The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?

[frigidweirdo]

We all know that rights are limited, even the 2A.

 

[Rustic]

Interestingly, as what would eventually become Heller was making its way through the courts, some on the extreme, wrongheaded right were uncomfortable with the prospect of the case being heard by the Court at all – and for this very reason: that although the Court might recognize an individual right to possess firearms, the Court would also recognize that the right is not unlimited, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

And as we’ve seen in this thread and elsewhere, a tiny minority of ignorant rightwing extremists find themselves in the middle of the legal wilderness – at odds with their beloved conservative icon Scalia, and the settled, accepted fact of law that no right is ‘absolute,’ including the Second Amendment right.

Enforce the current laws, no need to waste time and money on new ones... Dumbass

 

[Rustic]

We all know that rights are limited, even the 2A.

Leave it be then... If it ain't broke don't fix it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gun policy isn't fixed law. It is unsettled law, and one which has become a political football / wedge issue which distracts from other serious issues.

So called "gun violence" is really a nonissue in this country, more people die from falling out of bed than from mass shootings...
2016 Real Time Death Statistics in America

Gun violence is "death at the hands of another"! It is not suicide, accidental or of natural causes. That's obvious to anyone with a brain. So sorry Rustic, you need to join Dorothy on the Yellow Brick Road.

More laws will not help. Dumbass

You should never call anyone dumb.

More laws never mean less crime... Fact

So if we de-criminalize bank robbery, people who rob banks won't be counted as having committed a crime,

therefore, less crime.

Good one. How late did you stay up to think of that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gun policy isn't fixed law. It is unsettled law, and one which has become a political football / wedge issue which distracts from other serious issues.

So called "gun violence" is really a nonissue in this country, more people die from falling out of bed than from mass shootings...
2016 Real Time Death Statistics in America

Gun violence is "death at the hands of another"! It is not suicide, accidental or of natural causes. That's obvious to anyone with a brain. So sorry Rustic, you need to join Dorothy on the Yellow Brick Road.

More laws will not help. Dumbass

You should never call anyone dumb.

More laws never mean less crime... Fact

You don't think a stop sign reduces the number of people who run an intersection?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nyet. Guns are sold privately all the time without the necessity of background checks.

How do you propose the state enforce this law?

 

[M14 Shooter]

As usual threads on the 2nd A. end up being debates on opinions, not the body of law.

Yes, but we're used to your mindless inanity.

 

[2aguy]

Yes, they absolutely do. And for no legitimate purpose.

I don't see an instant background check as an infringement. However, under the principle of give an inch lose a mile, NYC takes 3-6 months and around $1000 to approve a permit for a handgun home permit.

THAT is infringement.

The purpose of background checks is to enable government, to illegally discriminate against some of “the people” by denying them their rights under the Second Amendment. And it requires any who seek to exercise this right, as a condition of doing so, to prove that they are not among those against whom government intends to illegally discriminate. It requires us to first seek government's permission to exercise a right. By definition, a right does not require permission to exercise.

If it is done as part of the transaction, with no waiting period, I don't see the issue, constitutional or otherwise.

But lets look at it from another perspective. If selling a gun to a felon is a crime, without instant background checks to show good faith effort by the seller, how would the sellers verify they are selling to a non-felon?

And the anti gunners know this.....and that leads directly to universal gun registration........because you can't know who was the original owner of the gun without it....and anyone can say...hey, it belonged to me the whole time....I didn't buy it....I own it...without universal registration you can't track guns for the background checks....

I wouldn't agree to a national registration, and it isn't needed. All that is needed is 1) show ID, 2) ID is run in computer 3) ID comes up clean 4) get your gun.

exactly....but of course the anti gunners don't want that.....they want the guns....and if they can they want to punish the gun owners...

 

[2aguy]

We all know that rights are limited, even the 2A.

No one said they aren't...

you can't commit a crime with a gun. There....that is a limit on the 2nd Amendment...and pretty much covers all we need.

 

[martybegan]

I don't see an instant background check as an infringement. However, under the principle of give an inch lose a mile, NYC takes 3-6 months and around $1000 to approve a permit for a handgun home permit.

