The Briefing Room

General Category => National News/Current Events => Topic started by: ABX on February 27, 2019, 04:01:48 PM

Title: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: ABX on February 27, 2019, 04:01:48 PM
This expands checks to all private sales, even transferring firearms between family members. It seems it has a lot of nasty anti-gun riders as well.

Quote

The House passed legislation mandating federal criminal background checks on all gun sales, including private transactions, in the most high-profile congressional vote on gun control in decades.

The House passed the bill on a 240-190 vote. It faces stiff opposition in the GOP-controlled Senate....


https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/27/house-passes-bill-to-require-universal-background-checks-on-gun-sales-1193043 (https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/27/house-passes-bill-to-require-universal-background-checks-on-gun-sales-1193043)

Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Elderberry on February 27, 2019, 04:09:04 PM
THE TRUTH ABOUT SO-CALLED "UNIVERSAL" BACKGROUND CHECK LEGISLATION H.R. 8 AND S. 42

https://www.nraila.org/campaigns/2019/2019-universal-background-check-legislation/about-s-42-and-hr-8/ (https://www.nraila.org/campaigns/2019/2019-universal-background-check-legislation/about-s-42-and-hr-8/)

Quote
NRA-ILA

As proposed, H.R. 8 and S. 42 would forbid a person from transferring a firearm to another person unless facilitated through a licensed firearms dealer.  Both parties to the transfer must appear jointly at a willing dealer, who must conduct a background check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and comply with all state and federal requirements as though he were selling or transferring a firearm out of his own inventory.

While proponents of the bills often refer to it as a background check on sales of firearms, the true effect of H.R. 8 or S. 42 would be criminalizing otherwise lawful conduct with firearms. The overbroad nature of the proposed legislation would criminalize many transfers that take place as part of hunting, recreational shooting, and even self-defense.

ABOUT H.R. 8/S. 42

 On January 8, two bills were introduced in Congress to impose so-called "universal" background checks. The bills, H.R. 8 and S. 42, are being misleadingly described as simply requiring background checks on all sales of firearms, but this is just a small part of what these overbroad pieces of legislation would do.

Traps for Law-Abiding Gun Owners

Both bills would make it a crime, subject to certain exceptions, to simply hand a firearm to another person. Any time gun owners carry out this simple act, they would potentially be exposing themselves to criminal penalties. While the bills do create some exceptions, they are overly complicated and create many traps for unwary gun owners. Accidental violations of these complicated provisions are not excused under the proposed legislation.

This legislation is not about public safety. These bills attack law-abiding gun owners by placing further burdens on gun ownership and use. For the anti-gun groups and politicians intent on criminalizing the private transfer of firearms, this legislation is just another step in their effort to extinguish America’s vibrant and legitimate gun culture.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Fishrrman on February 27, 2019, 06:47:25 PM
Probably won't pass the Senate.

But hey, you never know, with all the Republican turncoats as of late...
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: NavyCanDo on February 27, 2019, 08:37:05 PM
Already law here in Washington State. What this means if I want to sale one of my guns to a gun collecting friend, we both have to go to a licence agent for gun sales like a gun store and pay a fee to the srore to perform the background check. Immediate family is excluded.   
When I pass away and my wife has to pay for my elaborate expensive funeral, and wants to sell all my guns to help pay for it, it makes it far tougher to sale them. The easiest thing for her to do is take them all down to a Pawn store and take a huge loss on them.

Of course criminals will face none of these restrictions.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: ABX on February 27, 2019, 10:17:34 PM
Probably won't pass the Senate.

But hey, you never know, with all the Republican turncoats as of late...

They only need a couple of flips- a super majority isn't necessary corrections this bill. Add on top of that, an administration that is hostile to gun rights and this one has a frightening chance.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: roamer_1 on February 27, 2019, 10:39:57 PM
Alaska Montana Idaho Wyoming and North Dakota will tell em to piss off, guaranteed. Most of the desert states and great plains states will follow. Harder for me to tell about the South, but probably. Which means that ever stricter gun laws will be effected right where they always are - In blue liberal states.

Not that it matters to me. Only two of my guns have papers... Easy enough to sell em and ny something off the back of a truck to replace them, and retain the value I have in them - Value that will be greatly reduced putting a dealer in the transaction. So trade em to your buddies, buy and sell to get rid of the record. If you no longer own the gun, they can't say boo.

Let the greatest shell game ever begin!
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: 240B on February 27, 2019, 11:04:30 PM
Of course criminals will face none of these restrictions.
That's what makes me chuckle about all of this. Does anyone honestly believe that gangbangers and armed criminals on the street give a shit about any of this?

Headlines we will never see:
Local gangbanger and armed robber LeRoy 'T-Dog' Gonzales is OUTRAGED by these new gun restrictions!
Gangbangers and Felons plan rally to protest new gun laws.

You got a gun?
Yea man, I got a gun.
How much?
Hunert dollas bro.
Alright.
Alright, here ya go.

Street thugs don't care about who the guy is, where the gun came from, or anything at all. Gun Laws only affect people who care about Laws. And these people are not the problem. This is like calling for all domestic dogs to be registered and on a leash to prevent wolves from attacking people.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Elderberry on February 27, 2019, 11:13:40 PM
Only two of my guns have papers.

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.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: roamer_1 on February 27, 2019, 11:33:34 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.

Funny yu should say that, because my 45/70 is one of my papered guns. I bought it brand new, over the counter.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Elderberry on February 27, 2019, 11:43:21 PM
Funny yu should say that, because my 45/70 is one of my papered guns. I bought it brand new, over the counter.

The only papered gun I've bought was a Nepalese Gahendra Martini Rifle that was cosmolined and wrapped in paper.

https://www.ima-usa.com/products/original-nepalese-gahendra-martini-rifle-untouched-condition (https://www.ima-usa.com/products/original-nepalese-gahendra-martini-rifle-untouched-condition)

Its sure gotten expensive since I picked up mine.

I've bought many papered barrels, but only that one papered rifle.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Smokin Joe on February 28, 2019, 12:25:44 AM
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.
You might want to read this one, too: https://shilohrifle.com/accessories/books/paper-patched-bullets-by-orville-c.-loomer/ (https://shilohrifle.com/accessories/books/paper-patched-bullets-by-orville-c.-loomer/)
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: verga on February 28, 2019, 08:08:07 AM
Another feel good useless action by people that have no clue about what the heck they are doing. I really wish stupid burned.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: rustynail on February 28, 2019, 08:16:11 AM
How soon till the democrats demand access to all ATF Form 4473s?
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on February 28, 2019, 08:58:44 AM
Laws regarding the legal transfer of firearms don't violate the Second Amendment unless the laws are so onerous as to be proxies for the banning or restriction of ownership or use of firearms.

A ban on the ownership of certain classes of weapons (e.g., semi-autos) is Constitutionally problematic.

A ban on the ability to legally carry a firearm in the public square, let alone in the home, for personal protection, is Constitutionally problematic.

But a requirement that private sales be conducted through the medium of a licensed gun dealer that can conduct a background check for a modest fee strikes me as perfectly legal.   Unless, of course,  the state imposes so many restrictions on licensed gun dealers so that (as with some states and abortion clinics)  there few if any licensed gun dealers are left open in the state.

I've made this point before -  when it comes to reasonableness and Constitutionality, the left should view restrictions on guns with the same lens that the right views restrictions on abortion, and vice versa.   Can abortion clinics be subject to such stringent regulation that most are effectively shut down?   If you say yes,  then ponder whether a state can regulate all legal gun dealers out of existence.   Because what's good for the goose is good for the gander.     

Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: verga on February 28, 2019, 09:42:34 AM
Laws regarding the legal transfer of firearms don't violate the Second Amendment unless the laws are so onerous as to be proxies for the banning or restriction of ownership or use of firearms.

A ban on the ownership of certain classes of weapons (e.g., semi-autos) is Constitutionally problematic.

A ban on the ability to legally carry a firearm in the public square, let alone in the home, for personal protection, is Constitutionally problematic.

But a requirement that private sales be conducted through the medium of a licensed gun dealer that can conduct a background check for a modest fee strikes me as perfectly legal.   Unless, of course,  the state imposes so many restrictions on licensed gun dealers so that (as with some states and abortion clinics)  there few if any licensed gun dealers are left open in the state.

I've made this point before -  when it comes to reasonableness and Constitutionality, the left should view restrictions on guns with the same lens that the right views restrictions on abortion, and vice versa.   Can abortion clinics be subject to such stringent regulation that most are effectively shut down?   If you say yes,  then ponder whether a state can regulate all legal gun dealers out of existence.   Because what's good for the goose is good for the gander.   
Perhaps you may have missed this amendment.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on February 28, 2019, 10:31:19 AM
Perhaps you may have missed this amendment.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

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.)   
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: roamer_1 on February 28, 2019, 11:04:14 AM
I've made this point before -  when it comes to reasonableness and Constitutionality, the left should view restrictions on guns with the same lens that the right views restrictions on abortion, and vice versa.   Can abortion clinics be subject to such stringent regulation that most are effectively shut down?   If you say yes,  then ponder whether a state can regulate all legal gun dealers out of existence.   Because what's good for the goose is good for the gander.   

No, because an abortion ALWAYS ends in the death of the innocent.
The right to bear arms does not.

And you ideas are directly opposed to the 2nd amendment, which is there to guarantee the citizen the last right of redress against tyranny. ANYTHING government does to control that right infringes upon its very purpose.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: verga on February 28, 2019, 11:27:33 AM
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.)
And I am not the least bit surprised.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on February 28, 2019, 11:34:27 AM
And I am not the least bit surprised.

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.   
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: roamer_1 on February 28, 2019, 12:04:03 PM
I can't sell my house, for example, without paying a transfer tax.   

I can.

Quote
I can't sell my car without transferring the registration.   

I can.

And I will continue to trade in guns without a dealer because Montana will tell the fed to go p*ss up a rope.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on February 28, 2019, 12:50:41 PM
No, because an abortion ALWAYS ends in the death of the innocent.
The right to bear arms does not. 

So gun violence isn't a reality?

Quote
And you ideas are directly opposed to the 2nd amendment, which is there to guarantee the citizen the last right of redress against tyranny. ANYTHING government does to control that right infringes upon its very purpose.

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.   
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: roamer_1 on February 28, 2019, 12:59:47 PM
So gun violence isn't a reality?

No, its not. The ingredient you are missing in your recipe is how many times a year guns are used in defense which causes your cause to pale by comparison.

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.   

Utter nonsense. As the founders stated over and again. Their intent was clear.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: thackney on February 28, 2019, 01:02:15 PM
The only result of such legislation will be to make criminals out of previously law-abiding citizens.

 Secondly to create advances in 3D printing.

No existing criminals will be impacted.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: roamer_1 on February 28, 2019, 01:08:26 PM
The only result of such legislation will be to make criminals out of previously law-abiding citizens.

 Secondly to create advances in 3D printing.

No existing criminals will be impacted.

That's right.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: verga on February 28, 2019, 02:33:42 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.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Smokin Joe 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.

Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: catfish1957 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.

(http://i.ebayimg.com/images/i/281892738267-0-1/s-l1000.jpg)
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Smokin Joe 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.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: thackney 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.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: verga 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.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: XenaLee 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!
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Smokin Joe 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.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: thackney 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 (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…."...
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: EdJames 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.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: EdJames 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.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Fishrrman 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.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: verga 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.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Smokin Joe 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 (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...
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: txradioguy 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?

Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: InHeavenThereIsNoBeer 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 (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". 
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Smokin Joe 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.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: sneakypete 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.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: sneakypete 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.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: sneakypete 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?
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: To-Whose-Benefit? 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.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead 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.       
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Bill Cipher 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. 
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: thackney 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?
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: dfwgator 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.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead 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.   
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on March 05, 2019, 01:05:22 PM
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.

QFT. 
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: thackney on March 05, 2019, 01:09:12 PM
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.

I believe the specific language of the constitution and amendments was chose for a reason, not arbitrarily.

I don't equate a right they found through interpretation having the same strength and clarity of one specifically spelled out.

Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: mrpotatohead on March 05, 2019, 01:10:40 PM
The only result of such legislation will be to make criminals out of previously law-abiding citizens.

 Secondly to create advances in 3D printing.

No existing criminals will be impacted.
:amen:
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on March 05, 2019, 01:26:31 PM
I believe the specific language of the constitution and amendments was chose for a reason, not arbitrarily.

I don't equate a right they found through interpretation having the same strength and clarity of one specifically spelled out.

Why?  Rights are rights.  Why should some Constitutional rights be second class?   

Ironically, many 2A advocates are concerned that the 2A is being treated as a second-class right; it's been a decade or so since the SCOTUS in Heller found an individual RKBA,  but it has rarely reviewed the numerous post -Heller attempts by the States to regulate guns and gun ownership.    Numerous courts are ready and willing to guard the abortion right against unconstitutional infringement;  but the same zeal to defend the 2A appears to be lacking.   
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Cyber Liberty on March 05, 2019, 01:31:41 PM
I believe the specific language of the constitution and amendments was chose for a reason, not arbitrarily.

I don't equate a right they found through interpretation having the same strength and clarity of one specifically spelled out.

That's why we have clever lawyers:  To distort the plain words of the Constitution until they get interpreted the way they want.  The Rats and their fellow travelers have been at this for over a century.

Example:  "But but but...the 'Predicate clause' in the Second Amendment allows the States to erase the right to keep and bear arms because they don't have a Militia!!" 

Another example:  "But but but...the First Amendment creates a wall between the State and religion!"

"But but but...the 14th Amendment demands birthright citizenship!"

That's how plain meaning becomes something else by clever lawyering.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on March 05, 2019, 02:24:51 PM
That's why we have clever lawyers:  To distort the plain words of the Constitution until they get interpreted the way they want.  The Rats and their fellow travelers have been at this for over a century.

Example:  "But but but...the 'Predicate clause' in the Second Amendment allows the States to erase the right to keep and bear arms because they don't have a Militia!!" 

Another example:  "But but but...the First Amendment creates a wall between the State and religion!"

"But but but...the 14th Amendment demands birthright citizenship!"

That's how plain meaning becomes something else by clever lawyering.

Except that the "plain meaning" of the Constitution suggests the interpretations you're rejecting.   It took over 200 years and a SCOTUS opinion, for example, for an individual right to KBA to be recognized as a Constitutional right.    The 14th amendment says plainly that those born here are citizens.  And the First amendment's "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"  has always suggested to me, as a literal matter,  Jefferson's wall of separation.   Indeed,  it is the "clever lawyers" who have urged the expansion or clarification of these "enumerated" rights to reach the conclusions you favor.   
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Bill Cipher on March 05, 2019, 02:31:35 PM
That's why we have clever lawyers:  To distort the plain words of the Constitution until they get interpreted the way they want.  The Rats and their fellow travelers have been at this for over a century.

Example:  "But but but...the 'Predicate clause' in the Second Amendment allows the States to erase the right to keep and bear arms because they don't have a Militia!!" 

Another example:  "But but but...the First Amendment creates a wall between the State and religion!"

"But but but...the 14th Amendment demands birthright citizenship!"

That's how plain meaning becomes something else by clever lawyering.

Keep in mind that, without “clever lawyers” the Bill of Rights would almost certainly not have been incorporated and applied to the states through the 14th Amendment, with the result that the states would be free to outright ban ownership of firearms, including 22 caliber plinkers. 

So, be careful whom one belittles.  They may have helped more than one imagines. 
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Cyber Liberty on March 05, 2019, 02:55:40 PM
Except that the "plain meaning" of the Constitution suggests the interpretations you're rejecting.   It took over 200 years and a SCOTUS opinion, for example, for an individual right to KBA to be recognized as a Constitutional right.    The 14th amendment says plainly that those born here are citizens.  And the First amendment's "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"  has always suggested to me, as a literal matter,  Jefferson's wall of separation.   Indeed,  it is the "clever lawyers" who have urged the expansion or clarification of these "enumerated" rights to reach the conclusions you favor.   

In the words of Ronald Reagan:  "There you go again."
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Cyber Liberty on March 05, 2019, 02:57:35 PM
Keep in mind that, without “clever lawyers” the Bill of Rights would almost certainly not have been incorporated and applied to the states through the 14th Amendment, with the result that the states would be free to outright ban ownership of firearms, including 22 caliber plinkers. 

So, be careful whom one belittles.  They may have helped more than one imagines.

Clever lawyers have informed me the 14th amendment does not apply to states regulating guns. Scroll a couple of posts up.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Bill Cipher on March 05, 2019, 02:58:20 PM
In the words of Ronald Reagan:  "There you go again."

Wasn’t Reagan’s statement “there you go again, again”?  I always thought it was brilliant. 
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Bill Cipher on March 05, 2019, 03:01:18 PM
Clever lawyers have informed me the 14th amendment does not apply to states regulating guns. Scroll a couple of posts up.

In McDonald v. Chicago the court applied the second to the states via the 14th Amendment. 
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Cyber Liberty on March 05, 2019, 03:14:09 PM
In McDonald v. Chicago the court applied the second to the states via the 14th Amendment.

Yes, but I've also been told here that unless Congress codifies Heller and McDonald, it isn't a right and a leftist court can erase it as easily as they created it.   :shrug:

"Rights are not inherent in the plain language of the Constitution, nor granted by some magical sky spirit.  They must be granted by a benevolent government."

