Author Topic: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales  (Read 6228 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 23,099
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #25 on: February 28, 2019, 02:47:06 PM »
I don't understand your point.   How is a requirement that the sale of an item be effected in a prescribed way a violation of the law against unreasonable searches and seizures?   

(By the way,  I am agnostic regarding whether the Dems' proposed bill is good policy.   All I'm saying is that it is likely Constitutional.)
Anything which makes it a crime for me to hand a firearm to a friend at a gun range, loan one to a friend or relative for hunting or recreational shooting, or for me to sell my property to someone known to me to be of good character without the intervention of the government is a no-go.

If transfers are so loosely described as to form a trap for the unwary, or to leave the question of a violation in the hands of police and the courts for what constitute ordinary and legal behaviour now, before any such law, then this is bad law, and goes against the 2nd Amendment.

In the end the question is simple. Will the law stop crime?

No. No way. It will not matter to those who want to commit crimes with firearms.

Will the law turn ordinary citizens into criminals with 'gotcha' scenarios designed to either entrap the unwary, or intimidate people to keep them from exercising their rights out of fear of getting in trouble for violating some vague portion of the law which can be loosely interpreted by the overzealous.

We all know that conviction isn't necessarily the goal, but in this day and age, mere prosecution, dragged out and expensive, can wreck someone's finances, business, and standing in a community even if they are not found guilty of a crime.

How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
And I looked, and rose up, and said unto the nobles, and to the rulers, and to the rest of the people, Be not ye afraid of them: remember the Lord, which is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses. Nehemiah 4:14 (KJV)

About the only "Big" Liberals don't revile is "Big Government"

Offline catfish1957

  • Ultra-Conservative in exile.
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,929
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #26 on: February 28, 2019, 03:04:54 PM »
Papers? None of my guns have papers.

Now I understand paper patched bullets. I even have Paul Matthew's book "The Paper Jacket" I always wanted to shoot paper patched bullets in my 45-70.

Papers?   I keep a few handy in my bag.

I display the Confederate Battle Flag in honor of my great great great grandfathers who spilled blood at Wilson's Creek and Shiloh.  5 others served in the WBTS with honor too.

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 23,099
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #27 on: February 28, 2019, 03:22:40 PM »
So gun violence isn't a reality?

"Gun Violence" is no more a reality than hammer violence or rock violence.
All are inanimate objects.

My firearms, and I have been around firearms all my life, have yet to do anything I did not make them do.

They have never removed ammo from the box, loaded themselves, and discharged without my direct input. They stay where I put them, and harm no one.

There is no "Gun Violence".
The violence is all conducted by people regardless of the instrument they may choose, if any.

Force violent PEOPLE to use different tools and they will use something different.
Without the people, there would be no violence.
Maybe you can ban violent people. (IIRC you have argued against that permanent ban, even on an individual and adjudicated basis.)


You said:
Quote
The 2A addresses the right to own a gun (for self-protection of one's person, home and property, which is a natural right of man).  "Redress against tyranny" is bullshit in the context of our Constitutional republic, where our laws have their origin in the actions of our elected representatives,  who can be removed from office by the People.   

Reasonable restrictions on lawful transfers of property do not implicate the 2A.   
The Second Amendment makes no mention of guns.

The word is "arms" and includes anything which can be used in that sense, commonly including edged weapons, pointy things, long pointy things, pointy things you make go a long ways, things that go 'thunk' if vigorously applied to another object, and a host of other items including just about anything that can be used to injure an enemy. Firearms fit in there somewhere.

Quote
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.

Without playing word games, in the parlance of the day, "Regulated" means "controlled" (as it does today), and "Militia" was defined as "The Army, in its entirety".
That predicate clause would not exist were it not for the perceived need to keep the Army from taking over, (which Tyranny had just been ended in the former Colonies which had been military governorships), and yet an army was needed to secure the borders and fend off attackers.
That means of control over that necessary army was spelled out in the Federalist, and would be provided by the overwhelming numbers of the armed citizenry, who, even in the absence of martial training, would prevail in a contest with the standing army by sheer force of numbers, if the need arose to prevent the overthrow of the civil government and imposition of tyranny.

