[quote]pushharder wrote:
Infringement on his freedom
[/quote]
We’ve been through this before. Because you can’t show me where a background check is prohibited by the United States Constitution–because, you know, it isn’t–none of the rest of what you’re saying means a damn thing.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
…that’s 200,000 guns not being handled by illegals immigrants/criminals/crazies right now…
[/quote]
That’s a complete leap of faith. You have no freakin idea that because a criminal got denied at the point of sale he gave up finding a gun and thereby did not commit a crime(s)
[/quote]
…which is why I preceded that sentence with a fucking conditional “if.”
If just one in ten failed background checks stopped there and didn’t become black-market transactions, then 200,000 guns been kept out of crazy/illegal/criminal hands since 1998.
That’s a claim based openly on a conservative estimate. It’s a conditional. It’s an “if” sentence. It isn’t pretending to be fact. I’m not pretending to know it’s true. I’d guess that anybody with an eighth grade education or better would be able to read that sentence and come away with exactly that. Why in God’s name is it giving you so much trouble.
Read, understand, then attack if you feel like you need to. What you shouldn’t do is cut posts in half and complain about something that isn’t being said because you just cut it out. You did this not only right here in this post, but also just a few back, when you jumped like a starving poodle on the possibility that I might not have known that it’s already illegal to sell guns to criminals, despite the fact that I had explicitly said exactly that one post previous, and had strongly implied it in the half of the quoted post which you had cut.
In other words, stop being so dishonest. Or pay better attention. Either way.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
The second amendment was never intended to arm citizens forever.
[/quote]
huh?
Again, huh?[/quote]
You may have misinterpreted what I wrote. I meant(actually, I think I said) that those are the types of things Americans will eventually be taught if we don’t reverse course. I can’t imagine the people who blindly follow their leader/s ever starting to believe they are not free, so long as the government tells them they are.
[/quote]
Well, like with all things, we parents need to have the final word and teach and keep the fight alive. I think the battle over the 2nd amendment has serious implications on our freedom overall as a people. If we allow the government to disarm the populous, it will be a more tyrannical it’s inevitable. The government needs to have a healthy fear of the people.
I don’t mind sensible gun laws designed by and large to try and keep guns out of the most dangerous people’s hands. But in the end a determined person will kill and do damage.
It’s a fight and we have to keep fighting to keep the 2nd amendment from being infringe upon. Like the whole assault weapons ban is ridiculous. It doesn’t matter if you get your head blow off with a hand gun or an assault rifle, you’re just as dead. You take one weapon option, you just choose another.
I wonder if any mass murdering freak sat there and thought “Well damn,I was going to shoot up a school today, but since I cannot legally buy a AK-47, I guess I’ll just watch Oprah.”
[/quote]
The question is, what are sensible gun laws? Does it ever make sense to prohibit a free person from possessing a piece of some combination of metal, plastic, and/or wood? Do we trust the same laws and government who release these people who are too dangerous to have rights from prison? Gun laws are designed take guns from the government’s subjects. That’s it. Nothing more, nothing less.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Infringement on his freedom
[/quote]
We’ve been through this before. Because you can’t show me where a background check is prohibited by the United States Constitution–because, you know, it isn’t–none of the rest of what you’re saying means a damn thing.[/quote]
The implementation of universal background checks is a completely useless exercise without a universal registry. Get it? Or do I need to scream in caps or capriciously emphasize it in bold like you do lately?
A universal registry is an infringement, plain and simple. Don’t dare let me hear a single soul deplore the Patriot Act in one breath and support universal gun registry with another. If I do, I will hold the branding iron in your hide much longer than needed just to hear you squeal.[/quote]
The definition of infringe(from Merriam-Webster):
in·fringe
/inË?frinj/
Verb
1.Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): “infringe a copyright”.
2.Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: “infringe on his privacy”.
I’m fairly certain both of those apply to what is happening.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
…that’s 200,000 guns not being handled by illegals immigrants/criminals/crazies right now…
[/quote]
That’s a complete leap of faith. You have no freakin idea that because a criminal got denied at the point of sale he gave up finding a gun and thereby did not commit a crime(s)
[/quote]
…which is why I preceded that sentence with a fucking conditional “if.”
If just one in ten failed background checks stopped there and didn’t become black-market transactions, then 200,000 guns been kept out of crazy/illegal/criminal hands since 1998.
That’s a claim based openly on a conservative estimate. It’s a conditional. It’s an “if” sentence. It isn’t pretending to be fact. I’m not pretending to know it’s true. I’d guess that anybody with an eighth grade education or better would be able to read that sentence and come away with exactly that. Why in God’s name is it giving you so much trouble.
