Gun Control - What's the Problem?

[Leo123]

If a person can’t pass a background check then of course they won’t buy a gun in a shop. If we didn’t have background checks then they absolutely would. This isn’t hard to understand. Think about it.

I’m sure some dems want to confiscate guns. I’m not a dem nor do I care to speak for them. I’m a gun owner who is fine with regulations on firearms and tired of the slippery slope fear tactic.

No, YOU think about it.....You spout this Utopian belief that we can actually control who gets guns. In the meantime, you offer no explanation as to who you 'think' shouldn't have a gun. Clever of you try to debunk the most likely possibility that the government will expand who they think is mentally incapable of owning a gun by indicting those who question such regulations as using 'fear tactics.'

When they decide that one of your prescription drugs renders you incapable of owning the guns you already have, maybe then the truth will sink in.

 

[Slade3200]

If a person can’t pass a background check then of course they won’t buy a gun in a shop. If we didn’t have background checks then they absolutely would. This isn’t hard to understand. Think about it.

I’m sure some dems want to confiscate guns. I’m not a dem nor do I care to speak for them. I’m a gun owner who is fine with regulations on firearms and tired of the slippery slope fear tactic.

No, YOU think about it.....You spout this Utopian belief that we can actually control who gets guns. In the meantime, you offer no explanation as to who you 'think' shouldn't have a gun. Clever of you try to debunk the most likely possibility that the government will expand who they think is mentally incapable of owning a gun by indicting those who question such regulations as using 'fear tactics.'

When they decide that one of your prescription drugs renders you incapable of owning the guns you already have, maybe then the truth will sink in.

I think those are all fair concerns. Does bi polar disqualify somebody, autism, PTSD soldiers? There are no easy answers so it will be a hearty debate. Problem is we can’t even get to the debate because the team partisans won’t let it get there.

What I’m spouting is not a utopian belief it is common sense regulations that any responsible society should be doing.

 

[Hollie]

I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.

Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...

Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.


View attachment 59771

"Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me."

seriously are you that ignorant? criminals don't buy guns which a background check is conducted the guns criminals possess are either stolen or bought off the street

and we have had many democrats say their agenda is gun confiscation hell most democrat candidates are running on that as part of their platform
so just stop it with that bull shit claim democrats don't want to take guns away

If a person can’t pass a background check then of course they won’t buy a gun in a shop. If we didn’t have background checks then they absolutely would. This isn’t hard to understand. Think about it.

I’m sure some dems want to confiscate guns. I’m not a dem nor do I care to speak for them. I’m a gun owner who is fine with regulations on firearms and tired of the slippery slope fear tactic.

No Democrat wants to ‘confiscate’ guns.

Otherwise, yes – no firearm regulatory measure has been proposed as a ‘panacea’ for all gun crime and violence, including background checks.

Background checks work as intended.

Putting “confiscate” in quotations doesn’t address the “confiscation” proposed by the rabid dems by way of a mandatory buyback program.

After Shootings, 2020 Democrats Race Further Left On Gun Confiscation

 

[BrokeLoser]

If a person can’t pass a background check then of course they won’t buy a gun in a shop. If we didn’t have background checks then they absolutely would. This isn’t hard to understand. Think about it.

I’m sure some dems want to confiscate guns. I’m not a dem nor do I care to speak for them. I’m a gun owner who is fine with regulations on firearms and tired of the slippery slope fear tactic.

No, YOU think about it.....You spout this Utopian belief that we can actually control who gets guns. In the meantime, you offer no explanation as to who you 'think' shouldn't have a gun. Clever of you try to debunk the most likely possibility that the government will expand who they think is mentally incapable of owning a gun by indicting those who question such regulations as using 'fear tactics.'

When they decide that one of your prescription drugs renders you incapable of owning the guns you already have, maybe then the truth will sink in.

I think those are all fair concerns. Does bi polar disqualify somebody, autism, PTSD soldiers? There are no easy answers so it will be a hearty debate. Problem is we can’t even get to the debate because the team partisans won’t let it get there.

