Why should there be “universal background checks” for firearms sales and transfers?

[woodwork201]

So you want to allow people who are legally and constitutionally prohibited from owning firearm to have them?


I have no problem denying piece of shit criminals who choose to commit felonies of their right to own guns

Please quote the constitutional requirement that anyone be banned from owning a gun. Then, when you fail at that, please quote the constitutional authority for the government to ever restrict someone from owning a gun.

 

[woodwork201]

Yeah I'm a leftist who is against gun bans.

You're an idiot who can only see the world in the most simplified of terms like left or right and black or white

Once a criminal always a fucking criminal

Well, you know that's a lie; you're a leftist who fully supports gun bans as long as they're the bans you like. Point is, you support the government's power to place a gun ban. If they can ban any gun at any time then they can ban every gun at any time.

 

[woodwork201]

Your comment was that if dangerous people can’t buy guns then they will just steal them and the law preventing them from legally buying them is preventing nothing. But the fact they they would have to steal or buy on the black market are added obsticles which would lead to less dangerous people getting guns and misusing them. Of course not full proof but it would undeniably have an effect. The debate shouldn’t be whether those laws would be effective. Of course they would be. The debate should be whether the added regulations are worth the loss of freedoms that come with them

If I told many people I know that I was looking for a legal handgun to purchase face-to-face, I'd have several in front of me to choose from by tomorrow - and probably every one of them would have been stolen. The seller would tell me they were theirs and I could by them with a clear conscious. Seriously, buying a gun is not difficult at all. I don't buy guns that way but it would be extremely simple to get one if I wanted one.

 

[woodwork201]

Perhaps in some cases. That would depend on the person I voted for. If I invited for a Republican and then he sexually assaulted a staffer am I a supporter of sexual assault? My vote did enable the assault to happen after all

If you voted for a Republican who campaigned on the promise to sexually assault his staffers then, yes, we'd say you supported sexual assault.

 

[Slade3200]

If I told many people I know that I was looking for a legal handgun to purchase face-to-face, I'd have several in front of me to choose from by tomorrow - and probably every one of them would have been stolen. The seller would tell me they were theirs and I could by them with a clear conscious. Seriously, buying a gun is not difficult at all. I don't buy guns that way but it would be extremely simple to get one if I wanted one.

Haha. You don’t buy them that way but you’re sure it’s easy to buy them that way… especially if it is a felony. Ok, gotchya

 

[Slade3200]

If you voted for a Republican who campaigned on the promise to sexually assault his staffers then, yes, we'd say you supported sexual assault.

Well done

 

[Rigby5]

Haha. You don’t buy them that way but you’re sure it’s easy to buy them that way… especially if it is a felony. Ok, gotchya

It is not a felony to buy a gun from a private party, but making it a felony would not reduce criminals from doing it because they already intend to commit a crime with a firearms that has a greater penalty than the illegal purchase would have.

 

[woodwork201]

A BG check does absolutely no harm to law abiding people.

Drunk driving laws don't stop people from driving drunk so why don't you push to have those laws abolished too?

Actually, background checks deny many legal gun owners from purchasing guns. Having to get government permission to exercise a constitutionally protected right is always a violation of the Constitution.

 

[woodwork201]

Tough titty ain't it.

You go ahead and sell guns to all the felons you want

Well, you don't vote Democrat and you don't vote Republican and you don't vote Libertarian, I can only guess that you vote socialist or communist.

 

[woodwork201]

I don't want the second amendment changed I just happen to think that people who choose to commit felonies are not to be trusted and don't deserve the same legal protections as law abiding people.

Those so called debts to society are actually debts to their victims and can never be repaid.

You don't want the 2nd Amendment changed? No, of course not; you just want it ignored.

 

[woodwork201]

With democratically elected representatives.

Yes, it's complicated and takes too long to type out so most people abbreviate.

Wrong. Democratic would mean that the masses get to vote on laws, etc.

The Constitution explicitly states that the states will have a republican form of government, not a democratic form of government.

The Founders despised democracy. Here's what James Madison said of them in Federalist #10.

From this view of the subject, it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society, consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths.​

https://affluentinvestor.com/2018/12/why-the-founding-fathers-despised-democracy/

 

[woodwork201]

Can we stop derailing the thread yet?

