Perhaps, I have never been to one, but I don’t see how they could get around the transfer of ownership form which requires it. But I guess it’s easy to be shady. I certainly agree there should be checks involved with procuring a firearm. I just want them to make sense an be useful.
Like what good does it do to limit the number of bullets in a clip? It’s just not that hard to reload and can be done in a couple of seconds. You just have to buy more clips which are not very expensive. All that does is hassle the poor sap a target practice. The criminal hell bent on the destruction will be well prepared.[/quote]
That is a whole other ball game, and I too don’t really think a clip size limitation is effective. And clip size limitations do affect law-abiding gun owners.
Background checks don’t. At least, not in any kind of direct, substantial way.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I think we should be able to see smh’s background check.
(With a ghoulish tone) Maybe something good would be in there. Hahahaha[/quote]
I will say this: ever since I started making money, I have chosen one thing that I want and saved up for it. I’m getting a bike this summer, and then after that I’m buying a pistol. And when I buy it, I want whoever’s selling it to me to have to make sure I didn’t spend that last few years in a mental facility.[/quote]
Someone who spent a few years in a mental facility is not going to bother pursuing legal methods of getting a gun. They will either steal one, buy one on the street, or acquire one through some other unscrupulous method.[/quote]
I have already addressed this argument. It isn’t a good one, at all.
[quote]
Living in fear means you hand someone else power of you, and that choice is ultimately up to you. [/quote]
This has nothing to do with fear. Criminals don’t get guns. Crazy people don’t get guns. It’s the job of the law to try and make sure that those two sentences are true. That’s it.[/quote]
With regard to your last statement, you have a better chance trying to stop the wind from blowing.
I think most can agree that the right of the people to keep and bear arms has already been infringed, so I would like to see an amendment passed repealing it.
Let the 28th amendment state something like, “The second amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed. The people no longer have a right to keep and bear arms, though some employed by the government may be allowed the privilege.”
Let’s drop all pretenses that the second amendment is still in effect, and get rid of it. At least make the ignorant aware of what’s going on.
Don’t continue to screw with the second amendment while telling the ignorant amongst your constituency that you are not.
Edit: I would like to add that a clip feeds a magazine, a magazine feeds a weapon. They are different things.
I believe that this is MD legislation and not federal legislation.
I think it should be federal legislation.[/quote]
Of course you do. Infringement is a trivial, anachronistic term to you; it’s meant to be circumvented as you see fit.
Universal background checks, by the Justice Dept’s own reckoning, cannot be effectively implemented without a national registry. It’s impossible.[/quote]
And the Constitution says jack shit about national registries, and universal background checks, so before you claim the moral high ground in this principled fight against infringement upon rights, figure our what rights you have and do not have.
This notion that you have a right to buy a gun without anybody trying to figure out whether or not you’re a fucking nutjob or a lowlife criminal or an illegal alien beforehand–it’s absolutely ridiculous and it isn’t written down anywhere in the Constitution
[quote]smh23 wrote:
This notion that you have a right to buy a gun without anybody trying to figure out whether or not you’re a fucking nutjob or a lowlife criminal or an illegal alien beforehand–it’s absolutely ridiculous and it isn’t written down anywhere in the Constitution[/quote]
Maybe because our founding fathers were considered “a fucking nutjob or a lowlife criminal” by the Monarchy, so they did not want to discriminate. Illegal Aliens though are not US Citizens so the Constitution should not apply to them.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
This notion that you have a right to buy a gun without anybody trying to figure out whether or not you’re a fucking nutjob or a lowlife criminal or an illegal alien beforehand–it’s absolutely ridiculous and it isn’t written down anywhere in the Constitution[/quote]
You are talking about how things SHOULD be, or how we would hope them to be.
Problem is, government has a credibility problem, they lie.
And what happens when they lie ? Not much of anything.
Bam lied, Bush lied, and on and on. This is a trust issue. If the government’s intention is honest, and it will not go further than it claims it will, all will be well. But, since people have been burned time and time again, no one trusts government for shit.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
This notion that you have a right to buy a gun without anybody trying to figure out whether or not you’re a fucking nutjob or a lowlife criminal or an illegal alien beforehand–it’s absolutely ridiculous and it isn’t written down anywhere in the Constitution[/quote]
Maybe because our founding fathers were considered “a fucking nutjob or a lowlife criminal” by the Monarchy, so they did not want to discriminate. Illegal Aliens though are not US Citizens so the Constitution should not apply to them.[/quote]
Fair point, and so the criteria for gun ownership must be watched vigilantly.
But I’m speaking in this instance about murderers and rapists/the criminally insane/people with paranoid delusions. The kind of people that no reasonable person would ever argue to be worthy of gun ownership.
If anybody honestly thinks that it is a bad idea to try to stop those people from buying guns, by all means, give your reasons.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
This notion that you have a right to buy a gun without anybody trying to figure out whether or not you’re a fucking nutjob or a lowlife criminal or an illegal alien beforehand–it’s absolutely ridiculous and it isn’t written down anywhere in the Constitution[/quote]
Maybe because our founding fathers were considered “a fucking nutjob or a lowlife criminal” by the Monarchy, so they did not want to discriminate. Illegal Aliens though are not US Citizens so the Constitution should not apply to them.[/quote]
Fair point, and so the criteria for gun ownership must be watched vigilantly.