So, yes, the primary purpose of the RKBA was a bulwark against tyranny.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
And I looked, and rose up, and said unto the nobles, and to the rulers, and to the rest of the people, Be not ye afraid of them: remember the Lord, which is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses. Nehemiah 4:14 (KJV)

About the only "Big" Liberals don't revile is "Big Government"

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8,278
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #28 on: February 28, 2019, 03:42:19 PM »
"Gun Violence" is no more a reality than hammer violence or rock violence.
All are inanimate objects.

My firearms, and I have been around firearms all my life, have yet to do anything I did not make them do.

They have never removed ammo from the box, loaded themselves, and discharged without my direct input. They stay where I put them, and harm no one.

There is no "Gun Violence".
The violence is all conducted by people regardless of the instrument they may choose, if any.

Force violent PEOPLE to use different tools and they will use something different.
Without the people, there would be no violence.
Maybe you can ban violent people. (IIRC you have argued against that permanent ban, even on an individual and adjudicated basis.)


You said:The Second Amendment makes no mention of guns.

The word is "arms" and includes anything which can be used in that sense, commonly including edged weapons, pointy things, long pointy things, pointy things you make go a long ways, things that go 'thunk' if vigorously applied to another object, and a host of other items including just about anything that can be used to injure an enemy. Firearms fit in there somewhere.

Without playing word games, in the parlance of the day, "Regulated" means "controlled" (as it does today), and "Militia" was defined as "The Army, in its entirety".
That predicate clause would not exist were it not for the perceived need to keep the Army from taking over, (which Tyranny had just been ended in the former Colonies which had been military governorships), and yet an army was needed to secure the borders and fend off attackers.
That means of control over that necessary army was spelled out in the Federalist, and would be provided by the overwhelming numbers of the armed citizenry, who, even in the absence of martial training, would prevail in a contest with the standing army by sheer force of numbers, if the need arose to prevent the overthrow of the civil government and imposition of tyranny.

So, yes, the primary purpose of the RKBA was a bulwark against tyranny.

I would argue Militia did not mean army.  It meant every able citizen.
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Offline verga

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,056
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #29 on: February 28, 2019, 03:47:03 PM »
@Jazzhead 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.

Glad you brought this up:
10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
U.S. Code
Notes
prev | next
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14, § 311; Pub. L. 85–861, § 1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, § 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656; renumbered § 246, Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title XII, § 1241(a)(2), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2497.)

Like it or not you are now or were at one time a member of the militia.
In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
�More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.�-Woody Allen
If God invented marathons to keep people from doing anything more stupid, the triathlon must have taken him completely by surprise.

Offline XenaLee

  • “We’ll save a lot. We don’t care.”
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,407
  • "There is no Chaos, only great Energy!"
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #30 on: February 28, 2019, 03:56:47 PM »
I would argue Militia did not mean army.  It meant every able citizen.

Including mad as hell (at the leftists/Democrats) women!
Time for unity in America! (better late than never)


Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 23,099
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #31 on: February 28, 2019, 03:57:48 PM »
I would argue Militia did not mean army.  It meant every able citizen.
My Barclay's Dictionary (London, ca, 1820) would argue with you. That is the source of the definition.

Let's use definitions in common use at the time of the writing of the Amendment.

That, in America we had redefined the 'army' as every able bodied man capable of bearing arms, the English definition of Militia was "The Army, in its entirety."-- In this case, the professional or standing army.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
And I looked, and rose up, and said unto the nobles, and to the rulers, and to the rest of the people, Be not ye afraid of them: remember the Lord, which is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses. Nehemiah 4:14 (KJV)

About the only "Big" Liberals don't revile is "Big Government"

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8,278
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #32 on: February 28, 2019, 04:04:04 PM »
My Barclay's Dictionary (London, ca, 1820) would argue with you. That is the source of the definition.

Let's use definitions in common use at the time of the writing of the Amendment.

That, in America we had redefined the 'army' as every able bodied man capable of bearing arms, the English definition of Militia was "The Army, in its entirety."-- In this case, the professional or standing army.

