I have been posting to Yanks on messageboards for almost 7years and know plenty about your laws. That aside, I'm not talking laws, I'm talking morals and specifically how you back up your stance. I think I have givne you an awkward question, that you refuse to answer. I have two opinions on you 1) You try and live your life by your constitution, which at one time or another was a pretty easy document to follow. Unfortunately over the past 220+ years things have changed. You find it frustrating because you are lost in the past and wish the world were a simple place. 2) By not answering my scenario in post 120, I now know something - you are an intellectual coward, and may be a real one too. You cannot answer the questions so resort to ad hominims - the last resort of the weak. Answer the scenario M14....(question is rhetorical, because I know you cannot - it's in the too hard basket, thus the reason for your last two responses)..

Give the fact that your opinions are meaningless and that you dont have the intellectual capacity to carry on a conversation about the subject matter, there's no need to dicuss it further.

Total poppycock. This is a messageboard, not congress. If you do not want to put caveats on poeple (ie "I don't talk to you because I'm a superior Yank"), then say say in the first place. Mine is not an argument on the 2nd, mine is about real life. So you think nutters should be able to run around with peashooters because your precious rights might be violated. Poor doodums. What have you got to hide M14? You are Koresh sympathiser? Maybe a McVeigh one..yeah that's it..

You dont like it? Well, you dont't have to. Just don't delude yourself into thinking it isn't true.

Not so much I don't like it, but I always knew you were an easy mark...maybe I should leave you alone now. Beating a dead horse can get a bit messy...

 

[AllieBaba]

Kindly prove that legal gun owners are nutters, or are any sort of threat to anyone.

 

[jillian]

Kindly prove that legal gun owners are nutters, or are any sort of threat to anyone.

Try and follow along. I know it's difficult. But he was talkng about nutters (e.g., mentally ill people) who could get guns if there was no prior screening which M14 advocates.

 

[BrianH]

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.

Agree on this one...there is nothing wrong with background checks...infringement or not. I used to sell firearms and when you've seen the people that have attempted to buy firearms from me, you'd understand why background checks are done.
I've had gang bangers come in to buy a Glock, pick it up, and hold it side ways like they do. You know what they're going to do with that gun, they're going to snuff someone with it. I actually had a guy do that, and when he got to the paperwork, he did not pass the requirements to even call the FBI background check. I've had others come in, lie on their paperwork, and be denied by the FBI because of their record. The scary thing is telling someone like that you can't sell them the gun. One of our stores had an experience when they called in a background check on a guy and the FBI response was, "Is he still in the store?" They told them yes and the FBI replied, "We've got someone on the way."

It's not a perfect system, but it's better than just selling a gun to any dope on the street who has money. There are also small technical signals that a seller must pick up on when selling a firearm. I've had people come in and say that their uncle lives out of town and that they're going to buy the gun for him. I would reply, "Are you buying this as a gift?" Most of the time they said no, and I refused to sell them the firearm. It got me some dirty looks but hey, it's illegal to buy a gun for someone else if it's not a gift (according to the law).

Anyway, that was a ramble, but background checks are ok by me. I have nothing to hide.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually, there was plenty of substantiation in my post, but you totally refused to answer anything in there.

You keep thinking that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You can't pre-empt crime, and you can't infringe the rights of others when you try to do so.

A background check is NOT an infringement. This argument is as stupid as the one about requiring Insurance companies to report to the State when drivers cancel their policies.

A law is useless if you have NO means to enforce it or verify it.

However Dr Grump there are ways in which a " background" check can be abused. When it takes days to do the check, when records are kept of who buys guns, when you must "ask" permission of a local sheriff just to have the background check done to begin with.

In NC you must obtain a permit to buy a handgun. The permit process takes the required 5 days that the Government has mandated as a waiting period before buying a hand gun. No problem yet.

However one must ask the Sheriff for permission to even get the background check done to get the permit. A sheriff can claim many reasons for denying you the permit beyond the legal ones required by the State and the Federal Government. Your only recourse then is to go to court, at your expense and with the knowledge that Judges tend to side with the Police even when the police have no power in the matter.

