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

[woodwork201]

If that were true the SCOTUS and lower courts would never have struck down any laws.

And no one would have gone to court to appeal them and no lawyer would take the case. What would be the point? THe laws are all constitutional.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

And no one would have gone to court to appeal them and no lawyer would take the case. What would be the point? THe laws are all constitutional.

That simply isn't true or again, none of them could ever have been struck down.

 

[task0778]

If that were true the SCOTUS and lower courts would never have struck down any laws.

My bad, I meant to say that legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the President are legal and constitutional UNTIL the courts strike them down.

 

[task0778]

You're a fucking sheep. May your chains rest lightly upon you. May the kool-aid have plenty of sweetener so you don't taste it going down.

Let me give it to you one more time:

​

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;​

The laws made in pursuance thereof... How hard is that for you to understand? If a law is made in violation of the Constitution then it's not the law of the land. That means if it violates the Constitution in any way, not just that Congress passed it and the President signed it. You're such a fucking idiot. This nation is so fucking doomed with people like you voting.

OK, shitbird, suppose you tell us how it works when Congress passes legislation and the president signs it into law. Do you think you have the right and the authority to determine that new law is unconstitutional since you can't find it in the US Constitution, and therefore you can lawfully ignore it? WTF do we need a Supreme Court then, everybody gets to decide for themselves which laws they will obey and which they won't. Surely you realize that not everybody is going to agree with your assessment of the unconstitutionality of a given law, or you with theirs. So what happens then? That's called anarchy dude, and you are an anarchist whether you know it or not.

Anarchy: a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority or other controlling systems. That's you, dude.

 

[flacaltenn]

my guess is the BG check hasnt stop a single restricted person from getting a gun once they decided they wanted one,,

Not sure that's the case. NICS rejections are about 1%. That's OK on its face, because less than 1% of us are dangerous or psychotic people. So -- even the GOVT occasionally guesses right on these "filters". So if they stop a PROPER 0.5% of the sales -- it IS effective and it only denies those who are not legal to buy.

Of course the govt also renewed the VISAs of a couple 9-11 terrorists AFTER 9-11 -- And Hunter Biden LIED on his application and never even got punished. So there's that and we dont know how many applications are rejected for missing info or legibility.

 

[woodwork201]

And no one would have gone to court to appeal them and no lawyer would take the case. What would be the point? THe laws are all constitutional.

I was supporting your earlier post just ahead of mine...read it in context.

 

[woodwork201]

My bad, I meant to say that legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the President are legal and constitutional UNTIL the courts strike them down.

That's not true. Unconstitutional laws are unconstitutional from the moment their signed. If they were legal until tossed by the courts then those convicted before they were tossed would still be guilty because the law was constitutional then.

Go back to what I posted for you about jurisprudence and unconstitutional laws. Repeating stupidity doesn't make it any less stupid.

 

[task0778]

That's not true. Unconstitutional laws are unconstitutional from the moment their signed. If they were legal until tossed by the courts then those convicted before they were tossed would still be guilty because the law was constitutional then.

Go back to what I posted for you about jurisprudence and unconstitutional laws. Repeating stupidity doesn't make it any less stupid.

So answer the question: Do you think you have the right and the authority to determine that new law is unconstitutional since you can't find it in the US Constitution, and therefore you can lawfully ignore it?

Seriously dude, I do not understand where you are coming from. You are declaring any law passed by Congress and signed by the President to be illegal and unconstitutional if YOU do not believe it is based in the US Constitution, right? Surely you have to know that you don't have the training, education, or experience to do that on your own. Nor does just about everybody else, people can have their opinions and that's fine but you can't act on them and ignore the laws that you have decided by yourself are unconstitutional.

 

[Delldude]

I have a question. Are you a registered voter? I mean, do you vote? Because you're a perfect example of why we need to change the Constitution to require passing a test on the Constitution and intelligence before allowing a person to vote.

What you are suggesting is that the Supreme Court gets to actually change the Constitution, by changing the meaning of the words, at their will, without considering Article V. If today, they say a thing is unconstitutional and tomorrow they say otherwise, you're suggesting that it is the Constitution that changed, that their word is as good as a constitutional amendment. And, hypocritically, you're saying that on a computer that didn't exist 200+ years ago, exercising your right to free speech.