No, I disagree.  At the time of the founding fathers, militia was in place of a federal standing army.

http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor.htm

...Here is a typical Anti-federalist view, expressed by Richard Henry Lee (writing under the pseudonym "The Federal Farmer"):

"A militia when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in great measure unnecessary. The powers to form and arm the militia, to appoint their officers, and to command their services, are very important; nor ought they in a confederated republic to be lodged, solely, in any one member of the government. First, the constitution ought to secure a genuine [ ] and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia ― useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permament interests and attachments in the community is to be avoided. …To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…."...
« Last Edit: February 28, 2019, 04:05:17 PM by thackney »
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Offline EdJames

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 469
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #33 on: February 28, 2019, 04:21:35 PM »
Well, why don't you try to enlighten me?   There are rules about legal transfers of lots of stuff.   I can't sell my house, for example, without paying a transfer tax.   I can't sell my car without transferring the registration.   Are you saying these rules are unconstitutional?  More to the point, how is requiring the transfer of a gun by done by means of a licensed dealer that can perform a background check unconstitutional as an unreasonable search and seizure?   

Attack the Dems' bill on policy grounds,  but don't make yourself look foolish by claiming its unconstitutionality.  It's not.   

You don't realize what you are doing here, do you?

You are citing existing infringements on freedom as justification for more infringements.

When people talk about slippery slopes, it is based upon readily observable examples, not silly hand-wringing.

Offline EdJames

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 469
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #34 on: February 28, 2019, 04:25:20 PM »
So gun violence isn't a reality?

The 2A addresses the right to own a gun (for self-protection of one's person, home and property, which is a natural right of man).  "Redress against tyranny" is bullshit in the context of our Constitutional republic, where our laws have their origin in the actions of our elected representatives,  who can be removed from office by the People.   

Reasonable restrictions on lawful transfers of property do not implicate the 2A.   

Your thinking hearkens back to an era long forgotten.

Overwhelmingly, for many decades, the vast majority of our so called "laws" are actually regulations and rules passed by faceless, nameless bureaucrats that are not subject to removal by the People.  The soft tyranny that has been creeping over this country needs redress by other means.

Offline Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 17,701
    • Fishrrman Speaks!
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #35 on: February 28, 2019, 06:26:47 PM »
Why do the 2nd Amendment folks here even bother arguing with that guy Jazzhead?
He could be a paid troll.

Just put him on ignore.
Your blood pressure will thank you for doing so.

Offline verga

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,056
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #36 on: February 28, 2019, 08:54:40 PM »
@Jazzhead 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.

Glad you brought this up:
10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
U.S. Code
Notes
prev | next
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14, § 311; Pub. L. 85–861, § 1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, § 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656; renumbered § 246, Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title XII, § 1241(a)(2), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2497.)

Like it or not you are now or were at one time a member of the militia.
@Xena Lee @thackney @Smokin Joe No need to debate, the US code makes it very clear.
In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
�More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.�-Woody Allen
If God invented marathons to keep people from doing anything more stupid, the triathlon must have taken him completely by surprise.

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 23,099
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #37 on: February 28, 2019, 09:13:37 PM »
No, I disagree.  At the time of the founding fathers, militia was in place of a federal standing army.

http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor.htm

...Here is a typical Anti-federalist view, expressed by Richard Henry Lee (writing under the pseudonym "The Federal Farmer"):

"A militia when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in great measure unnecessary. The powers to form and arm the militia, to appoint their officers, and to command their services, are very important; nor ought they in a confederated republic to be lodged, solely, in any one member of the government. First, the constitution ought to secure a genuine [ ] and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia ― useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permament interests and attachments in the community is to be avoided. …To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…."...

Lee was simply saying that the (formerly) Colonial Army was composed of every man of service age who was physically capable. You are dealing with their terminology for the common man. I grant that is how they used the word in that sense. For this reason he argued against a standing Federal Army.

Counterpoint to this (and prevailing) was the concept that there be a small standing (professional) Federal Army, which would be large enough to step in should there arise martial conflict between States. Every one of the several (sovereign) States had its own Army (referred to by the term "Militia"), along with a Secretary of State, a Governor, Treasurer, etc., and even coined its own money. That the term "Militia" has degraded to mean local troops of a lesser caliber than the professional standing Army is a later affectation. I am sure the various Militias of Northern States (PA and MA, especially), some of which were resisted by civilians (causing the first deaths in battle)  in the Pratt Street Riots in Baltimore, were not seen as less of invading Armies.