Yes, please do so, yourself. Feel free to go back to the thread topic instead of policing the topic.

 

[woodwork201]

then you should stop misrepresenting our political system and we wont have a need to correct you,,

It's actually not just a question of misrepresenting our system. It's critical to any discussion of liberty that we understand that it wouldn't matter if everyone in the country but you and me wanted universal background checks and gun registration, it is still unconstitutional. It's not a thread derailment; it's a very critical, on-topic, sidebar.

 

[woodwork201]

No, they are not. That may be your opinion but to date this is not the case.




Yeah, I misspoke there. If anyone uses a gun in a crime then they oughta face stiffer penalties than otherwise, whether they went through a BC or not.




Part of the problem is that too many people have access to guns that have not passed a BC. We ought to be doing what we can to reduce those occurrences, without influencing anyone else's 2nd Amendment rights. If you think that effort is silly or laughable, go ahead.

Background checks are not unconstitutional "to date this is not the case." Really? What does "to date" mean? If the Court rules one way or the other did the Constitution suddenly change? If the Court rules one way the Constitution means one thing and if they later change their ruling then the Constitution changed? So the Supreme Court has the authority to actually change the Constitution?

No, the Constitution is only changed by Article V. It says what it says and it means what it means and it doesn't take a class in civil tort laws for (enter your state name) to understand the meanings of the words there. The politicians in all branches of government can play all the word games they wish but you and I know exactly what "shall not be infringed" means - and it means the same thing today that it meant in 1791.


As for stiffer penalties for gun crimes, let's say your family member was killed in an armed robbery with a knife or with a baseball bat. You're suggesting that the murderer get a lighter sentence because they didn't shoot your family member? Is your loved one less dead because he or she was killed with a knife?

If your loved one was just robbed, but not killed, are they less robbed because it happened with a knife? Special circumstances based on the weapon of choice simply tells bad guys that's it's OK if they rob people with a knife. Armed robbery is armed robbery.

 

[woodwork201]

Public safety.
The same reason sawed off shot guns and machine guns are so heavily regulated

Please post the "public safety" clause of the Constitution. And the reason sawed-off shotguns and machine guns are so heavily regulated has nothing to do with public safety; those laws were created wholly to protect "white safety", not "public safety" They are racist laws with racist intent to keep guns out of the hands of black people. But, then, anti-black racism is at the root of most policies of the left so it's not surprising that you wouldn't know that.

 

[woodwork201]

Every right listed in the Bill of Rights has it's limitations, including the 2nd Amendment. Which is why it is illegal for you to own bazookas, machine guns, etc. There is a federal law that requires background checks prior to purchasing a gun from any retailer, and so far that law has not been struck down. Meaning that while that is not specifically stated in the US Constitution it is nevertheless in effect. You might not like it, but that is a fact.

OK. Let me present my US Constitution short course once again. Yes, it's a long post. Take the time to read every word of it and you'll come out of it at the end being a smarter person.

The government of the United States was created by the Constitution. It is a new government, new nation, from that date; previous governments formed under the Articles of Federation being dissolved by the enactment of the Constitution. The power of the government is both created and limited by what's in the Constitution. The government has no power not granted it in the Constitution.

Many people, and I'll tie this to the current discussion in a bit, misunderstand the government and the Constitution to claim things such as that only citizens get the rights or protections in the Constitution or that foreigners in the United States are not allowed to keep and bear arms. Or they believe that prisoners in Guantanamo can be treated differently than the Constitution allows because it's outside the boundaries of our nation, or they believe that the government does not have to follow the Constitution in dealing with foreigners on foreign lands.

In all these cases, they would be wrong with one exception, rarely implemented, and not once called upon since June 5, 1942. That is the last time Congress approved a declaration of war. In a war, the laws of war rule when dealing with the enemy of that war and the Constitution allows the President to engage in a war. Of course every other foreign engagement since then has been wholly unconstitutional.

So let's talk about why all this matters and why it matters in the case of gun background checks and registration.

The Constitution gives the Federal Government certain powers and it limits certain powers of the Federal and State governments. Out side of those enumerated Federal powers, there actually IS NO governmental authority. This limit is 100% absolute. The Supreme Court can't grant the Federal Government power that the Constitution did not give the Government or the Court. How can they simply make up power they don't have?