What I’m spouting is not a utopian belief it is common sense regulations that any responsible society should be doing.

There’s no worthy debate to be had...the further we deviate from our founders intent the more of a shithole we become as we become inhabited by the worlds shit.
FUCK THAT!

 

[2aguy]

If a person can’t pass a background check then of course they won’t buy a gun in a shop. If we didn’t have background checks then they absolutely would. This isn’t hard to understand. Think about it.

I’m sure some dems want to confiscate guns. I’m not a dem nor do I care to speak for them. I’m a gun owner who is fine with regulations on firearms and tired of the slippery slope fear tactic.

No, YOU think about it.....You spout this Utopian belief that we can actually control who gets guns. In the meantime, you offer no explanation as to who you 'think' shouldn't have a gun. Clever of you try to debunk the most likely possibility that the government will expand who they think is mentally incapable of owning a gun by indicting those who question such regulations as using 'fear tactics.'

When they decide that one of your prescription drugs renders you incapable of owning the guns you already have, maybe then the truth will sink in.

I think those are all fair concerns. Does bi polar disqualify somebody, autism, PTSD soldiers? There are no easy answers so it will be a hearty debate. Problem is we can’t even get to the debate because the team partisans won’t let it get there.

What I’m spouting is not a utopian belief it is common sense regulations that any responsible society should be doing.

We already have all the gun laws we need to deal with all the gun crimes we have...the only problem we have is democrat judges, prosecutors and politicians, letting repeat, violent gun offenders out of jail on bond, and out of prison on light sentences....fix that, and our gun crime problem goes down 99%....

Oh, and I do fix it... This is common sense gun control...since it only targets criminals who use guns illegally....

I support a life sentence on any criminal who uses a gun for an actual gun crime..... and 30 years if a criminal is caught in possession of a gun, even if they are not using it at that moment for crime.
This will dry up gun crime over night. Criminals will stop using guns for robberies, rapes and murders.....and those who do will be gone forever......

Criminals will also stop walking around with guns in their pants......which is the leading cause of random gang shootings in our cities. if they are stopped by police, with a gun in their pants, they are gone for 30 years...they will stop carrying those guns, and random gang violence will end.

You implement this with two other things...

1) No More Bargaining Away the Gun Charge.........it must be against the law to bargain away a gun charge as part of a plea deal....this stops.

2) When a criminal is arrested for any crime, and booked in...they will be read the announcement that any use of a crime is a life sentence without parole, owning or carrying a gun as a felon is a 30 year sentence without parole....when they are released from custody...the same will be read to them again....when they meet their parole officer it will be read to them again.....the U.S. government will also buy and send out Public announcements on this policy on t.v. radio. and cable......

That is how you stop gun crime over night.

Mass shooters are different..... but with only 93 people killed in mass public shootings in 2018, they are not the major problem in gun crime.

The value in my plan......it actually targets the individuals actually using guns to commit crimes and murder people....

It does not require new background check laws, it does not require gun licensing, licensing gun owners, gun registration, new taxes, fees or regulations on guns...

By making gun crime a life sentence, criminals will stop using guns for crime and will stop carrying guns around for protection.....

Also....a nurse, with a legal gun, driving from Pennsylvania, to New Jersey, will not be considered a gun criminal.....that will end. Criminals with a record of crime, caught with a gun will get 30 years, no deals.....and criminals who use guns for actual crime...robbing the local store, rape, robbery, murder.....life without parole...

This, of course, eliminates the need for more gun control laws...we can already do this.....

 

[Slade3200]

If a person can’t pass a background check then of course they won’t buy a gun in a shop. If we didn’t have background checks then they absolutely would. This isn’t hard to understand. Think about it.

I’m sure some dems want to confiscate guns. I’m not a dem nor do I care to speak for them. I’m a gun owner who is fine with regulations on firearms and tired of the slippery slope fear tactic.

