If we're to believe guns should be banned

[The Derp]

The background check is a violation of the First Amendment, because it compels people to speak and provide information about themselves.

The first amendment doesn't protect that. Are you thinking the 4th or 5th amendments? Those aren't applicable here either. And you haven't said how it's an "infringement". It's only an "infringement" if you cannot pass it. And if you cannot pass a background check, then you shouldn't have a gun.

Additionally, the background check could be seen as a violation of the right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment because you have to provide evidence against yourself in order to require a gun.

First of all, the 5th Amendment is only applicable in cases of testimony, under oath and/or in a court of law and/or during interrogation. A background check isn't done in a court of law or under oath or during an interrogation. So your shitty point remains shitty and functionally illiterate. Try again. Also, the 5th Amendment protects you from testifying against yourself. You're not the one doing the background check. You're not the one who is opening up their records to the background check. You have nothing to do with it other than your name.

Furthermore, a violation of the Tenth Amendment, because the requirement to provide this information is not something that is explicitly stated as a power of the federal government in the US constitution.

So do people in Michigan die from a different kind of gun death than people in Texas? No. So your 10th Amendment argument doesn't fly there either.

Anything else?

Yes, please send a better troll.

 

[The Derp]

Yeah, that worked rather well this time, wouldn't you agree?

Wouldn't have mattered anyway...in Texas, domestic abusers can get guns. That's why we need federal laws.

 

[The Derp]

Well, it's a gosh darned good thing what you say doesn't over-ride the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, now isn't it? lolol.

Too bad it doesn't fucking apply here at all and your crackerjack understanding of it doesn't make it so.

 

[Darkwind]

These incident are very unfortunate. But if anyone thinks for one second that any Individual should relinquish his or her own Individual rights in order to appease someone elses feelings, you're mistaken. And dilusional. Respectfully.

It isn't about "feelings." It is about common sense. I also have a right not to be mowed down in church, at Walmart, at school. That is not "feels."

That's' right. You do. But only those who infringe on your rights are required to forfeit immunity, and your he or she alone opens the door to just reprisal against himself or herself, by government

I have not violated your right to go to Church or to go to Walmart. Please do not organize against my right to liberty. Tyrants do that.

I have no intention of violating your liberty. You can have guns. Just not semi's. Why can't you live with that?

You won't live if you try to take mine, I'll tell you that. Either that or I'll die.

If you don't want to get "mowed down" at the church or market, arm yourself; preferably with a semiautomatic weapon.

Idk about me doing that, I do plan on getting a revolver and keeping the hammer on an empty chamber.

Why won't you give up a semi if it saves a bunch of innocent lives?

Because it will NOT save a bunch of innocent lives. How hard is it to understand that?

 

[The Derp]

Because it will NOT save a bunch of innocent lives. How hard is it to understand that?

And you know this...why? Because you feel it to be true. You're just a fraud, like all the rest.

 

[Natural Citizen]

We're talking about limiting access to guns for certain people.

Who the fuck are you or anybody else to arbitrarily limit any Individual's clear-cut constitutional right?

On top of that, how would you enforce your will on an Individual if he or she does not consent? Hm? Tell me. How? How would you enforce it?

 

[Darkwind]

Because it will NOT save a bunch of innocent lives. How hard is it to understand that?

And you know this...why? Because you feel it to be true. You're just a fraud, like all the rest.

Statistics. have a go at it sometime.

 

[The Derp]

Who the fuck are you to arbitrarily limit any Individual's clear-cut constitutional right?

Who the fuck are you to presume that they have those clear-cut rights?!?!?!?!

 

[The Derp]

Statistics. have a go at it sometime.

Here's some stats:

After their massacre in the 90's, Australia banned semi-automatic weapons. Since then, they've had zero fatalities from semi-automatic weapons.

So there's a big, fat statistic for you: ZERO.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Who the fuck are you to arbitrarily limit any Individual's clear-cut constitutional right?

Who the fuck are you to presume that they have those clear-cut rights?!?!?!?!

Because, unlike you...observably...I understand and give validity to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That's who.

Do you not know how utterly incompetent you look when you ask questions that are specifically laid out in our founding documents?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Statistics. have a go at it sometime.

Here's some stats:

After their massacre in the 90's, Australia banned semi-automatic weapons. Since then, they've had zero fatalities from semi-automatic weapons.

So there's a big, fat statistic for you: ZERO.

Australia doesn't have a system of checks and balances. Nor do they have a constitutional right to bear arms. We do. We have both of those things. Everything that happens there in Australia happens as the discretion of a judge. There is no means of declining consent. It does not work that way in America.

Are ya plum stupid?

 

[TheDude]

Yeah, that worked rather well this time, wouldn't you agree?

Wouldn't have mattered anyway...in Texas, domestic abusers can get guns. That's why we need federal laws.

Not according to this:
SUTHERLAND SPRINGS, Tex. — A day after a gunman massacred parishioners in a small Texas church, the Air Force admitted on Monday that it had failed to enter the man’s domestic violence court-martial into a federal database that could have blocked him from buying the rifle he used to kill 26 people.

Under federal law, the conviction of the gunman, Devin P. Kelley, for domestic assault on his wife and toddler stepson — he had cracked the child’s skull — should have stopped Mr. Kelley from legally purchasing the military-style rifle and three other guns he acquired in the last four years.

“The Air Force has launched a review of how the service handled the criminal records of former Airman Devin P. Kelley following his 2012 domestic violence conviction,” the Air Force said in a statement.

 

[hazlnut]

We're talking about limiting access to guns for certain people.

Who the fuck are you or anybody else to arbitrarily limit any Individual's clear-cut constitutional right?

On top of that, how would you enforce your will on an Individual if he or she does not consent? Hm? Tell me. How? How would you enforce it?

