The most recent shooter went through background checks in the most restrictive state in the country. What's your point?
The most recent shooter went through background checks in the most restrictive state in the country. What's your point?
nerd alert wrote:
The most recent shooter went through background checks in the most restrictive state in the country. What's your point?
What's your point? That there shouldn't be background checks? Anyone should be allowed to buy a gun and carry around said gun anywhere and at anytime?
Crthj wrote:
nerd alert wrote:The most recent shooter went through background checks in the most restrictive state in the country. What's your point?
What's your point? That there shouldn't be background checks? Anyone should be allowed to buy a gun and carry around said gun anywhere and at anytime?
My point is there are background checks. For the vast majority of guns sold. So I don't understand why people keep demanding more of something like it's a panacea.
Gun ownership is a constitutional right. The only body that matters has said as much.
And will you agree when that only body that matters says otherwise in the future?
Sighs_Sighs wrote:
And will you agree when that only body that matters says otherwise in the future?
Yes. Because it's a statement of fact, not opinion.
Wouldn't hold my breath for the Supreme Court to reverse itself.
Shows how little you understand about our country's legal framework.. supreme court decisions are effectively based on majority opinions. The only thing that is fact is that there is ancient gray area language in that ammendment. All ammendements have been interpretted based on opinions into law, so shut your mouth and come back when you have an intelligent comment.
I also need not mention (but I will since you are not well informed) that there has been a progressive change to most major legal interpretations.. it is 2014 after all
Sighs_Sighs wrote:
Shows how little you understand about our country's legal framework.. supreme court decisions are effectively based on majority opinions. The only thing that is fact is that there is ancient gray area language in that ammendment. All ammendements have been interpretted based on opinions into law, so shut your mouth and come back when you have an intelligent comment.
So you deny that Heller established an individuals constitutional right to bear arms? It's a yes/no question. There is zero gray area on what that decison said about the fundamental right to bear arms.
Also that decison is less than a decade old. Hardly ancient.
nerd alert wrote:
My point is there are background checks. For the vast majority of guns sold. So I don't understand why people keep demanding more of something like it's a panacea.
Gun ownership is a constitutional right. The only body that matters has said as much.
In most cases, the background check only checks on past criminal activity. Even so, it doesn't even sound like you agree with that. And with your statement: "Gun ownership is a constitutional right." Are you saying it would be ok with you if, after being released from time served, a person convicted of a violent crime should be able to walk in and purchase a gun? I'm not asking you to explain the law...I'm asking you what you think - should that person be able to carry (it is, after all, a constitutional right.
Firstly, stop pretending the few citizens with hunting rifles pose any threat whatsoever to the US military. We're past the point of "keeping the State in check."
Another important idea is whether we can even do this. Guns are not disposable like drugs, so you only need a few coming regularly to meet a large part of criminal demand. The Mexican border is nothing close to secure. PEOPLE can confidently enter the US through that border without seeing a guard. I honestly think it would be easy for Mexican facilities to manufacture more than an adequate supply to smuggle into the US.
Places like UK have an easier time enforcing their bans.
Very very few things in the legal or any other world is black and white. If it was black and white different states wouldn't apply stricter/looser gun laws. You must be a gun nut to be getting so defensive.. no said we need to do away with the right to bear arms. We are talking about limiting and better regulating that right. I feel like I'm communicating with an immature teenager.
The Supreme Court doesn't represent the country very well. In no way shape or form would you normally find so many staunch conservatives in such a small sample. This is a reflection of the system by which they are nominated. Consider that the Senate approves the nominations....the two senators from California, who represent some 38+ million people wield the same power as the two conservatives from Wyoming, who represent 576,000 people...
Conservatives should be thanking their lucky stars the court justices aren't approved by some other means, otherwise, it would be a very liberal court and your precious guns and bibles you cling to would be long gone..
You don't seem to be answering the question posed to you, which was is there an individual right to bear arms as decided by the Supreme Court, which is the body that decides such things. It's not can that right be regulated. Not one person on this thread challenged if regulation was constitutionally permitted, it clearly is and Heller says so. The poster even pointed out there were background checks and best I can tell never argued against them, just their effectiveness.
On the other hand, you are unable to address a yes/no question without devising a straw man argument and insulting the poster. Case law is case law my friend and until the Supreme Court rules otherwise this is a settled issue. You don't have to like it, but you don't get to deny it either.
+5
I say give every American a gun let them kill each other even quicker. Americans by and large are stupid. Let them kill off each other I say.
Hey nerd alert - define right to bear arms please... it's not a yes/no question. They didn't vote yes for access to all weapons without any restrictions. If that was the option then the vote would be an obvious no... see where I'm getting at? It's a grey area argument.
Read the decison.
The Second Amendment guarantees the right for a citizen to posses a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes.
I don't know how that's anything but crystal clear to you. I never said gun ownership couldn't or shouldn't be regulated and neither did the court. But it is a constitutional right, full stop. It remains a right until an amendment is passed or the court reverses itself. Maybe you think that's imminent, but for now absolutely no gray area exists.
Dude you really need to get a life. Do me a favor and read your posts, you sound like a f***ing maniac.
ThisCat wrote:
Dude you really need to get a life. Do me a favor and read your posts, you sound like a f***ing maniac.
Yes, quoting the Supreme Court is maniacal.
I'm beginning to wonder if anyone on this thread has even a rudimentary understanding of the division of power in the US government and who determines what is and is not constitutionally permitted.
People are not questioning the structure or decision making powers.. this is a 'debate' on gun laws - so opinions are required. If you are only going to offer one-sided annoying statements that are obvious then you can't contribute.