No, YOU think about it.....You spout this Utopian belief that we can actually control who gets guns. In the meantime, you offer no explanation as to who you 'think' shouldn't have a gun. Clever of you try to debunk the most likely possibility that the government will expand who they think is mentally incapable of owning a gun by indicting those who question such regulations as using 'fear tactics.'

When they decide that one of your prescription drugs renders you incapable of owning the guns you already have, maybe then the truth will sink in.

I think those are all fair concerns. Does bi polar disqualify somebody, autism, PTSD soldiers? There are no easy answers so it will be a hearty debate. Problem is we can’t even get to the debate because the team partisans won’t let it get there.

What I’m spouting is not a utopian belief it is common sense regulations that any responsible society should be doing.

There’s no worthy debate to be had...the further we deviate from our founders intent the more of a shithole we become as we become inhabited by the worlds shit.
FUCK THAT!

Haha, yeah we’ve become a total shit hole country throughout the ages. Great argument man. If we are so bad why don’t you just go back to the crap of a country you came from?

 

[BrokeLoser]

If a person can’t pass a background check then of course they won’t buy a gun in a shop. If we didn’t have background checks then they absolutely would. This isn’t hard to understand. Think about it.

I’m sure some dems want to confiscate guns. I’m not a dem nor do I care to speak for them. I’m a gun owner who is fine with regulations on firearms and tired of the slippery slope fear tactic.

No, YOU think about it.....You spout this Utopian belief that we can actually control who gets guns. In the meantime, you offer no explanation as to who you 'think' shouldn't have a gun. Clever of you try to debunk the most likely possibility that the government will expand who they think is mentally incapable of owning a gun by indicting those who question such regulations as using 'fear tactics.'

When they decide that one of your prescription drugs renders you incapable of owning the guns you already have, maybe then the truth will sink in.

I think those are all fair concerns. Does bi polar disqualify somebody, autism, PTSD soldiers? There are no easy answers so it will be a hearty debate. Problem is we can’t even get to the debate because the team partisans won’t let it get there.

What I’m spouting is not a utopian belief it is common sense regulations that any responsible society should be doing.

There’s no worthy debate to be had...the further we deviate from our founders intent the more of a shithole we become as we become inhabited by the worlds shit.
FUCK THAT!

Haha, yeah we’ve become a total shit hole country throughout the ages. Great argument man. If we are so bad why don’t you just go back to the crap of a country you came from?

I’ve been told the 1950’s were afugginmazing...Do some due diligence...think race demographics.

 

[Slade3200]

If a person can’t pass a background check then of course they won’t buy a gun in a shop. If we didn’t have background checks then they absolutely would. This isn’t hard to understand. Think about it.

I’m sure some dems want to confiscate guns. I’m not a dem nor do I care to speak for them. I’m a gun owner who is fine with regulations on firearms and tired of the slippery slope fear tactic.

No, YOU think about it.....You spout this Utopian belief that we can actually control who gets guns. In the meantime, you offer no explanation as to who you 'think' shouldn't have a gun. Clever of you try to debunk the most likely possibility that the government will expand who they think is mentally incapable of owning a gun by indicting those who question such regulations as using 'fear tactics.'

When they decide that one of your prescription drugs renders you incapable of owning the guns you already have, maybe then the truth will sink in.

I think those are all fair concerns. Does bi polar disqualify somebody, autism, PTSD soldiers? There are no easy answers so it will be a hearty debate. Problem is we can’t even get to the debate because the team partisans won’t let it get there.

What I’m spouting is not a utopian belief it is common sense regulations that any responsible society should be doing.

There’s no worthy debate to be had...the further we deviate from our founders intent the more of a shithole we become as we become inhabited by the worlds shit.
FUCK THAT!

Haha, yeah we’ve become a total shit hole country throughout the ages. Great argument man. If we are so bad why don’t you just go back to the crap of a country you came from?

I’ve been told the 1950’s were afugginmazing...Do some due diligence...think race demographics.