Please look up the word "arbitrarily" in a dictionary then get back to us…

 

[BlackSand]

I assume you're changing the subject as with marriage I was obviously talking about state and local government responsibilities to govern over property rights and disputes…

anyway…. re: Federal court

The Supremacy Clause is a clause within Article VI of the U.S. Constitution which dictates that federal law is the "supreme law of the land." This means that judges in every state must follow the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the federal government in matters which are directly or indirectly within the government's control. Under the doctrine of preemption, which is based on the Supremacy Clause, federal law preempts state law, even when the laws conflict. Thus, a federal court may require a state to stop certain behavior it believes interferes with, or is in conflict with, federal law.

For example - gay marriage bans, sodomy laws, abortion bans...

But in the absence of federal law, or when a state law would provide more protections for consumers, employees, and other residents than what is available under existing federal law, state law holds.

I didn't attempt to change the subject ... Nor will I humor your attempts to suggest the will of God has anything to do with it.

I didn't ask you if the federal government had the power to ensure the states follow the Constitution.
I asked you where the Constitution granted the federal government the power to govern marriage or abortion.

If you have a problem with laws government creates that govern crap they aren't supposed to ... Well, that was kind of my point ...
The 10th Amendment grants the states(and If not the states the People) the authority to govern themselves in areas where the federal government is not granted that power.

Now if you want to suggest that state law supersedes federal law when it gives more protections to its residents ...
Our state constitution has its own version of the second amendment that goes further than the federal version in protecting the rights of citizens to own firearms.
If you are going to stick with that argument ... I don't have a problem with it at all.


.

 

[hazlnut]

Yeah, that worked rather well this time, wouldn't you agree?

Wouldn't have mattered anyway...in Texas, domestic abusers can get guns. That's why we need federal laws.

Not according to this:
SUTHERLAND SPRINGS, Tex. — A day after a gunman massacred parishioners in a small Texas church, the Air Force admitted on Monday that it had failed to enter the man’s domestic violence court-martial into a federal database that could have blocked him from buying the rifle he used to kill 26 people.

Under federal law, the conviction of the gunman, Devin P. Kelley, for domestic assault on his wife and toddler stepson — he had cracked the child’s skull — should have stopped Mr. Kelley from legally purchasing the military-style rifle and three other guns he acquired in the last four years.

“The Air Force has launched a review of how the service handled the criminal records of former Airman Devin P. Kelley following his 2012 domestic violence conviction,” the Air Force said in a statement.

Congress should investigate and make sure every branch of armed services is reporting dishonorable discharges and general court-martials in a prompt manner.

Also, any instance that went unreported should be investigated to see if the person purchased guns since being booted.


They should…

But the NRA won't let them.

 

[BlackSand]

How do universal background checks "relinquish his or her own Individual rights"?

It doesn't ... Dude in Texas passed two background checks.

Now you could blame the military ... But that isn't everything.
Having actually filled out the paperwork for a background check ... There is no way the guy could have honestly answered 85% of the questions and been approved.

That means that at best ... Nobody is really checking anything on the paperwork.

.

 

[Natural Citizen]

We're talking about limiting access to guns for certain people.

Who the fuck are you or anybody else to arbitrarily limit any Individual's clear-cut constitutional right?

On top of that, how would you enforce your will on an Individual if he or she does not consent? Hm? Tell me. How? How would you enforce it?

Please look up the word "arbitrarily" in a dictionary then get back to us…

How about you look up the First amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and the Tenth Amendment and get back to us before your open you pie holes about arbitrarily 'limiting' the rights of any Individual.

Gosh darned amateurs. Jiminy crickets. You'd be violating every one of those. Plus others.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I knew I shouldn't have came back in this thread. lol. Tyrants. Tyrants everywhere. lolol.

 

[hazlnut]

I didn't attempt to change the subject ... Nor will I humor your attempts to suggest the will of God has anything to do with it.

I didn't ask you if the federal government had the power to ensure the states follow the Constitution.
I asked you where the Constitution granted the federal government the power to govern marriage or abortion..

I answered your question... Article VI…. please re-read and explain specifically what you're not understanding…. is it because you don't see the word marriage or baby??

If you have a problem with laws government creates that govern crap they aren't supposed to ... Well, that was kind of my point ...
The 10th Amendment grants the states(and If not the states the People) the authority to govern themselves in areas where the federal government is not granted that power.

Now if you want to suggest that state law supersedes federal law when it gives more protections to its residents ...
Our state constitution has its own version of the second amendment that goes further than the federal version in protecting the rights of citizens to own firearms.
If you are going to stick with that argument ... I don't have a problem with it at all.


.

As long as it doesn't violate Federal law, it's fine.


You're one of those people who don't understand that no written version of the any law can cover every case/instance/situation in perpetuity and thus the supreme court over two + centuries has interpreted the constitution and defined what the Federal Government can and can not do.

Case law.

Precedent.

These concepts help us better understand the constitution and bill of rights.

To understand our political system you must understand the concepts of literal powers, implied powers, inherited powers, as well as the various exceptions to the bill of rights and legal tests outlined by SCOTUS over the many years through their many decisions.

 

[BlackSand]

You're one of those people who don't understand that no written version of the any law can cover every case/instance/situation in perpetuity and thus the supreme court over two + centuries has interpreted the constitution and defined what the Federal Government can and can not do.

Actually I am the exact opposite of that type person ... I am a conservative with constructionist leanings.

The difference is that to me the law means what it says ... Not what you (or anyone for that matter) would like it to mean.
If you want the law to mean something ... Then write it so it does.
Don't make assumptions about what isn't written to support an authority or power that isn't specifically granted.

If the two of us need to interpret something ... I'll stick to what it means in the language used ... You can pretend it means something else ...

.