THAT is infringement.

The purpose of background checks is to enable government, to illegally discriminate against some of “the people” by denying them their rights under the Second Amendment. And it requires any who seek to exercise this right, as a condition of doing so, to prove that they are not among those against whom government intends to illegally discriminate. It requires us to first seek government's permission to exercise a right. By definition, a right does not require permission to exercise.

If it is done as part of the transaction, with no waiting period, I don't see the issue, constitutional or otherwise.

But lets look at it from another perspective. If selling a gun to a felon is a crime, without instant background checks to show good faith effort by the seller, how would the sellers verify they are selling to a non-felon?

And the anti gunners know this.....and that leads directly to universal gun registration........because you can't know who was the original owner of the gun without it....and anyone can say...hey, it belonged to me the whole time....I didn't buy it....I own it...without universal registration you can't track guns for the background checks....

I wouldn't agree to a national registration, and it isn't needed. All that is needed is 1) show ID, 2) ID is run in computer 3) ID comes up clean 4) get your gun.

exactly....but of course the anti gunners don't want that.....they want the guns....and if they can they want to punish the gun owners...

That is the end goal for the true believer gun grabbers, yes. The issue is they get to sound reasonable about background checks, and our side looks bad trying to fight them all the time. We need to fight what they are proposing of course, but the discussion has to be changed to reflect what the grabbers actually want.

 

[2aguy]

So called "gun violence" is really a nonissue in this country, more people die from falling out of bed than from mass shootings...
2016 Real Time Death Statistics in America

Gun violence is "death at the hands of another"! It is not suicide, accidental or of natural causes. That's obvious to anyone with a brain. So sorry Rustic, you need to join Dorothy on the Yellow Brick Road.

More laws will not help. Dumbass

You should never call anyone dumb.

More laws never mean less crime... Fact

You don't think a stop sign reduces the number of people who run an intersection?

But you don't limit people before they run the stop sign do you? You only act against them if they ignore the stop sign...and that is what 2nd Amendment supporters agree about when it comes to guns....get caught actually committing a crime with a gun.....and you get punished.....

 

[Wry Catcher]

As usual threads on the 2nd A. end up being debates on opinions, not the body of law.

Yes, but we're used to your mindless inanity.

And I'm used to your irrelevant personal attacks, lies and denial of reality.

 

[bendog]

Gun violence is "death at the hands of another"! It is not suicide, accidental or of natural causes. That's obvious to anyone with a brain. So sorry Rustic, you need to join Dorothy on the Yellow Brick Road.

More laws will not help. Dumbass

You should never call anyone dumb.

More laws never mean less crime... Fact

You don't think a stop sign reduces the number of people who run an intersection?

But you don't limit people before they run the stop sign do you? You only act against them if they ignore the stop sign...and that is what 2nd Amendment supporters agree about when it comes to guns....get caught actually committing a crime with a gun.....and you get punished.....

Imo, if you want to analogize gun ownership to something, you need to analogize it to some other fundamental right because the gummit's power is most restricted in those instances. There are lots of limits on driving.

We're talking the right to marry, reproduce, contracy, own property, be free from illegal search and seizure, etc

 

[M14 Shooter]

As usual threads on the 2nd A. end up being debates on opinions, not the body of law.

Yes, but we're used to your mindless inanity.

And I'm used to your irrelevant personal attacks, lies and denial of reality.

:yawn:
One of these days, you will have something useful to add to a conversation.
Somewhere. Maybe.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The purpose of background checks is to enable government, to illegally discriminate against some of “the people” by denying them their rights under the Second Amendment. And it requires any who seek to exercise this right, as a condition of doing so, to prove that they are not among those against whom government intends to illegally discriminate. It requires us to first seek government's permission to exercise a right. By definition, a right does not require permission to exercise.

If it is done as part of the transaction, with no waiting period, I don't see the issue, constitutional or otherwise.

But lets look at it from another perspective. If selling a gun to a felon is a crime, without instant background checks to show good faith effort by the seller, how would the sellers verify they are selling to a non-felon?