I think life is pretty damn amazing out here so I got no complaints. Sorry you don’t feel the same, like I said you can always go back to where you came from and love there for a bit. Perhaps gain some perspective

 

[BrokeLoser]

No, YOU think about it.....You spout this Utopian belief that we can actually control who gets guns. In the meantime, you offer no explanation as to who you 'think' shouldn't have a gun. Clever of you try to debunk the most likely possibility that the government will expand who they think is mentally incapable of owning a gun by indicting those who question such regulations as using 'fear tactics.'

When they decide that one of your prescription drugs renders you incapable of owning the guns you already have, maybe then the truth will sink in.

I think those are all fair concerns. Does bi polar disqualify somebody, autism, PTSD soldiers? There are no easy answers so it will be a hearty debate. Problem is we can’t even get to the debate because the team partisans won’t let it get there.

What I’m spouting is not a utopian belief it is common sense regulations that any responsible society should be doing.

There’s no worthy debate to be had...the further we deviate from our founders intent the more of a shithole we become as we become inhabited by the worlds shit.
FUCK THAT!

Haha, yeah we’ve become a total shit hole country throughout the ages. Great argument man. If we are so bad why don’t you just go back to the crap of a country you came from?

I’ve been told the 1950’s were afugginmazing...Do some due diligence...think race demographics.

I think life is pretty damn amazing out here so I got no complaints. Sorry you don’t feel the same, like I said you can always go back to where you came from and love there for a bit. Perhaps gain some perspective

That’s retarded...filth is never bothered by other filth..in fact they typically gravitate towards one another. Weird huh?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.

Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...

Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.


View attachment 59771

"Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me."

seriously are you that ignorant? criminals don't buy guns which a background check is conducted the guns criminals possess are either stolen or bought off the street

and we have had many democrats say their agenda is gun confiscation hell most democrat candidates are running on that as part of their platform
so just stop it with that bull shit claim democrats don't want to take guns away

If a person can’t pass a background check then of course they won’t buy a gun in a shop. If we didn’t have background checks then they absolutely would. This isn’t hard to understand. Think about it.

I’m sure some dems want to confiscate guns. I’m not a dem nor do I care to speak for them. I’m a gun owner who is fine with regulations on firearms and tired of the slippery slope fear tactic.

No Democrat wants to ‘confiscate’ guns.

Otherwise, yes – no firearm regulatory measure has been proposed as a ‘panacea’ for all gun crime and violence, including background checks.

Background checks work as intended.

The question is not whether they work or not, the question is whether they solve anything or not.

Nothing is ever going to solve the problem of gun violence, all we can do is try and help in as many areas as we can. Background checks force criminals and high risk individuals to get guns from illegal means. This makes it harder and more expensive for them and limits their options. It also narrows things for law enforcement who want to fight the underground gun market.

If we had no BG checks and no gun Regs then all that goes away and anybody can buy anything from any store that offers it. I personally don’t think that helps a thing, It can only hurt

I don't think background checks do all that much. Most people who want to commit a crime for the first time don't want a weapon that can be traced back to them in most cases, unless it's a mass shooting where suicide is part of the plan.

For people not legally allowed to buy or own a firearm, straw buyers seems to be the problem there, and I don't think we do enough to those people who are buying weapons on behalf of a felon.

 

[TRFjr]

If a person can’t pass a background check then of course they won’t buy a gun in a shop. If we didn’t have background checks then they absolutely would. This isn’t hard to understand. Think about it.

I’m sure some dems want to confiscate guns. I’m not a dem nor do I care to speak for them. I’m a gun owner who is fine with regulations on firearms and tired of the slippery slope fear tactic.

No, YOU think about it.....You spout this Utopian belief that we can actually control who gets guns. In the meantime, you offer no explanation as to who you 'think' shouldn't have a gun. Clever of you try to debunk the most likely possibility that the government will expand who they think is mentally incapable of owning a gun by indicting those who question such regulations as using 'fear tactics.'

When they decide that one of your prescription drugs renders you incapable of owning the guns you already have, maybe then the truth will sink in.

