Expanded background checks fails in Senate

[NYcarbineer]

Yeah, I hate to belabor a point, but, I have two questions:
So, that being said, I have 2 questions:
1. If you bitched and moaned about "Operation Fast and Furious", how the **** can you say that you are against background checks?

Backgrounds checks are a form of prior restraint in that they restrain an individual from exercising his right until such a time that the state determines that said exercise is not illegal.
Prior retraint is an infringement and is constitutionally permissible only in specific and extreme circumstances.

Prior restraint is a figment of the gun nuts' imagination.

 

[FA_Q2]

Yeah, I hate to belabor a point, but, I have two questions:
So, that being said, I have 2 questions:
1. If you bitched and moaned about "Operation Fast and Furious", how the **** can you say that you are against background checks?

Backgrounds checks are a form of prior restraint in that they restrain an individual from exercising his right until such a time that the state determines that said exercise is not illegal.
Prior retraint is an infringement and is constitutionally permissible only in specific and extreme circumstances.

Prior restraint is a figment of the gun nuts' imagination.

Really? So, this case only exists in ‘gun nuts’ imagination: near v. Minnesota
Or are you just spitting bullshit out your ass again.

None of this has anything to do with prior restraint, and so does nothing to negate the soundness of my statement.
Please do try again.

Let me use the definition of "Prior Restraint" that you provided to illustrate my point. I'll just substitute the subject:

Minimum voting ages are a form of prior restraint in that they restrain an individual from exercising his right until such a time that the state determines that said exercise is not illegal.

Is this statement true?

No, that statement is false. Prior restraint is a concept that you have your rights restrained because of the suspicion that you MIGHT have done something to get that right removed. A child never had that right to begin with. You do not have the right to vote – or a myriad of other rights – as a minor. The government is not taking that right away because you have committed a crime, had your day in court and been given the chance for judicial review of your case. There is in fact, no case at all.

With prior restraint it is different. Rather than the slandered presumption of innocence, the government is starting with a presumption of guilt and FORCING you to get permission in order to exercise your rights. That is not how rights work. You do not need to seek governmental approval to exercise your rights, you have that inherently and the government is the one that must seek approval through the courts to limit those rights. Going in the other direction is a dark road indeed.

This concept is typically applied to first amendment issues - specifically the press and speech. In the case above, it was a matter of laws that restrained newspapers from publishing content because of what the effects MIGHT be (aka slanderous). The SCOTUS ruled that the government has no right to do so. The concept is identical here though with the second, the government is demanding that you receive PERMISSION to exercise a right.

 

[FA_Q2]

If you read the bill, its clear it does nothing but make a transfer cos an extra $10.00. It also required a background check on purchases made on line, which unless you hold an FFL you had to do anyway. The reason this failed was because of Democrats that voted against it. They did this because they dont want to give up their jobs so Obama can build his legacy. They remember 2010 and the health care debacle, and now that Obama care is on its way to failure, its just not worth it for them. For those who are pro gun control, this bill should piss you off. It was nothing but a shell game. You should be absolutely pissed that the political scum you support think you are so stupid that you would fall for this shit.

Except they did fall for it…..

 

[FA_Q2]

Riiight...you go with that. Criminals are't obeying current laws, but if we had just one more on the books...that'd do the trick.

It's not the criminals who will start obeying the laws, it's the sellers of guns.

Right now, selling to a criminal is not illegal, unless you know for a fact that he is a criminal.

Therefore there is no deterrent at all for people to sell guns to criminals, because even if they do know that the person they are selling to is a criminal, there is no way to PROVE that they know.

Therefore, the law it moot, as it is unenforceable.

So, yes, "if we just had one more on the books" that can actually be enforced, it will actually provide a reason for people not to sell guns to criminals.

And it's not "one more on the books", it would replace the old law, thus the same number of laws would exist.

Larger more comprehensive law I guess then. The NUMBER of laws is not the problem. It is the VOLUME that exists and I would venture a guess that this would have added several books worth of volume after it was said and done with what the states would have to do in order to comply.

Really, it required a gun registry where all your firearms would be tracked and traceable. I am not comfortable with such a law. I guess that we have just thrown privacy and the right to be secure in your person and things right out the window with this one because this is a right that you don’t like….

How can you rationalize those two concepts – the right to privacy and the requirement to register all weapons?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I see him referred to as a dummy a lot. But it's funny that he won both his vice presidential debates...

Biden is one of the most stupid vice president we have ever had. Maybe you should listen to him once in a while and stop sniffing obama's ass.

Priceless!

What the **** that ever means

 

[FA_Q2]

Biden is one of the most stupid vice president we have ever had. Maybe you should listen to him once in a while and stop sniffing obama's ass.

Priceless!

What the **** that ever means

You forgot a plural and he thought that pointing it out would be meaningful…

It is worth noting though, neither post is really adding much to the dialogue…

 

[AmericanFirst]

Senate rejects expanded gun background checks - CNN.com

Maybe because the idiots attached banning assault weapons on it. Good. The American people and common sense wins one. Loved it to see obamaturd and reid crying like little bitches.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Yeah, I hate to belabor a point, but, I have two questions:
So, that being said, I have 2 questions:
1. If you bitched and moaned about "Operation Fast and Furious", how the **** can you say that you are against background checks?

Backgrounds checks are a form of prior restraint in that they restrain an individual from exercising his right until such a time that the state determines that said exercise is not illegal.
Prior retraint is an infringement and is constitutionally permissible only in specific and extreme circumstances.

Prior restraint is a figment of the gun nuts' imagination.