So when the Government, or people who happen to be on the payroll of the Government for their day jobs, wants to treat anybody, citizen or not, on US soil or in or about the embassy in any foreign country, or anywhere else, in any way not authorized by the Constitution that created the Government then they are no longer the Government. Under what authority would the Government deal with any person in any way not authorized by the Constitution, no matter where in the world the person was? When they step outside of their governmental authority they are no longer the government.

So, understanding that those people are nothing except people when they operate outside of the Constitution. The Constitution does not say that the Government can do anything outside the Constitution when dealing with non-citizens or that the Constitution only applies to citizens. It doesn't say that the Government is not limited to the Constitution outside of the US territory. How can it say such things? The government only exists within the limits of the Constitution, ever, in dealing with any person, in any place. Please explain if you think they have other powers than that and how they got those powers.

All of the above is about making one thing clear: The Government's power is exactly what's granted them in the Constitution and there is absolutely no other powers that they can claim for themselves under any circumstances.

So let's get down to your view, and Biden's view, that there are limits to the limitations on the government in the Constitution. You both claim the limits are on the rights but the Constitution didn't grant any rights, it limits government's ability to violate those rights. There's no right to free speech defined in the Constitution; the Constitution simply forbids the Federal Government from abridging the right to free speech. Many will claim the crowded theater exception proves there are actual limits but that;'s a lie that most Americans have swallowed as the truth. First off, no one can reasonably make the case that free speech as intended in original intent, included such a thing; it was clearly political speech, religious speech, etc. that was intended. And yelling fire in a theater should never be against the law either. It would be, at most, a civil tort, where the person would be sued for any damages or injuries; there's no need to make it illegal.

Similarly, the 2nd Amendment says "shall not be infringed." There are no exception clauses and no one can provide any constitutional reference to suggest that there are exceptions. There can't be any exceptions because, as I discussed earlier, outside of the Constitution, the Government has absolutely zero authority. If it's not written in the Constitution, then the Government just plain can not do it.

To argue that it is different, for instance limits to all rights as claimed by you and Biden, then you're suggesting that there are times when a person can be imprisoned for a crime without a trial (oh, yeah - think Jan 6; you most likely do support that). Others here have defended Terry stops in violation of the 4th Amendment. But those exceptions don't exist either. It just plain is NOT possible for the Government to operate as a legitimate government of the United States outside of the explicit, enumerated, powers in the Constitution.

So many make reasonable (though incorrect in my opinion) that it's a good thing to prevent felony litterers from owning a gun, or a Naval officer kicked out of the Navy for having an affair - a limitation not applied outside of the military. OK, we disagree. But to make those laws constitutional requires a constitutional amendment.

There is absolutely zero authority for the Government to engage with any human being, in any subject or thing, in any place in the world, outside of the powers granted in the Constitution. Period. No exceptions to the rights because the rights are not created by the Constitution. No exceptions to the limitations because the Constitution allows for no authority beyond the enumerated authorities. Neither Congress, the President, nor the Courts get to simply make up power not in the Constitution.

 

[woodwork201]

All rights, even the right to life itself can be lost through due process of law under our constitution.

Absolutely not. Due process grants zero authority to the Government. If they didn't have the authority prior to the 14th Amendment then they don't have the authority after the 14th Amendment. The due process clause protects people from the government randomly or unreasonably acting on the authorities they already had.

To suggest that all that is required is due process is to claim that the Constitution no longer matters at all and doesn't restrict the Government at all, as long as they get some judge to order something.

With due process, can the government imprison someone for a crime without a trial? Can they strip a defendant of the ability to have an attorney? With due process, can the government try someone a second time for the same crime?

The very sad thing is that so-called, self-proclaimed, conservatives and constitutionalists fall for stupid ideas like the one you are claiming. Really, with stupid shit like that it could be that our cause is lost.

 

[woodwork201]

No sir, BC shows if the person applying has any legal issues that would prevent them from possessing a firearm.

Do you not understand the meaning of "shall not be infringed"? There is no such thing as a legal issue that would prevent a person from possessing a firearm outside of prison or on private property where the owner forbids it.

 

[Lesh]

So machine guns and sawed off shotguns for all...including mental patients.

Great plan

 

[Lesh]

So machine guns and sawed off shotguns for all...including mental patients.

Great plan

No rights are absolute.

For instance you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater just to see the scramble