I think those are all fair concerns. Does bi polar disqualify somebody, autism, PTSD soldiers? There are no easy answers so it will be a hearty debate. Problem is we can’t even get to the debate because the team partisans won’t let it get there.

What I’m spouting is not a utopian belief it is common sense regulations that any responsible society should be doing.

If you start taking rights away from those with mental health issue fewer and fewer will seek help with those issues
and also you will be infringing on doctor-patient privilege

and your bull crap about gun control not being debated is just that bull crap the debate been going on for decades its just you gun grabbers keep losing the debate and won't accept defeat so you act like a debate hasn't been going on

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If a person can’t pass a background check then of course they won’t buy a gun in a shop. If we didn’t have background checks then they absolutely would. This isn’t hard to understand. Think about it.

I’m sure some dems want to confiscate guns. I’m not a dem nor do I care to speak for them. I’m a gun owner who is fine with regulations on firearms and tired of the slippery slope fear tactic.

No, YOU think about it.....You spout this Utopian belief that we can actually control who gets guns. In the meantime, you offer no explanation as to who you 'think' shouldn't have a gun. Clever of you try to debunk the most likely possibility that the government will expand who they think is mentally incapable of owning a gun by indicting those who question such regulations as using 'fear tactics.'

When they decide that one of your prescription drugs renders you incapable of owning the guns you already have, maybe then the truth will sink in.

I think those are all fair concerns. Does bi polar disqualify somebody, autism, PTSD soldiers? There are no easy answers so it will be a hearty debate. Problem is we can’t even get to the debate because the team partisans won’t let it get there.

What I’m spouting is not a utopian belief it is common sense regulations that any responsible society should be doing.

If you start taking rights away from those with mental health issue fewer and fewer will seek help with those issues
and also you will be infringing on doctor-patient privilege

Given the fact that the lefts ultimate goal is to have a disarmed society, those who are receiving help for anything will be disarmed overnight once they get power. That may be extended to people with physical problems as well. For instance I'm an insulin dependent diabetic. The Democrats could easily say I'm not capable of owning a firearm.

 

[Leo123]

I think those are all fair concerns. Does bi polar disqualify somebody, autism, PTSD soldiers? There are no easy answers so it will be a hearty debate. Problem is we can’t even get to the debate because the team partisans won’t let it get there.

What I’m spouting is not a utopian belief it is common sense regulations that any responsible society should be doing.

You are not going to keep criminals and the criminal mentally ill from obtaining firearms. There should be no debate. We already have laws against criminals owning firearms. Most people with actual mental illness are NOT given guns. These little perps can think for themselves and can decide what is right and what is wrong. That makes them perfectly mentally competent.

They're just rotters who have been taught by our liberal politicians and our liberal MSM to hate. No amount of gun control with cure this, the only cure is to reject leftist, Neo-Marxist bullshit and teach our children morals and values by MODELING good sexual relationships with heterosexual relationships and marriages with commitment that uphold family and societal values.

Like I already said it's not the guns it's government SUPPORT of fatherless families (especially in the 'black' community), support of little girls getting abortions when they should have NEVER allowed themselves to get pregnant in the first place, support and promotion of gender dysphoria, the notion that humans are destroying the Earth and on and on and on. WTF did you expect?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Sorry, but I did not find the word unalienable or inalienable in the Bill of Rights?

I think you may be getting confused with the Declaration of Independence?
{...
Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
...}

Do you bother READING what is being said? Let me repeat it for you again:

"We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Where do you think that pre-existing Right came from??? It was codified from a document that Thomas Jefferson said was the "Declaratory Charter of the Rights of Man" - the Declaration of Independence.

I am still not following.
I agree that rights are not created by government, and must be pre-existing, or else we could not create governments.
I agree that since rights are inherent, they can not be sold or even given away.
But they can have reasonable restrictions.
For example, you always have the right of defense.
But when you walk into a police station, you don't need to be armed in order to be safe.
So there can be a restriction on carrying arms into a police station.
That is not an arbitrary infringement, but a concession necessary for the safety of police.
As long as any restriction can be shown as necessary in order to satisfy the rights of others, then it is not an infringement or illegal.