And the anti gunners know this.....and that leads directly to universal gun registration........because you can't know who was the original owner of the gun without it....and anyone can say...hey, it belonged to me the whole time....I didn't buy it....I own it...without universal registration you can't track guns for the background checks....

I wouldn't agree to a national registration, and it isn't needed. All that is needed is 1) show ID, 2) ID is run in computer 3) ID comes up clean 4) get your gun.

exactly....but of course the anti gunners don't want that.....they want the guns....and if they can they want to punish the gun owners...

That is the end goal for the true believer gun grabbers, yes. The issue is they get to sound reasonable about background checks, and our side looks bad trying to fight them all the time. We need to fight what they are proposing of course, but the discussion has to be changed to reflect what the grabbers actually want.

The first issue is to debate an issue honestly. Claiming you know what gun "grabbers actually want" is both ridiculous, dishonest. and illogical:

• Ridiculous sense there are more guns in America than there are people;
• Dishonest sense only a few extremists actually want to grab guns from sane, sober and honest citizens;
• Illogical in terms of a slippery slope fallacy

The pro gun alliance argues that gun control is unconstitutional, they believe the verbiage of the 2nd A. is clear. Plato in The Republic described the control of weapons in this way:

" Socrates then concludes that justice may be defined as telling the truth and paying one's debts. But, he says, what if a friend in a reasonable state of mind were to lend you a sword or a knife and later, in a crazed state, should ask for the repayment of the debt? Ought one to remind a friend who is in a crazed state that he is mad, and ought one to return a sword to a crazy person? The answer is plain: No."

Scalia's written decision in Heller is no different than the thinking of Socrates, so for over two thousand years restrictions / infringements on the possession of weapons has been on the radar of all civilized societies.

 

[martybegan]

If it is done as part of the transaction, with no waiting period, I don't see the issue, constitutional or otherwise.

But lets look at it from another perspective. If selling a gun to a felon is a crime, without instant background checks to show good faith effort by the seller, how would the sellers verify they are selling to a non-felon?

And the anti gunners know this.....and that leads directly to universal gun registration........because you can't know who was the original owner of the gun without it....and anyone can say...hey, it belonged to me the whole time....I didn't buy it....I own it...without universal registration you can't track guns for the background checks....

I wouldn't agree to a national registration, and it isn't needed. All that is needed is 1) show ID, 2) ID is run in computer 3) ID comes up clean 4) get your gun.

exactly....but of course the anti gunners don't want that.....they want the guns....and if they can they want to punish the gun owners...

That is the end goal for the true believer gun grabbers, yes. The issue is they get to sound reasonable about background checks, and our side looks bad trying to fight them all the time. We need to fight what they are proposing of course, but the discussion has to be changed to reflect what the grabbers actually want.

The first issue is to debate an issue honestly. Claiming you know what gun "grabbers actually want" is both ridiculous, dishonest. and illogical:

• Ridiculous sense there are more guns in America than there are people;
• Dishonest sense only a few extremists actually want to grab guns from sane, sober and honest citizens;
• Illogical in terms of a slippery slope fallacy

The pro gun alliance argues that gun control is unconstitutional, they believe the verbiage of the 2nd A. is clear. Plato in The Republic described the control of weapons in this way:

" Socrates then concludes that justice may be defined as telling the truth and paying one's debts. But, he says, what if a friend in a reasonable state of mind were to lend you a sword or a knife and later, in a crazed state, should ask for the repayment of the debt? Ought one to remind a friend who is in a crazed state that he is mad, and ought one to return a sword to a crazy person? The answer is plain: No."

Scalia's written decision in Heller is no different than the thinking of Socrates, so for over two thousand years restrictions / infringements on the possession of weapons has been on the radar of all civilized societies.

NYC's rules are proof that the people in power do not want normal citizens to have guns. They want to make it as difficult and as time consuming as possible, not to make sure the wrong people don't get their hands on them, but to discourage law abiding citizens from even trying. If you can't even admit that simple fact, then there is no point in continuing this conversation.