I don't believe this claptrap, but it seems to be the prevalent understanding of "rights" in the 21st Century.  Health and child care are rights.  To not have to hear arguments that challenge one's beliefs are another right.  Silly things written into the Constitution are subject to interpretation.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Bill Cipher on March 05, 2019, 03:18:00 PM
Yes, but I've also been told here that unless Congress codifies Heller and McDonald, it isn't a right and a leftist court can erase it as easily as they created it.   :shrug:

"Rights are not inherent in the plain language of the Constitution, nor granted by some magical sky spirit.  They must be granted by a benevolent government."

I don't believe this claptrap, but it seems to be the prevalent understanding of "rights" in the 21st Century.  Health and child care are rights.  To not have to hear arguments that challenge one's beliefs are another right.  Silly things written into the Constitution are subject to interpretation.

It’s unlikely at this point that it would get summarily reversed, for the same reason that Roe v. Wade won’t get reversed, but that is the problem with that prefatory language. 
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Cyber Liberty on March 05, 2019, 03:22:14 PM
It’s unlikely at this point that it would get summarily reversed, for the same reason that Roe v. Wade won’t get reversed, but that is the problem with that prefatory language.

Precisely.

A "right" is not a right if 18th Century language can be interpreted with evolving 21st Century English to mean the opposite of what it says.

"Elastic Clause."
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: roamer_1 on March 05, 2019, 03:23:20 PM
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.

You might be right except for one thing: Abortion is not a right. Abortion is the murder of innocents, and is in no wise to be found in the Constitution, by any means. It stands directly against the first enumerated right - The Right to Life. It stands outside of the only means of sanctioning death that the government is Constitutionally allowed.

In that your argument is not only moribund and banal, but so easily dismissed as to not even require a moment of thought.

MEH.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Bill Cipher on March 05, 2019, 03:24:20 PM
Precisely.

A "right" is not a right if 18th Century language can be interpreted with evolving 21st Century English to mean the opposite of what it says.

"Elastic Clause."

Disagree. The right is there, the question is what are the contours and bounds of the language used.  The problem is that the Founders were too prolix for their own good and should have been clearer on what the right extended to.  They weren’t, which leads to the problem. 
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: andy58-in-nh on March 05, 2019, 03:25:52 PM
Yes, but I've also been told here that unless Congress codifies Heller and McDonald, it isn't a right and a leftist court can erase it as easily as they created it.   :shrug:

"Rights are not inherent in the plain language of the Constitution, nor granted by some magical sky spirit.  They must be granted by a benevolent government."

I don't believe this claptrap, but it seems to be the prevalent understanding of "rights" in the 21st Century.  Health and child care are rights.  To not have to hear arguments that challenge one's beliefs are another right.  Silly things written into the Constitution are subject to interpretation.

Rights come from our nature as sentient beings, or from the God that created us. Anyone who insists otherwise is trying to take one or more of them from you. The legitimacy of laws and of the government that is empowered to enforce them comes only from the people at whose pleasure the government serves, or else has no true moral or legal authority. Freedom is lost when citizens abdicate their personal responsibility, and instead allow fear, prejudice and envy to guide them.     
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: dfwgator on March 05, 2019, 03:27:13 PM

 Secondly to create advances in 3D printing.

 

Can you 3D print bullets?
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: thackney on March 05, 2019, 03:30:48 PM
Can you 3D print bullets?
THE BEST METAL 3D PRINTERS IN 2018
https://www.aniwaa.com/best-of/3d-printers/best-metal-3d-printer/ (https://www.aniwaa.com/best-of/3d-printers/best-metal-3d-printer/)
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Bill Cipher on March 05, 2019, 03:30:48 PM
You might be right except for one thing: Abortion is not a right. Abortion is the murder of innocents, and is in no wise to be found in the Constitution, by any means. It stands directly against the first enumerated right - The Right to Life. It stands outside of the only means of sanctioning death that the government is Constitutionally allowed.

In that your argument is not only moribund and banal, but so easily dismissed as to not even require a moment of thought.

MEH.

Disagree.  It’s rather well spelled out in Roe itself. 
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Cyber Liberty on March 05, 2019, 03:31:27 PM
Rights come from our nature as sentient beings, or from the God that created us. Anyone who insists otherwise is trying to take one or more of them from you. The legitimacy of laws and of the government that is empowered to enforce them comes only from the people at whose pleasure the government serves, or else has no true moral or legal authority. Freedom is lost when citizens abdicate their personal responsibility, and instead allow fear, prejudice and envy to guide them.   

You, I and many others have been making that claim, which is brushed aside by clever lawyers who know all the answers.  You, I and the others are just ignorant fools, pining for a past that no longer exists never existed in the first place.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Bill Cipher on March 05, 2019, 03:31:48 PM
Can you 3D print bullets?

With or without casings, primers, and propellant?
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: roamer_1 on March 05, 2019, 03:32:51 PM
Disagree.  It’s rather well spelled out in Roe itself.

Roe is wrong.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Cyber Liberty on March 05, 2019, 03:33:06 PM
Disagree.  It’s rather well spelled out in Roe itself.

Perfect illustration of what I've been going on about:  Plain Language takes a back seat to interpretation.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Cyber Liberty on March 05, 2019, 03:34:16 PM
With or without casings, primers, and propellant?

I would presume not.  You described a "cartridge," not a "bullet."
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Bill Cipher on March 05, 2019, 03:35:13 PM
I would presume not.  You described a "cartridge," not a "bullet."

Clarification never hurts, does it?  The terms get used interchangeably sometimes. 
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Bill Cipher on March 05, 2019, 03:35:49 PM
Roe is wrong.

Roe is correct.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Bill Cipher on March 05, 2019, 03:36:27 PM
Perfect illustration of what I've been going on about:  Plain Language takes a back seat to interpretation.

If you say so .......
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Cyber Liberty on March 05, 2019, 03:44:49 PM
Roe is wrong.

But it's the interpretation of the Constitution that carries the day, not the actual Constitution, as we are constantly reminded.  A ruling that incorporates Penumbras and Emanations trumps what us silly mortals think is the law.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Cyber Liberty on March 05, 2019, 03:45:14 PM
If you say so .......

It's better than that.  You said so.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Cyber Liberty on March 05, 2019, 03:46:00 PM
Roe is correct.

The ruling is correct because of the ruling.  Circular reasoning at its finest.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Cyber Liberty on March 05, 2019, 03:47:09 PM
Clarification never hurts, does it?  The terms get used interchangeably sometimes.

They do, and it can be frustrating at times.  "Clip" vs. "Magazine" is like that.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: InHeavenThereIsNoBeer on March 05, 2019, 03:51:31 PM
The ruling is correct because of the ruling.  Circular reasoning at its finest.

Close second.

Circular reasoning at its finest would be the SCOTUS has the authority to rule on what's constitutional because SCOTUS ruled that it did.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Cyber Liberty on March 05, 2019, 03:53:49 PM
Close second.

Circular reasoning at its finest would be the SCOTUS has the authority to rule on what's constitutional because SCOTUS ruled that it did.

I stand corrected.  Effective circular reasoning must be done by professionals, not loudmouths at the end of the bar, like me.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Bill Cipher on March 05, 2019, 03:57:50 PM
But it's the interpretation of the Constitution that carries the day, not the actual Constitution, as we are constantly reminded.  A ruling that incorporates Penumbras and Emanations trumps what us silly mortals think is the law.

If you say so ......
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Cyber Liberty on March 05, 2019, 04:10:31 PM
If you say so ......

This time it was I who said it, meaning you can add that to five bucks and buy a cup of burnt coffee from Starbucks.   333cleo
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: roamer_1 on March 05, 2019, 04:15:39 PM
Roe is correct.

Roe is wrong on its face. To suggest that privacy condones murder is as ludicrous as the idiocy that claims there is no personhood until birth.

Such a perverson of truth as came down in the Roe decision disabused me forever of the thought of wisdom or justice being meted blindly from the bench. They are blind alright but that is all.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: roamer_1 on March 05, 2019, 04:16:59 PM
But it's the interpretation of the Constitution that carries the day, not the actual Constitution, as we are constantly reminded.  A ruling that incorporates Penumbras and Emanations trumps what us silly mortals think is the law.

What a horrid stain on justice that is.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on March 05, 2019, 04:17:02 PM
The ruling is correct because of the ruling.  Circular reasoning at its finest.

There is also the  principal of stare decisis - an inherently conservative concept.   Every woman of child-bearing age has always lived under a Constitution guaranteeing her the right to reproductive choice.   Sorry,  but it would be judicial activism of the worst sort to deny that essential liberty at this late date.   
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Cyber Liberty on March 05, 2019, 04:18:21 PM
There is also the  principal of stare decisis - an inherently conservative concept.   Every woman of child-bearing age has always lived under a Constitution guaranteeing her the right to reproductive choice.   Sorry,  but it would be judicial activism of the worst sort to deny that essential liberty at this late date.   

Another example of court decisions being place ahead of the plain language in the Constitution.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: roamer_1 on March 05, 2019, 04:18:38 PM
There is also the  principal of stare decisis - an inherently conservative concept.   Every woman of child-bearing age has always lived under a Constitution guaranteeing her the right to reproductive choice.   Sorry,  but it would be judicial activism of the worst sort to deny that essential liberty at this late date.   

Sure. Her choice happened when her knees came apart.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on March 05, 2019, 04:18:49 PM
What a horrid stain on justice that is.

Why are you so afraid that a woman have the same liberty of self-determination as a man?
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on March 05, 2019, 04:19:53 PM
Sure. Her choice happened when her knees came apart.

Spoken as only a man can. 
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: roamer_1 on March 05, 2019, 04:20:09 PM
Why are you so afraid that a woman have the same liberty of self-determination as a man?

She does. I can't kill people willy-nilly either.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: roamer_1 on March 05, 2019, 04:22:08 PM
Spoken as only a man can.

Right... Like that 5 minute ride entitling me to 20 years of child support and alimony. That's where my choice was made. Damn well the same for her.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Bill Cipher on March 05, 2019, 04:24:51 PM
Roe is wrong on its face. To suggest that privacy condones murder is as ludicrous as the idiocy that claims there is no personhood until birth.

Such a perverson of truth as came down in the Roe decision disabused me forever of the thought of wisdom or justice being meted blindly from the bench. They are blind alright but that is all.

Roe is correct on its face.  That one may not like all of the ramifications of a decision does not make the decision inherently wrong. 
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: roamer_1 on March 05, 2019, 04:35:27 PM
Roe is correct on its face.  That one may not like all of the ramifications of a decision does not make the decision inherently wrong.

No, that it is WRONG is what makes it inherently wrong.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Bill Cipher on March 05, 2019, 04:54:19 PM
No, that it is WRONG is what makes it inherently wrong.


It is not inherently wrong.  It is, in fact, substantially correct.  It will also never be overturned. 
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: To-Whose-Benefit? on March 05, 2019, 04:58:26 PM
Perfect illustration of what I've been going on about:  Plain Language takes a back seat to interpretation.

So, with which sophistries have clever lawyers explained that the 2nd is not incorporated upon the Citizens and States through the 14th?
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: roamer_1 on March 05, 2019, 05:01:00 PM
It is not inherently wrong.  It is, in fact, substantially correct.  It will also never be overturned.

Yes it is substantially, inherently, and horrifically wrong.
I agree with you that it will not be overturned - because upon its inception, justice flew from this land.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Smokin Joe on March 05, 2019, 05:09:43 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.   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.       
Let me light up your straw man, there @ Jazzhead.

This Constitutional Right, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, was so important that without its inclusion the Constitution would not have been ratified. The discussion is clear, from both the Federalists and the anti-federalists, that reserving the right of the people to be armed was paramount in importance, because it was the Right which secured all others from the ambitions of tyrants, from without or within the newly formed Federation.

There were specific mentions made of the purpose of the RKBA, and those were not the least bashful about the fact that in order to secure Life and Liberty, the Right was essential. Not for the Army, but The People, and that is included in the Amendment. "The Right of The People...."
How absolute was the RKBA? Absolute. "...Shall not be infringed." Period. NO tinkering allowed.

Any law which prohibits the ownership of any firearm to any American who has not had their Rights removed pursuant to the Due Process Conviction for a serious crime is unConstitutional.

Lest we forget, the Founders were radicals. They were the educated and mature upstarts who wrested the New World Colonies from the most powerful Monarchy and Military of their day to form their own Federation of States with a form of government unheard of in their time, guaranteeing that all citizens had equal rights, protected from Government by an armed populace.

By contrast...

NOWHERE in the Constitution is it written that a woman has the Right to kill her offspring, before or after birth.

I challenge you to find ANYWHERE in the writings of the Founders where there was discussion about taking those lives, except to say that the right to Life was the first of those unalienable Rights granted, not by Government, but our Creator. The word "unalienable" was not a misprint, nor an error, but a deliberate statement about the nature of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness....

Unalienable: that which exists, cannot be taken nor transferred, bought nor sold, beyond the authority of any government. An UNalienable Right to Life....listed in the preeminent position of the first and foremost Right, not granted (as no rights are) by some Government, but inherent to every human, and beyond the authority of government or anyone to give, grant, sell, barter, or remove.

That discussion of a "right to abortion" was neither in the Federalist nor anti-Federalist papers, nor it it to be found in the words of the document, nor in any discussion of the forming Republic.

The so called "right to abortion" was a fabrication of the court, nearly two hundred years removed from the Founding of this Republic, for the convenience of the powerful, at the expense of the innocent. Talk about Patriarchy: it removed the responsibility for embarassing offspring from the man who only had to pay to have them conveniently destroyed. It removed the responsibility of motherhood (with any and all stigma which might apply in the 1960s for children born out of wedlock, or who were another inconvenient offshoot of someone's family tree, inconvenient outside of marriage, embarrassing outside of one's social station, and giving someone possibly undesirable a claim, however tenuous, to well entrenched family fortunes.).
It was written to cover the infidelities and inconvenient and undeniable truths that were the result of the misdeeds of the wealthy and powerful, previously concealed by sending the woman, complete with the baby bump, off on some journey, to have the child, and give it up for adoption if she couldn't find a husband in time---all subsidized by the powerful and wealthy to retain 'their good name'--all situations arising from behaviour outside the acceptable social mores of the day, preserving the reputations of those who could afford the cost of preserving their public reputation.

It speaks ill of a culture so driven by its glands that it cannot use a variety of means to prevent there from being any issue over a baby never conceived, that it would murder the most helpless and innocent because it was too inconvenient to prevent their conception in the first place, but follows that out of convenience that culture would murder its own offspring in the pursuit of a lack of responsibility.

The so-called right to "choice" could have been and should have been exercised before the creation of another life. That right exists, to say yes or no to the very act which creates life.

But once that Life, that Right to live is created, No One has the Right to take it, except in very narrow circumstances of that person committing heinous crimes, and then only with the full and careful deliberation over the evidence of that crime leading to that verdict. None, then nor now, can make any case that an infant, before or just after birth is a criminal, therefore that right to Life applies. For those who would deny that Right, there is a Court of Final Jurisdiction, A Judge over all Judges, whose verdict will prevail.

Sixty Million slaughtered since Roe?, and you argue that this is a Right?

Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: XenaLee on March 05, 2019, 05:14:18 PM
Let me light up your straw man, there @ Jazzhead.

This Constitutional Right, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, was so important that without its inclusion the Constitution would not have been ratified. The discussion is clear, from both the Federalists and the anti-federalists, that reserving the right of the people to be armed was paramount in importance, because it was the Right which secured all others from the ambitions of tyrants, from without or within the newly formed Federation.

There were specific mentions made of the purpose of the RKBA, and those were not the least bashful about the fact that in order to secure Life and Liberty, the Right was essential. Not for the Army, but The People, and that is included in the Amendment. "The Right of The People...."
How absolute was the RKBA? Absolute. "...Shall not be infringed." Period. NO tinkering allowed.

Any law which prohibits the ownership of any firearm to any American who has not had their Rights removed pursuant to the Due Process Conviction for a serious crime is unConstitutional.

Lest we forget, the Founders were radicals. They were the educated and mature upstarts who wrested the New World Colonies from the most powerful Monarchy and Military of their day to form their own Federation of States with a form of government unheard of in their time, guaranteeing that all citizens had equal rights, protected from Government by an armed populace.

By contrast...

NOWHERE in the Constitution is it written that a woman has the Right to kill her offspring, before or after birth.

I challenge you to find ANYWHERE in the writings of the Founders where there was discussion about taking those lives, except to say that the right to Life was the first of those unalienable Rights granted, not by Government, but our Creator. The word "unalienable" was not a misprint, nor an error, but a deliberate statement about the nature of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness....

Unalienable: that which exists, cannot be taken nor transferred, bought nor sold, beyond the authority of any government. An UNalienable Right to Life....listed in the preeminent position of the first and foremost Right, not granted (as no rights are) by some Government, but inherent to every human, and beyond the authority of government or anyone to give, grant, sell, barter, or remove.

That discussion of a "right to abortion" was neither in the Federalist nor anti-Federalist papers, nor it it to be found in the words of the document, nor in any discussion of the forming Republic.

The so called "right to abortion" was a fabrication of the court, nearly two hundred years removed from the Founding of this Republic, for the convenience of the powerful, at the expense of the innocent. Talk about Patriarchy: it removed the responsibility for embarassing offspring from the man who only had to pay to have them conveniently destroyed. It removed the responsibility of motherhood (with any and all stigma which might apply in the 1960s for children born out of wedlock, or who were another inconvenient offshoot of someone's family tree, inconvenient outside of marriage, embarrassing outside of one's social station, and giving someone possibly undesirable a claim, however tenuous, to well entrenched family fortunes.).
It was written to cover the infidelities and inconvenient and undeniable truths that were the result of the misdeeds of the wealthy and powerful, previously concealed by sending the woman, complete with the baby bump, off on some journey, to have the child, and give it up for adoption if she couldn't find a husband in time---all subsidized by the powerful and wealthy to retain 'their good name'--all situations arising from behaviour outside the acceptable social mores of the day, preserving the reputations of those who could afford the cost of preserving their public reputation.