So are we disagreeing about something?

The reason you can't be armed in a police station isn't because it's "reasonable." The reason is that the police department owns the police station, and that means they get to make the rules. You can tell people they can't bring weapons into your house. Is that a limitation on your 2nd amendment rights? No, it's just you exercising your property rights.

Not following.
The police department does not own the police station.
You do, collectively, with a million other people.
No different than roads or parks.

Pure horseshit. Whoever sets the rules is the owner. The police department (or the city, take your pick) purchased the property. It sets the rules. It determines how the property is used. It can sell the property if it likes. Your theory that the people can own anything has been demonstrated to be absurd countless times. Government can own things. The people can't. The claim makes nonsense of the word "ownership."

But you still need to be armed for defense at roads or parks, because you would not be safe otherwise.
In a police station you are safe, so no need to be armed.
Can you tell police they can't bring weapons into your house?
I don't think so, because there can be situations where they do have to, even if you do not want them to, such as if they have a search warrant.

The rest of your post is irrelevant babble.

The government has the power to do illegal things, but they lack the authority. WHEN enough people have had enough of the B.S. the government is doing, they will act in accordance to the blueprint provided by the founders of our Republic.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." An excerpt from the Declaration of Independence

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If a person can’t pass a background check then of course they won’t buy a gun in a shop. If we didn’t have background checks then they absolutely would. This isn’t hard to understand. Think about it.

I’m sure some dems want to confiscate guns. I’m not a dem nor do I care to speak for them. I’m a gun owner who is fine with regulations on firearms and tired of the slippery slope fear tactic.

No, YOU think about it.....You spout this Utopian belief that we can actually control who gets guns. In the meantime, you offer no explanation as to who you 'think' shouldn't have a gun. Clever of you try to debunk the most likely possibility that the government will expand who they think is mentally incapable of owning a gun by indicting those who question such regulations as using 'fear tactics.'

When they decide that one of your prescription drugs renders you incapable of owning the guns you already have, maybe then the truth will sink in.

Ignorant nonsense – this fails as a slippery slope and red herring fallacy, nothing but baseless rightwing demagoguery having nothing whatsoever to do with the legitimacy of background checks.

One is rendered a prohibited person only after having been afforded comprehensive due process – such as a felony conviction, dishonorable discharge from the military, or having been adjudicated mentally defective by a judge or magistrate.

There is no ‘they.’

There is no hidden, capricious, malevolent government authority that subjectively designates citizens prohibited persons simply because of a prescription drug they might be taking.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Excellent... I’d propose we allow anybody to own whatever gun they want then... we can just regulate their rights to possess them

Again, you totally miss the point.
No one was ever suggesting all gun law be struck down, just all FEDERAL ones, because the Bill of Rights denied any federal jurisdiction over weapons. It is supposed to be a state or local jurisdiction.

This is not exactly right. The way our process works is that when there is a constitutional issue, it is settled in the courts. So, let's follow the whole sequence so that you understand the truth:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}


“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)


“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

So, the government did not create those rights NOR do they grant them. Your unalienable Rights do not depend upon the government for their existence. The earliest court decisions confirmed this principle. Let me use the Right to keep and bear Arms as an example. The right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your Liberty AND the Right to Life. Let’s view your Rights in light of court decisions:

According to Wikipedia:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."

Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)


In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:



"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

1) The Right to keep and bear Arms predates the Constitution

2) The Right is not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence

3) The earliest courts ruled that the Right is absolute and above the jurisdiction of the state government.

The ONLY reason we have so many laws on the books today is that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and it repealed the Bill of Rights as unalienable Rights. See this for more details:

Stolen Rights

Obviously no right can be absolute.
If you are harming others, such as pointing a gun at an innocent, then your right to life can be forfeit.
Your own quote qualifies with, "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." , so then it is not without possible restriction. The restrictions can be a list of lawful purposes, and then all other purposed could be banned by state of municipal laws.