 

[M14 Shooter]

A background check is NOT an infringement.

It is a precondition to the exercise of a right not inherent to that right.
That's an infringement.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Agree on this one...there is nothing wrong with background checks...infringement or not. I used to sell firearms and when you've seen the people that have attempted to buy firearms from me, you'd understand why background checks are done.
I've had gang bangers come in to buy a Glock, pick it up, and hold it side ways like they do. You know what they're going to do with that gun, they're going to snuff someone with it. I actually had a guy do that, and when he got to the paperwork, he did not pass the requirements to even call the FBI background check. I've had others come in, lie on their paperwork, and be denied by the FBI because of their record. The scary thing is telling someone like that you can't sell them the gun. One of our stores had an experience when they called in a background check on a guy and the FBI response was, "Is he still in the store?" They told them yes and the FBI replied, "We've got someone on the way."

It's not a perfect system, but it's better than just selling a gun to any dope on the street who has money. There are also small technical signals that a seller must pick up on when selling a firearm. I've had people come in and say that their uncle lives out of town and that they're going to buy the gun for him. I would reply, "Are you buying this as a gift?" Most of the time they said no, and I refused to sell them the firearm. It got me some dirty looks but hey, it's illegal to buy a gun for someone else if it's not a gift (according to the law).

Anyway, that was a ramble, but background checks are ok by me. I have nothing to hide.

Even as a gift, if the person is out of State it is illegal to buy the weapon. You must arrange for the weapon to be shipped to a licensed seller in the other State. And with the 5 day wait and the requirements for background checks I don't see how one can legally buy a gun for someone else anyway. AT least a hand gun.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It is a precondition to the exercise of a right not inherent to that right.
That's an infringement.

Wrong. It is a requirement to ensure you HAVE the right. Using your logic the State and federal Government have no right at all to pass any gun laws in regards who can and can not buy them. Only laws involving the use or owning of them if you are caught.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wrong. It is a requirement to ensure you HAVE the right.

That doesnt make it any less of an infringement.

 

[LOki]

So some think background checks are bad?

I'm sure that some do. I think that the ability to compare the identity of a buyer, to a list of names of people who are prohibited from having guns (as opposed to a list of people who are "allowed" to have guns) is useful to sellers who wish to avoid suits alledging criminal negligence in seeling arms to people who are dangerous to themselves or others.

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.

I don't neccessarily agree. I think that background checks as they are now structured are most certainly infringements upon the right to keep and bear arms. If the focus of the checks were not on who is eligble (which really should start with the presumption of everybody, and move from there) and instead focus upon those who were ineligble (i.e. the much shorter list of psychologically incompetent, and criminally violent folks) then I don't see the background check as any infringment--I'd probably get pisses off if it wasn't done.

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?

"Allow" is the difficult word, I suppose. I certainly think its a bad idea that a person with a history of violent mental illness has a gun--I would not want that to happen--mostly because I don't really want to be in the position of having to decide between flipping the switch on his violently ill gray matter, or talking him down from a bad hair day when he whips out a gun.

Nor do I want to be in the position of having to decide if someone else was justified in flipping the switch on his violently ill gray matter.

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.

Right. Prohibiting the demonstrably incompetent and criminally violent from keeping arms does not infringe upon the broader right of everyone else to keep arms.

But the only way to find out if they have or do not have, that right, is for a background check, no?

A background check is neccessary, just not the ones currently in place. What is not neccessary to a background check is to place on a list, all persons who currently own a gun, or who wish to own a gun--you need only register those who ARE NOT eligible for gun ownership.

So, to answer my question, what would you be happy if your wife or child was killed by somebody with a severe mental illness who had access to a firearm, who else would not have had said access if a simple background check had been done.

Of couse not. Now try on the real world: Would you be happy if your wife or child was killed by somebody with a severe mental illness who had access to a firearm, who else would not have had said access if a simple background check had been done, but got one anyway--and you could do nothing to stop him because you are still waiting for your paperwork to go through so your background check, for buying your gun, will be approved?

That aside, if you have no criminal history, what is your objection to a background check? The check is done, you are clear, go get your peashooter.

The objection lies in the fact that there is nothing inherently criminal about owning a gun--ANY GUN. Owning guns is a specifically protected right in this country--a right presumed to be held by everyone who can legitimately claim to be of "the People", and a right that shall not be infringed upon.

Sure, you have nothing to hide...today. The objection is the same objection that those who find themselves defending their privacy from authoritarian douche-bags who say, "Only criminals would object to the governement eaves-dropping on their private conversations and correspondence, or opening their mail, or tapping their phones--what is your objection?"

Now before you start rambling about your "why should I have to" rant, who cares? The greater good is more important than the selfishness of the one.

No it's not. Since there is no such thing as "the greater good", just the good shall have to take precedence--and that is what is good for each individual.

Also, you are asking for a right that was set at a time when things were a lot different.

Irrelevent, and untrue as far as the right is concernend.

Also, you have to believe in the "inherent god-given right" of the second, which some believe, as opposed to it being an amendment that can be changed in Congress.

No you don't. You need only beleive that rights are inherent in the condition of being human beings, and that self preservation is one of these rights, that liberty is one of these rights, and that infringing upon the right to the tools that each individual may use to preserve their selfs, and their liberties, from the predations of other individuals and/or groups of individuals is a violation of an individual's rights. Right's are not granted by the Constitution, they are recognized, and the obligation of the Government to protect those rights is set forth therein, but enumeration of rights is NOT a limitation of rights in general.

 

[LOki]

Wrong. It is a requirement to ensure you HAVE the right.

M14 is right. The requirement you're advocating presumes you don't have the right.

Using your logic the State and federal Government have no right at all to pass any gun laws in regards who can and can not buy them.

Laws that prohibit those who are demonstrably incompetent or criminally violent do not infringe upon the broader right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Only laws involving the use or owning of them if you are caught.

There is nothing wrong with keeping a bearing arms--so, yeah.

 

[LOki]

It's been a long time since I've had a chance to disagree with you.

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.

Lack of, or failing to demonstrate "need" is a bullshit critera for prohibiting anyone from having anything. Bullshit on it's face.

And...Weapons aren't dangerous, people are.

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.

Our current backgound check system is certainly an infringment of the right for the reason previously noted above--I don't think I need to direct your attention to them.

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.

This makes no sense.

One of the base arguments of gun owners now is that most criminals obtain their firearms illegally.

Yes--that laws and regulations that make it more difficult to for "everyone" to obtain guns really only make it more difficult for decent, law abiding folks to obtain guns--the criminals remain unaffected.

You want to remove that argument from the equation? Not me.

The argument where violent douches get guns easily but no-one else does? YES! ABSOLUTELY!

 

[Dr Grump]

I'm sure that some do. I think that the ability to compare the identity of a buyer, to a list of names of people who are prohibited from having guns (as opposed to a list of people who are "allowed" to have guns) is useful to sellers who wish to avoid suits alledging criminal negligence in seeling arms to people who are dangerous to themselves or others.

Good point. And isn't that what lists are make up of - those who are not allowed to have guns?

I don't neccessarily agree. I think that background checks as they are now structured are most certainly infringements upon the right to keep and bear arms. If the focus of the checks were not on who is eligble (which really should start with the presumption of everybody, and move from there) and instead focus upon those who were ineligble (i.e. the much shorter list of psychologically incompetent, and criminally violent folks) then I don't see the background check as any infringment--I'd probably get pisses off if it wasn't done.

Isn't that how it works? If my name is Jimmy Smith from 1 Smith St, and I have ID to back it up, they stick my name through the computer, up comes a zero result, I move on??

"Allow" is the difficult word, I suppose. I certainly think its a bad idea that a person with a history of violent mental illness has a gun--I would not want that to happen--mostly because I don't really want to be in the position of having to decide between flipping the switch on his violently ill gray matter, or talking him down from a bad hair day when he whips out a gun.