It speaks ill of a culture so driven by its glands that it cannot use a variety of means to prevent there from being any issue over a baby never conceived, that it would murder the most helpless and innocent because it was too inconvenient to prevent their conception in the first place, but follows that out of convenience that culture would murder its own offspring in the pursuit of a lack of responsibility.

The so-called right to "choice" could have been and should have been exercised before the creation of another life. That right exists, to say yes or no to the very act which creates life.

But once that Life, that Right to live is created, No One has the Right to take it, except in very narrow circumstances of that person committing heinous crimes, and then only with the full and careful deliberation over the evidence of that crime leading to that verdict. None, then nor now, can make any case that an infant, before or just after birth is a criminal, therefore that right to Life applies. For those who would deny that Right, there is a Court of Final Jurisdiction, A Judge over all Judges, whose verdict will prevail.

Sixty Million slaughtered since Roe?, and you argue that this is a Right?


Hell yeah!!!     :patriot: 888high58888

Quote
Lest we forget, the Founders were radicals. They were the educated and mature upstarts who wrested the New World Colonies from the most powerful Monarchy and Military of their day to form their own Federation of States with a form of government unheard of in their time, guaranteeing that all citizens had equal rights, protected from Government by an armed populace.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: DCPatriot on March 05, 2019, 05:15:07 PM
Let me light up your straw man, there @ Jazzhead.

This Constitutional Right, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, was so important that without its inclusion the Constitution would not have been ratified. The discussion is clear, from both the Federalists and the anti-federalists, that reserving the right of the people to be armed was paramount in importance, because it was the Right which secured all others from the ambitions of tyrants, from without or within the newly formed Federation.

There were specific mentions made of the purpose of the RKBA, and those were not the least bashful about the fact that in order to secure Life and Liberty, the Right was essential. Not for the Army, but The People, and that is included in the Amendment. "The Right of The People...."
How absolute was the RKBA? Absolute. "...Shall not be infringed." Period. NO tinkering allowed.

Any law which prohibits the ownership of any firearm to any American who has not had their Rights removed pursuant to the Due Process Conviction for a serious crime is unConstitutional.

Lest we forget, the Founders were radicals. They were the educated and mature upstarts who wrested the New World Colonies from the most powerful Monarchy and Military of their day to form their own Federation of States with a form of government unheard of in their time, guaranteeing that all citizens had equal rights, protected from Government by an armed populace.

By contrast...

NOWHERE in the Constitution is it written that a woman has the Right to kill her offspring, before or after birth.

I challenge you to find ANYWHERE in the writings of the Founders where there was discussion about taking those lives, except to say that the right to Life was the first of those unalienable Rights granted, not by Government, but our Creator. The word "unalienable" was not a misprint, nor an error, but a deliberate statement about the nature of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness....

Unalienable: that which exists, cannot be taken nor transferred, bought nor sold, beyond the authority of any government. An UNalienable Right to Life....listed in the preeminent position of the first and foremost Right, not granted (as no rights are) by some Government, but inherent to every human, and beyond the authority of government or anyone to give, grant, sell, barter, or remove.

That discussion of a "right to abortion" was neither in the Federalist nor anti-Federalist papers, nor it it to be found in the words of the document, nor in any discussion of the forming Republic.

The so called "right to abortion" was a fabrication of the court, nearly two hundred years removed from the Founding of this Republic, for the convenience of the powerful, at the expense of the innocent. Talk about Patriarchy: it removed the responsibility for embarassing offspring from the man who only had to pay to have them conveniently destroyed. It removed the responsibility of motherhood (with any and all stigma which might apply in the 1960s for children born out of wedlock, or who were another inconvenient offshoot of someone's family tree, inconvenient outside of marriage, embarrassing outside of one's social station, and giving someone possibly undesirable a claim, however tenuous, to well entrenched family fortunes.).
It was written to cover the infidelities and inconvenient and undeniable truths that were the result of the misdeeds of the wealthy and powerful, previously concealed by sending the woman, complete with the baby bump, off on some journey, to have the child, and give it up for adoption if she couldn't find a husband in time---all subsidized by the powerful and wealthy to retain 'their good name'--all situations arising from behaviour outside the acceptable social mores of the day, preserving the reputations of those who could afford the cost of preserving their public reputation.

It speaks ill of a culture so driven by its glands that it cannot use a variety of means to prevent there from being any issue over a baby never conceived, that it would murder the most helpless and innocent because it was too inconvenient to prevent their conception in the first place, but follows that out of convenience that culture would murder its own offspring in the pursuit of a lack of responsibility.

The so-called right to "choice" could have been and should have been exercised before the creation of another life. That right exists, to say yes or no to the very act which creates life.

But once that Life, that Right to live is created, No One has the Right to take it, except in very narrow circumstances of that person committing heinous crimes, and then only with the full and careful deliberation over the evidence of that crime leading to that verdict. None, then nor now, can make any case that an infant, before or just after birth is a criminal, therefore that right to Life applies. For those who would deny that Right, there is a Court of Final Jurisdiction, A Judge over all Judges, whose verdict will prevail.

Sixty Million slaughtered since Roe?, and you argue that this is a Right?


That is one amazing post, @Smokin Joe    :beer:

Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: roamer_1 on March 05, 2019, 05:16:43 PM
Let me light up your straw man, there @ Jazzhead.

YUP.
GREAT post.
 :beer:
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Cyber Liberty on March 05, 2019, 05:17:55 PM
So, with which sophistries have clever lawyers explained that the 2nd is not incorporated upon the Citizens and States through the 14th?

The "Predicate Clause."  Though I disagree with it, @Jazzhead can explain it better than I.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Smokin Joe on March 05, 2019, 05:24:37 PM
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.
You are saying you believe the Rights in the Constitution are the same as the decision of a judge.

That either diminishes the text of the Constitution by placing it on an equal plane with the rulings of some jurist who is subject to corrupting influence and error, or you are saying their rulings are equal to the written words, ratified by the States and accepted thereby. You either debase the one or exalt the other.

If there is no mention of something in the Constitution, but only at the hand of a jurist, I must question the practice of calling it a Constitutional Right. There is no mention of a right to slaughter babies, nor any phrase within the document which can, by extension, be made to support the ruling that such a right exists. The ruling is unConstitutional, in itself.
Just as Robert's rewriting a law which had been clearly defined by its proponents to call a "penalty" a "tax", and then ruling a revenue measure originating in the Senate to be Constitutional (One in violation of the Separation of Powers, the other patently contrary to the requirement that revenue measures originate in the House of Representatives), the ruling is in violation (TWICE!) of the very document the Court is sworn to uphold. No SCOTUS ruling has ever been ratified by the States, unlike the written word of the Constitution. You are placing the writings of FIVE justices above the writings of the Founders and the entire ratification process, in effect giving them the power to make law of whole cloth without recourse.

To go at it from a little bit different angle, what part of the Constitution would have to be amended to remove the Right to Abortion?  There is none. It isn't there.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Smokin Joe on March 05, 2019, 05:28:50 PM
The "Predicate Clause."  Though I disagree with it, @Jazzhead can e plIn it better than I.
That's nonsense. Only by trying to twist the meaning of the Predicate clause could anyone ignore the clear language of "...the Right of the People, to Keep and Bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Don't let them leave that phrase out, ever!
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: To-Whose-Benefit? on March 05, 2019, 05:29:29 PM
The "Predicate Clause."  Though I disagree with it, @Jazzhead can e plIn it better than I.

Hah!

Predicate only states the security/existence of a Free State cannot be insured, Without a well regulated Militia, and if you Don't Have a State, Free or Not, the remainder of the 2A is moot.

The remainder of it, Sec 1, cements the Supremacy of the Federal Constitution over the rights of Individual States.


I swear, these people all must have got their degrees at BJ Clinton Law School where Every word becomes a matter of what the word IS means.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: skeeter on March 05, 2019, 05:38:05 PM
Let me light up your straw man, there @ Jazzhead.

This Constitutional Right, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, was so important that without its inclusion the Constitution would not have been ratified. The discussion is clear, from both the Federalists and the anti-federalists, that reserving the right of the people to be armed was paramount in importance, because it was the Right which secured all others from the ambitions of tyrants, from without or within the newly formed Federation.

There were specific mentions made of the purpose of the RKBA, and those were not the least bashful about the fact that in order to secure Life and Liberty, the Right was essential. Not for the Army, but The People, and that is included in the Amendment. "The Right of The People...."
How absolute was the RKBA? Absolute. "...Shall not be infringed." Period. NO tinkering allowed.

Any law which prohibits the ownership of any firearm to any American who has not had their Rights removed pursuant to the Due Process Conviction for a serious crime is unConstitutional.

Lest we forget, the Founders were radicals. They were the educated and mature upstarts who wrested the New World Colonies from the most powerful Monarchy and Military of their day to form their own Federation of States with a form of government unheard of in their time, guaranteeing that all citizens had equal rights, protected from Government by an armed populace.

By contrast...

NOWHERE in the Constitution is it written that a woman has the Right to kill her offspring, before or after birth.

I challenge you to find ANYWHERE in the writings of the Founders where there was discussion about taking those lives, except to say that the right to Life was the first of those unalienable Rights granted, not by Government, but our Creator. The word "unalienable" was not a misprint, nor an error, but a deliberate statement about the nature of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness....

Unalienable: that which exists, cannot be taken nor transferred, bought nor sold, beyond the authority of any government. An UNalienable Right to Life....listed in the preeminent position of the first and foremost Right, not granted (as no rights are) by some Government, but inherent to every human, and beyond the authority of government or anyone to give, grant, sell, barter, or remove.

That discussion of a "right to abortion" was neither in the Federalist nor anti-Federalist papers, nor it it to be found in the words of the document, nor in any discussion of the forming Republic.

The so called "right to abortion" was a fabrication of the court, nearly two hundred years removed from the Founding of this Republic, for the convenience of the powerful, at the expense of the innocent. Talk about Patriarchy: it removed the responsibility for embarassing offspring from the man who only had to pay to have them conveniently destroyed. It removed the responsibility of motherhood (with any and all stigma which might apply in the 1960s for children born out of wedlock, or who were another inconvenient offshoot of someone's family tree, inconvenient outside of marriage, embarrassing outside of one's social station, and giving someone possibly undesirable a claim, however tenuous, to well entrenched family fortunes.).
It was written to cover the infidelities and inconvenient and undeniable truths that were the result of the misdeeds of the wealthy and powerful, previously concealed by sending the woman, complete with the baby bump, off on some journey, to have the child, and give it up for adoption if she couldn't find a husband in time---all subsidized by the powerful and wealthy to retain 'their good name'--all situations arising from behaviour outside the acceptable social mores of the day, preserving the reputations of those who could afford the cost of preserving their public reputation.

It speaks ill of a culture so driven by its glands that it cannot use a variety of means to prevent there from being any issue over a baby never conceived, that it would murder the most helpless and innocent because it was too inconvenient to prevent their conception in the first place, but follows that out of convenience that culture would murder its own offspring in the pursuit of a lack of responsibility.

The so-called right to "choice" could have been and should have been exercised before the creation of another life. That right exists, to say yes or no to the very act which creates life.

But once that Life, that Right to live is created, No One has the Right to take it, except in very narrow circumstances of that person committing heinous crimes, and then only with the full and careful deliberation over the evidence of that crime leading to that verdict. None, then nor now, can make any case that an infant, before or just after birth is a criminal, therefore that right to Life applies. For those who would deny that Right, there is a Court of Final Jurisdiction, A Judge over all Judges, whose verdict will prevail.

Sixty Million slaughtered since Roe?, and you argue that this is a Right?

Effin A. Fantastic post.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Lando Lincoln on March 05, 2019, 05:55:37 PM
Let me light up your straw man, there @ Jazzhead.


@Smokin Joe

Not sure what led me to this, but I am humbled. 
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Cyber Liberty on March 05, 2019, 06:33:42 PM
So, with which sophistries have clever lawyers explained that the 2nd is not incorporated upon the Citizens and States through the 14th?

The "Predicate Clause."  Though I disagree with it, @Jazzhead can e plIn it better than I.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on March 05, 2019, 07:51:44 PM
The question I have is why did the Dems do this when they held the House, the Senate and the Executive?

There is more here than meets the eye.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Cyber Liberty on March 05, 2019, 07:58:40 PM
The question I have is why did the Dems do this when they held the House, the Senate and the Executive?

There is more here than meets the eye.

Same reason the GOP blew off doing the wall while they were in charge.  They don't want a solution, they want the issue.  It's always about the issue and a solution would upset their lucrative apple cart.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Cyber Liberty on March 05, 2019, 08:05:08 PM
@Smokin Joe

Not sure what led me to this, but I am humbled.

@Smokin Joe  is very good.  I am humbled too.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Bill Cipher on March 05, 2019, 08:13:03 PM
You are saying you believe the Rights in the Constitution are the same as the decision of a judge.

That either diminishes the text of the Constitution by placing it on an equal plane with the rulings of some jurist who is subject to corrupting influence and error, or you are saying their rulings are equal to the written words, ratified by the States and accepted thereby. You either debase the one or exalt the other.

If there is no mention of something in the Constitution, but only at the hand of a jurist, I must question the practice of calling it a Constitutional Right. There is no mention of a right to slaughter babies, nor any phrase within the document which can, by extension, be made to support the ruling that such a right exists. The ruling is unConstitutional, in itself.
Just as Robert's rewriting a law which had been clearly defined by its proponents to call a "penalty" a "tax", and then ruling a revenue measure originating in the Senate to be Constitutional (One in violation of the Separation of Powers, the other patently contrary to the requirement that revenue measures originate in the House of Representatives), the ruling is in violation (TWICE!) of the very document the Court is sworn to uphold. No SCOTUS ruling has ever been ratified by the States, unlike the written word of the Constitution. You are placing the writings of FIVE justices above the writings of the Founders and the entire ratification process, in effect giving them the power to make law of whole cloth without recourse.

To go at it from a little bit different angle, what part of the Constitution would have to be amended to remove the Right to Abortion?  There is none. It isn't there.

There is no mention of telephones, telephone wires, or the internet in the Constitution, and yet somehow, the 4th Amendment was reamed out to cover them.  Was that an illegitimate expansion of penumbras and rights not expressly found in the Constitution as well?

By the argument presented above, the answer has to be yes.  That, or the argument is invalid.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Bill Cipher on March 05, 2019, 08:14:38 PM
Same reason the GOP blew off doing the wall while they were in charge.  They don't want a solution, they want the issue.  It's always about the issue and a solution would upset their lucrative apple cart.

Most likely. 
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Cyber Liberty on March 05, 2019, 08:23:21 PM
Most likely.

You and I are in alignment on this.   888high58888
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Bill Cipher on March 05, 2019, 08:29:20 PM
You and I are in alignment on this.   888high58888

Yes
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Right_in_Virginia on March 05, 2019, 08:38:01 PM
Let me light up your straw man, there @ Jazzhead.

This Constitutional Right, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, was so important that without its inclusion the Constitution would not have been ratified. The discussion is clear, from both the Federalists and the anti-federalists, that reserving the right of the people to be armed was paramount in importance, because it was the Right which secured all others from the ambitions of tyrants, from without or within the newly formed Federation.

There were specific mentions made of the purpose of the RKBA, and those were not the least bashful about the fact that in order to secure Life and Liberty, the Right was essential. Not for the Army, but The People, and that is included in the Amendment. "The Right of The People...."
How absolute was the RKBA? Absolute. "...Shall not be infringed." Period. NO tinkering allowed.

Any law which prohibits the ownership of any firearm to any American who has not had their Rights removed pursuant to the Due Process Conviction for a serious crime is unConstitutional.

Lest we forget, the Founders were radicals. They were the educated and mature upstarts who wrested the New World Colonies from the most powerful Monarchy and Military of their day to form their own Federation of States with a form of government unheard of in their time, guaranteeing that all citizens had equal rights, protected from Government by an armed populace.

By contrast...

NOWHERE in the Constitution is it written that a woman has the Right to kill her offspring, before or after birth.

I challenge you to find ANYWHERE in the writings of the Founders where there was discussion about taking those lives, except to say that the right to Life was the first of those unalienable Rights granted, not by Government, but our Creator. The word "unalienable" was not a misprint, nor an error, but a deliberate statement about the nature of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness....

Unalienable: that which exists, cannot be taken nor transferred, bought nor sold, beyond the authority of any government. An UNalienable Right to Life....listed in the preeminent position of the first and foremost Right, not granted (as no rights are) by some Government, but inherent to every human, and beyond the authority of government or anyone to give, grant, sell, barter, or remove.

That discussion of a "right to abortion" was neither in the Federalist nor anti-Federalist papers, nor it it to be found in the words of the document, nor in any discussion of the forming Republic.

The so called "right to abortion" was a fabrication of the court, nearly two hundred years removed from the Founding of this Republic, for the convenience of the powerful, at the expense of the innocent. Talk about Patriarchy: it removed the responsibility for embarassing offspring from the man who only had to pay to have them conveniently destroyed. It removed the responsibility of motherhood (with any and all stigma which might apply in the 1960s for children born out of wedlock, or who were another inconvenient offshoot of someone's family tree, inconvenient outside of marriage, embarrassing outside of one's social station, and giving someone possibly undesirable a claim, however tenuous, to well entrenched family fortunes.).