If Congress believes gun laws need to be updated from what they were 200 years ago, or if the legislatures of two-thirds of the states believe it, then pass an amendment to the Constitution. Congress doesn't get to change the Constitution just because they want to reserve public safety and security. In fact, you won't find preserving public safety and security in the enumerated powers of Congress.

​

​

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;​

​

To borrow on the credit of the United States;​

​

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;​

​

To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;​

​

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;​

​

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;​

​

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;​

​

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;​

​

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;​

​

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;​

​

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;​

​

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;​

​

To provide and maintain a Navy;​

​

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;​

​

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;​

​

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;​

​

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And​

​

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.​

And, no, the current gun control laws are not the law of the land. Oh, sure, at the point of a gun the government will force compliance but that doesn't mean the laws are legal. The Supremacy Clause explicitly states that the Constitution and only those laws created following the Constitution are the supreme law of the land.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.​

Laws that do not follow the Constitution are as if they have never existed. From American Jurisprudence 2d:

§ 195 Generally​

​

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal or state, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law(1) but is wholly void(2) and ineffective for any purpose.(3) Since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it,(4) an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed(5) and never existed;(6) that is, it is void ab initio.(7) Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.(8)​

​

Since an unconstitutional law is void, it follows that generally the statute imposes no duties,(9) confers no rights,(10) creates no office(11) or liabilities,(12) bestows no power or authority on anyone,(13) affords no protection,(14) is incapable of creating any rights or obligations,(15) does not allow for the granting of any relief,(16) and justifies no acts performed under it.(17)​

Again, by force of their arms, the government is able to force compliance but it is by tyranny that they do so and that is exactly why the 2nd Amendment was created, as a defense against such tyranny.

Back in the day, they taught history and the constitution.

 

[woodwork201]

You don't know that! You have no idea at all how many people failed a BC and got one anyway via a private sale. AND you have no idea at all how many people failed a BC and didn't get a gun either. You got any basis or source that says that, or did you just make it up off the top of your head?

I never once said anything about failing a background check and getting a gun through a private sale. I said that the NICS never prevented anyone from getting a gun. 90% of all gun crimes are committed with guns obtained illegally. If 10% of gun crimes are committed with legally purchased guns and less than 1% of applicants are rejected, then only about .1 percent of potential crimes are stopped by the NICS system - that's a theoretical maximum; the real results are probably far fewer than that.

 

[woodwork201]

So answer the question: Do you think you have the right and the authority to determine that new law is unconstitutional since you can't find it in the US Constitution, and therefore you can lawfully ignore it?

Seriously dude, I do not understand where you are coming from. You are declaring any law passed by Congress and signed by the President if YOU do not believe it is based in the US Constitution, right? Surely you have to know that you don't have the training, education, or experience to do that on your own. Nor does just about everybody else, people can have their opinions and that's fine but you can't act on them and ignore the laws that you have decided by yourself are unconstitutional.

Of course I have that right and so do you. Everyone gets to choose which laws they follow or do not follow. If you think a law is unconstitutional, you have the option of not following it and then fighting it and hope you can prove your case. If you believe the law is constitutional then if you break the law man up and take your medicine.

 

[task0778]

I never once said anything about failing a background check and getting a gun through a private sale. I said that the NICS never prevented anyone from getting a gun. 90% of all gun crimes are committed with guns obtained illegally. If 10% of gun crimes are committed with legally purchased guns and less than 1% of applicants are rejected, then only about .1 percent of potential crimes are stopped by the NICS system - that's a theoretical maximum; the real results are probably far fewer than that.

I hafta laugh, where do you come up with this crap? "I said that the NICS never prevented anyone from getting a gun." It prevents them from getting a gun legally, and you honestly believe that every one of those people got a gun anyway? Unbelievable.

"90% of all gun crimes are committed with guns obtained illegally." Where did you get that data from, I think you're full of crap.

"less than 1% of applicants are rejected" That is a lie. You are absolutely ridiculous na d your don't appear to aware of that.


Do you think you have the right and the authority to determine that new law is unconstitutional since you can't find it in the US Constitution, and therefore you can lawfully ignore it?