Are you that dense or are you playing a game? Are you that clueless?

“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right,originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (185

I am still not getting your point.
Of course rights can not be infringed, but legal restrictions, like shooting back at you if you are robbing a bank, is not an infringement.

I agree with what you're saying. The primary purpose of government is to protect the weak against the strong and make good on the guarantee that your Rights will be protected.

Instead, some people on this thread question every word and nuance so as to justify government intervention. For instance, if the government can tell you that you cannot shoot me, then it is not unreasonable for the government to tell us what kind of weapon we can or cannot have... which is the erroneous anti-gun argument AND was refuted in court rulings predating the 14th Amendment.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

If a person can’t pass a background check then of course they won’t buy a gun in a shop. If we didn’t have background checks then they absolutely would. This isn’t hard to understand. Think about it.

I’m sure some dems want to confiscate guns. I’m not a dem nor do I care to speak for them. I’m a gun owner who is fine with regulations on firearms and tired of the slippery slope fear tactic.

No, YOU think about it.....You spout this Utopian belief that we can actually control who gets guns. In the meantime, you offer no explanation as to who you 'think' shouldn't have a gun. Clever of you try to debunk the most likely possibility that the government will expand who they think is mentally incapable of owning a gun by indicting those who question such regulations as using 'fear tactics.'

When they decide that one of your prescription drugs renders you incapable of owning the guns you already have, maybe then the truth will sink in.

Ignorant nonsense – this fails as a slippery slope and red herring fallacy, nothing but baseless rightwing demagoguery having nothing whatsoever to do with the legitimacy of background checks.

One is rendered a prohibited person only after having been afforded comprehensive due process – such as a felony conviction, dishonorable discharge from the military, or having been adjudicated mentally defective by a judge or magistrate.

There is no ‘they.’

There is no hidden, capricious, malevolent government authority that subjectively designates citizens prohibited persons simply because of a prescription drug they might be taking.

Being forced to undergo a background check in order to exercise a Right violates the 4th Amendment AND it reduces the Right to a privilege.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.

Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...

Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.


View attachment 59771

"Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me."

seriously are you that ignorant? criminals don't buy guns which a background check is conducted the guns criminals possess are either stolen or bought off the street

and we have had many democrats say their agenda is gun confiscation hell most democrat candidates are running on that as part of their platform
so just stop it with that bull shit claim democrats don't want to take guns away

If a person can’t pass a background check then of course they won’t buy a gun in a shop. If we didn’t have background checks then they absolutely would. This isn’t hard to understand. Think about it.

I’m sure some dems want to confiscate guns. I’m not a dem nor do I care to speak for them. I’m a gun owner who is fine with regulations on firearms and tired of the slippery slope fear tactic.

No Democrat wants to ‘confiscate’ guns.

Otherwise, yes – no firearm regulatory measure has been proposed as a ‘panacea’ for all gun crime and violence, including background checks.

Background checks work as intended.

Putting “confiscate” in quotations doesn’t address the “confiscation” proposed by the rabid dems by way of a mandatory buyback program.

After Shootings, 2020 Democrats Race Further Left On Gun Confiscation

The Federalist?

You can’t be serious.

And there’s nothing in the linked article about Democrats advocating for ‘confiscation’ of guns - it's just another rightwing lie.

 

[Slade3200]

"Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me."

seriously are you that ignorant? criminals don't buy guns which a background check is conducted the guns criminals possess are either stolen or bought off the street

and we have had many democrats say their agenda is gun confiscation hell most democrat candidates are running on that as part of their platform
so just stop it with that bull shit claim democrats don't want to take guns away

If a person can’t pass a background check then of course they won’t buy a gun in a shop. If we didn’t have background checks then they absolutely would. This isn’t hard to understand. Think about it.

