Waiting period to buy a gun...?

[2aguy]

There's no reason to accept a situation where you only choice ids the lesser of two evils. In doing that you only ensure eventual defeat - or, in this case, the eventual elimination of the right to arms.
But, it is good to see you understand how it is impossible to compromise here.

Lesser of two evils sums up politics and law well. If you think it works any other way wrong-o.

So... what other rights are you willing to have taken away by a series of lesser of two evil choices?

"What do ya got?" - Marlon Brando

So... all of them.
Why bother with the concept of rights if you're willing to allow all of them to be stripped away, and believe we should all do the same?

Tea Party didn't compromise and now they're redundant in American politics.

You mean the fact that their two candidates are the front runners for the GOP nomination for President...Ted Cruz and Scott Walker? That sort of redundancy and caving on principal......Ted Cruz and Scott Walker are known for caving in to the left?

 

[Abatis]

I'm a gun owner, and a 2nd amendment supporter.

I am also in favor of clarification on the 2nd amendment, so we all don't have to wind up appearing to be crack pots, and overreact to any regulation that might not be so much of an infringement on the 2nd.

You really need to be less focused on the 2nd Amendment and concern yourself more with what the legitimate powers of government are, as set-out in the body of the Constitution.

We do not possess the right to arms because of what the 2nd Amendment says; . . . we possess the right to arms because of what the body of the Constitution DOESN'T SAY. The most important truth regarding our right to arms is that no express power was ever conferred through the Constitution that allows the federal government to exercise any powers over the personal arms of the private citizen.

I completely understand how defining the word "arms", in terms of what the constitution allows us to possess, isn't that easy.

Sweet merciful Jesus riding sidesaddle on a rainbow unicorn... WHAT THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS?????????????????

AS SCOTUS has said many times for going on 140 years, the right to arms is not granted (or given or created or otherwise established) by the 2nd Amendment so the right exists without any reference to the 2nd Amendment and is in no manner dependent upon the Constitution.

So when I hear people getting jumpy because you can't go buy a gun that same day, I sometimes wonder how peoductive that fight is. We need to pick out battles, and not let anti gun folks draw us into looking like paranoid militia types.

Our primary "battle" is to be ever vigilant and to never permit the federal government to exceed the powers granted to it by us, "We the People" and violate the principles of its establishment.

 

[August West]

Tea Party didn't compromise and now they're redundant in American politics.

You did not answer the question.

No rights being taken away here. They're being protected in point of fact and a helluva lot more efficiently than the all-or-nothing approach. Your approach is doomed to failure, mine actually protects our rights to own weapons.

You already admitted that your course of action - taking the lesser of two evils offered - guarantees the rights will be eventually taken away.

No I didn't. Maybe somoene did but I know I didn't because I'm all about the Constitution.

Where in the Constitution does it require a waiting period "to keep and bear arms"?

The Constitution doesn`t say we can`t yell fire in a crowded theater and it doesn`t say that we can`t take our guns into Heinz Field to watch the Steelers play either. All rights come with restrictions. If they didn`t we could sale guns out of vending machines.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

No rights being taken away here. They're being protected in point of fact and a helluva lot more efficiently than the all-or-nothing approach. Your approach is doomed to failure, mine actually protects our rights to own weapons.

You already admitted that your course of action - taking the lesser of two evils offered - guarantees the rights will be eventually taken away.

No I didn't. Maybe somoene did but I know I didn't because I'm all about the Constitution.

As you said:
Lesser of two evils sums up politics and law well. If you think it works any other way wrong-o.
At what point do you stop accepting the lesser of two evils?

And you got 'assures the taking away of a right' guaranteed in the Constitution from that? As Bugs Bunny said, "It could be you Doc'."
The game works by accepting compromise so you never stop doing so unless you've resigned yourself being eliminated from the game altogether. But accepting compromises that ensure law-abidding citizens keep their rights and curtails unlawful ones isn't any sort of threat to the law-abidding citizens.

You apparently missed the various times I explained how it is, by definition, impossible to compromise with the people who want to take away gun rights as they have niohing to offer us in return for doing so.
Thus, any argument regarding compromise in this respect is necessarily unsound..

I ask again: At what point do you stop accepting the lesser of two evils?

People want many things, but no one is going to take away the 2nd Amendment. In fact,

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

"SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008

District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."

lots more at the link, mostly legalese though. Sufficed to say, no one's coming to take away your right.