But I’m speaking in this instance about murderers and rapists/the criminally insane/people with paranoid delusions. The kind of people that no reasonable person would ever argue to be worthy of gun ownership.
If anybody honestly thinks that it is a bad idea to try to stop those people from buying guns, by all means, give your reasons.[/quote]
I am not against what you are saying, but as we all know to well once the Government is given an inch they take a mile.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
This notion that you have a right to buy a gun without anybody trying to figure out whether or not you’re a fucking nutjob or a lowlife criminal or an illegal alien beforehand–it’s absolutely ridiculous and it isn’t written down anywhere in the Constitution[/quote]
Maybe because our founding fathers were considered “a fucking nutjob or a lowlife criminal” by the Monarchy, so they did not want to discriminate. Illegal Aliens though are not US Citizens so the Constitution should not apply to them.[/quote]
Fair point, and so the criteria for gun ownership must be watched vigilantly.
But I’m speaking in this instance about murderers and rapists/the criminally insane/people with paranoid delusions. The kind of people that no reasonable person would ever argue to be worthy of gun ownership.
If anybody honestly thinks that it is a bad idea to try to stop those people from buying guns, by all means, give your reasons.[/quote]
I am not against what you are saying, but as we all know to well once the Government is given an inch they take a mile. [/quote]
Well, sometimes yes and sometimes no. People thought that widespread photographic identification card dissemination would lead to huge government overreach, and it never really did.
Anyway, it’s up to us to make sure that the mile isn’t taken. If the inch is a good idea–and in this case it is–then it’s a good idea and it needs to be done.
I just wrote like 3 pages worth of material on slippery slope arguments over in the gay marriage thread, so I won’t get all philosophical here.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
This notion that you have a right to buy a gun without anybody trying to figure out whether or not you’re a fucking nutjob or a lowlife criminal or an illegal alien beforehand–it’s absolutely ridiculous and it isn’t written down anywhere in the Constitution[/quote]
Maybe because our founding fathers were considered “a fucking nutjob or a lowlife criminal” by the Monarchy, so they did not want to discriminate. Illegal Aliens though are not US Citizens so the Constitution should not apply to them.[/quote]
Fair point, and so the criteria for gun ownership must be watched vigilantly.
But I’m speaking in this instance about murderers and rapists/the criminally insane/people with paranoid delusions. The kind of people that no reasonable person would ever argue to be worthy of gun ownership.
If anybody honestly thinks that it is a bad idea to try to stop those people from buying guns, by all means, give your reasons.[/quote]
I am not against what you are saying, but as we all know to well once the Government is given an inch they take a mile. [/quote]
Well, sometimes yes and sometimes no. People thought that widespread photographic identification card dissemination would lead to huge government overreach, and it never really did.
Anyway, it’s up to us to make sure that the mile isn’t taken. If the inch is a good idea–and in this case it is–then it’s a good idea and it needs to be done.
I just wrote like 3 pages worth of material on slippery slope arguments over in the gay marriage thread, so I won’t get all philosophical here.[/quote]
Watch out there is a slippery slope there. hahahahaha
Bam lied, Bush lied, and on and on. This is a trust issue. If the government’s intention is honest, and it will not go further than it claims it will, all will be well. [/quote]
Again though, this extends to every single law that’s ever enacted and every single measure the government has ever taken. This is a kind of slippery slope argument, and its applicability is damn close to universal.
As an aside, if your distrust of the people whom we elect is so deep and so total that you are not willing to consider a reasonable measure on its own merits but are instead wholly concerned about what could happen sometime because everybody in Washington is a scoundrel searching frantically for more and better ways to buttfuck the American people, then you need to start thinking about revolution because you’re living under what you believe to be true tyranny.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
This notion that you have a right to buy a gun without anybody trying to figure out whether or not you’re a fucking nutjob or a lowlife criminal or an illegal alien beforehand–it’s absolutely ridiculous and it isn’t written down anywhere in the Constitution[/quote]
If someone is too crazy or violent to have rights, then they should not be free. Now, personally, I don’t think many people fit in that category; but if someone does, he or she should be locked up. It makes no sense for the 99.9…% of people who are capable of handling their rights reasonably responsibly to accept limitations on them due to a minute percentage of the population who may not be capable of doing so.
As to the meaning of the second amendment, which states:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Definition of infringe(from Merriam-Webster):
to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
I think it’s likely that’s the way it was used in the second amendment.
Definition of encroach(also from Merriam-Webster):
to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another
-could any word better define what is(and has been for quite some time) happening to the rights(especially this one) of Americans?
The second amendment could probably have been rewritten in the following way and maintained its meaning: The pool of citizens eligible to be called into military service being in good order is necessary to maintain a free country, so the right of each free citizen to have his/her own carryable weapons available for combat must not be hindered.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
This notion that you have a right to buy a gun without anybody trying to figure out whether or not you’re a fucking nutjob or a lowlife criminal or an illegal alien beforehand–it’s absolutely ridiculous and it isn’t written down anywhere in the Constitution[/quote]
If someone is too crazy or violent to have rights, then they should not be free.
[/quote]
I disagree when it comes to gun rights. Most criminals need to be freed eventually. And you can’t keep everybody with schizophrenia, disassociative identity disorder, and antisocial personality disorder locked up until their death.