Read, understand, then attack if you feel like you need to. What you shouldn’t do is cut posts in half and complain about something that isn’t being said because you just cut it out. You did this not only right here in this post, but also just a few back, when you jumped like a starving poodle on the possibility that I might not have known that it’s already illegal to sell guns to criminals, despite the fact that I had explicitly said exactly that one post previous, and had strongly implied it in the half of the quoted post which you had cut.
In other words, stop being so dishonest. Or pay better attention. Either way.[/quote]
Let’s try for a response to this before I respond to your posts which came after this.
If you’ve already responded and are delayed, then nevermind, but if you are simply going to ignore this–that’s becoming a habit of yours. Take a blind, drunken swing, pray that it lands, and then just stop talking when it doesn’t. Again, that’s dishonest.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
A universal registry is an infringement, plain and simple. Don’t dare let me hear a single soul deplore the Patriot Act in one breath and support universal gun registry with another. If I do, I will hold the branding iron in your hide much longer than needed just to hear you squeal.[/quote]
Vaguely homoerotic imagery aside, your first claim is actually supposed to read “I believe that universal registry is an infringement.”
I happen not to. In fact, I happen to believe it’s far less of an “infringement” on “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” than is the ban on the private ownership of MPADS. After all, MPADS are arms, and they can be borne.
And yet only somebody with his head stuck impossibly far up his own sanctimonious ass would argue that MPADS should be available for purchase, no background checks or anything. Come on down, get your rocket-launcher and then head to JFK International.
I mean impossibly far up there.
As a matter of fact, I believe that a registry–unlike an MPAD ban-- doesn’t in any way affect anybody’s ability to “keep and bear arms,” unless of course we’re talking about nutjobs and illegals, in which case it doesn’t matter anyway.
Could somebody potentially use a registry to someday try to actually infringe on people’s right to keep and bear arms? Yeah. And the fact that my driver’s license says I have blue eyes could potentially be used by some mad eugenicist tyrant to kill/spare me in the name of creating some kind of master race. It’s a horrifying prospect but I just have to live with it.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
A universal registry is an infringement, plain and simple. Don’t dare let me hear a single soul deplore the Patriot Act in one breath and support universal gun registry with another. If I do, I will hold the branding iron in your hide much longer than needed just to hear you squeal.[/quote]
Vaguely homoerotic imagery aside, your first claim is actually supposed to read “I believe that universal registry is an infringement.”
I happen not to. In fact, I happen to believe it’s far less of an “infringement” on “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” than is the ban on the private ownership of MPADS. After all, MPADS are arms, and they can be borne.
And yet only somebody with his head stuck impossibly far up his own sanctimonious ass would argue that MPADS should be available for purchase, no background checks or anything. Come on down, get your rocket-launcher and then head to JFK International.
I mean impossibly far up there.
As a matter of fact, I believe that a registry–unlike an MPAD ban-- doesn’t in any way affect anybody’s ability to “keep and bear arms,” unless of course we’re talking about nutjobs and illegals, in which case it doesn’t matter anyway.
Could somebody potentially use a registry to someday try to actually infringe on people’s right to keep and bear arms? Yeah. And the fact that my driver’s license says I have blue eyes could potentially be used by some mad eugenicist tyrant to kill/spare me in the name of creating some kind of master race. It’s a horrifying prospect but I just have to live with it.[/quote]
If you were to ask some of the most influential and life-changing people in the world, you will find that the only thing they all have in common, is that none of them felt like they had to “live with it.”
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
A universal registry is an infringement, plain and simple. Don’t dare let me hear a single soul deplore the Patriot Act in one breath and support universal gun registry with another. If I do, I will hold the branding iron in your hide much longer than needed just to hear you squeal.[/quote]
Vaguely homoerotic imagery aside, your first claim is actually supposed to read “I believe that universal registry is an infringement.”
I happen not to. In fact, I happen to believe it’s far less of an “infringement” on “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” than is the ban on the private ownership of MPADS. After all, MPADS are arms, and they can be borne.
And yet only somebody with his head stuck impossibly far up his own sanctimonious ass would argue that MPADS should be available for purchase, no background checks or anything. Come on down, get your rocket-launcher and then head to JFK International.
I mean impossibly far up there.
As a matter of fact, I believe that a registry–unlike an MPAD ban-- doesn’t in any way affect anybody’s ability to “keep and bear arms,” unless of course we’re talking about nutjobs and illegals, in which case it doesn’t matter anyway.
Could somebody potentially use a registry to someday try to actually infringe on people’s right to keep and bear arms? Yeah. And the fact that my driver’s license says I have blue eyes could potentially be used by some mad eugenicist tyrant to kill/spare me in the name of creating some kind of master race. It’s a horrifying prospect but I just have to live with it.[/quote]
If you were to ask some of the most influential and life-changing people in the world, you will find that the only thing they all have in common, is that none of them felt like they had to “live with it.”[/quote]
I don’t know what this has to do with what I wrote.
^ Fair enough.