It was written to cover the infidelities and inconvenient and undeniable truths that were the result of the misdeeds of the wealthy and powerful, previously concealed by sending the woman, complete with the baby bump, off on some journey, to have the child, and give it up for adoption if she couldn't find a husband in time---all subsidized by the powerful and wealthy to retain 'their good name'--all situations arising from behaviour outside the acceptable social mores of the day, preserving the reputations of those who could afford the cost of preserving their public reputation.

It speaks ill of a culture so driven by its glands that it cannot use a variety of means to prevent there from being any issue over a baby never conceived, that it would murder the most helpless and innocent because it was too inconvenient to prevent their conception in the first place, but follows that out of convenience that culture would murder its own offspring in the pursuit of a lack of responsibility.

The so-called right to "choice" could have been and should have been exercised before the creation of another life. That right exists, to say yes or no to the very act which creates life.

But once that Life, that Right to live is created, No One has the Right to take it, except in very narrow circumstances of that person committing heinous crimes, and then only with the full and careful deliberation over the evidence of that crime leading to that verdict. None, then nor now, can make any case that an infant, before or just after birth is a criminal, therefore that right to Life applies. For those who would deny that Right, there is a Court of Final Jurisdiction, A Judge over all Judges, whose verdict will prevail.

Sixty Million slaughtered since Roe?, and you argue that this is a Right?


Let me join the chorus saluting your excellent post @Smokin Joe   This should be published ...
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on March 05, 2019, 09:33:44 PM
Nice rhetoric, @Smokin Joe , but unpersuasive. Fact is, the plain language of the Second Amendment doesn't provide for an individual right.  That was only secured by a 5 - 4 SCOTUS majority,  same as what established a woman's right to reproductive choice.

In both cases, too, that individual right is at the mercy of a future Court majority.   Which is why I place such value on the principle of stare decisive.

Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Smokin Joe on March 06, 2019, 01:40:50 AM
There is no mention of telephones, telephone wires, or the internet in the Constitution, and yet somehow, the 4th Amendment was reamed out to cover them.  Was that an illegitimate expansion of penumbras and rights not expressly found in the Constitution as well?

By the argument presented above, the answer has to be yes.  That, or the argument is invalid.
Then you misunderstand. The extension of the 4th to cover alternate means of communication is just the extension of a right which existed, enumerated, to be secure in your records and communications. That the technology changed does not change the nature of the material contained therein.

 to wit:

Quote
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The underlined phrase would logically include communications (in the days of the founders, letters, included under "papers"), as well as business or personal records.

Had a person carved their communications on planks or shells, or painted them on animal skins, and kept them, the government would have had no right to search them either without a warrant, even though they were not on paper.

By logical extension, the means and devices which replaced parchment or paper for communications and keeping records would be included, including voice communications which had an expectation of being between two people in private (the recording of which must be consensual, and have a periodic sound which indicates that recording was being made), computer files, e-mail, and any other communication conducted between two people not in a public place or an open forum.

The 4th wasn't reamed out, the right was (by judicial ruling) extended to cover those more modern devices and communications, extending the protections of that Amemdment to cover more modern means of communication.

By contrast, nowhere in the Constitution is there a Right to kill a baby at any age, nor the unborn. There is nothing, no Right, to extend. The SCOTUS created the "right" out of thin air.

If anything, the 5th Amendment would preclude the slaughter of innocents:

 
Quote
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

and the 14th Amendment (Section 1):

Quote
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws .

Nothing that says you can kill unborn babies, or even freshly born ones, but plenty to the contrary.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Smokin Joe on March 06, 2019, 01:57:37 AM
Nice rhetoric, @Smokin Joe , but unpersuasive. Fact is, the plain language of the Second Amendment doesn't provide for an individual right.  That was only secured by a 5 - 4 SCOTUS majority,  same as what established a woman's right to reproductive choice.

In both cases, too, that individual right is at the mercy of a future Court majority.   Which is why I place such value on the principle of stare decisive.
Words have meaning...
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.

What other Rights of The People aren't for The People? Or are you the one ignoring plain text to support an unsupportable position?

Do those "People" not count for the 1st, 4th, 5th, and other Amendments, or are you picking and choosing? Because if the people aren't just that, The People, no one has any rights. There is no reason that the phrase would have been included in the Second Amendment if it did not mean exactly what it says: The Right of The People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.  After all, the Militia is to be regulated (kept from taking over) by the mass of the People, armed, and that was the specific reasoning behind not only the 2nd, but in deciding whether or not to have a standing professional Federal Army.  The threat of a Military takeover was more than balanced by the People, armed, who would resist such.

From Federalist 46:
Quote
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

It isn't about duck hunting, nor even defense against brigands, the 2nd Amendment exists to keep the Government in check; the selfsame government which proposes further infringements to add to the ones already unConstitutionally in existence.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on March 06, 2019, 08:16:55 AM
You are saying you believe the Rights in the Constitution are the same as the decision of a judge.

That either diminishes the text of the Constitution by placing it on an equal plane with the rulings of some jurist who is subject to corrupting influence and error, or you are saying their rulings are equal to the written words, ratified by the States and accepted thereby. You either debase the one or exalt the other.

If there is no mention of something in the Constitution, but only at the hand of a jurist, I must question the practice of calling it a Constitutional Right. There is no mention of a right to slaughter babies, nor any phrase within the document which can, by extension, be made to support the ruling that such a right exists. The ruling is unConstitutional, in itself.
Just as Robert's rewriting a law which had been clearly defined by its proponents to call a "penalty" a "tax", and then ruling a revenue measure originating in the Senate to be Constitutional (One in violation of the Separation of Powers, the other patently contrary to the requirement that revenue measures originate in the House of Representatives), the ruling is in violation (TWICE!) of the very document the Court is sworn to uphold. No SCOTUS ruling has ever been ratified by the States, unlike the written word of the Constitution. You are placing the writings of FIVE justices above the writings of the Founders and the entire ratification process, in effect giving them the power to make law of whole cloth without recourse.

To go at it from a little bit different angle, what part of the Constitution would have to be amended to remove the Right to Abortion?  There is none. It isn't there.
Fealty to unelected robed individuals is what this country rejected when we went against King George and created those marvelous documents of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Some here believe the fealty is warranted, but true Americans know otherwise.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on March 06, 2019, 11:09:43 AM
Fealty to unelected robed individuals is what this country rejected when we went against King George and created those marvelous documents of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Some here believe the fealty is warranted, but true Americans know otherwise.

The Constitution's plain language does not provide for an individual RKBA.    That right that you and your fellow "true Americans" enjoy is the result of a decision by "unelected judges", exercising their enumerated powers under the Constitution.       
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on March 06, 2019, 01:26:40 PM
The Constitution's plain language does not provide for an individual RKBA.    That right that you and your fellow "true Americans" enjoy is the result of a decision by "unelected judges", exercising their enumerated powers under the Constitution.     
now you are just hallucinating if you believe some judges are giving me rights.

Nothing is further from the truth as they most certainly don't possess the power you bestow upon them.  Succinct Responses by @Smokin Joe have apparently gone over your head.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on March 06, 2019, 02:02:32 PM
now you are just hallucinating if you believe some judges are giving me rights.

Nothing is further from the truth as they most certainly don't possess the power you bestow upon them.  Succinct Responses by @Smokin Joe have apparently gone over your head.

Please read the Heller opinion.   And here's the thing -  Heller was a 5 -4 decision.   If you refuse to believe that Heller affirmed your individual right to KBA,  then don't go crying when a later SCOTUS majority takes it away.    As I've advocated numerous times on this board,  the only real solution is to pass a Constitutional amendment making clear that the 2A provides for an individual right, for the purpose of individual self-defense,  notwithstanding the 2A's predicate clause which plainly describes the right in terms of the now-obsolete concept of the militia.

As much as you and Smokin Joe may wish to believe it,  the 2A doesn't afford you a right to go shooting "tyrannical" government officials.    The Bill of Rights is, generally speaking, intended to secure against government overreach your and my "natural" rights.   The natural right which deserves protection is your right of individual self-defense, not to assemble an arsenal so you can stage a revolt against our duly-elected representatives.   Bottom line - that natural right, just the same as the natural rights to privacy and self-determination that conservatives disparage, can and are protected by the Constitution - because of the interpretation and construction of that document by the courts.   

And just as you insist that fetuses have rights and women do not, so may liberals try to take your gun rights away, and in the same manner - by achieving a SCOTUS majority that will ignore stare decisis and overturn its prior precedents.   
       
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: verga on March 06, 2019, 02:22:46 PM
Dealing with my @$$hole BIL that thinks we should have universal background checks for private gun sales and transfers.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: XenaLee on March 06, 2019, 02:24:55 PM
Dealing with my @$$hole BIL that thinks we should have universal background checks for private gun sales and transfers.

Ask him why.  What does he think it will accomplish.... other than hinder law-abiding citizens even further from exercising their right to self-defense.  Cause the criminals sure as hell don't bother with such idiotic legalities.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: roamer_1 on March 06, 2019, 02:28:06 PM
Ask him why.  What does he think it will accomplish.... other than hinder law-abiding citizens even further from exercising their right to self-defense.  Cause the criminals sure as hell don't bother with such idiotic legalities.

I have news!
Neither do/will the law abiding. There will be a work-around, even if I have to make the dang thing myself.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: XenaLee on March 06, 2019, 02:29:50 PM
I have news!
Neither do/will the law abiding. There will be a work-around, even if I have to make the dang thing myself.

Lol!   You could always just print one!   :cool:
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on March 06, 2019, 02:29:59 PM
Please read the Heller opinion.   And here's the thing -  Heller was a 5 -4 decision.   If you refuse to believe that Heller affirmed your individual right to KBA,  then don't go crying when a later SCOTUS majority takes it away.    As I've advocated numerous times on this board,  the only real solution is to pass a Constitutional amendment making clear that the 2A provides for an individual right, for the purpose of individual self-defense,  notwithstanding the 2A's predicate clause which plainly describes the right in terms of the now-obsolete concept of the militia.

As much as you and Smokin Joe may wish to believe it,  the 2A doesn't afford you a right to go shooting "tyrannical" government officials.    The Bill of Rights is, generally speaking, intended to secure against government overreach your and my "natural" rights.   The natural right which deserves protection is your right of individual self-defense, not to assemble an arsenal so you can stage a revolt against our duly-elected representatives.   Bottom line - that natural right, just the same as the natural rights to privacy and self-determination that conservatives disparage, can and are protected by the Constitution - because of the interpretation and construction of that document by the courts.   

And just as you insist that fetuses have rights and women do not, so may liberals try to take your gun rights away, and in the same manner - by achieving a SCOTUS majority that will ignore stare decisis and overturn its prior precedents.   
     
you just don't get it.  Judges do NOT confer rights.  In fact, the interpretation  by SCOTUS is a made up right itself. 
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: roamer_1 on March 06, 2019, 02:37:36 PM
Lol!   You could always just print one!   :cool:

Nah... I'm old school. I have a fly-cutter and a tooling lathe... among all the other gear I might need.
A rifle/pistol is really a simple piece of machinery.

And then there's just buying all the parts and putting one together...

Not that I have to do any of that really - MT has already told the fed to go screw wrt guns/parts/ammo made and sold within the state. I don't imagine that attitude is going to change any time soon, to include any new fed laws trying to govern private sales.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: verga on March 06, 2019, 02:44:14 PM
Ask him why.  What does he think it will accomplish.... other than hinder law-abiding citizens even further from exercising their right to self-defense.  Cause the criminals sure as hell don't bother with such idiotic legalities.
He thinks that making it more difficult for honest people will make it more difficult for criminals: I asked him "Now let me ask you two questions: Chicago, Detroit, New York City, all have the most restrictive gun laws in the country, why do they all have the highest murder rates? Second can you name a single gun law that criminals would respect and would prevent them from committing a crime?"

His reply 1) massive population concentration means the The Most Dangerous States in the United States. Alaska, New Mexico, and Nevada have the highest violent crime rates in the entire United States.% of violent people is directly related to that population. 2) criminals don't respect ANY laws, but why make it easy on them.

My reply to him: Sorry that doesn't follow: Most restrictive gun laws means that they should have very little if any access to firearms, and consequently they would have very little if any violent crime. This proves my point. Law abiding citizens do not have access to a means to defend themselves and become easy prey for the criminals.

His reply was to post some B.S. Study that says more guns equal more crime.
https://www.livescience.com/51446-guns-do-not-deter-crime.html?fbclid=IwAR0zhLrAdLog4h5simIFPCLxPsKDe2besj5KtcVkkG-O9sDHcOcANFdJAQ4 (https://www.livescience.com/51446-guns-do-not-deter-crime.html?fbclid=IwAR0zhLrAdLog4h5simIFPCLxPsKDe2besj5KtcVkkG-O9sDHcOcANFdJAQ4)
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: XenaLee on March 06, 2019, 03:06:40 PM
He thinks that making it more difficult for honest people will make it more difficult for criminals: I asked him "Now let me ask you two questions: Chicago, Detroit, New York City, all have the most restrictive gun laws in the country, why do they all have the highest murder rates? Second can you name a single gun law that criminals would respect and would prevent them from committing a crime?"

His reply 1) massive population concentration means the The Most Dangerous States in the United States. Alaska, New Mexico, and Nevada have the highest violent crime rates in the entire United States.% of violent people is directly related to that population. 2) criminals don't respect ANY laws, but why make it easy on them.

My reply to him: Sorry that doesn't follow: Most restrictive gun laws means that they should have very little if any access to firearms, and consequently they would have very little if any violent crime. This proves my point. Law abiding citizens do not have access to a means to defend themselves and become easy prey for the criminals.

His reply was to post some B.S. Study that says more guns equal more crime.
https://www.livescience.com/51446-guns-do-not-deter-crime.html?fbclid=IwAR0zhLrAdLog4h5simIFPCLxPsKDe2besj5KtcVkkG-O9sDHcOcANFdJAQ4 (https://www.livescience.com/51446-guns-do-not-deter-crime.html?fbclid=IwAR0zhLrAdLog4h5simIFPCLxPsKDe2besj5KtcVkkG-O9sDHcOcANFdJAQ4)

It's frustrating, isn't it.  I have a step-son that is a bleeding heart liberal.  I rarely talk to him any more... after a rather heated discussion over "globull warming" once...lol.  I have no respect for anyone that falls for the BS the leftist, anti-American Democrats feeds them.  Can't help it.   :shrug:

Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: To-Whose-Benefit? on March 06, 2019, 03:36:50 PM
I have news!
Neither do/will the law abiding. There will be a work-around, even if I have to make the dang thing myself.

Yessir!

Any 10 Thumbed mechanical illitetate who thinks a competent machinist can't whip up perfectly functional guns from a 1911A1 to a 1927 Thompson (Tommy gun) or .50 BMG is whistling past the graveyard.

They are Not rocket science!

How many folks even here know that the Browning machine guns in WWII were made at refrigerator factories?

They already had the big presses (for reefer doors) to stamp out the recievers.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: roamer_1 on March 06, 2019, 03:40:44 PM
Yessir!

Any 10 Thumbed mechanical illitetate who thinks a competent machinist can't whip up perfectly functional guns from a 1911A1 to a 1927 Thompson (Tommy gun) or .50 BMG is whistling past the graveyard.

They are Not rocket science!

That's right. The only hard part is the rifling. I have never done that, but I ain't the least bit scared of it.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: thackney on March 06, 2019, 06:03:51 PM
Same reason the GOP blew off doing the wall while they were in charge.  They don't want a solution, they want the issue.  It's always about the issue and a solution would upset their lucrative apple cart.

Very true, it is why ANWR was always talked about but never resolved until maybe soon.

It was a fund raiser for both sides.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: libertybele on March 06, 2019, 06:10:22 PM
It's frustrating, isn't it.  I have a step-son that is a bleeding heart liberal.  I rarely talk to him any more... after a rather heated discussion over "globull warming" once...lol.  I have no respect for anyone that falls for the BS the leftist, anti-American Democrats feeds them.  Can't help it.   :shrug:

Hey, at least you are honest.  Don't feel bad, I have a father in law who reads a magazine that rants and raves about being unbiased (lol).  He too believes in the global warming b.s. It gets on my nerves, but I give him a pass because of his age and his dementia. 

ANY attack on the 2A, is alarming.  Especially with 1 MILLION coming across. 
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: XenaLee on March 06, 2019, 07:57:00 PM
Hey, at least you are honest.  Don't feel bad, I have a father in law who reads a magazine that rants and raves about being unbiased (lol).  He too believes in the global warming b.s. It gets on my nerves, but I give him a pass because of his age and his dementia. 

ANY attack on the 2A, is alarming.  Especially with 1 MILLION coming across.

Yes indeed.  And if we were ever going to push back against the radical left... now's the time.  The very thought of what they're trying to do or want to do is infuriating. 
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Smokin Joe on March 06, 2019, 09:33:51 PM

Please read the Heller opinion.   And here's the thing -  Heller was a 5 -4 decision.   If you refuse to believe that Heller affirmed your individual right to KBA,  then don't go crying when a later SCOTUS majority takes it away.    As I've advocated numerous times on this board,  the only real solution is to pass a Constitutional amendment making clear that the 2A provides for an individual right, for the purpose of individual self-defense,  notwithstanding the 2A's predicate clause which plainly describes the right in terms of the now-obsolete concept of the militia.

As much as you and Smokin Joe may wish to believe it,  the 2A doesn't afford you a right to go shooting "tyrannical" government officials.    The Bill of Rights is, generally speaking, intended to secure against government overreach your and my "natural" rights.   The natural right which deserves protection is your right of individual self-defense, not to assemble an arsenal so you can stage a revolt against our duly-elected representatives.   Bottom line - that natural right, just the same as the natural rights to privacy and self-determination that conservatives disparage, can and are protected by the Constitution - because of the interpretation and construction of that document by the courts.   

