Concealed Carry Permits Should be Treated Like Driver's Licenses

[M14 Shooter]

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie
Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

which willful ignorance is that? you are the one who has nothing but fallacy.

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie
Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

i don't need to lie simply Because i have a clue and a Cause.; unlike the Right and yourself.

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie
Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

Don't be too hard on him, he's Canadian

And proudly dishonest.

 

[kaz]

So what about answering the question then?

Universal background checks would be a minor inconvenience for a lawful gun seller, but without them, there is no way for the individual seller to tell if the buyer is one of the felons, etc. that are not allowed to have a gun. I believe most responsible gun owners would refuse to sell to crooks, but how do they know if the buyer is a crook? That would make me feel a hell of a lot safer.

Easy...we have background checks available now.....good guys can right now ask any buyer to go with them to get background checked.....if they refuse, they know not to sell the gun to the guy.......no need for any new laws......

Right. Voluntary checks. Lots of people willing to sell guns to anybody as long as they can say they didn't know the buyer was a crook. How you gonna prove they were lying? With universal checks, we get rid of that loophole.

Because when you catch the guy who bought the gun...and he wasn't allowed to have it....you arrest him......simple, easy, and no extra money or paperwork required...since he wasn't allowed to buy or be in possession of the gun...right?j

That takes care of it..........universal background checks don't get rid of that loophole, the guy gets a straw purchaser or steals the gun......

I'd rather stop him from getting it instead of catching him after he used it.

And how are you going to do that? In a 117 page discussion, liberals didn't have a clue. Any teenager will tell you they can buy all the pot they want. How are you going to keep guns from criminals? That's the whole point I'm making to you. Your gun control is all targeted at honest citizens and doing nothing regarding criminals.

Keeping guns from criminals - liberals what is your plan US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[RKMBrown]

Back to the all or nothing again. This all started with the premise that gun rights can not be infringed in any way. Obviously, they can be in reasonable ways. The only question now is "what is reasonable". I think it is reasonable for an individual who is selling a gun to find out if the buyer is allowed by law to have it. A few bucks for a background check that the buyer would probably pay for is the best way to make sure that happens. Don't you want to make it harder for crooks to get guns?

No, the right to own a gun cannot be infringed. It's your all or nothing mind that's warping that. Universal background checks do not infringe on your right to have a gun. They enforce that convicted criminals criminals and children who don't have the right to buy a gun cannot buy them from legal dealers. You don't have the right to aim guns at other people or threaten them. None of those laws are infringing on your right to have a gun.

Getting government approval, registering them, dictating what you can and cannot buy. Those are infringement on gun ownership rights. The obvious is so out of the grasp of leftists, it's incredible.

The issue is that throughout history the steps to remove all guns from the population have been 1) background checks 2) A registry 3) limit new purchases and use of the registered weapons 4) voluntary hand over of registered weapons 5) forcible hand over of registered weapons.

 

[Little-Acorn]

With the leftist fanatics so commonly and willingly violating the 2nd, what makes you think they will obey another?

Stupid liberals need things spelled out for them in detail. The 28th Amendment will do that for future generations of "No Child Left Behind" and the vapid bed wetters we're stuck with now.

It's not a spelling problem. The liberals know exactly what the 2nd amendment actually means - a complete ban on ANY government interference with the people's right to KBA. They just try to lie about what they think it means, and they try to pretend they don't understand the normal English it's written in.

The problem is, they deliberately violate it.

Even if you write out a new amendment, using small words and crayon diagrams, what makes you think the liberals won't violate that one just as quickly?

 

[Little-Acorn]

BTW, for the liberals who keep trying to pretend they don't know what the 2nd amendment means, here is the identical statement in modern language:

Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted.

 

[The Rabbi]

You think everything is all or nothing don't you?

Strawman. If guns are restricted like other Constitutional rights in this country then I'm mostly fine with that. Are you? You ready to require licenses and fees for free speech and to protect you from illegal searches and ceasures?

And gain, that means what exactly? What government restriction of the right only people who follow gun laws, honest citizens, makes you feel safer exactly?

That's just dumb. I'm not sure how free speech can produce the same danger of the public that no background checks for guns can.

Thats because you're stupid. NOte the word "incitement" and what it connotes.

You might note that incitement is a regulated form of speech. Reasonable regulation is needed in all aspects of life in a community. Even free speech.