I’m sure some dems want to confiscate guns. I’m not a dem nor do I care to speak for them. I’m a gun owner who is fine with regulations on firearms and tired of the slippery slope fear tactic.

No Democrat wants to ‘confiscate’ guns.

Otherwise, yes – no firearm regulatory measure has been proposed as a ‘panacea’ for all gun crime and violence, including background checks.

Background checks work as intended.

The question is not whether they work or not, the question is whether they solve anything or not.

Nothing is ever going to solve the problem of gun violence, all we can do is try and help in as many areas as we can. Background checks force criminals and high risk individuals to get guns from illegal means. This makes it harder and more expensive for them and limits their options. It also narrows things for law enforcement who want to fight the underground gun market.

If we had no BG checks and no gun Regs then all that goes away and anybody can buy anything from any store that offers it. I personally don’t think that helps a thing, It can only hurt

I don't think background checks do all that much. Most people who want to commit a crime for the first time don't want a weapon that can be traced back to them in most cases, unless it's a mass shooting where suicide is part of the plan.

For people not legally allowed to buy or own a firearm, straw buyers seems to be the problem there, and I don't think we do enough to those people who are buying weapons on behalf of a felon.

See you make the case for me. You say, Criminals don’t buy guns from stores because they don’t want it traced to them or they won’t pass a BG check. That’s a good thing. The fact that we have the ability to trace and do background checks is a deterrent from allowing them easy access to weapons. Push them to the black market and make it easier for law enforcement to fight the good fight. It means the laws are working

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Whatever you say. Haha.

As if I care about the government collecting revenue. You don’t do a very good job understanding opposing positions.

Your position is weak

The facts tell you that.

Over 100 million legal gun owners and most gun crimes are not committed by legal gun owners

So all your regulation and fees and licenses you want to impose on legal gun owners will do nothing to stop gun crimes

The only thing that will stop gun crimes that has actually been proven to do so is to uncompromisingly enforce our federal gun laws.

Yeah yeah, you think my position is weak, I think yours is weak... that stuff make zero difference.

It’s funny that you try and make the argument that most gun crimes are not committed by legal gun owners. First of there are still many crimes committed by people who legally purchased guns or who got their guns from people who legally purchased the guns. Second, it’s because of laws and regulations that make it so they had to get the guns illegally. That’s a good thing. Why would we want to make it easier for these guys to get guns?!

As for enforcing gun laws, I agree with you. Do you think we aren’t enforcing the laws? Sounds like a talking point without a lot of meat behind it

What percentage of gun crimes are committed by people who legally purchased their guns?

And if a person can get a gun legally how do you know which ones of them will commit crimes with those guns?

And no we aren't enforcing the laws because people are not going to federal prison for illegally possessing a gun.

In fact gun charges are often the first to be bargained away

In Delaware, 71% of gun charges are dropped

https://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/crim/409/

There are 16 markers a minor can commit that will tell us, in advance, if they are likely to commit a violent act. If you take any 8 of those markers and throw in SSRIs, that is psychotropic drugs, that youth will commit a violent act during their lifetime.

Instead of focusing on the firearms, we should invest in identifying those minors who are visible troubled children. We should do civil interventions and help find out what the problem is and help resolve it. What we're doing in America is parenting with pills and police. It has proven to be a clusterph(*.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Exactly.
By being cheap and not wanting to pay for medical access for counseling, we are costing ourselves much more in money wasted on prisons, police, and courtrooms.

We're not being cheap; the Ds and the Rs are being blatantly stupid.

If a kid has a problem, they are whisked off to a 6 minute consultation with a doctor and given Ritalin or Adderall. From there, a child's life can spiral out of control. The "cheaper" and more effective solution is to have specially trained social workers go into a home and determine if the problem is the parents or the child. It is a civil intervention and it requires that a minor meet a couple of markers that indicate a legitimate problem exists.

WHEN there is a problem, specially trained people show up ASAP (like days instead of months or years later) to assess the problem, and begin a path to getting the help the minor and / or the family needs. You cannot parent minors with pills and police.