 

[Abatis]

Know what they call politicians who never compromise?

Is it within a politician's legitimate actions (in executing the duties of the office they were elected) to "compromise" on the Constitution?

Are you saying that the oath of office they take is flexible and subject to personal feelings and subject to political pressure (even if that pressure is from a majority of their constituents)?

 

[M14 Shooter]

People want many things, but no one is going to take away the 2nd Amendment. In fact,

Again, I ask:
At what point do you stop accepting the lesser of two evils?

 

[Abatis]

Imagine many untrained gun users under combat stress lsoe control of their weapon to their attackers. And people who'd buy a gun in the first place to protect themselves against a known or likely threat may rely upon it instead of calling police, or use the weapon unjustifiably. Many scenarios where an untrained panicky person is worse off armed.

Scenarios which dwell entirely within the fertile furrows of your mind, certainly not represented in the instances of armed self-defense by private citizens. Set down the bong, turn off the black-light and step out in the real world.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

People want many things, but no one is going to take away the 2nd Amendment. In fact,

Again, I ask:
At what point do you stop accepting the lesser of two evils?

When you break away and make your own country governed by your own rules.

 

[M14 Shooter]

People want many things, but no one is going to take away the 2nd Amendment. In fact,

Again, I ask:
At what point do you stop accepting the lesser of two evils?

When you break away and make your own country governed by your own rules.

Clearly, you aren't willing to discuss the issue honestly.

 

[2aguy]

You did not answer the question.

No rights being taken away here. They're being protected in point of fact and a helluva lot more efficiently than the all-or-nothing approach. Your approach is doomed to failure, mine actually protects our rights to own weapons.

You already admitted that your course of action - taking the lesser of two evils offered - guarantees the rights will be eventually taken away.

No I didn't. Maybe somoene did but I know I didn't because I'm all about the Constitution.

Where in the Constitution does it require a waiting period "to keep and bear arms"?

The Constitution doesn`t say we can`t yell fire in a crowded theater and it doesn`t say that we can`t take our guns into Heinz Field to watch the Steelers play either. All rights come with restrictions. If they didn`t we could sale guns out of vending machines.

And again.....you don't have to get a license to speak in a theater to endure that you won't yell fire in a theater....you are punished when you break the law in regard to that right...not before....and yes...you could sell guns out of vending machines.....

 

[rightwinger]

The NRA will not be happy until.......

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Constitution doesn`t say we can`t yell fire in a crowded theater and it doesn`t say that we can`t take our guns into Heinz Field to watch the Steelers play either. All rights come with restrictions. If they didn`t we could sale guns out of vending machines.

Snicker.
Tell us... what "restrictions" are inherent to the right to arms?

 

[2aguy]

You already admitted that your course of action - taking the lesser of two evils offered - guarantees the rights will be eventually taken away.

No I didn't. Maybe somoene did but I know I didn't because I'm all about the Constitution.

As you said:
Lesser of two evils sums up politics and law well. If you think it works any other way wrong-o.
At what point do you stop accepting the lesser of two evils?

And you got 'assures the taking away of a right' guaranteed in the Constitution from that? As Bugs Bunny said, "It could be you Doc'."
The game works by accepting compromise so you never stop doing so unless you've resigned yourself being eliminated from the game altogether. But accepting compromises that ensure law-abidding citizens keep their rights and curtails unlawful ones isn't any sort of threat to the law-abidding citizens.

You apparently missed the various times I explained how it is, by definition, impossible to compromise with the people who want to take away gun rights as they have niohing to offer us in return for doing so.
Thus, any argument regarding compromise in this respect is necessarily unsound..

I ask again: At what point do you stop accepting the lesser of two evils?

People want many things, but no one is going to take away the 2nd Amendment. In fact,

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

"SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008

District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."

lots more at the link, mostly legalese though. Sufficed to say, no one's coming to take away your right.

Until the next democrat President with a democrat majority in the Senate can replace 2 conservative justices with liberal justices.....then let's see how gun rights fare.....

 

[Delta4Embassy]

People want many things, but no one is going to take away the 2nd Amendment. In fact,

Again, I ask:
At what point do you stop accepting the lesser of two evils?

When you break away and make your own country governed by your own rules.

Clearly, you aren't willing to discuss the issue honestly.