Of course I have that right and so do you. Everyone gets to choose which laws they follow or do not follow. If you think a law is unconstitutional, you have the option of not following it and then fighting it and hope you can prove your case.

Okay, thank you for the answer.

 

[woodwork201]

I hafta laugh, where do you come up with this crap? "I said that the NICS never prevented anyone from getting a gun." It prevents them from getting a gun legally, and you honestly believe that every one of those people got a gun anyway? Unbelievable.

"90% of all gun crimes are committed with guns obtained illegally." Where did you get that data from, I think you're full of crap.

"less than 1% of applicants are rejected" That is a lie. You are absolutely ridiculous na d your don't appear to aware of that.


Do you think you have the right and the authority to determine that new law is unconstitutional since you can't find it in the US Constitution, and therefore you can lawfully ignore it?




Okay, thank you for the answer.

I got the 1% from flacaltenn's post a few posts above mine. If you don't like the number, take it up with him. Here's the source on the 90% from DOJ

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf

And, yes, you do get to ignore unconstitutional laws. You must assuredly get to do that. Of course the cops may arrest you and put you in jail. And you may get convicted and go to prison. And maybe the Supreme Court doesn't take your case but, if they do take it and you win, then you go free, as do all the others unjustly locked up. But if no one does that then the unconstitutional law stands, liberty dies, and we all live in tyranny.

 

[Flash]

So you have surrendered your liberty. I get it. It's your choice to do so. I do not surrender mine.

So you haven't surrendered yours?

Talk is cheap. Where is your militia?

 

[task0778]

I got the 1% from flacaltenn's post a few posts above mine. If you don't like the number, take it up with him. Here's the source on the 90% from DOJ

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf

And, yes, you do get to ignore unconstitutional laws. You must assuredly get to do that. Of course the cops may arrest you and put you in jail. And you may get convicted and go to prison. And maybe the Supreme Court doesn't take your case but, if they do take it and you win, then you go free, as do all the others unjustly locked up. But if no one does that then the unconstitutional law stands, liberty dies, and we all live in tyranny.

I know I'm wasting my time here, but I'll say this anyway. What you're talking about is nothing less than anarchy, where you all by yourself declare a law to be unconstitutional and refuse to obey it. You can call yourself a constitutionalist but guess what, there's no place in the constitution that authorizes you to do that. The Declaration of Independence does, but that isn't a legal document, it is a statement of rebellion. All of which means you are an anarchist because you aren't going to obey any law by any gov't if you don't approve of it or support it.

But there is another way. You vote out the bastards that installed the laws that you don't believe are constitutional and vote in the people that will change it. Such as Donald J. Trump. You vote in the people who will replace the judges and justices who will not strike down unconstitutional laws and replace them with other people who will, as Trump did and now we have a conservative Supreme Court that apparently is about to overturn Roe v Wade, which as an unconstitutional ruling IMHO. You institute change lawfully; you do not break the law or ignore it, because that is what democrats do and if you do that then you are no better than they are.

 

[Captain Caveman]

why drive into the school when you can just wait until they come outside for recess or loading the bus??

you p[eople really need to keep your mouths shut cause you prove yourself to be fucking idiots when you open them,,

The issue is about guns, and not theoreticals.

 

[Captain Caveman]

So you have surrendered your liberty. I get it. It's your choice to do so. I do not surrender mine.

When it comes to shooting kids in the head, this stupid Liberty can be shoved right up .......... where the sun doesn't shine. Walk a out in America owning a gun or not bothering to own a gun, nothing is different.

 

[progressive hunter]

The issue is about guns.

whats wrong did my scenario debunk your narrative??

 

[Captain Caveman]

whats wrong did my scenario debunk your narrative??

Not at all, apples v oranges I amended my post, you're trying to argue based on theoreticals.

You are not having incidents with trucks and schools, the discussion is shooting kids within the school grounds, but you only try to deflect when you're argument for guns is baseless.

 

[progressive hunter]

Not at all, apples v oranges I amended my post, you're trying to argue based on theoreticals.

its reality dumbass,,, if someone intends to kill people and cant get a gun they will resort to other methods,,