In the Federalist debates, that Federal Militia (Army) was to be "regulated" by the vast numbers of the people, who by force of numbers and their personal arms, would be sufficient to counter any threat to Liberty the Military might impose. At the end of the Revolution, people did not swear loyalty to the United States, rather, to their home State, as many of my ancestors and relatives did in Maryland.
That mentality prevailed to the extent, that Robert E. Lee, a Virginian, refused a commission in the Federal Army, and chose to join the forces of his native Virginia. The coming transition, by force of arms changed these United States and the Federal Government into The United States with a National Government.

To break it down, to maintain the security of the Federation, you had to have an Army to defend the common borders. You might need one to resolve disputes between the States, to break up the fight. That is one form of security of a free state they referred to, but on the other hand you had to be able to keep that Army under control. That, also, is necessary to the security of a free state.

 Thus, A well regulated (controlled) Militia...
Keep in mind that these were educated English speaking, and just recently English men, for the most part, and in their formal writing would have referred to the Army as "the Militia".
I'd love to spend more time on this but I need go see my two new great grandsons...
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
And I looked, and rose up, and said unto the nobles, and to the rulers, and to the rest of the people, Be not ye afraid of them: remember the Lord, which is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses. Nehemiah 4:14 (KJV)

About the only "Big" Liberals don't revile is "Big Government"

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 16,627
  • Rule #39
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #38 on: March 01, 2019, 12:04:47 AM »
Once again one of our resident gun grabbers doesn’t seem to comprehend “shall not infringe”.

So I’m compelled to ask yet again... what is one more law added to the 16,000 already on the books going to change that the others haven’t?

Rather than focus on enforcing existing laws or adding all necessary records to the existing background check system, anti-gun organizations want to restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners. They never address where the real source of gun violence is coming from. Wonder why that is?

The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Offline InHeavenThereIsNoBeer

  • TBR Advisory Committee
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,183
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #39 on: March 01, 2019, 03:21:33 AM »
No, I disagree.  At the time of the founding fathers, militia was in place of a federal standing army.

http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor.htm

...Here is a typical Anti-federalist view, expressed by Richard Henry Lee (writing under the pseudonym "The Federal Farmer"):

"A militia when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in great measure unnecessary. The powers to form and arm the militia, to appoint their officers, and to command their services, are very important; nor ought they in a confederated republic to be lodged, solely, in any one member of the government. First, the constitution ought to secure a genuine [ ] and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia ― useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permament interests and attachments in the community is to be avoided. …To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…."...

Or, in the parlance of the day as I understand it, "well regulated". 
My avatar shows the national debt in stacks of $100 bills.  If you look very closely under the crane you can see the Statue of Liberty.

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 23,099
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #40 on: March 01, 2019, 04:58:44 AM »
Or, in the parlance of the day as I understand it, "well regulated".
Regulation is now and was then, "controlled". Training and discipline does factor into that, but regulations and regulators are for the control of whatever they regulate.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
And I looked, and rose up, and said unto the nobles, and to the rulers, and to the rest of the people, Be not ye afraid of them: remember the Lord, which is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses. Nehemiah 4:14 (KJV)

About the only "Big" Liberals don't revile is "Big Government"

Offline sneakypete

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,724
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #41 on: March 01, 2019, 07:55:16 AM »


Of course criminals will face none of these restrictions.

@NavyCanDo

Of course not. Dropping these felony charges in order to get a guilty conviction on something else or to get a "co-conspirator to violate gun control laws" to testify against his friends will be as automatic as a sunrise.

Meanwhile,you can bet your bippy these charges WILL stick against anyone they want to arrest and the "authora-tays" have nothing else to hang around his neck.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This post has been approved by Mod 3 or you wouldn't be seeing it.

Offline sneakypete

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,724
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #42 on: March 01, 2019, 07:57:19 AM »
Another feel good useless action by people that have no clue about what the heck they are doing. I really wish stupid burned.

@verga

Say WHAT????

They know EXACTLY what they are doing. They are getting the ball rolling on gun confiscation.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This post has been approved by Mod 3 or you wouldn't be seeing it.

Offline sneakypete

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,724
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #43 on: March 01, 2019, 08:00:04 AM »

 There are rules about legal transfers of lots of stuff.


@Jazzhead

How much of that "lots of stuff" is a Constitutionally-guaranteed RIGHT?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This post has been approved by Mod 3 or you wouldn't be seeing it.

Online To-Whose-Benefit?

