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

[Shogun]

I see where you are coming from Shogun. I just think that it is always going to messy at the margins. I think this is unavoidable and not necessarily a bad thing.

I think that I shall bail too. Goodnight (I'm in England) Shogun. Talk to you later.

HAve a great evening, dude... You too Jillian!

I enjoyed this one too. never mind any aggressiveness in that last post, Reilly..

peace

 

[mattskramer]

And, again, its based on public property.

“Public Safety” - That is an interesting qualifier. It is not mentioned in the 1st amendment. It is not mentioned in the 2nd amendment. Let me parallel it another way.

Having a sidewalk sell of guns seems like a dangerous activity. Having a display of guns out there in the open for all to see. Someone can have a street corner sell. Should that person get a permit?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The only issue I have with background checks is the whole creating a list of who owns what and where. Also a 5 day wait is absolutely not required.

If a background check creates no list and no fingerprint to be used against gun owners it is a reasonable and practical procedure. The reality is it creates lists and puts people in a file that at a future date can be used to collect weapons. It is an invasion of privacy if we are to believe that we have a constitutional right to such ( not my argument, but it is what the court used to claim abortion was protected). It is a violation of the 4th amendment. It is not the Governments right to know who owns weapons.

The only exception being weapons not considered covered by the 2nd amendment. In this case that would be fully automatic weapons. One must qualify and buy a federal license to won and must keep the Government informed where said weapons are stored at all times. Only 17 states totally outlaw fully automatic weapons.

 

[mattskramer]

The only issue I have with background checks is the whole creating a list of who owns what and where. Also a 5 day wait is absolutely not required.

If a background check creates no list and no fingerprint to be used against gun owners it is a reasonable and practical procedure. The reality is it creates lists and puts people in a file that at a future date can be used to collect weapons. It is an invasion of privacy if we are to believe that we have a constitutional right to such ( not my argument, but it is what the court used to claim abortion was protected). It is a violation of the 4th amendment. It is not the Governments right to know who owns weapons.

The only exception being weapons not considered covered by the 2nd amendment. In this case that would be fully automatic weapons. One must qualify and buy a federal license to won and must keep the Government informed where said weapons are stored at all times. Only 17 states totally outlaw fully automatic weapons.

What is going on – there is no gun restriction in the 2nd amendment! Tell me if I am wrong but I sense some compromise in the works. Oh. I’m sorry but I thought that you were M14 Shooter. Anyway, it should not take a 5-day wait. I doubt that it would take 1 day for a gun shop to find out who this customer is that wants a gun. Gee. I had to give permission for my background to be investigated before I could gain admittance into a medical job. I simply don’t think that it is that much to ask, and if it requires an adjustment to the 2nd amendment, so be it. I’m not asking for a permanent record of the transaction (though I don’t care if the government wants to keep a record on me). I’m not asking for every conceivable restriction to eat away at gun ownership rights - perhaps just a brief background check.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What is going on – there is no gun restriction in the 2nd amendment! Tell me if I am wrong but I sense some compromise in the works. Oh. I’m sorry but I thought that you were M14 Shooter. Anyway, it should not take a 5-day wait. I doubt that it would take 1 day for a gun shop to find out who this customer is that wants a gun. Gee. I had to give permission for my background to be investigated before I could gain admittance into a medical job. I simply don’t think that it is that much to ask, and if it requires an adjustment to the 2nd amendment, so be it. I’m not asking for a permanent record of the transaction (though I don’t care if the government wants to keep a record on me). I’m not asking for every conceivable restriction to eat away at gun ownership rights - perhaps just a brief background check.

Except the brief background check is logged and maintained on file and if you purchase a gun it is recorded. And there is a mandatory 5 day wait for all handgun purchases, at least in my state and I believe Country wide now.

There is even a move to have weapons fired and the rifling and bullet pattern logged with the purchaser for "future" use in any crime. Those are invasions of privacy and assumptions of guilty, both disallowed by the Constitution. It violates the 4th and 2nd Amendment as well as the 5th amendment.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Even using your analogy, it is still reasonable to pre-screen gun-owners. The guns are taken in public, or can be, and that DOES create a public safety issue and a significant governmental interest in making sure felons can't do so.

I -might- agree with you if the issue were for permits to -carry- a gun on public property, which would certainly involve a public safety issue (and usually do require a background check), but the vast majority of guns are not used that way, and pose only a nominal risk to public safety.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I am just going to use the wikipedia quote because I am too lazy to pull up the case myself.

There. Public welfare/safety, not public property was the key.

Hmmm.

The authority of a municipality to impose regulations in order to assure the safety and convenience of the people in the use of public highways

As YOU said -- the only reason it was an issue is because it was on public PROPERTY, and that if you are on private property, there can be no requirement for a permit.

You -cannot- simply ignore the fact that the entire issue WAS an issue because public property was involved.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You know I don't think they have any right to warrantless wire-taps. I think it's a violation of the fourth amendment of the highest order. I think it's EXACTLY what the fourth was supposed to protect against. Does that answer your question?

Doesnt international terrorism create a public safety issue and a significant governmental interest in making sure terrorists can't attack our cities?