So if government can put any regulation on a Constitutional right, they can put all regulations on Constitutional rights. Therefore, they really aren't Constitutional rights, are they? I guess they should have called it the Bill of Suggestions

I dont understand that. The basic principle is that rights are subject to limitations of one kind or another. Some are subject to strict scrutiny. Some to intermediate. There is no right that is absolute. That said, it doesnt mean every right can be infringed out of existence either

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Theyre different. Driving is a privilege. Owning a gun is a guaranteed right.

 

[kaz]

I dont understand that. The basic principle is that rights are subject to limitations of one kind or another. Some are subject to strict scrutiny. Some to intermediate. There is no right that is absolute. That said, it doesnt mean every right can be infringed out of existence either

I was responding to a specific argument where he essentially argued that since rights can be limited, there are no limits to how much limit can be placed on them. Which makes them not rights, think about it....

The limit on Constitutional rights if you think about it is when you start using your own constitutional right to infringe on someone else's rights. Using free speech to yell fire in a crowded theater just puts other people's rights at risk. You can't threaten people with guns just like you can't with anything else. It is not your availability to buy a gun that is being restricted with those laws. Constitutional rights are not the right to commit crimes.

Tell me any reasonable constitutional right which is just a restriction on your right. It's not a restriction to protect the rights of others.

 

[Little-Acorn]

I was responding to a specific argument where he essentially argued that since rights can be limited, there are no limits to how much limit can be placed on them. Which makes them not rights, think about it....

I would have put it slightly differently: " IF rights can be limited, there are no limits to how much limit can be placed on them."
This makes it a true statement.

Using free speech to yell fire in a crowded theater just puts other people's rights at risk.

Yelling fire in a crowded theater is perfectly constitutional... if the theater is on fire.

If it isn't on fire, and you shout that it is, the Constitution doesn't protect you. Technically you are engaging in "assembly that is not peaceable", and the Constitution was carefully written to EXCLUDE your act from its protection of free speech.

You can't threaten people with guns just like you can't with anything else.

Of course you can't. But that has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment, which protects only owning and carrying guns and other such weapons.

Liberals try hard to pretend that conservatives believe the Constitution protects some "right" to threaten people.

These are usually the same liberals who try to pretend that walking into a store with a pistol on your belt is somehow "threatening". If they can get you to believe one lie, they figure you will believe their other lies, too.

 

[Little-Acorn]

I dont understand that. The basic principle is that rights are subject to limitations of one kind or another. Some are subject to strict scrutiny. Some to intermediate.

Constitutional rights don't have any "reasonable restrictions". Only unconstitutional ones.

Just because legislators have managed to pass laws restricting your constitutionally-protected rights (such as the right to keep and bear arms), that doesn't make the restrictions constitutional.

 

[Little-Acorn]

BTW, for the liberals who keep trying to pretend they don't know what the 2nd amendment means, here is the identical statement in modern language:

Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted.

Their silly vaporings over "you have to be in a militia" or whatever, are just efforts to convince the people who can't read normal English, that the amendment somehow says that.

 

[RKMBrown]

Tell me any reasonable constitutional right which is just a restriction on your right. It's not a restriction to protect the rights of others.

Rabbi said that not me...

 

[The Rabbi]

I dont understand that. The basic principle is that rights are subject to limitations of one kind or another. Some are subject to strict scrutiny. Some to intermediate.

Constitutional rights don't have any "reasonable restrictions". Only unconstitutional ones.

Just because legislators have managed to pass laws restricting your constitutionally-protected rights (such as the right to keep and bear arms), that doesn't make the restrictions constitutional.

That flies in the face of about 200 years of jurisprudence. Try threatening to assassinate the president and see how much the 1A protects you.

 

[kaz]

I was responding to a specific argument where he essentially argued that since rights can be limited, there are no limits to how much limit can be placed on them. Which makes them not rights, think about it....

I would have put it slightly differently: " IF rights can be limited, there are no limits to how much limit can be placed on them."
This makes it a true statement.

Using free speech to yell fire in a crowded theater just puts other people's rights at risk.

Yelling fire in a crowded theater is perfectly constitutional... if the theater is on fire.

If it isn't on fire, and you shout that it is, the Constitution doesn't protect you. Technically you are engaging in "assembly that is not peaceable", and the Constitution was carefully written to EXCLUDE your act from its protection of free speech.

You can't threaten people with guns just like you can't with anything else.

Of course you can't. But that has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment, which protects only owning and carrying guns and other such weapons.

Liberals try hard to pretend that conservatives believe the Constitution protects some "right" to threaten people.

These are usually the same liberals who try to pretend that walking into a store with a pistol on your belt is somehow "threatening". If they can get you to believe one lie, they figure you will believe their other lies, too.