And just as you insist that fetuses have rights and women do not, so may liberals try to take your gun rights away, and in the same manner - by achieving a SCOTUS majority that will ignore stare decisis and overturn its prior precedents.   
     
Ever read this?
Quote
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --

While it was a very radical statement of intent, it is seminal in the formation of this country. Pay particular attention to the underlined phrases. Why, these radicals spoke of things like Rights (of the People!), and "just powers", conferred, not by Divine Right and bloodline, but conferred by the People to a Government for the purpose of securing their rights, with their consent.

What People do you think they were talking about? Wow, these were the same people who helped write, hung out with those who wrote, that Constitution thingy where the phrase "Of the People" is also used. The People meant just that @Jazzhead, just like that collection of individuals who possess the rights enshrined in the First Ten Amendments, regardless of the mumblings of those people who sit at court benches. Those Rights are unalienable.

As for the Right to assemble an arsenal, well that's what really started this whole thing, with the British marching on Lexington and Concord to take one away from the Colonists. The most powerful Army in the world, at the time, and they eventually lost.

The only question is one of whether the Governments instituted to secure those rights acknowledge and secure those Rights, and if not, then the Government is not doing its job. If that Government goes too far in its attempts to deny those Rights, it is no longer serving its purpose, its powers are not just, the governed do not consent.

Government does not create (natural) rights, it can't take them away, it can only stand in the way of people exercising their Unalienable Rights. The SCOTUS does not and cannot grant rights. The Constitution does not grant rights, it only acknowledges them, lists some, and attempts to protect them from the machinations of those in government. It even leaves the list open ended so as not to disparage Rights not listed.

There is no natural Right to murder a baby in the womb, just a convenient fabrication (an unnatural right) claimed to be a 'right' that flies in the face of the Right to Life reserved to the People in numerous places in both the Declaration and the Constitution (and numerous other writings of the Founders), and it does so by declaring their human offspring aren't "people".

 In the 50+ years since Roe, we've found out a lot more about human gestational development, and taken some incredible pictures of that process, images which indicate that there is a little human in there, who, if allowed to continue to develop, will be fully recognizable as a member of the species Homo Sapiens.

To step forward, that's one of The People in there. In no way is that one of the People a lesser being than the ones walking around, in terms of having Rights, unless the court tries to create a class of People who are 'not People', who are subhumans, who have no Rights.
 
Statistically speaking, just over half of them, given the opportunity will develop even more from hat we call babies, to toddlers, to girls, and into "women". Yet the assertion is that these developing women have no "women's" rights, only the ones who have reached the age of puberty and become pregnant do. Ant then the court asserts they have the right to kill that other member of The People, just because they have asserted their sexual maturity. Are we going to define that acquisition of the Right to Life some time earlier in their development, or is it inherent in the full package of natural Rights which all People possess? 

This is where the court creates gray areas (the meat and potatoes of lawyers) in order to declare one group of humans lesser beings compared to another group of humans. That concept flies in the face of the whole idea of natural Rights.

Ironically, as some claim, we allegedly fought the bloodiest conflict on American soil over the concept that no human beings are chattel, to be disposed of as property: there are no lesser humans in terms of Rights. How can a court which could logically extend the Rights of the People to one group of the People, reserve them from another, to the degree that those included in that group of people are subject to a horrible death (one we would not allow for the most heinous criminal, duly convicted) at the whim of another?

Because that is what the logic of the court has done in Roe. You can call that ruling a lot of things, but it is in no wise "justice".

Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on March 06, 2019, 09:58:08 PM
I understand, @Smokin Joe , why you don't accept a woman's right to decide for herself whether or not to have a child.   But why do you abandon your conservative instincts to demand the state make the call?   why is this not an issue of individual conscience?
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Cyber Liberty on March 06, 2019, 10:02:44 PM
I understand, @Smokin Joe , why you don't accept a woman's right to decide for herself whether or not to have a child.   But why do you abandon your conservative instincts to demand the state make the call?   why is this not an issue of individual conscience?

You read, but you do not understand.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Smokin Joe on March 06, 2019, 10:12:01 PM
I understand, @Smokin Joe , why you don't accept a woman's right to decide for herself whether or not to have a child.   But why do you abandon your conservative instincts to demand the state make the call?   why is this not an issue of individual conscience?
The preeminent Right to Life, without which there are no other Rights.

Consider:
No one can force a woman to have sex  (that's a crime and a violation of her Right to choose--a mate).
No one can force a woman to become pregnant (That is also a choice, on her part, and her mate's)

But at the point where she is pregnant, there are two lives to consider. That other life, the one who has had no choice in anything, should, by rights, be protected. That member of The People has the inherent unalienable Rights the rest of us possess, including the Right to Live. They have the right to not have their life taken in the absence of having committed a heinous crime, and having been duly convicted of that crime through Due Process, been sentenced to death.

The State exists to protect our Rights.

We would not rip a convicted murderer to shreds, that would be considered "cruel and unusual punishment", yet you argue to allow women to do exactly that to thousands of babies a day, babies who have not been convicted of any crime, whose only offense in the eyes of their mothers is to exist--a state of being they had no choice in.

That flies in the face of American Jurisprudence. Either we have those unalienable Rights--all of us--or none of us do, effectively. Playing word games by deciding that those yet to be or just born are less than human creates a class of subhumans. That is a slippery slope, one which humanity has been down before--with similar results, I might add.

Twenty one Million, Thirty Million, Fifty Million lives taken, seen as crimes against humanity....


But Sixty Million dead is a "Right"?

Get real. It's an unimaginably obscene distortion to claim a Right to the wholesale slaughter of humans, and just as obscene to declare a class of humans as less than human to justify it.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: LegalAmerican on March 06, 2019, 10:20:43 PM
I did not read every post. I hope this is current news, but what 'house' did is outright stupid. We already have background checks since 1993...on gun sales.  What a waste. I think it is called the Brady Bill.  More INFRINGEMENT ON THE 2ND?
-------------------

1993
Brady Bill signed into law
During a White House ceremony attended by James S. Brady, President Bill Clinton signs the Brady handgun-control bill into law. The law requires a prospective handgun buyer to wait five business days while the authorities check on his or her background, during which time the sale is approved or prohibited based on an established set of criteria.

In 1981, James Brady, who served as press secretary for President Ronald Reagan, was shot in the head by John Hinckley, Jr., during an attempt on President Reagan’s life outside a hotel in Washington, D.C. Reagan himself was shot in his left lung but recovered and returned to the White House within two weeks. Brady, the most seriously injured in the attack, was momentarily pronounced dead at the hospital but survived and began an impressive recovery from his debilitating brain injury.

During the 1980s, Brady became a leading proponent of gun-control legislation and in 1987 succeeded in getting a bill introduced into Congress. The Brady Bill, as it became known, was staunchly opposed by many congressmen, who, in reference to the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, questioned the constitutionality of regulating the ownership of arms. In 1993, with the support of President Bill Clinton, an advocate of gun control, the Brady Bill became law.

Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: LegalAmerican on March 06, 2019, 10:34:00 PM
The preeminent Right to Life, without which there are no other Rights.

Consider:
No one can force a woman to have sex  (that's a crime and a violation of her Right to choose--a mate).
No one can force a woman to become pregnant (That is also a choice, on her part, and her mate's)

But at the point where she is pregnant, there are two lives to consider. That other life, the one who has had no choice in anything, should, by rights, be protected. That member of The People has the inherent unalienable Rights the rest of us possess, including the Right to Live. They have the right to not have their life taken in the absence of having committed a heinous crime, and having been duly convicted of that crime through Due Process, been sentenced to death.

The State exists to protect our Rights.

We would not rip a convicted murderer to shreds, that would be considered "cruel and unusual punishment", yet you argue to allow women to do exactly that to thousands of babies a day, babies who have not been convicted of any crime, whose only offense in the eyes of their mothers is to exist--a state of being they had no choice in.

That flies in the face of American Jurisprudence. Either we have those unalienable Rights--all of us--or none of us do, effectively. Playing word games by deciding that those yet to be or just born are less than human creates a class of subhumans. That is a slippery slope, one which humanity has been down before--with similar results, I might add.

Twenty one Million, Thirty Million, Fifty Million lives taken, seen as crimes against humanity....


But Sixty Million dead is a "Right"?

Get real. It's an unimaginably obscene distortion to claim a Right to the wholesale slaughter of humans, and just as obscene to declare a class of humans as less than human to justify it.


EXCELLENT!  Woman has all kind of rights to HER BODY...but not when she carry's another life.  That life has, no say so, if she aborts. 
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Smokin Joe on March 06, 2019, 10:35:38 PM
I did not read every post. I hope this is current news, but what 'house' did is outright stupid. We already have background checks since 1993...on gun sales.  What a waste. I think it is called the Brady Bill.
There is much more than background checks involved, It is the handing of a firearm to your son to go hunting, passing a rifle to a friend at the range to try out, all considered loosely as 'transfers', which could net someone a felony.

If I want to give my grandkids (mostly old enough to vote) a firearm, knowing them to be of good character, I should be able to do so without government intervention or interference. If we want to have an impromptu shooting contest at the range, and to make things fair, exchange firearms for the purpose of the contest, each shooting a fraction with the other's firearm, we should be able to without having to answer to the police over an improper exchange of firearms without a background check. This infringement of the RKBA will not affect criminals, but will create a procedural minefield for the law abiding. It is just the beginning of a Communist wish list that ends with us all being disarmed.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: LegalAmerican on March 06, 2019, 10:49:49 PM
There is much more than background checks involved, It is the handing of a firearm to your son to go hunting, passing a rifle to a friend at the range to try out, all considered loosely as 'transfers', which could net someone a felony.

If I want to give my grandkids (mostly old enough to vote) a firearm, knowing them to be of good character, I should be able to do so without government intervention or interference. If we want to have an impromptu shooting contest at the range, and to make things fair, exchange firearms for the purpose of the contest, each shooting a fraction with the other's firearm, we should be able to without having to answer to the police over an improper exchange of firearms without a background check. This infringement of the RKBA will not affect criminals, but will create a procedural minefield for the law abiding. It is just the beginning of a Communist wish list that ends with us all being disarmed.






Lost my post. Ugh. I agreed with you. Criminals will not abide by any laws. So, it is going into PRIVATE family affairs. 

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByMzpxbE0sQ&t=25s#)
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Elderberry on March 06, 2019, 11:16:57 PM
What I haven't been able to find is How are they going to Know that you sold, or even loaned, a firearm to your hunting buddy without him having a background check?

And if they do find out, what is going to be the penalty?
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Smokin Joe on March 06, 2019, 11:36:49 PM
What I haven't been able to find is How are they going to Know that you sold, or even loaned, a firearm to your hunting buddy without him having a background check?

And if they do find out, what is going to be the penalty?
Gun narcs, rabbit cops, and a database.....which means firearm registration or it won't be enforceable.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Elderberry on March 06, 2019, 11:44:19 PM
And they're doing away with the 3 day time limit on the Background Check. So if the background check takes forever, then you never get approval for the purchase or sale.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: sneakypete on March 07, 2019, 01:51:40 AM
What America REALLY needs are federal and state laws requiring a background check before anyone is allowed to register to vote.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Smokin Joe on March 07, 2019, 05:39:40 AM
What America REALLY needs are federal and state laws requiring a background check before anyone is allowed to register to vote.
Not to mention some serious tox screens (drug tests) on those voting in Congress...If you gotta pass one to run a drilling rig you should have to pass one to run a country.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: thackney on March 07, 2019, 08:37:53 AM
I understand, @Smokin Joe , why you don't accept a woman's right to decide for herself whether or not to have a child.   But why do you abandon your conservative instincts to demand the state make the call?   why is this not an issue of individual conscience?

Because the right to live of the innocent out trumps the right of convenience of the mother.

Just as you have the right to act as you want in your home.  But when your acts interfereswith the rights of your neighbors, it is not allowed.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on March 07, 2019, 08:39:21 AM
What America REALLY needs are federal and state laws requiring a background check before anyone is allowed to register to vote.

Or at a minimum an ID.   We don't limit voting to citizens who pass ideological tests,  but we do limit voting to citizens.   Except that we don't enforce it. 
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on March 07, 2019, 08:40:14 AM
What America REALLY needs are federal and state laws requiring a background check before anyone is allowed to register to vote.
This should be coupled with a civics literacy test.

One should not be able to vote if one fails to understand what one is voting for and the laws inherent in the process.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on March 07, 2019, 08:44:47 AM
Because the right to live of the innocent out trumps the right of convenience of the mother.

Just as you have the right to act as you want in your home.  But when your acts interfereswith the rights of your neighbors, it is not allowed.

You are stating the moral argument, and it is one that I agree with.   But the discussion is about legal rights,  and a pre-viable fetus has no such rights, vis a vis its mother.   

That's simply the way it has to be for legal purposes.  The mother is alive, the fetus cannot survive on its own and is biologically dependent on the mother.   It is the mother who gets to decide.    You can and should make your moral arguments,  because persuasion is a good thing.  Coercion by the State is not. 
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on March 07, 2019, 08:47:47 AM

EXCELLENT!  Woman has all kind of rights to HER BODY...but not when she carry's another life.  That life has, no say so, if she aborts.

Again, that's a moral argument.  Make it.   But don't conscript the State to enforce your moral views on others.   
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on March 07, 2019, 08:55:41 AM
you just don't get it.  Judges do NOT confer rights.  In fact, the interpretation  by SCOTUS is a made up right itself.

I recommend living in the real world.   It might help you better understand the true danger to your right to bear arms.   

The 2A is not what's protecting your right to individual self defense.   It is the Heller opinion.   Yacking about the 2A as a bulwark against King George is a waste of time.  The 2A says nothing about natural rights, or individual rights;  it is a Constitutional provision addressing the role of the citizens' militia, and as such is wholly obsolete.       Your natural right to self-defense of your person and property is acknowledged and protected not by the 2A, but by a transient Court majority.   Same as a woman's right to choose.   It is fragile,  and dependent as a practical matter on the results of the next Presidential election.   
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: verga on March 07, 2019, 09:09:52 AM
You are stating the moral argument, and it is one that I agree with.   But the discussion is about legal rights,  and a pre-viable fetus has no such rights, vis a vis its mother.   

That's simply the way it has to be for legal purposes.  The mother is alive, the fetus cannot survive on its own and is biologically dependent on the mother.   It is the mother who gets to decide.    You can and should make your moral arguments,  because persuasion is a good thing.  Coercion by the State is not.
Just  because it is legal does not make it moral. If we are not living in a moral and just society we are on our way to ruin.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on March 07, 2019, 09:19:12 AM
Just  because it is legal does not make it moral. If we are not living in a moral and just society we are on our way to ruin.

Absolutely agree,  @verga     In most situations, abortion is a choice that's morally wrong.   But, if the fetus is not yet viable,  it is a legal choice that the mother can make, in exercise of her natural right of self-determination as protected by the Constitution.   
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Restored on March 07, 2019, 09:25:41 AM
"in exercise of her natural right of self-determination "

Can a man claim self-determination and refuse to pay child support?
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: sneakypete on March 07, 2019, 09:40:52 AM
Because the right to live of the innocent out trumps the right of convenience of the mother.



@thackney

So.....,you are not oppossed to abortion in order to save the life or health of the mother?
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on March 07, 2019, 09:42:48 AM
"in exercise of her natural right of self-determination "

Can a man claim self-determination and refuse to pay child support?

If that were the rule,  there'd be a lot more abortions.   Remember,  in most cases a woman chooses to abort because of her own desperate circumstance.   Folks here love to label such women as murderers,  but the reality is that many believe they have no choice.   Especially when the unexpected byproduct of a consensual relationship spurs the man to walk out the door and abandon his responsibilities.   Left on her own, with no partner and afraid of the reaction of her family,  the woman feels she has no choice but to end the pregnancy.   

It is situations like this where the pro-life movement is most effective.   Not when it demands the State coerce its moral perspective.  But when it provides real support to women in desperate circumstances,  so they understand and believe there are better options than destroying the nascent life in her womb.   
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: thackney on March 07, 2019, 09:43:05 AM
You are stating the moral argument, and it is one that I agree with.   But the discussion is about legal rights,  and a pre-viable fetus has no such rights, vis a vis its mother.   

That's simply the way it has to be for legal purposes.  The mother is alive, the fetus cannot survive on its own and is biologically dependent on the mother.   It is the mother who gets to decide.    You can and should make your moral arguments,  because persuasion is a good thing.  Coercion by the State is not.

The state already charges murder of two when a pregnant woman is killed.  The state has already ruled this to be an independent life with rights of it's own.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on March 07, 2019, 09:50:30 AM
The state already charges murder of two when a pregnant woman is killed.  The state has already ruled this to be an independent life with rights of it's own.

No,  the fetus doesn't have independent rights of its own.   What you claim are its legal "rights" are in fact derived from that of the mother.    That's because the fetus' interest and the mother's interest coincide.   The mother is harmed when her unborn child is harmed by a third party.   

The abortion debate concerns the situation where the fetus' interest is in opposition to that of the mother.   The fetus is unexpected and unwanted.   Yes, the moral argument is compelling.  But as a legal matter,  the mother's rights can and must trump the "right" of an pre-viable fetus.    It is her body, and the fetus cannot survive without that body.  It is the woman's decision, and no one else's.   
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Cyber Liberty on March 07, 2019, 09:58:47 AM
This thread is about the Rats' lust for gun/people control.  Let's leave the abortion discussion to a thread about abortion.  This side discussion has gone on long enough.