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,503
    • Wulf Anson Author
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #44 on: March 01, 2019, 02:38:22 PM »
How soon till the democrats demand access to all ATF Form 4473s?

Oh Yeah. Change the law and create a National Library of them.
My 'Viking Hunter' High Adventure Alternate History Series is FREE, ALL 3 volumes, at most ebook retailers including Ibooks, Barnes and Noble, Kobo, and more.

In Vol 2 the weapons come out in a winner take all war on two fronts.

Vol 3 opens with the rigged murder trial of the villain in a Viking Court under Viking law to set the stage for the hero's own murder trial.

http://wulfanson.blogspot.com

Offline Jazzhead

  • Radicalized
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8,870
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #45 on: March 05, 2019, 12:19:18 PM »
But, but, but, It's just common sense legislation, how could it go wrong. It would NEVER interfere with the right of law abiding citizens.
Shall not be infringed. any and I mean ANY D@MN thing that prevents law abiding citizens from obtaining, or in any way restricts their purchase, ownership, or use of, is an infringement.

That's one radical take on this particular Constitutional right.   I doubt you'd have a similar view of the Constitutional right to abortion.   But in fact both rights are subject to reasonable regulation that doesn't deny the core right. 

If the State can insist on an abortion being performed by doctors with hospital admitting privileges,  then the State can insist that private transfers of firearms be accomplished with a licensed gun dealer as a middleman.    Do either of these measures amount to sound policy?  Perhaps not.  But neither, except in extraordinary circumstances,  infringes upon the Constitutional right that it regulates.

Bottom line is I'd like to see a bit less hypocrisy by those convinced their cherished Constitutional right is being gored.   I've rarely met a pro-2A advocate who was unwilling to savage the abortion right.    Just as I've rarely met a pro-abortion advocate who wasn't willing to take your guns away.    Rights for me,  but not for thee.       
« Last Edit: March 05, 2019, 12:22:08 PM by Jazzhead »
"He was born poor, died rich, and never hurt anyone along the way"

   - Duke Ellington, upon hearing of the death of Louis Armstrong

"Not forever.  Just for now"

    - Jay Farrar

Offline Bill Cipher

  • Let's Make a Deal
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,856
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #46 on: March 05, 2019, 12:48:52 PM »
But, but, but, It's just common sense legislation, how could it go wrong. It would NEVER interfere with the right of law abiding citizens.
Shall not be infringed. any and I mean ANY D@MN thing that prevents law abiding citizens from obtaining, or in any way restricts their purchase, ownership, or use of, is an infringement.

Maybe you should take that up with Scalia, who clearly saw no necessary conflict between the prohibition on infringement and a reasonable regulation of firearms. 

As Scalia put it in his opinion in D.C. v. Heller, “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

Scalia was, I believe, an originalist, so unless he was paid off by the liberal cabal, then it is not as unlimited as all that. 

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8,278
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #47 on: March 05, 2019, 12:49:21 PM »
That's one radical take on this particular Constitutional right.   I doubt you'd have a similar view of the Constitutional right to abortion.

Exactly where in the Constitution does it say the right to an abortion shall not be infringed?
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Offline dfwgator

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,355
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #48 on: March 05, 2019, 12:52:31 PM »
It won't accomplish a damn thing, other than make people think the government is doing something about the problem.

Offline Jazzhead

  • Radicalized
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8,870
Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
« Reply #49 on: March 05, 2019, 01:03:45 PM »
Exactly where in the Constitution does it say the right to an abortion shall not be infringed?

Unlike some here,  I don't believe that some Constitutional rights are more equal than others.   (Note that I am not suggesting that the 2A is less equal than others because of the predicate clause, although liberals typically take that position.)     

Whether a Constitutional right is established by the text of the document or by operation of the Supreme Court's authority to interpret and construe the document,  it remains subject to reasonable regulation that does not infringe on the core right.    The State may regulate neither guns nor abortion out of existence.     But, as I said, if the State can require abortion providers to have hospital admitting privileges, it can require private firearms transactions to take place through the medium of a licensed gun dealer.   I'd like to see less hypocrisy of the "rights for me but not for thee" variety.   
"He was born poor, died rich, and never hurt anyone along the way"

   - Duke Ellington, upon hearing of the death of Louis Armstrong

"Not forever.  Just for now"

    - Jay Farrar


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf