'Shoot first' laws make it tougher for burglars in the United States

Thanks for finding that article for me. What if my religion prohibits me from giving money for the sake of developing weapons? What if I am a true pacifist and am truly opposed to paying taxes when I know that part of it will go to create guns and pay soldiers to kill an alleged enemy? Should I be allowed to stop paying taxes?



I have no problem with individuals pointing to the direction that THEY want to see their taxes applied. You can extrapolate this as far out as you want to go. Eventually everyone will agree that human sacrifice is not covered by the first amendment. But, I think you are going pretty far off of the road to miss hitting the turtle that is the second amendment.
 
So, rather than continually talking about things that violate the constitution, why dont you talk about reasons why the amendment shoudl be changed.

I’ve been doing just that. I mention that there should be background checks so it would be more difficult for ex-felons to get weopens. I doubt that it would be that much of a burdon on honest law-abiding person to get a gun. I understand that criminals will still manage to get guns through the black market. But I think that the net result would be fewer guns in the hands of ex-felons.
Irrelevant to the 2nd amendment issue.
Since you seem content to leave the second amendment alone because it is there, my bringing up the first amendment is relevant to the discussion, because it is there too.
You do duck and dodge. You give convoluted commentary to yes-no questions. That, practically by definition is ducking and dodging.
Let’s see how consistent you are in your apparent admiration for the Bill of Rights. Should we leave the 1st amendment alone too? If so, may I stop supporting military buildup and may I sacrifice dogs?
 
I’ve been doing just that.
No you haven't. To wit:

I mention that there should be background checks so it would be more difficult for ex-felons to get weopens.

This isnt arguing why the corrent amendment should be changed, this is an argument for something that violates the current amendment.

Since you seem content to leave the second amendment alone because it is there, my bringing up the first amendment is relevant to the discussion
No. Its not. Its just you trying to change the issue to something else in an attempt to weaken the argument that "shall not be infringed" is a plenary and unexcepted protection.
 
just like negligent driving gets people banned from cars, eh...

As you say, gun ownership is a right. Driving is a privalege. That aside, it is my understanding that if you screw up too many times, you can get your driver’s license suspended or revoked. That does not prevent people from physically driving, but if you are caught and identified driving without a licences, you will probably wind up in more trouble.
 
No you haven't. To wit:

I mention that there should be background checks so it would be more difficult for ex-felons to get weopens.

This isnt arguing why the corrent amendment should be changed, this is an argument for something that violates the current amendment.

How simple do I have to explain myself for you. We should amend the constitution to perhaps say that people have the right to have arms pursuant to a background check to confirm criminal status. It is against the law to knowingly or unknowingly sell or issue guns to ex-felons.

Its just you trying to change the issue to something else in an attempt to weaken the argument that "shall not be infringed" is a plenary and unexcepted protection.

I am merely using logic to knock down an argument. You seem to be resorting to “appealing to authority”. You also seem to be using the naturalistic fallacy of confusing what is with what should be. Unless you have another reason to keep the 2nd amendment as is than because it is there, it is perfectly relevant for me to challenge you with the 1st amendment.

It is just like the old argument people send me about homosexual behavior being wrong. They say that homosexuality is wrong simply because the Bible says that it is wrong. I show some other bizarre instructions that exist in the Bible and they say, “Irrelevant”. It is perfectly relevant if their reason for saying that something is wrong is because the Bible says that it is wrong.

It would be as if you say that one plus one equals two because Joe Smith said so. Later, Joe Smith says that it is right to jump off 10-story buildings too. Provided we agree that it is not right to jump off 10-story buildings, we can’t conclude that one plus one equals two merely because Joe Smith said so. One plus one might equal two for some other reason but it is not so just because Joe Smith said that it is so. Don’t you understand?
 
We should amend the constitution to perhaps say that people have the right to have arms pursuant to a background check to confirm criminal status.
Good luck with that. Let me know how it goes.
Understand, however, that until you DO change the amendment to say that, background checks infringe on the right to arms.
 
Good luck with that. Let me know how it goes.
Understand, however, that until you DO change the amendment to say that, background checks infringe on the right to arms.

The second amendment says whta the court says it does... and so far, they've said nothing but Miller.

And, how do you think they distinguish between you and a felon? They do a background check. So your assertion that it's ok to do on them, but not on you is a bit circuitous since you can'd ascertain the difference BEFORE doing the check.

And besides, there are reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on speech, (e.g., obscenity, commercial speech, even political speech and requiring permits for certain gatherings)... no different for guns.
 
The second amendment says whta the court says it does... and so far, they've said nothing but Miller.
What did Miller state re: background checks?

And, how do you think they distinguish between you and a felon? They do a background check. So your assertion that it's ok to do on them, but not on you is a bit circuitous since you can'd ascertain the difference BEFORE doing the check.
I didnt say it was OK to do it on anyone, I stated that felons do not enjoy the protections of the 2nd.
Anyone following this thread will clearly note that I oppose background checks, period.

And besides, there are reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on speech, (e.g., obscenity, commercial speech, even political speech and requiring permits for certain gatherings)... no different for guns.
That's true -- but explain how a background check, done on everyone, is the equivelant to these restrictions.
 
If they do, they are breaking federal law.

And being felons I doubt they'd break laws, right? You got nothing to hide, you can keep your guns. I dunno much about background check law. If they check your background and find you are a convicted felon you can't buy a gun, right? if they do a background check and find you aren't a convicted felon, you can buy a gun. What's the beef? Other than you being a strict constructionist that is? :cool:
 
And being felons I doubt they'd break laws, right?
Of course not. What's your point?

You got nothing to hide, you can keep your guns.
You have nothing to hide -- explain why you oppose warantless wiretaps.

If they do a background check and find you aren't a convicted felon, you can buy a gun. What's the beef?
What did that dead black guy say? Oh yeah:
A right delayed is a right denied.
 
Of course not. What's your point?

Sarcasm.

You have nothing to hide -- explain why you oppose warantless wiretaps.

Because listening in on my private conversations is a lot different from trying to find out if some convicted murderer wants a gun. How many people have been killed from listening to people talk. I find background checks pointless for a different reason. I'd suggest they are totally ineffective. As if a convicted felon is going to agree to a background check or even bother to go through one in the first place..

What did that dead black guy say? Oh yeah:
A right delayed is a right denied.

Great comparison :eusa_whistle:
 

Forum List

Back
Top