Just making sure you realize everything you said agreed with me

 

[kaz]

Tell me any reasonable constitutional right which is just a restriction on your right. It's not a restriction to protect the rights of others.

Rabbi said that not me...

OK, sorry, I try to keep all the quotes straight, but sometimes it gets tricky to sort it all out

 

[BULLDOG]

That's just dumb. I'm not sure how free speech can produce the same danger of the public that no background checks for guns can.

Begging the question. What about answering it? It goes directly to the ridiculousness of what you just said.

How does restricting the rights of people who aren't criminals make you feel safer? Criminals don't follow the laws. Hint, they are criminals...

Every law written restricts the rights of some law abiding citizens, and criminals don't follow those laws either.

So what about answering the question then?

Universal background checks would be a minor inconvenience for a lawful gun seller, but without them, there is no way for the individual seller to tell if the buyer is one of the felons, etc. that are not allowed to have a gun. I believe most responsible gun owners would refuse to sell to crooks, but how do they know if the buyer is a crook? That would make me feel a hell of a lot safer.

I have no problem with universal background checks. So that's all you want? Other than that we can eliminate our ridiculous gun laws?

I think there should be other reasonable changes to our gun laws, but background checks are the most important. Most liberals aren't out to take everybody's guns, but as long as that is claimed by the right, reasonable precautions will be blocked. Background checks are a reasonable precaution that the large majority of the country wants, but the NRA and their followers blocked.

 

[BULLDOG]

Back to the all or nothing again. This all started with the premise that gun rights can not be infringed in any way. Obviously, they can be in reasonable ways. The only question now is "what is reasonable". I think it is reasonable for an individual who is selling a gun to find out if the buyer is allowed by law to have it. A few bucks for a background check that the buyer would probably pay for is the best way to make sure that happens. Don't you want to make it harder for crooks to get guns?

No, the right to own a gun cannot be infringed. It's your all or nothing mind that's warping that. Universal background checks do not infringe on your right to have a gun. They enforce that convicted criminals criminals and children who don't have the right to buy a gun cannot buy them from legal dealers. You don't have the right to aim guns at other people or threaten them. None of those laws are infringing on your right to have a gun.

Getting government approval, registering them, dictating what you can and cannot buy. Those are infringement on gun ownership rights. The obvious is so out of the grasp of leftists, it's incredible.

Odd that checks were blocked by claiming they were infringing on rights.

 

[BULLDOG]

Strawman. If guns are restricted like other Constitutional rights in this country then I'm mostly fine with that. Are you? You ready to require licenses and fees for free speech and to protect you from illegal searches and ceasures?

And gain, that means what exactly? What government restriction of the right only people who follow gun laws, honest citizens, makes you feel safer exactly?

That's just dumb. I'm not sure how free speech can produce the same danger of the public that no background checks for guns can.

Thats because you're stupid. NOte the word "incitement" and what it connotes.

You might note that incitement is a regulated form of speech. Reasonable regulation is needed in all aspects of life in a community. Even free speech.

So if government can put any regulation on a Constitutional right, they can put all regulations on Constitutional rights. Therefore, they really aren't Constitutional rights, are they? I guess they should have called it the Bill of Suggestions

I dont understand that. The basic principle is that rights are subject to limitations of one kind or another. Some are subject to strict scrutiny. Some to intermediate. There is no right that is absolute. That said, it doesnt mean every right can be infringed out of existence either

That is exactly the point I was trying to make. The fact that there are some limits is unquestionable, even though many here that don't or can't admit it. The only question is if a limit is reasonable. Some are.

 

[kaz]

Odd that checks were blocked by claiming they were infringing on rights.

Most gun owners I know, including me, are good with instant checks. It's having to wait a week to do a check we object to. Do a check on the spot and get it done. If it's a criminal trying to buy a gun, have an arrest warrant issued on the spot

 

[bgr39]

It's OK, he's a gun owner, he's one of us. So he can be against them, no problem

You think everything is all or nothing don't you?

Strawman. If guns are restricted like other Constitutional rights in this country then I'm mostly fine with that. Are you? You ready to require licenses and fees for free speech and to protect you from illegal searches and ceasures?

And gain, that means what exactly? What government restriction of the right only people who follow gun laws, honest citizens, makes you feel safer exactly?

That's just dumb. I'm not sure how free speech can produce the same danger of the public that no background checks for guns can.

Thats because you're stupid. NOte the word "incitement" and what it connotes.

You might note that incitement is a regulated form of speech. Reasonable regulation is needed in all aspects of life in a community. Even free speech.

Do you mean the way that stomping of the American flag can incite veterans and other patriotic Americans?