Please get back on topic.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: roamer_1 on March 07, 2019, 10:06:41 AM
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:(KJV)


There was a time within my lifetime, where the nobility of a woman could best be described in the words, "Don't worry about me, save my baby!"

 **nononono* :0001: *****rollingeyes*****
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: thackney on March 07, 2019, 10:07:11 AM
No,  the fetus doesn't have independent rights of its own.   What you claim are its legal "rights" are in fact derived from that of the mother.    That's because the fetus' interest and the mother's interest coincide.   The mother is harmed when her unborn child is harmed by a third party.   

The abortion debate concerns the situation where the fetus' interest is in opposition to that of the mother.   The fetus is unexpected and unwanted.   Yes, the moral argument is compelling.  But as a legal matter,  the mother's rights can and must trump the "right" of an pre-viable fetus.    It is her body, and the fetus cannot survive without that body.  It is the woman's decision, and no one else's.   

Many, but not all, states have legally defined person to include the unborn child.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx (http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx)
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: thackney on March 07, 2019, 10:13:19 AM
@thackney

So.....,you are not oppossed to abortion in order to save the life or health of the mother?

I can accept the life argument.  But health is very vague.  A 2 year old with a runny nose can impact the health of the mother.  Should we will it?
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on March 07, 2019, 10:58:09 AM
Many, but not all, states have legally defined person to include the unborn child.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx (http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx)

Yes, but they all address the killing of a fetus in the commission of a violent act against the pregnant mother.   The mother suffered the loss of the baby she expected to bear.   

Such laws are irrelevant with respect to the mother's own right of self-determination.   So long as the fetus is pre-viable, she cannot be compelled by the State to reproduce.   
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on March 07, 2019, 11:02:52 AM
This thread is about the Rats' lust for gun/people control.  Let's leave the abortion discussion to a thread about abortion.  This side discussion has gone on long enough.

Please get back on topic.

Sorry about the thread drift, CL.    I had raised the subject in pointing out the hypocrisy of both conservatives and liberals on the subject of the Constitution's protection of natural rights.  Both conservatives and liberals frame their positions as "rights for me but not for thee".     Libs insist on the choice right but seek to undermine or overrule the Heller decision protecting  your right to own a gun to protect your family.  Conservatives love the Heller decision but condemn the Constitution's protection of the rights of women to reproductive liberty. 

 
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Cyber Liberty on March 07, 2019, 11:04:21 AM
OK, one more try:  Here's a Topic about an abortion law in GA.

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,353806.0.html (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,353806.0.html)

Please leave this topic to discussion about gun control so I don't have to lock it....
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: skeeter on March 07, 2019, 11:05:53 AM
Libs insist on the choice right but seek to undermine or overrule the Heller decision protecting your right to own a gun to protect your family. 

This one sentence sums up why your position on firearms ownership is wrong, JH. Any defense of the 2A has to start with a clear understanding of why it was included in the Constitution in the first place.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Cyber Liberty on March 07, 2019, 11:08:43 AM
Sorry about the thread drift, CL.    I had raised the subject in pointing out the hypocrisy of both conservatives and liberals on the subject of the Constitution's protection of natural rights.  Both conservatives and liberals frame their positions as "rights for me but not for thee".     Libs insist on the choice right but seek to undermine or overrule the Heller decision protecting  your right to own a gun to protect your family.  Conservatives love the Heller decision but condemn the Constitution's protection of the rights of women to reproductive liberty.

Try to resist. 
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Elderberry on March 07, 2019, 11:15:30 AM
Senate Dems call for hearing on universal background checks bill
By Tal Axelrod - 03/06/19 02:41 PM EST

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/432899-senate-dems-call-for-hearing-on-universal-background-checks-bill (https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/432899-senate-dems-call-for-hearing-on-universal-background-checks-bill)

Quote
Senate Democrats called on the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday to hold a hearing on universal background checks.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a vociferous advocate for gun control measures, led a group of 37 Democrats in sending a letter to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), the chairman of the Senate panel, calling on him to consider legislation currently pending before the committee that would universalize background checks.

More at link
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Elderberry on March 07, 2019, 11:19:24 AM
U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin Calls on Chairman Graham to Hold Judiciary Committee Hearings on Gun Violence Prevention Legislation

https://www.baldwin.senate.gov/press-releases/judiciary-committee-hearings-on-gun-violence-prevention-bill (https://www.baldwin.senate.gov/press-releases/judiciary-committee-hearings-on-gun-violence-prevention-bill)

Quote
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin joined 37 of her Senate colleagues in calling on Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to hold hearings on universal background checks legislation.

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Bipartisan Background Checks Act. Senator Baldwin and her colleagues helped introduced the Senate counterpart bill, the Background Check Expansion Act, which is currently pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The House also passed the Enhanced Background Checks Act, a bill aimed at closing the “Charleston loophole” in the background check system that made it possible for the gunman in Charleston’s AME Church in Graham’s home state to purchase a firearm.

“We noted with interest your statement in the press that you intended to have the Committee work on ‘red flag’ legislation and potentially also background checks, both actions we would strongly support,” the Senators wrote in a letter to Chairman Graham. “We respectfully request that you hold a hearing on this critical legislation as soon as possible.”

The letter, led by Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT), was also signed by U.S. Senators Michael Bennet (D-CO), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Tom Carper (D-DE), Bob Casey (D-PA), Chris Coons (D-DE), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Kamala Harris (D-CA), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Edward Markey (D-MA), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Patty Murray (D-WA), Jack Reed (D-RI), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Tina Smith (D-MN), Tom Udall (D-NM), Mark Warner (D-VA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD).

More at link
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on March 07, 2019, 11:29:44 AM
This one sentence sums up why your position on firearms ownership is wrong, JH. Any defense of the 2A has to start with a clear understanding of why it was included in the Constitution in the first place.

If the Dems win the White House,  and pack the SCOTUS with liberals,  the Heller decision will be overturned in favor of an interpretation limiting the 2A to the obsolete concept of the citizen militia.    That's the reality.   The gun right, with respect to your own personal security,  needs to be codified, not left dangling to the whim of a future SCOTUS majority.   I understand why it was included in the Constitution in the first place, to address a situation that no longer exists.   In the modern context,  it is seriously defective.   
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: sneakypete on March 07, 2019, 11:56:03 AM
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:(KJV)


There was a time within my lifetime, where the nobility of a woman could best be described in the words, "Don't worry about me, save my baby!"

 **nononono* :0001: *****rollingeyes*****

@roamer_1

ONLY if she had no existing children to care for.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: roamer_1 on March 07, 2019, 12:01:57 PM
@roamer_1

ONLY if she had no existing children to care for.

No. Every woman that I know, of a certain age, would have given themselves to bring that child to life. Every one.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: skeeter on March 07, 2019, 12:08:53 PM
If the Dems win the White House,  and pack the SCOTUS with liberals,  the Heller decision will be overturned in favor of an interpretation limiting the 2A to the obsolete concept of the citizen militia.    That's the reality.   The gun right, with respect to your own personal security,  needs to be codified, not left dangling to the whim of a future SCOTUS majority.   I understand why it was included in the Constitution in the first place, to address a situation that no longer exists.   In the modern context,  it is seriously defective.
Then your opinion is the Constitution is meaningless and we have no basis for discussion.

The 2A was very clearly codified but you're saying that particular codification is defective.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Cyber Liberty on March 07, 2019, 12:18:14 PM
Then your opinion is the Constitution is meaningless and we have no basis for discussion.

The 2A was very clearly codified but you're saying that particular codification is defective.

Bingo.  He's been consistent for quite some time in saying the Constitution isn't really the law.  The law is what judges (often leftist activists) say it is.  No matter what the Constitution may say in clear language, it's subject to review by clever lawyers and activist judges.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: skeeter on March 07, 2019, 12:20:17 PM
Bingo.  He's been consistent for quite some time in saying the Constitution isn't really the law.  The law is what judges (often leftist activists) say it is.  No matter what the Constitution may say in clear language, it's subject to review by clever lawyers and activist judges.

So much for Natural Law.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on March 07, 2019, 12:22:11 PM
Then your opinion is the Constitution is meaningless and we have no basis for discussion.

I have a far more realistic view of the stakes than you do.   But go on, keep on believing the myth that the 2A preserves your right to assemble an arsenal to shoot elected officials when our Republic provides for a perfectly reasonable mechanism for voting the bums out.

Heller was a brilliant decision grounded in the same view of the Constitution's purpose to protect our natural rights that animated Roe v. Wade.    You have the natural right to protect your person,  family and property,  not to circumvent the results of elections by violent overthrow of the government.  This isn't King George, this isn't an unwilling colony of a foreign power, this is a self-governing Constitutional Republic.   The 2A's original purpose is obsolete and functionally meaningless.

What's left is the Heller decision's use of the 2A to establish the individual RKBA.   The decision is Constitutionally sound,  but was opposed by four Justices who read no such individual right into the 2A,  let alone the Constitution's "penumbras and eminations".   The Heller decision - YOUR Constitutional rights - are as fragile as, well,  the right to abortion.   You hate and oppose with all your political might a woman's right to choose?   Then understand fully that liberals hate with equal passion the decision of "unelected judges" to secure your right to keep your family safe.           
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on March 07, 2019, 12:25:55 PM
Bingo.  He's been consistent for quite some time in saying the Constitution isn't really the law.  The law is what judges (often leftist activists) say it is.  No matter what the Constitution may say in clear language, it's subject to review by clever lawyers and activist judges.

There is no better example of unclear language in the Constitution than the Second Amendment.   You should be thanking clever lawyers and activist judges for the temporary liberty you enjoy today.   If the Dems get their way in the next election and pack the Court,  you can kiss your guns goodbye. 

The only true solution is to Codify!     

Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Elderberry on March 07, 2019, 12:37:21 PM
There is no better example of unclear language in the Constitution than the Second Amendment.   You should be thanking clever lawyers and activist judges for the temporary liberty you enjoy today.   If the Dems get their way in the next election and pack the Court,  you can kiss your guns goodbye. 

The only true solution is to Codify!   

Please show me where codification is needed.

What is CODIFICATION?

https://thelawdictionary.org/codification/ (https://thelawdictionary.org/codification/)

Quote
The process of collecting and arranging the laws of a country or state into a code, t. e., into a complete system of positive law, scientifically ordered, and promulgated by legislative authority.
More On This Topic

    What is Common Law vs. Civil Law?
    Examining the President’s Legal Responsibilities
    A Guide For Finding A Good Immigration Attorney
    The Four Pillars of the Rule of Law
    Domestic Violence Laws
    Important 2018 Law Changes You Should Know
    Divorce Process: Fundamentals You Need To Know
    Ten Cheap Law Schools That Are Actually Good
    Mortgage Law: Judicial vs. Non-Judicial Foreclosure
    Four Curious Facts About Blue Sky Laws


Related Legal Terms
CODE, EDICT, CODE CIVIL, COMPILED STATUTES, CAPITULARY, WISBY, LAWS OF, POSITIVE EAW, STATUTE BOOK, CODEX REPETITSE PRAELECTIOUIS, MANIFESTO
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: roamer_1 on March 07, 2019, 12:41:03 PM
I understand why it was included in the Constitution in the first place, to address a situation that no longer exists.

@Jazzhead
What condition exactly 'no longer exists'?
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Cyber Liberty on March 07, 2019, 12:49:32 PM
There is no better example of unclear language in the Constitution than the Second Amendment.   You should be thanking clever lawyers and activist judges for the temporary liberty you enjoy today.   If the Dems get their way in the next election and pack the Court,  you can kiss your guns goodbye. 

The only true solution is to Codify!   

That a God-given right to self defense, secured by plain language in the 2nd Amendment, is "temporary" is a testament to how far off the moorings the Constitution has been dragged by clever lawyers and activist judges.

What makes you think a leftist SCOTUS won't simply scuttle any attempt to "codify" an Amendment to the Constitution?  I'm sure plenty of emanations and penumbras could be created to justify it.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Cyber Liberty on March 07, 2019, 12:51:39 PM
@Jazzhead
What condition exactly 'no longer exists'?

Distrust of the government.  Everything is hunky-dory now in the modern, a gogo world don'tchaknow?

That is how stupid leftists think we unsophisticates are. 
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: bigheadfred on March 07, 2019, 12:56:11 PM
There is no better example of unclear language in the Constitution than the Second Amendment.   You should be thanking clever lawyers and activist judges for the temporary liberty you enjoy today.   If the Dems get their way in the next election and pack the Court,  you can kiss your guns goodbye. 

The only true solution is to Codify!   

The only true solution is to declare war.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: skeeter on March 07, 2019, 01:17:46 PM
I have a far more realistic view of the stakes than you do.   But go on, keep on believing the myth that the 2A preserves your right to assemble an arsenal to shoot elected officials when our Republic provides for a perfectly reasonable mechanism for voting the bums out.

If by 'realistic' you mean flaccid I'll agree.

Seriously, I highly doubt your view is more realistic than mine. You obviously cannot see where all of this is inevitably headed. Or maybe you do.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: To-Whose-Benefit? on March 07, 2019, 01:19:17 PM
An idiot Bill which probably won't get through the Senate.

And This is what the mighty Democrats have birthed out of 2 years of Smoke, Thunder, Empty Promises to 'Impeach Trump' and millions down a Rat Hole HOPING to find a Headline Grabbing, Smoking HINT of Impeachable conduct.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on March 07, 2019, 01:20:53 PM
That a God-given right to self defense, secured by plain language in the 2nd Amendment, is "temporary" is a testament to how far off the moorings the Constitution has been dragged by clever lawyers and activist judges.

What makes you think a leftist SCOTUS won't simply scuttle any attempt to "codify" an Amendment to the Constitution?  I'm sure plenty of emanations and penumbras could be created to justify it.

The God-given right to self-defense is secured by the Heller Court's construction of the 2A.   The 2A's predicate clause permits an alternate construction that would limit the Constitution's protection to the militia context, whatever the heck that means nowadays.   That alternate construction may be just an election or two away.    It is to prevent that from happening that I advocate codification of the individual right.   
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on March 07, 2019, 01:22:42 PM
If by 'realistic' you mean flaccid I'll agree.

Seriously, I highly doubt your view is more realistic than mine. You obviously cannot see where all of this is inevitably headed. Or maybe you do.

Ignore my advice at your peril.   Codification of the right is necessary to ensure the protection secured by Heller is not taken away.    Better that than starting a war you won't be able to win.   
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Restored on March 07, 2019, 01:22:45 PM
Folks here love to label such women as murderers, 

She doesn't kill the child. She hires someone to do it.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Cyber Liberty on March 07, 2019, 01:23:11 PM
I have a far more realistic view of the stakes than you do.   But go on, keep on believing the myth that the 2A preserves your right to assemble an arsenal to shoot elected officials when our Republic provides for a perfectly reasonable mechanism for voting the bums out.     

What makes you so sure politicians would be shot?  It's cops who will get to find out how well their body armor can withstand a round from a 30-06.

Politicians won't be the ones tasked with disarming the public.  That makes this particular argument a non-sequitur.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on March 07, 2019, 01:25:06 PM
The only true solution is to declare war.

That's a stupid thing to say.   The principle has already been established by Heller.  Now the task is to work within the framework provided by the Constitution to codify that result so it can't be taken away by a future Court.   
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Restored on March 07, 2019, 01:26:30 PM
Bingo.  He's been consistent for quite some time in saying the Constitution isn't really the law. 

And he is correct. The law is whatever the judges say it is. That's why The National Lampoon could exist in  1973 but not in 2019. Same Constitutional right to free expression, different laws.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on March 07, 2019, 01:28:52 PM
What makes you so sure politicians would be shot?  It's cops who will get to find out how well their body armor can withstand a round from a 30-06.

Politicians won't be the ones tasked with disarming the public.  That makes this particular argument a non-sequitur.

Do you really think you'd get away with shooting cops?    Seriously,  the idiotic braggadocio of some gunowners is amazing.   

It took 200 years,  but the Court has finally recognized the individual right.   Build on that recognition by codifying it.   Sure beats shooting cops - that's a war you won't be able to win.   
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Cyber Liberty on March 07, 2019, 01:30:11 PM
The God-given right to self-defense is secured by the Heller Court's construction of the 2A.   The 2A's predicate clause permits an alternate construction that would limit the Constitution's protection to the militia context, whatever the heck that means nowadays.   That alternate construction may be just an election or two away.    It is to prevent that from happening that I advocate codification of the individual right.   

Nope.  The Heller decisions does not secure the God-given right.  The 2nd Amendment does,  and a leftist SCOTUS will scuttle any attempts to codify with relative ease on the way to a total ban on civilian ownership of firearms.

That's it for me...I refuse to engage your circle-talk.  I'm just watching this thread to make sure it doesn't get hijacked again. 
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Cyber Liberty on March 07, 2019, 01:31:21 PM
Do you really think you'd get away with shooting cops?    Seriously,  the idiotic braggadocio of some gunowners is amazing.   

It took 200 years,  but the Court has finally recognized the individual right.   Build on that recognition by codifying it.   Sure beats shooting cops - that's a war you won't be able to win.   

Oh, since you mentioned it...I'm not the one who brought up shooting people.  You did.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on March 07, 2019, 01:32:13 PM
And he is correct. The law is whatever the judges say it is. That's why The National Lampoon could exist in  1973 but not in 2019. Same Constitutional right to free expression, different laws.

The laws aren't different.  What's changed is the culture.  It isn't the law that would shut down the NatLamp in today's America.    It would be shut down by boycotts and the withdrawal of advertising support.    That's fascism of the cultural variety - some perspectives just aren't tolerated in today's America.   But the culprit isn't the law, or the Constitution's protection of free expression.   
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on March 07, 2019, 01:34:44 PM
Nope.  The Heller decisions does not secure the God-given right.  The 2nd Amendment does,  and a leftist SCOTUS will scuttle any attempts to codify with relative ease on the way to a total ban on civilian ownership of firearms.

That's it for me...I refuse to engage your circle-talk.  I'm just watching this thread to make sure it doesn't get hijacked again.

Codification would effectively protect the right.   And as to the 2A alone securing the God-given right - believe that myth at your peril.   
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on March 07, 2019, 01:37:15 PM
She doesn't kill the child. She hires someone to do it.

Ah, modern conveniences.  In the old days,  she'd resort to a coat hanger.   It's the same motivation as it's ever been though - desperate acts borne of desperate circumstances.   
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: roamer_1 on March 07, 2019, 01:40:04 PM
Distrust of the government.  Everything is hunky-dory now in the modern, a gogo world don'tchaknow?

That is how stupid leftists think we unsophisticates are.

No, I really DO want to know what it is that he thinks 'no longer exists'.

Venezuela, within our lifetimes, was the largest economy and standing military on the Southern continent - EASILY the biggest Hispanic economy, and a big hitter - bigger than dang near anybody. And that republic went to sh*t in around a decade, and now they are eating rats... And without arms, they can do nothing - *NOTHING*- To evict the tyranny that has destroyed them.

Or is it the need for self defense? Because most of this country is not city or urban. Even in the city, 12 minutes is an admirable response time - But twelve minutes might as well be an hour in a desperate situation. Cops usually arrive after the fact, with body bags. Now put yourself 20 minutes out of town. There, it IS an hour response time. If you don't defend yourself, there is no defense at all... There is no place at all where you can rely on LEOs to save you. The only difference is that country folks are aware of that fact.

Even the matter of using arms for subsistence - Hunting is not a sport around here - It is necessary to life. Most of my meat has never seen a plastic tube or a styrofoam tray. If I were unable to hunt and unable to rely on others that do, I would be eating way worse than I am now. Right now, there is about 30 lbs of burger, maybe 10 lbs of bacon and sausage, and another 10 or so pounds of chicken in my freezer. The rest, way over 200 lbs, maybe over 400 lbs of meat came from hunting, fishing, and locally butchered beef and buffalo.

Living without firearms is not even possible. The idea is ludicrous simply from the position of subsistence and protection from varmints.

I don't see a damn thing one that has changed wrt weaponry and the R2KBA.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Bigun on March 07, 2019, 01:59:10 PM
@Jazzhead

Please read The Problem with Lawyers and the Constitution (https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/the-problem-with-lawyers-and-the-constitution/)

Also posted Here (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,350127.msg1907684.html#msg1907684) but few were interested at the time.  It's VERY relevant to the discussion on this thread IMHO.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: skeeter on March 07, 2019, 02:03:04 PM
Codification would effectively protect the right.   And as to the 2A alone securing the God-given right - believe that myth at your peril.   

All you are doing is proving that the 2A as originally envisioned is no myth. It's authors knew the monarch's/statist's/authoritarian's singularly largest threat is a free and sovereign people, and work to continually erode the most prominent tangible symbol of that sovereignty that an individual can possess.

There is no other reason for them to be so fixated on constraining the right of law abiding people to own firearms.
 
You seem fine with their efforts.

You and I are heir to these God given rights. Its too damn bad you and so many others are willing to hand them over so quickly. None of us will like where this attitude leads us.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: bigheadfred on March 07, 2019, 02:23:44 PM
That's a stupid thing to say.   The principle has already been established by Heller.  Now the task is to work within the framework provided by the Constitution to codify that result so it can't be taken away by a future Court.

Quote
And as to the 2A alone securing the God-given right - believe that myth at your peril. 

ha ha ha

Not as stupid as what is coming through the leftist agenda. They not only promote murder. They are enacting laws to make it legal.

The shit IS going to hit the fan in this country. It is inevitable. I have a cop friend that says when it happens, the badge is coming off.



Become a Remnant.

Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on March 07, 2019, 02:30:33 PM
All you are doing is proving that the 2A as originally envisioned is no myth. It's authors knew the monarch's/statist's/authoritarian's singularly largest threat is a free and sovereign people, and work to continually erode the most prominent tangible symbol of that sovereignty that an individual can possess.

There is no other reason for them to be so fixated on constraining the right of law abiding people to own firearms.
 
You seem fine with their efforts.

You and I are heir to these God given rights. Its too damn bad you and so many others are willing to hand them over so quickly. None of us will like where this attitude leads us.

You must be living on a different planet.    Calls for gun control are not coming from those concerned with insurrection against the government, they are coming from folks concerned with doing something about some of the highest rates of gun violence -  citizens killing citizens - in the Western world.

They don't want to restrict the citizens' militia,  they want to restrict your ability to own a gun, or certain types of disfavored guns,  if you choose.     Heller is the Constitutional bulwark against these efforts, not the 2A.    Heller's protection of your gun right is exceedingly vulnerable - same as the protection of a woman's right to choose that some conservatives have no problem whatsoever in taking away.   

I am not "fine with their efforts".   To the contrary,  I am advocating the only practical means - codification of the individual RKBA - to prevent a future SCOTUS majority from overturning Heller and taking your guns away.     
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on March 07, 2019, 02:33:11 PM
ha ha ha

Not as stupid as what is coming through the leftist agenda. They not only promote murder. They are enacting laws to make it legal.

The shit IS going to hit the fan in this country. It is inevitable. I have a cop friend that says when it happens, the badge is coming off.


It is not inevitable.   Calm the <Nope> down.     *****rollingeyes*****
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: bigheadfred on March 07, 2019, 02:43:06 PM
It is not inevitable.   Calm the <Nope> down.     *****rollingeyes*****

It is inevitable. And I AM calm. 'Everyone' here knows when I'm not.  :laugh:
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: skeeter on March 07, 2019, 02:44:53 PM
You must be living on a different planet.    Calls for gun control are not coming from those concerned with insurrection against the government, they are coming from folks concerned with doing something about some of the highest rates of gun violence -  citizens killing citizens - in the Western world.

They don't want to restrict the citizens' militia,  they want to restrict your ability to own a gun, or certain types of disfavored guns,  if you choose.     Heller is the Constitutional bulwark against these efforts, not the 2A.    Heller's protection of your gun right is exceedingly vulnerable - same as the protection of a woman's right to choose that some conservatives have no problem whatsoever in taking away.   

I am not "fine with their efforts".   To the contrary,  I am advocating the only practical means - codification of the individual RKBA - to prevent a future SCOTUS majority from overturning Heller and taking your guns away.   

Spin. It’s not so complex as you want to make it.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on March 07, 2019, 02:46:03 PM
Then your opinion is the Constitution is meaningless and we have no basis for discussion.

The 2A was very clearly codified but you're saying that particular codification is defective.
And therein lies the heart of the lawyer/liberal mindset:  One needs the Judicial branch to interpret all portions of the Constitution, an act that the Judicial branch has no power codified in the Constitution itself to actually perform.

That act has the effect of making unelected judges rule this country by their whims, with the only way to control them is for their removal by Congress, something that only very rarely in our history has occurred.

We as free people do not need some unelected judge to interpret our rules we live by, particularly the unalienable rights we enjoy.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: bigheadfred on March 07, 2019, 02:50:04 PM
And therein lies the heart of the lawyer/liberal mindset:  One needs the Judicial branch to interpret all portions of the Constitution, an act that the Judicial branch has no power codified in the Constitution itself to actually perform.

That act has the effect of making unelected judges rule this country by their whims, with the only way to control them is for their removal by Congress, something that only very rarely in our history has occurred.

We as free people do not need some unelected judge to interpret our rules we live by, particularly the unalienable rights we enjoy.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Tells me EVERYTHING I need to know.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on March 07, 2019, 02:51:57 PM
The God-given right to self-defense is secured by the Heller Court's construction of the 2A.   The 2A's predicate clause permits an alternate construction that would limit the Constitution's protection to the militia context, whatever the heck that means nowadays.   That alternate construction may be just an election or two away.    It is to prevent that from happening that I advocate codification of the individual right.   
Look at your ridiculous argument.

You on one hand call it 'God-given right' then say it is there because of a few judges' whims.

You are spinning ferociously on your legalise lack of logic.

God gave us a right, and that's the end of it.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: mrpotatohead on March 07, 2019, 03:35:03 PM
It is inevitable. And I AM calm. 'Everyone' here knows when I'm not.  :laugh:
Ok...that was good...lolololololololololololol
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on March 07, 2019, 03:40:27 PM
God gave us a right, and that's the end of it.

No that's not the end of it.   God can't protect and secure your rights.   That's the purpose of the Constitution, as amended by the Bill of Rights.   Problem is, the 2A's plain language limited its application to the citizen militia,  not the "God given" right of individual self-defense.   It took the Heller opinion to confirm that the Constitution secures and protects that individual right.   Yes, it took the decision of a majority of unelected judges.   And a different future majority can take it away.   So that's why I advocate codifying the individual right.   Go ahead and reject my advice - but don't blame me when a future court decides the 2A has nothing to do with your guns.     
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: LegalAmerican on March 07, 2019, 03:42:59 PM
All you are doing is proving that the 2A as originally envisioned is no myth. It's authors knew the monarch's/statist's/authoritarian's singularly largest threat is a free and sovereign people, and work to continually erode the most prominent tangible symbol of that sovereignty that an individual can possess.

There is no other reason for them to be so fixated on constraining the right of law abiding people to own firearms.
 
You seem fine with their efforts.

You and I are heir to these God given rights. Its too damn bad you and so many others are willing to hand them over so quickly. None of us will like where this attitude leads us.


........brainwashed younger people.... :thumbsup:
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: LegalAmerican on March 07, 2019, 03:48:53 PM
No that's not the end of it.   God can't protect and secure your rights.   That's the purpose of the Constitution, as amended by the Bill of Rights.   Problem is, the 2A's plain language limited its application to the citizen militia,  not the "God given" right of individual self-defense.   It took the Heller opinion to confirm that the Constitution secures and protects that individual right.   Yes, it took the decision of a majority of unelected judges.   And a different future majority can take it away.   So that's why I advocate codifying the individual right.   Go ahead and reject my advice - but don't blame me when a future court decides the 2A has nothing to do with your guns.     



..SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!   Do I need to post the 2nd...word for word?   NO INFRINGING.. unconstitutional to do anything else.  BTW The constitution and BILL OF RIGHTS came from Bible principle's. We are a Christian nation. Founded by Christians.  I have to prove that out too?  You don't have to believe in God, but your rights came from God.  You are totally wrong. It is about taking away gun rights. People will die with or without guns. That is the PLOY they want to use to take away gun rights. You youngsters buy into the B.S. Same as Obamcare was NOT ABOUT HEALTH..but the ploy was to sell it under "health" Lenin controlled people for 70 years with his "health plan". Obamcare was communism, a plan to put in job killing regulations and invoke 19 new taxes on we the people.  Yet, some still think it was about 'health". Hitler had the same Obamcare plan. Mandated, no choice. This bill about guns will not stop, ANY DEATHS. FOOLISH THINKING.  It esp. will NOT stop any citizens death. Every communist country that took guns away from the people, died at Communist hands. MILLIONS. 58 MILLION UNDER MAO.  You need some history lessons. Was this truth "not kind"?  FACTS.
Time for a well regulated m!litia.
---------------------------

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms

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.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on March 07, 2019, 04:36:52 PM


..SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!   Do I need to post the 2nd...word for word?   NO INFRINGING.. unconstitutional to do anything else.  BTW The constitution and BILL OF RIGHTS came from Bible principle's. We are a Christian nation. Founded by Christians.  I have to prove that out too?  You don't have to believe in God, but your rights came from God.  You are totally wrong. It is about taking away gun rights. People will die with or without guns. That is the PLOY they want to use to take away gun rights. You youngsters buy into the B.S. Same as Obamcare was NOT ABOUT HEALTH..but the ploy was to sell it under "health" Lenin controlled people for 70 years with his "health plan". Obamcare was communism, a plan to put in job killing regulations and invoke 19 new taxes on we the people.  Yet, some still think it was about 'health". Hitler had the same Obamcare plan. Mandated, no choice. This bill about guns will not stop, ANY DEATHS. FOOLISH THINKING.  It esp. will NOT stop any citizens death. Every communist country that took guns away from the people, died at Communist hands. MILLIONS. 58 MILLION UNDER MAO.  You need some history lessons. Was this truth "not kind"?  FACTS.
Time for a well regulated m!litia.
---------------------------

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms

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.


Your argument is not with me, sir.   Read the dissenting opinions in Heller, who view the 2A through the prism of the predicate clause.  Your rights may come from God, but God can't protect them.   Your precious gun right is hanging by the thread of a SCOTUS majority.  The 2A is defective, and the individual right needs to be codified.   

 Don't shoot me, pal, I'm just the messenger.
 

Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: libertybele on March 07, 2019, 04:37:30 PM
No that's not the end of it.   God can't protect and secure your rights.   That's the purpose of the Constitution, as amended by the Bill of Rights.   Problem is, the 2A's plain language limited its application to the citizen militia,  not the "God given" right of individual self-defense.   It took the Heller opinion to confirm that the Constitution secures and protects that individual right.   Yes, it took the decision of a majority of unelected judges.   And a different future majority can take it away.   So that's why I advocate codifying the individual right.   Go ahead and reject my advice - but don't blame me when a future court decides the 2A has nothing to do with your guns.     

Heller v DC protects the right to own a gun and that they are purposed for the 2A also overturning the ban on handguns.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: libertybele on March 07, 2019, 04:39:57 PM
Your argument is not with me, sir.   Read the dissenting opinions in Heller, who view the 2A through the prism of the predicate clause.  Your rights may come from God, but God can't protect them.   Your precious gun right is hanging by the thread of a SCOTUS majority.  The 2A is defective, and the individual right needs to be codified.   

 Don't shoot me, pal, I'm just the messenger.

As long as we have RINO's and liberal gun grabbers, the 2A will always hang by a thread.  Keep strongly in mind, that the 2A is the right upon which all of our other rights are dependent. Think about it.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: DCPatriot on March 07, 2019, 05:04:45 PM
As long as we have RINO's and liberal gun grabbers, the 2A will always hang by a thread.  Keep strongly in mind, that the 2A is the right upon which all of our other rights are dependent. Think about it.

There's no way the 2nd Amendment will be repealed without a Civil War.

Not for at least another decade.  Two at most.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Smokin Joe on March 07, 2019, 05:09:20 PM
The God-given right to self-defense is secured by the Heller Court's construction of the 2A.   The 2A's predicate clause permits an alternate construction that would limit the Constitution's protection to the militia context, whatever the heck that means nowadays.   That alternate construction may be just an election or two away.    It is to prevent that from happening that I advocate codification of the individual right.   
If it is a God-Given Right, (unalienable), then the Court did not grant it, and nothing the court does can take that Right away.
I explained at length the purpose and meaning of the RKBA, and continuing to spout the nonsense that the right exists so the government can form armies (to exert power) still does pass muster. Especially when, in the Federalist, the point was made that it was The People who retain the Right to protect their Liberty from Government force. The Amendment even says "The Right of The People...", a phrase which, in all other cases with the Constitution, reserves a Right specifically to The People, and none other.

The Court may fail to acknowledge that unalienable (God-Given) Right, as it has failed in the past to acknowledge the freedom from involuntary servitude of one group of people it failed to acknowledge as People, and failed to defend the innocent lives of another group it fails to recognize as People, but neither the Supreme Court, nor any court, can take the Right away.

It is unalienable, a natural and God-Given Right, it exists. Period.

The Supreme Court can only fail or succeed in their purpose to secure that Right (and others) from the illicit machinations and usurpation of Government, (from what has traditionally been defined as tyranny).  They have been wrong before.

Now we're back to the raison d'etre for the 2nd Amendment--to secure the Rights of the People from Government when Government fails to secure their Rights.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Smokin Joe on March 07, 2019, 05:19:43 PM
No that's not the end of it.   God can't protect and secure your rights.   That's the purpose of the Constitution, as amended by the Bill of Rights.   Problem is, the 2A's plain language limited its application to the citizen militia,  not the "God given" right of individual self-defense.   It took the Heller opinion to confirm that the Constitution secures and protects that individual right.   Yes, it took the decision of a majority of unelected judges.   And a different future majority can take it away.   So that's why I advocate codifying the individual right.   Go ahead and reject my advice - but don't blame me when a future court decides the 2A has nothing to do with your guns.     
No, the problem is that you are misreading the predicate clause. I gave you the background on that, from the Federalist, yet you persist.
So let me give you a modern language version:

Because the Army needs to be kept, but kept under control in order to keep a free country free, everyone gets to own weapons, especially guns, and no one is supposed to limit that.

As for Heller, that decision only confirmed something which was understood to exist before Miller (an erroneous decision upholding a bad law on incorrect information and an incorrect understanding of the predicate clause): That The People had a Right to Keep and Bear Arms which was not to be infringed.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Cyber Liberty on March 07, 2019, 05:37:21 PM
@Smokin Joe  *patience*
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: bigheadfred on March 07, 2019, 06:11:23 PM
@Jazzhead

Quote
God can't protect and secure your rights.   That's the purpose of the Constitution, as amended by the Bill of Rights.   

See. This is a thought pattern. It is where our thinking diverges. I don't serve two masters.