Nor do I want to be in the position of having to decide if someone else was justified in flipping the switch on his violently ill gray matter.

So the answer is what?

Right. Prohibiting the demonstrably incompetent and criminally violent from keeping arms does not infringe upon the broader right of everyone else to keep arms.

So the answer is...?

A background check is neccessary, just not the ones currently in place. What is not neccessary to a background check is to place on a list, all persons who currently own a gun, or who wish to own a gun--you need only register those who ARE NOT eligible for gun ownership.

Surely the background checks are on who has a criminal or mental illness history??

Of couse not. Now try on the real world: Would you be happy if your wife or child was killed by somebody with a severe mental illness who had access to a firearm, who else would not have had said access if a simple background check had been done, but got one anyway--and you could do nothing to stop him because you are still waiting for your paperwork to go through so your background check, for buying your gun, will be approved?

What do you mean by real world? Are you saying there have not been murders using firearms committed by felons or mentally ill people involving innocents (as opposed to gang bangers hitting each other)?? As for the rest, how often does/has that happen/ed? Is it the norm?

The objection lies in the fact that there is nothing inherently criminal about owning a gun--ANY GUN. Owning guns is a specifically protected right in this country--a right presumed to be held by everyone who can legitimately claim to be of "the People", and a right that shall not be infringed upon.

This is one of my main planks since year dot when talking guns. That right was brought in during the 18th century. It is an amendment at that, and can be changed any time your congress takes the vote and gets the numbers. It would be political suicide to do so, but it is still there, so it is not strictly an inherent right. And IMO - and I must stress, this is my opinion and a talking point and am not trying to foist my ideas into being the law of YOUR land - is this right was set at a time when things were a lot different in the world. The world has moved on and most first world countries' attitudes to firearms has certainly changed (for the better IMO).

Sure, you have nothing to hide...today. The objection is the same objection that those who find themselves defending their privacy from authoritarian douche-bags who say, "Only criminals would object to the governement eaves-dropping on their private conversations and correspondence, or opening their mail, or tapping their phones--what is your objection?"

You may not like the analogy, but there is a big difference between somebody eavesdropping on my convo and a nutjob having access to firearms and the neccessity of having them in the first place. There is the slippery slope argument, but I don't buy it. I think sometimes people who like their guns are using a strawman with that example. There is a fundamental difference IMO.

No it's not. Since there is no such thing as "the greater good", just the good shall have to take precedence--and that is what is good for each individual.

Of course there is a greater good. People make sacrifices for their communities all the time in the sense that they chose a course of action that helped others, whereby if they'd taken another set of actions it would have been to their sole benefit. Audie Murphy and Alvin York come to mind

Irrelevent, and untrue as far as the right is concernend.

You may think it is irrelevent. However, it is not untrue. It was set at at time when things were different. You are the only nation with some amongst you that thinks it is an inherent right. You can think that, but that doesn’t make it so (see my comment on it being an amendment)

No you don't. You need only beleive that rights are inherent in the condition of being human beings, and that self preservation is one of these rights, that liberty is one of these rights, and that infringing upon the right to the tools that each individual may use to preserve their selfs, and their liberties, from the predations of other individuals and/or groups of individuals is a violation of an individual's rights.

You may believe those those things and that is fine. If you truly believe that, then why not throw out all laws and statutes. Why not just do what you want to do, because every statute ever written infringes on somebody’s rights somewhere with regard to liberty, self-preservation etc.

Right's are not granted by the Constitution, they are recognized, and the obligation of the Government to protect those rights is set forth therein, but enumeration of rights is NOT a limitation of rights in general.

Well, I have seen arguments by Americans on both sides of the spectrum with regard to what the constitution is. Some agree with you, others disagree. What is important, is that the 2nd IS an amendment and is open to being taken away by congress. But as I said, it will never happen.

Thanks for the civil discourse..