And it is a small next step to go from discouragement to prohibition, and from prohibition to confiscation.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
The first issue is to debate an issue honestly.

You may now excuse yourself from the conversation.

The pro gun alliance argues that gun control is unconstitutional, they believe the verbiage of the 2nd A. is clear.

Your statement is dishonest.
The argument is that -some- gun control is unconstitutional.

And, of course, the 2nd IS clear:
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

 

[Little-Acorn]

Dishonest sense[sic] only a few extremists actually want to grab guns from sane, sober and honest citizens;

Extremely relevant since one of those extremists is in the White House now, another is the Democrat Party's nominee, and even more are in elected office with the power to put their fear and paranoia into law and punish normal people for not following.

Thank you for at least admitting that these people are extremists.

They have pointed to Australia and England as good examples to follow. Australia and England have both practiced gun confiscation from citizens who committed no crime.

How many "hints" do we need, to know what these people intend for the rest of us, regardless of the Constitutional ban on gun regulations?

 

[bendog]

Dishonest sense[sic] only a few extremists actually want to grab guns from sane, sober and honest citizens;

Extremely relevant since one of those extremists is in the White House now, another is the Democrat Party's nominee, and even more are in elected office with the power to put their fear and paranoia into law and punish normal people for not following.

Thank you for at least admitting that these people are extremists.

They have pointed to Australia and England as good examples to follow. Australia and England have both practiced gun confiscation from citizens who committed no crime.

How many "hints" do we need, to know what these people intend for the rest of us, regardless of the Constitutional ban on gun regulations?

You just had Obama float as his first suggestion to replace Scalia a pro-gun republican governor former US attorney. You need flowers and candy both?

 

[Wry Catcher]

And the anti gunners know this.....and that leads directly to universal gun registration........because you can't know who was the original owner of the gun without it....and anyone can say...hey, it belonged to me the whole time....I didn't buy it....I own it...without universal registration you can't track guns for the background checks....

I wouldn't agree to a national registration, and it isn't needed. All that is needed is 1) show ID, 2) ID is run in computer 3) ID comes up clean 4) get your gun.

exactly....but of course the anti gunners don't want that.....they want the guns....and if they can they want to punish the gun owners...

That is the end goal for the true believer gun grabbers, yes. The issue is they get to sound reasonable about background checks, and our side looks bad trying to fight them all the time. We need to fight what they are proposing of course, but the discussion has to be changed to reflect what the grabbers actually want.

The first issue is to debate an issue honestly. Claiming you know what gun "grabbers actually want" is both ridiculous, dishonest. and illogical:

• Ridiculous sense there are more guns in America than there are people;
• Dishonest sense only a few extremists actually want to grab guns from sane, sober and honest citizens;
• Illogical in terms of a slippery slope fallacy

The pro gun alliance argues that gun control is unconstitutional, they believe the verbiage of the 2nd A. is clear. Plato in The Republic described the control of weapons in this way:

" Socrates then concludes that justice may be defined as telling the truth and paying one's debts. But, he says, what if a friend in a reasonable state of mind were to lend you a sword or a knife and later, in a crazed state, should ask for the repayment of the debt? Ought one to remind a friend who is in a crazed state that he is mad, and ought one to return a sword to a crazy person? The answer is plain: No."

Scalia's written decision in Heller is no different than the thinking of Socrates, so for over two thousand years restrictions / infringements on the possession of weapons has been on the radar of all civilized societies.

NYC's rules are proof that the people in power do not want normal citizens to have guns. They want to make it as difficult and as time consuming as possible, not to make sure the wrong people don't get their hands on them, but to discourage law abiding citizens from even trying. If you can't even admit that simple fact, then there is no point in continuing this conversation.


And it is a small next step to go from discouragement to prohibition, and from prohibition to confiscation.

Slippery slope arguments are not logical, nor instructive.

NYC's rules are not proof that those in power do not want normal citizens to have guns!

The theory behind background checks is to be as sure as possible that the perspective gun owner is "normal", not crazed and therefore allowing him or her to own or possess a gun presents a clear danger to others.