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.
Irrelevant to what I said.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?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.
Fail. You have no right to drive a car.There are all kinds of rights that are temporarily abridged in the interest of public safety.
One must stop at a red light...
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.The question is whether the public safety precaution is needed, and whether the abridgment of rights is reasonable, given the circumstances.
Funny... because you have to be completely nuts to NOT take issue with:[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.
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.
Fail. You have no right to drive a car.
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:
Funny... because you have to be completely nuts to NOT take issue with:[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.
- 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 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).
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".
Didn't you specifically write PRESCRIBED? That means that a medical professional authorized that drug regimen.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.
When is a gun "prescibed"?
A gun is designed TO PROTECT.
PEOPLE KILL, not the gun.
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.
When has a gun or a nuclear weapon ran off and killed someone by itself?
People have to be the ones doing the killing.
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!Didn't you specifically write PRESCRIBED? That means that a medical professional authorized that drug regimen.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.
When is a gun "prescibed"?
THE US CONSTITUTION
An interesting document. You should try reading it.
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!"
"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.
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.
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!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.
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?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!THE US CONSTITUTION
An interesting document. You should try reading it.
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?
Again, read THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
We have a right to protect ourselves owning guns.
For thatever reason, what I typed here was lost. Will return to this.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. Your right to 'move freely' does not superceed - or even act on - the fact that driving a car is NOT a right.But you do have a right to move around the nation freely. And therefore, a red light is an impediment to that right.Fail. You have no right to drive a car.
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?Exactly. I have put forth what I believe to be the best means to this end, with the least amount of restriction.
The entore point of the background checks is to see if you are purchasing a gun illegally.I have actually addressed that in past posts. However:
The precondition in question does not assume something is illegal.
LOL..... Is THAT what you think "prior restraint" means? LOLAsking 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.
"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?
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.
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.