 

[mattskramer]

Doesnt international terrorism create a public safety issue and a significant governmental interest in making sure terrorists can't attack our cities?

Okay. Suspected public safety issues trump the Bill of Rights even when such exceptions are not enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Gotcha.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Okay. Suspected public safety issues trump the Bill of Rights even when such exceptions are not enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Gotcha.

That certaily seems to be Jillian's position. Just checking to see if that's indeed the case.

 

[M14 Shooter]

“Public Safety” - That is an interesting qualifier. It is not mentioned in the 1st amendment.

Sounds like you need to start taking issue with Jillian and RT.

 

[jillian]

Sounds like you need to start taking issue with Jillian and RT.

A simplistic analysis..... the Court has always balanced individual rights against the societal interest.

If you have a quarrel with that, you can take it up with the high court, since it's always done that.

 

[Edward]

I -might- agree with you if the issue were for permits to -carry- a gun on public property, which would certainly involve a public safety issue (and usually do require a background check), but the vast majority of guns are not used that way, and pose only a nominal risk to public safety.

Guns are not self-contained. They are not manufactured, sold and stored on the same property by the same person. If this was the case than it could be argued that they do not pose a public safety issue. Since they aren't manufactured, sold and stored on the same property by the same person the government has the right to regulate gun ownership. The government also has an interest in knowing who owns guns so that they know who is available to act as part of the militia when called upon to do so. What you fail to realize is that every male is technically a part of the United States militia or as we now call it the National Guard. This alone gives the government the right to screen people who own guns. But putting that aside the issue of public safety is a very major issue since the government must balance the interest of the individual against the right of the community. In doing so it must make sure that no individual is so heavily armed that he could take on an entire police force, kill hundreds of officers and innocent people before being taken down. Right the right body armor and weapons a lone gunmen could take on an entire armed police force and do serious damage so it is only right that the government takes into consideration the need to regulate the amount and type of weapons owned as well as to screen the owner for any criminal or mental health issues. An outright ban of the right of every American to own guns would be unacceptable but regulation short of that often carries more weight than the individuals right.

 

[Edward]

Except the brief background check is logged and maintained on file and if you purchase a gun it is recorded. And there is a mandatory 5 day wait for all handgun purchases, at least in my state and I believe Country wide now.

It is appropriate to complete background checks on all people who intend to purchase a gun and to keep them on file. In fact, I would argue that the government has an interest in knowing who owns guns, the types and the amount they own in order to preserve public safety and to perform its duty to regulate the unorganized part of the militia. Failing to do so would allow people to purchase guns of any type and amount and to pose a public safety risk. Failing to do so would also prevent the government from calling on the un-organized but armed militia to defend the country as needed. How and when the government decides to do this will vary and having access to the right information will be essential if a national emergency would occur that would require the government to utilize the full organized National Guard and parts of the unorganized National Guard to defend the United States. People knew who owned guns in the antebellum period of our country because there was a sense of community and people knew each other including those in government and out of it so it would have been easy. Now this isn't the case so other methods must be used to achieve the same purpose. Paul Revere won't be riding a horse from house to house nor will the President or Congress get on television and tell Americans to take up arms instead they will utilize means of mass communication to contact individual Americans and to organize the militia in every city, county and state in matters of minutes or hours. This can't happen in this country as it now stands unlike in Switzerland where their milita can quickly respond.

There is even a move to have weapons fired and the rifling and bullet pattern logged with the purchaser for "future" use in any crime. Those are invasions of privacy and assumptions of guilty, both disallowed by the Constitution. It violates the 4th and 2nd Amendment as well as the 5th amendment.

It is neither an invasion of privacy or an assumption of guilt to have weapons fired to record bullet pattern. Your right to privacy isn't being violated when the government does this since you have no inherent right to privacy over the markings made by a gun you purchase and you are free to not purchase a gun if you choose to do so.

 

[Edward]

The only issue I have with background checks is the whole creating a list of who owns what and where. Also a 5 day wait is absolutely not required.

But that is exactly what the government must and should do. It only makes sense that the government be able to know who owns what and where those weapons are. This allows the government to exercise its regulatory power over the unorganized part of the National Guard (i.e., militia). Anything short of this would prevent them from doing so. I'm not talking about ment walking around and drilling in the words playing commando but every day Americans who form the national guard of our country and who the government will need to call upon in times of emergency to defend this country. They aren't going to go about it by press conference and it may only be a matters of hours before they need to have it organized and ready to defend us if we are under attack by terrorists or others.

If a background check creates no list and no fingerprint to be used against gun owners it is a reasonable and practical procedure. The reality is it creates lists and puts people in a file that at a future date can be used to collect weapons.

Now you are just being an ignoramus. The reason for having a list of who owns guns isn't for those who own guns to take them from us. You are a ******* nut if you think that the citizens who make up the government intend to take guns from themselves. The only real reason the government would want such a list is to help it defend us when and if we should come under a full-scale attack.

It is an invasion of privacy if we are to believe that we have a constitutional right to such ( not my argument, but it is what the court used to claim abortion was protected). It is a violation of the 4th amendment. It is not the Governments right to know who owns weapons.