You having a brain is a figment of your imagination.

 

[M14 Shooter]

None of this has anything to do with prior restraint, and so does nothing to negate the soundness of my statement.
Please do try again.

Let me use the definition of "Prior Restraint" that you provided to illustrate my point. I'll just substitute the subject:
Minimum voting ages are a form of prior restraint in that they restrain an individual from exercising his right until such a time that the state determines that said exercise is not illegal.
Is this statement true?

No. You do not have the right to vote until you reach 18, and so ant law that keeps you from voting until you turn 18 does not restrain your right to vote in any way

Keep trying.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Riiight...you go with that. Criminals are't obeying current laws, but if we had just one more on the books...that'd do the trick.

It's not the criminals who will start obeying the laws, it's the sellers of guns.
Right now, selling to a criminal is not illegal, unless you know for a fact that he is a criminal.

Your statement is false; you are either ignorant of the issue or are deliberatly making a false statement. Please feel free to choose which and let us know.

 

[Vast LWC]

Larger more comprehensive law I guess then. The NUMBER of laws is not the problem. It is the VOLUME that exists and I would venture a guess that this would have added several books worth of volume after it was said and done with what the states would have to do in order to comply.

Really, it required a gun registry where all your firearms would be tracked and traceable. I am not comfortable with such a law. I guess that we have just thrown privacy and the right to be secure in your person and things right out the window with this one because this is a right that you don’t like….

How can you rationalize those two concepts – the right to privacy and the requirement to register all weapons?

The "right to privacy"?

Other than privacy concerning self-incrimination, unreasonable searches and housing soldiers, there is no constitutional guarantee to privacy.

The Constitution DOES however, clearly state the purpose for granting the right to bear arms.

And that purpose is, specifically, to be able to quickly and effectively form militias.

That purpose is served the right to bear arms, but it is ALSO served by both registries and background checks for weapon owners.

As long as there is an expectation that a person can procure a gun in a reasonable amount of time, then background checks and registration fall right in line with the intent of the Second Amendment.

 

[legaleagle_45]

The "right to privacy"?

Other than privacy concerning self-incrimination, unreasonable searches and housing soldiers, there is no constitutional guarantee to privacy.

SCOTUS disagrees with you.

The Constitution DOES however, clearly state the purpose for granting the right to bear arms.

And that purpose is, specifically, to be able to quickly and effectively form militias...

Correct. Just because a law does not violate the 2nd Amend does not mean that it is a good or wise law or does not violate another portion of the Constitution. For example a law which requires you to wear a pink tutu in public probably does not violate the 2nd Amend, but I don't think that would be a good law.

As long as there is an expectation that a person can procure a gun in a reasonable amount of time, then background checks and registration fall right in line with the intent of the Second Amendment.

Probably correct, but registration would be a waste of time and money so it would not be a wise law.... but a law which PROHIBITED you from wearing a pink tutu in public might be a good idea...

 

[westwall]

Riiight...you go with that. Criminals are't obeying current laws, but if we had just one more on the books...that'd do the trick.

It's not the criminals who will start obeying the laws, it's the sellers of guns.

Right now, selling to a criminal is not illegal, unless you know for a fact that he is a criminal.

Therefore there is no deterrent at all for people to sell guns to criminals, because even if they do know that the person they are selling to is a criminal, there is no way to PROVE that they know.

Therefore, the law it moot, as it is unenforceable.

So, yes, "if we just had one more on the books" that can actually be enforced, it will actually provide a reason for people not to sell guns to criminals.

And it's not "one more on the books", it would replace the old law, thus the same number of laws would exist.

You are so full of crap it is amazing you can still walk. Straw man purchases are FELONIES.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Backgrounds checks are a form of prior restraint in that they restrain an individual from exercising his right until such a time that the state determines that said exercise is not illegal.
Prior retraint is an infringement and is constitutionally permissible only in specific and extreme circumstances.

Prior restraint is a figment of the gun nuts' imagination.

You having a brain is a figment of your imagination.

Prior restraint is a legal concept that concerns the 1st amendment and censorship. It has been attempted as an argument in 2nd amendment cases and has been shot down.

So **** off.

 

[squeeze berry]

 

[legaleagle_45]

Prior restraint is a legal concept that concerns the 1st amendment and censorship. It has been attempted as an argument in 2nd amendment cases and has been shot down..

Please provide the name of a case where the concept of "prior restraint" has been shot down as a legal argument in 2nd Amend case law.

 

[mmmjvpssm]

No, expanded background checks did NOT fail in the Senate, it hasn't come up for a vote. Let it come up for a vote and then if it gets more no votes than yes votes then you can yammer and yap about how expanded background checks failed in the Senate. Until then the only ones who have failed are the cowards who won't let it come up for a vote

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, expanded background checks did NOT fail in the Senate, it hasn't come up for a vote. Let it come up for a vote and then if it gets more no votes than yes votes then you can yammer and yap about how expanded background checks failed in the Senate. Until then the only ones who have failed are the cowards who won't let it come up for a vote

Interesting.... So what was the vote for yesterday?

 

[mmmjvpssm]

No, expanded background checks did NOT fail in the Senate, it hasn't come up for a vote. Let it come up for a vote and then if it gets more no votes than yes votes then you can yammer and yap about how expanded background checks failed in the Senate. Until then the only ones who have failed are the cowards who won't let it come up for a vote

Interesting.... So what was the vote for yesterday?

Yesterday's vote was a vote to bring it to a vote. It wasn't a vote for background checks.

 

[Lakhota]

Why Four Democrats Voted Against Background Checks | TPMDC