Edit: but in those cases, the rest of the posts mattered.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
to use some truly homoerotic imagery, stroke it and stroke it and stroke it with lots and lots of hand lotion.[/quote]
That’s certainly a promised delivered.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I think the battle over the 2nd amendment has serious implications on our freedom overall as a people.
[/quote]
For the record, I agree unequivocally. I am just about certain that at some time in the future, the answer to the question of whether or not this or that family/community/people will survive or perish will depend entirely upon whether or not they own and know how to handle weapons. Nobody with a rudimentary understanding of history can believe that life as it is in the contemporary United States will continue unchanged indefinitely. Governments and circumstances change, sometimes very quickly.
To take an extreme example, the leap from how the world is today to how the world is in Cormac McCarthy’s The Road is not really all that long if you really sit down and think about it. This is especially so for somebody like me–an agnostic who doesn’t believe in a God interested in human affairs–because, as far as we’re concerned, there really is nothing protecting us from calamity but chance and luck, and chance and luck have shown themselves in the past to be decidedly unreliable.
But none of this has any bearing on my conviction that if we think it’s a good idea to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally insane, for example, then we may as well actually make sure that gun dealers are checking to see whether or not a prospective buyer was involuntarily institutionalized in the recent past, or is an illegal alien, or a convicted rapist, or a deadbeat ex-husband whose wife has a restraining order against him because he’s threatened to kill her a dozen times.
Will it be effective? Most of the time, half the time, mostly not (all of the time and never are the only manifestly wrong answers, by the way). But as I explained earlier in this thread, if just one in ten of the sales blocked by background-check failures since 1998 did not end up taking place even on the black market, that’s 200,000 guns not being handled by illegals immigrants/criminals/crazies right now. That’s a good thing, and at essentially no cost to the responsible, legal gun-owner.[/quote]
I agree. I do want these checks to take place. I do want to provide no legal avenue for known dangerous people with a propensity to take human life lightly, to not be able to procure a fire arm. I just don’t want good law abiding citizens deprived of the right to own them. And I want to prevent silly laws the have no bearing on safety to be delivered upon the law abiding public. Like the limit on clip (or magazine) capacity, or what some people determine to be ‘dangerous weapons’ such as this whole ‘assault rifle’ BS. If you were shot with an assault rifle or a powerful hand gun, you really wouldn’t know the difference. An ‘assault rifle’ is just a rifle. Any rifle can be an assault rifle if you use it that way.
Most gun owners I know, just happen to like guns and enjoy shooting them for fun. It’s not about hurting anyone. They also just happen to be useful in getting you out of prickly situations.
I only know of one guy, a friend of mine, who had to draw his weapon for protection. In that situation, had he not had the weapon, things would have turned out badly for him. So yeah, they can protect you too.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
A universal registry is an infringement, plain and simple. Don’t dare let me hear a single soul deplore the Patriot Act in one breath and support universal gun registry with another. If I do, I will hold the branding iron in your hide much longer than needed just to hear you squeal.[/quote]
Vaguely homoerotic imagery aside, your first claim is actually supposed to read “I believe that universal registry is an infringement.”
I happen not to. In fact, I happen to believe it’s far less of an “infringement” on “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” than is the ban on the private ownership of MPADS. After all, MPADS are arms, and they can be borne.
And yet only somebody with his head stuck impossibly far up his own sanctimonious ass would argue that MPADS should be available for purchase, no background checks or anything. Come on down, get your rocket-launcher and then head to JFK International.
I mean impossibly far up there.
As a matter of fact, I believe that a registry–unlike an MPAD ban-- doesn’t in any way affect anybody’s ability to “keep and bear arms,” unless of course we’re talking about nutjobs and illegals, in which case it doesn’t matter anyway.
Could somebody potentially use a registry to someday try to actually infringe on people’s right to keep and bear arms? Yeah. And the fact that my driver’s license says I have blue eyes could potentially be used by some mad eugenicist tyrant to kill/spare me in the name of creating some kind of master race. It’s a horrifying prospect but I just have to live with it.[/quote]
I do believe it’s an infringement on your rights as well as a slippery slope. It’s an infringement because the government is keeping track of private property. They have no right to know what you have and do not have in or on your private property. And it leaves to door open to track other possessions some bureaucrat deems dangerous.
Further, to keep a record of who owns something can serve no other purpose then to provide an avenue from taking them away from you.
For the most part, legal gun transactions leave a footprint already. And if you choose to procure a legal conceal carry permit, then they have a record of you as a likely gun owner (you don’t actually need a gun to get the permit).
As far as privacy laws, there are plenty on the books. The Tort privacy laws are very old and do provide the citizen protection to be left alone by the government. It would fall most likely under the 4th Amendment, under the ‘illegal search and seizure’ clause. The purpose of ‘search’ is to find out what you have. A registry is a de facto list of what you have. That’s a right the government does not have.