Actually it is the governments constitutional right to know who owns weapons. Try reading the Constitution sometime. Congress has the power to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." The government does have a right to know who owns weapons because it has a right to know who of the unorganized militia has weapons to defend the country. This may be a difficult concept for you to understand but it isn't a violation of privacy instead it is a right that the government has to regulate and provide for the arming of the militia.

The only exception being weapons not considered covered by the 2nd amendment. In this case that would be fully automatic weapons. One must qualify and buy a federal license to won and must keep the Government informed where said weapons are stored at all times. Only 17 states totally outlaw fully automatic weapons.

The government has the right to know who owns weapons without exception and only chooses to exercise its authority when it comes to fully automatic weapons but can and should do so with other types of weapons. The government shouldn't have to worry about who is and who isn't armed when it needs to call the militia up. If Congress were to meet in session tommorrow it should be able to call up the organized and unorganized part of the National Guard and have the organized part of it activate the unorganized part that owns guns without having to worry about who does and doesn't own weapons.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The government has the right to know who owns weapons without exception

Support this 'right', given that registration is a tool to allow for confiscation, and that the 2nd amendment was written so that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was safe from the government.

The government shouldn't have to worry about who is and who isn't armed when it needs to call the militia up.

It doesnt. When the militia is called, people that choose to heed the call will arrive with whatever weapons they have. Militia service, after all, is voluntary.

If Congress were to meet in session tommorrow it should be able to call up the organized and unorganized part of the National Guard

There is no unorganized part of the National Guard.
And, the national guard is a federal force, part of the standing army, whose weapons are provided to them by the federal government.

 

[Shogun]

funny.. when the government starts making lists detailing who said what despite the first amendment all of a sudden the sky is falling.

when the government starts making lists detailing who owns what despite the second amendment all of a sudden it's good policy.




thanks for validating the entire mccarthy era of politics.

 

[Edward]

funny.. when the government starts making lists detailing who said what despite the first amendment all of a sudden the sky is falling.

when the government starts making lists detailing who owns what despite the second amendment all of a sudden it's good policy.




thanks for validating the entire mccarthy era of politics.

Let the government make lists of who said what. It's not like they already don't. Only stupid ass bitches cry when they find out that a government that is founded on tyrannical principles as outlined in the Constitution does this sort of thing. I have no problem with it. Let the tyrants who vote elect other tyrants who appoint other tyrants to spy on us. Big ******* deal. Only stupid ass liberal scum care that people track what they say and only stupid ass conservative asslickers care that people track whether they own guns.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It is appropriate to complete background checks on all people who intend to purchase a gun and to keep them on file. In fact, I would argue that the government has an interest in knowing who owns guns, the types and the amount they own in order to preserve public safety and to perform its duty to regulate the unorganized part of the militia. Failing to do so would allow people to purchase guns of any type and amount and to pose a public safety risk. Failing to do so would also prevent the government from calling on the un-organized but armed militia to defend the country as needed. How and when the government decides to do this will vary and having access to the right information will be essential if a national emergency would occur that would require the government to utilize the full organized National Guard and parts of the unorganized National Guard to defend the United States. People knew who owned guns in the antebellum period of our country because there was a sense of community and people knew each other including those in government and out of it so it would have been easy. Now this isn't the case so other methods must be used to achieve the same purpose. Paul Revere won't be riding a horse from house to house nor will the President or Congress get on television and tell Americans to take up arms instead they will utilize means of mass communication to contact individual Americans and to organize the militia in every city, county and state in matters of minutes or hours. This can't happen in this country as it now stands unlike in Switzerland where their milita can quickly respond.



It is neither an invasion of privacy or an assumption of guilt to have weapons fired to record bullet pattern. Your right to privacy isn't being violated when the government does this since you have no inherent right to privacy over the markings made by a gun you purchase and you are free to not purchase a gun if you choose to do so.

You would be wrong, the entire premise of why women can abort on demand is privacy, the court held that there is some mystical clause in the Constitution that protects everyones right to privacy. Further the 5th amendment protects from self incrimination and the 4th from unreasonable searches with OUT warrant or probable cause. Violations if one is forced to provide said information prior to any crime or illegal activity. That would be why the Government can not force everyone to get finger printed also, they have to have a reason to require it. Unless arrested or charged or you volunteer for some reason there is no legal means to force either DNA or finger prints. Same concept.

 

[Shogun]

Let the government make lists of who said what. It's not like they already don't. Only stupid ass bitches cry when they find out that a government that is founded on tyrannical principles as outlined in the Constitution does this sort of thing. I have no problem with it. Let the tyrants who vote elect other tyrants who appoint other tyrants to spy on us. Big ******* deal. Only stupid ass liberal scum care that people track what they say and only stupid ass conservative asslickers care that people track whether they own guns.

hehehehe.. You are dumb, lil eddie.

I'll remember your cavalier attitude after government agencies have files on after your pseudo E-Bravado lands you a visit from the men in black. Indeed, being blackballed over suspected communist ties sure is the American way, isn't dummy?

You don't think about these things so much as retort, do you?