More than most, I'm quite willing to discuss things with fellow reasonable people. Your posiiton though is defeatist and never works. If you wanna have an effect on policy you have to know how the game is played and play by its' rules. The folding your arms defiantly across your chest and refusing to see the virtue of compromise and reasonable accomodation is fine. But you'll never find anyone in power willing to listen to you unless it's to make fun of you behind your back later.

 

[M14 Shooter]

People want many things, but no one is going to take away the 2nd Amendment. In fact,

Again, I ask:
At what point do you stop accepting the lesser of two evils?

When you break away and make your own country governed by your own rules.

Clearly, you aren't willing to discuss the issue honestly.

More than most, I'm quite willing to discuss things with fellow reasonable people.

My position is based on nothing but reason, reason you have yet to address , much less argue against.
Let us know when you;re honest enough about YOUR position to tell us where you stop accepting the lesser of two evils

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You did not answer the question.

No rights being taken away here. They're being protected in point of fact and a helluva lot more efficiently than the all-or-nothing approach. Your approach is doomed to failure, mine actually protects our rights to own weapons.

You already admitted that your course of action - taking the lesser of two evils offered - guarantees the rights will be eventually taken away.

No I didn't. Maybe somoene did but I know I didn't because I'm all about the Constitution.

Where in the Constitution does it require a waiting period "to keep and bear arms"?

The Constitution doesn`t say we can`t yell fire in a crowded theater and it doesn`t say that we can`t take our guns into Heinz Field to watch the Steelers play either. All rights come with restrictions. If they didn`t we could sale guns out of vending machines.

All rights comes with responsibility. I don't see why you couldn't take your gun to Heinz Field.

Vending machines huh? Using that logic every item in every store could be sold in vending machines, sheets, shirts, dresses, towels, shoes, laptop computers, mouse pads, dog food......etc. Dumbass analogy you used there huh?

 

[2aguy]

People want many things, but no one is going to take away the 2nd Amendment. In fact,

Again, I ask:
At what point do you stop accepting the lesser of two evils?

When you break away and make your own country governed by your own rules.

Clearly, you aren't willing to discuss the issue honestly.

More than most, I'm quite willing to discuss things with fellow reasonable people. Your posiiton though is defeatist and never works. If you wanna have an effect on policy you have to know how the game is played and play by its' rules. The folding your arms defiantly across your chest and refusing to see the virtue of compromise and reasonable accomodation is fine. But you'll never find anyone in power willing to listen to you unless it's to make fun of you behind your back later.

No....you explain to reasonable people why their point of view is in error...and you refuse to give in to a view point that is wrong simply because not giving in will mean they punish you more.......you keep explaining till you change their minds...and if you give in you are saying that they are actually right.....

 

[Preacher]

Its the usual anti gun nut "logic" that anyone intending to use a gun to harm someone else will calm down and not do it if they must wait a few days...

 

[Abatis]

More than most, I'm quite willing to discuss things with fellow reasonable people. Your posiiton though is defeatist and never works. If you wanna have an effect on policy you have to know how the game is played and play by its' rules. The folding your arms defiantly across your chest and refusing to see the virtue of compromise and reasonable accomodation is fine. But you'll never find anyone in power willing to listen to you unless it's to make fun of you behind your back later.

You are the one living in the fantasy world. As was seen in the gun control "debates" post Newtown, gun rights people, no matter how "compromising" were excluded from any discussion until the last moment to try to save a lousy bill.

I am gonna stick with the sentiment that Congress has no legitimate opinion on my rights. Their powers are limited to creating law within the confines of the Constitution and no powers were granted to allow them to have any interest in the personal arms of the private citizen. What possible compromise is legitimate?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Apparently, some people still think this is not just a good idea, but necessary.
Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence Gun Law Information Experts

To this end, a federal judge struck the waiting period on CA for most gun buyers
Federal judge strikes down California gun purchase waiting period in some cases Fox News

If a waiting period for an abortion is insufferable, how is if OK to force people to wait to buy a gun?
Fewer Waiting Periods For Guns Than For Abortions INFOGRAPHIC

I already own several guns and have a CCW permit -- why should I have to wait some arbitrary amount of time before I can exercise my right to arms?

Ever the moderate, I suggest a compromise. When purchasing your first firearm, you have a waiting period. Subsequent firearms though, no waiting period.

This is just as inconsistent and unwarranted; it's not how the law work.