In my way of thinking it WAS God who inspired a group of men to write the Constitution and fight to the death to see it done.

God IS protecting and securing my rights through me.

There isn't any judge, legislature, etc. who can change my mind. Or deny me those rights. They will do so at their own peril.

Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: sneakypete on March 07, 2019, 06:34:24 PM
No. Every woman that I know, of a certain age, would have given themselves to bring that child to life. Every one.

@roamer_1

IF you are not mistaken,and I am certain you are,in that case every woman you know of a certain age is irresponsible and shouldn't be allowed to have more children if she is ready to abandon the ones she is already responsible for
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: LegalAmerican on March 07, 2019, 06:39:02 PM
@Jazzhead

See. This is a thought pattern. It is where our thinking diverges. I don't serve two masters.

In my way of thinking it WAS God who inspired a group of men to write the Constitution and fight to the death to see it done.

God IS protecting and securing my rights through me.

There isn't any judge, legislature, etc. who can change my mind. Or deny me those rights. They will do so at their own peril.


.............. :thumbsup:

Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: roamer_1 on March 07, 2019, 06:42:22 PM
@roamer_1

IF you are not mistaken,and I am certain you are,in that case every woman you know of a certain age is irresponsible and shouldn't be allowed to have more children if she is ready to abandon the ones she is already responsible for

Ridiculous. Likewise, I would gladly lay down my life to save any one of my children. Without a single thought like that.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: To-Whose-Benefit? on March 07, 2019, 06:51:37 PM
@Jazzhead

Please read The Problem with Lawyers and the Constitution (https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/the-problem-with-lawyers-and-the-constitution/)

Also posted Here (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,350127.msg1907684.html#msg1907684) but few were interested at the time.  It's VERY relevant to the discussion on this thread IMHO.

 :thumbsup:

Lawyers, like any other profession have 1 over riding purpose.

That purpose is to Get Paid.

Not to act as a moral arbitor and safe guard of anything else. There are bounds to that but Those are what Disbarment and their own criminal prosecutions are for.

And to that end of getting Paid they will argue/fight Any other purpose.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: To-Whose-Benefit? on March 07, 2019, 07:02:50 PM
No that's not the end of it.   God can't protect and secure your rights.   That's the purpose of the Constitution, as amended by the Bill of Rights.   Problem is, the 2A's plain language limited its application to the citizen militia,  not the "God given" right of individual self-defense.   It took the Heller opinion to confirm that the Constitution secures and protects that individual right.   Yes, it took the decision of a majority of unelected judges.   And a different future majority can take it away.   So that's why I advocate codifying the individual right.   Go ahead and reject my advice - but don't blame me when a future court decides the 2A has nothing to do with your guns.     


EGADS!

God Given Rights are only as real as the firm of Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe decide how many Billable Hours they can squeeze out of redefining them, to mean squat?

According to This piece of Pretzel Logic, Jesus and the Resurrection can, in the future, be redistributed to only Friends of Govt or those who pay a stiff, Federal Regulatory Fee and pass a Holy Fed Govt Board of Sanctimony Inquest.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Cyber Liberty on March 07, 2019, 07:30:43 PM
Ridiculous. Likewise, I would gladly lay down my life to save any one of my children. Without a single thought like that.

Pete seems to be putting a lot of words in other peoples mouths today.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: sneakypete on March 07, 2019, 08:07:08 PM
Pete seems to be putting a lot of words in other peoples mouths today.

@Cyber Liberty

No,I am NOT. Are he and others on this thread saying any self-respecting women would abandon their living children who are already born and need them in order to give birth to another child she can then abandon later?

People who hold that position are as far from being moral as it is possible to be. You have been brainwashed by your religious superstitions,and refuse to think.

BTW,Isn't your Christian God supposed to have appeared and ordered the soldiers that defeated an enemy city to "take the children by their heels and base their brains out against the city walls to make sure no more are ever born to offend God"?

Hell,the mythical creature you worship is a fan of murdering infants,so you have no moral high ground to stand on if you believe the Holy Bible.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Smokin Joe on March 07, 2019, 08:29:00 PM
@Jazzhead

See. This is a thought pattern. It is where our thinking diverges. I don't serve two masters.

In my way of thinking it WAS God who inspired a group of men to write the Constitution and fight to the death to see it done.

God IS protecting and securing my rights through me.

There isn't any judge, legislature, etc. who can change my mind. Or deny me those rights. They will do so at their own peril.
Fred, you, sir, get it!
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: bigheadfred on March 07, 2019, 08:32:15 PM
@Cyber Liberty

No,I am NOT. Are he and others on this thread saying any self-respecting women would abandon their living children who are already born and need them in order to give birth to another child she can then abandon later?

People who hold that position are as far from being moral as it is possible to be. You have been brainwashed by your religious superstitions,and refuse to think.

BTW,Isn't your Christian God supposed to have appeared and ordered the soldiers that defeated an enemy city to "take the children by their heels and base their brains out against the city walls to make sure no more are ever born to offend God"?

Hell,the mythical creature you worship is a fan of murdering infants,so you have no moral high ground to stand on if you believe the Holy Bible.

Pete. God made that command because the ones he wanted slaughtered weren't fully human beings.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: roamer_1 on March 07, 2019, 08:32:47 PM
No,I am NOT. Are he and others on this thread saying any self-respecting women would abandon their living children who are already born and need them in order to give birth to another child she can then abandon later?

Shall I not rescue my son drowning in the river because  I might die and leave three children (or even four) without a father?

That would not even enter into my head. OF COURSE I save my child.  *****rollingeyes*****

Quote
People who hold that position are as far from being moral as it is possible to be. You have been brainwashed by your religious superstitions,and refuse to think.

Oh bullcrap. Any guy i know would do likewise, Christian or not. And likewise, it is the same for a woman, whether the child is born or not.

Quote
BTW,Isn't your Christian God supposed to have appeared and ordered the soldiers that defeated an enemy city to "take the children by their heels and base their brains out against the city walls to make sure no more are ever born to offend God"?

Hell,the mythical creature you worship is a fan of murdering infants,so you have no moral high ground to stand on if you believe the Holy Bible.

Actually no, he did not. Those 'children' were not human. They were literally not human, and the purpose for utter destruction was ALWAYS against hybrid creatures. Read carefully and you will see why some cities were conquered but spared, and others wholly annihilated, to the point of even burning the grain and killing the livestock. Pay attention to the genealogies and where that people came from.

That is the purpose of the flood (all of creation corrupted in it's way (DNA) ).
And that is the purpose of the conquering of the Levant - Again, DNA. That is WHY they offended God.

But then, if you had actually read the thing, you'd know that.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: roamer_1 on March 07, 2019, 08:41:29 PM
Pete. God made that command because the ones he wanted slaughtered weren't fully human beings.

That's right.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on March 07, 2019, 09:39:15 PM
:thumbsup:

Lawyers, like any other profession have 1 over riding purpose.

That purpose is to Get Paid.

Not to act as a moral arbitor and safe guard of anything else. There are bounds to that but Those are what Disbarment and their own criminal prosecutions are for.

And to that end of getting Paid they will argue/fight Any other purpose.
How do the + 1.2mm lawyers in this country affect us?  Bigtime.

To increase our freedoms and our wealth, we need to decrease this number, and significantly.

(https://abovethelaw.com/uploads/2017/03/angry-bear.png)

To quote of the frequent posters here, we need to continue this trend at our peril.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: sneakypete on March 08, 2019, 04:07:10 AM
Pete. God made that command because the ones he wanted slaughtered weren't fully human beings.

@bigheadfred

Uh,huh. That's the excuse mass murderers always make. The Nazi's,for one,were fond of making that claim.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on March 08, 2019, 08:46:15 AM
@Jazzhead

See. This is a thought pattern. It is where our thinking diverges. I don't serve two masters.

In my way of thinking it WAS God who inspired a group of men to write the Constitution and fight to the death to see it done.

God IS protecting and securing my rights through me.

There isn't any judge, legislature, etc. who can change my mind. Or deny me those rights. They will do so at their own peril.

Fine.   Go get yourself shot.  God'll love you for it.    *****rollingeyes*****
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on March 08, 2019, 08:51:37 AM


Lawyers, like any other profession have 1 over riding purpose.

That purpose is to Get Paid.

Not to act as a moral arbitor and safe guard of anything else. There are bounds to that but Those are what Disbarment and their own criminal prosecutions are for.

And to that end of getting Paid they will argue/fight Any other purpose.

There are good lawyers and there are bad lawyers.   I seem to have been lumped in with the bad ones for sounding an alarm that gun owners don't want to hear - that the 2A is inadequate to protect their rights and that a legislative fix is imperative before the thin reed of Heller is swept away.   

It's your flippin' problem, not mine.   
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: bigheadfred on March 08, 2019, 09:30:26 AM
@bigheadfred

Uh,huh. That's the excuse mass murderers always make. The Nazi's,for one,were fond of making that claim.

 :hijack:

The Nazi's were merely another group who tried what many others did. Stalin and Mao were better at it than Hitler.


According to the Bible and other documents and also oral traditions, including some from Native Americans, There was a race of giants preflood and after on this planet. According to the Bible and the Book of Enoch they came to earth as "fallen angels' and corrupted the bloodline(s) of humans. In the Bible the Israelites were commanded to wipe out any people who still had those bloodlines.

"According to the Paiutes, the Si-Te-Cah were a red-haired band of cannibalistic giants.[1] The Si-Te-Cah and the Paiutes were at war, and after a long struggle a coalition of tribes trapped the remaining Si-Te-Cah in Lovelock Cave. When they refused to come out, the Indians piled brush before the cave mouth and set it aflame. The Si-Te-Cah were annihilated. " wikipedia

Are you familiar with Gobekli Tepe? Intentionally buried around 12,000 years ago.

The Smithsonian has admitted to destroying and/or hiding any evidence of giants. The SCOTUS has demanded they release any information in 2020.

There are megalithic structures worldwide that cannot be explained as to their construction. Who built them? It sure as hell wasn't simple hunter gatherers or even later cultures who had the use of copper or bronze tools.

Elongated skulls found around the world. King Tut had an elongated skull. Look up the Paracas skulls in Peru. Elongated skulls in Russia, the Ukraine, etc.

There has been a systematic destruction of evidence that points to anything that falls outside of the Darwinian THEORY of evolution. Careers have been ruined.

IMO, the Vatican is one of the worst offenders at hiding anything that would loosen their iron grip and control over people. That includes what books or information that is in the Bible.

IMO, we have been lied to about the true history of people on this planet. History is written by the victors. Those victors have one thing in common. To rule and control. By any means necessary.

FDR knew about the attack on Perl Harbor before it happened. Truman used the atom bomb to wipe out hundreds of thousands of people. What the hell is the difference? Exterminating large groups of people who differ from "us", is the way this world works.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: bigheadfred on March 08, 2019, 09:37:13 AM
Fine.   Go get yourself shot.  God'll love you for it.    *****rollingeyes*****

What I know is I ain't gonna hide in a hole waiting for some g-damned judge to make my life better when everything is coming apart.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Cyber Liberty on March 08, 2019, 09:48:44 AM
What I know is I ain't gonna hide in a hole waiting for some g-damned judge to make my life better when everything is coming apart.

Nah...cowardly Judges will just send the cops out to do the dirty work.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: LegalAmerican on March 08, 2019, 02:32:31 PM
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QW_-dIpcjvM#)
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: sneakypete on March 08, 2019, 02:48:54 PM
:hijack:
Quote
The Nazi's were merely another group who tried what many others did. Stalin and Mao were better at it than Hitler.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,353854.msg1934170/topicseen.html#new (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,353854.msg1934170/topicseen.html#new)


@bigheadfred

True. Mao and his pals no doubt hold the world record for mass murder,but nobody really cared about how many Chinese were murdered by their own people. Just like nobody really seems to care about the Gypsies,homosexuals,Slavs,and petty criminals executed by the Nazi's. All they care about is the Jews that were murdered. Jews have the best PR departments in the world.


According to the Bible and other documents and also oral traditions, including some from Native Americans, There was a race of giants preflood and after on this planet. According to the Bible and the Book of Enoch they came to earth as "fallen angels' and corrupted the bloodline(s) of humans. In the Bible the Israelites were commanded to wipe out any people who still had those bloodlines.

"According to the Paiutes, the Si-Te-Cah were a red-haired band of cannibalistic giants.[1] The Si-Te-Cah and the Paiutes were at war, and after a long struggle a coalition of tribes trapped the remaining Si-Te-Cah in Lovelock Cave. When they refused to come out, the Indians piled brush before the cave mouth and set it aflame. The Si-Te-Cah were annihilated. " wikipedia

Quote
Are you familiar with Gobekli Tepe? Intentionally buried around 12,000 years ago.

Nope. Never heard of them,OR the red-headed giants the Indians killed.

Quote
The Smithsonian has admitted to destroying and/or hiding any evidence of giants. The SCOTUS has demanded they release any information in 2020.

There are megalithic structures worldwide that cannot be explained as to their construction. Who built them? It sure as hell wasn't simple hunter gatherers or even later cultures who had the use of copper or bronze tools.

Elongated skulls found around the world. King Tut had an elongated skull. Look up the Paracas skulls in Peru. Elongated skulls in Russia, the Ukraine, etc.

There has been a systematic destruction of evidence that points to anything that falls outside of the Darwinian THEORY of evolution. Careers have been ruined.

IMO, the Vatican is one of the worst offenders at hiding anything that would loosen their iron grip and control over people. That includes what books or information that is in the Bible.

IMO, we have been lied to about the true history of people on this planet. History is written by the victors. Those victors have one thing in common. To rule and control. By any means necessary.

FDR knew about the attack on Perl Harbor before it happened. Truman used the atom bomb to wipe out hundreds of thousands of people. What the hell is the difference? Exterminating large groups of people who differ from "us", is the way this world works.

I want to argue with you about the rest of it,but don't know enough about it to argue at this point,and am too tired to look it up.

Hope this doesn't get me banned from the internet.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: To-Whose-Benefit? on March 08, 2019, 02:57:19 PM
There are good lawyers and there are bad lawyers.   I seem to have been lumped in with the bad ones for sounding an alarm that gun owners don't want to hear - that the 2A is inadequate to protect their rights and that a legislative fix is imperative before the thin reed of Heller is swept away.   

It's your flippin' problem, not mine.   

I did not accuse you of being a bad lawyer, merely pointed out that in Lawerying, like any other trade, IF you're gonna be a success, The Customer Is Always Right.

So it looks like it's You who have the flippin' problem here.

I am in no way unaware that Case Law and Precedent and anything else can be overturned, twisted, etc.

And that had we a Judiciary which simply ruled in Constitutional matters from an Originalist POV this conversation would be moot.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: bigheadfred on March 08, 2019, 03:05:59 PM
@sneakypete

Just pointing out some things that I have researched. Topics that will probably get me banned from the internet. Have a good Friday. I've got some errands to see to. FWIW, I don't consider the Holy Bible as all that Holy. And I'm not turning this into any debate.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on March 08, 2019, 03:18:41 PM
I did not accuse you of being a bad lawyer, merely pointed out that in Lawerying, like any other trade, IF you're gonna be a success, The Customer Is Always Right.

So it looks like it's You who have the flippin' problem here.

I am in no way unaware that Case Law and Precedent and anything else can be overturned, twisted, etc.

And that had we a Judiciary which simply ruled in Constitutional matters from an Originalist POV this conversation would be moot.

You seek the world as you wish it to be, not as it is.   For a taste of the latter, read the dissenting opinions in Heller and know just how fragile the individual RKBA really is.   
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: skeeter on March 08, 2019, 03:21:40 PM
You seek the world as you wish it to be, not as it is.   For a taste of the latter, read the dissenting opinions in Heller and know just how fragile the individual RKBA really is.

If I may, the Left doesn't see the world as it is either. They see it as they want it to see it and then try to make it happen.

And they're winning.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: To-Whose-Benefit? on March 08, 2019, 03:40:18 PM
You seek the world as you wish it to be, not as it is.   For a taste of the latter, read the dissenting opinions in Heller and know just how fragile the individual RKBA really is.

Just had to go do it, didn't you?

RKBA itself is solid as Gibraltar.

How it hits the street, thanks to chiseling Lawyers, is another story.

Constitution and Amendments are a written Document, their meaning doesn't change.

Neither does the Non interpretable Meaning of their plain and straightforward English.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on March 08, 2019, 03:49:57 PM
Just had to go do it, didn't you?

RKBA itself is solid as Gibraltar.

How it hits the street, thanks to chiseling Lawyers, is another story.

Constitution and Amendments are a written Document, their meaning doesn't change.

Neither does the Non interpretable Meaning of their plain and straightforward English.

I give up.   I'm just banging my head against the wall dealing with bullheaded ignorance like this.   

Have a nice weekend.   
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on March 08, 2019, 03:53:49 PM

And they're winning.

Yes, they are.   And we make it easy for them,  by continuing to indulge in fantasies about citizens using guns to confront government tyranny.   
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Cyber Liberty on March 08, 2019, 03:55:24 PM
If I may, the Left doesn't see the world as it is either. They see it as they want it to see it and then try to make it happen.

And they're winning.

You say that like it's a problem.  /s
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: To-Whose-Benefit? on March 08, 2019, 04:07:30 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.

The Founders were well familiar with human nature. They did not live in a vacuum.

Pelosi, Schumer, DiFi, Holder, Obama, they knew these clowns like the back of their hands.

That's Why they were so Specific in the phraseology and content of our Founding Documents.

The Clowns I just mentioned are not new to the last century.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Smokin Joe on March 08, 2019, 05:01:45 PM
Yes, they are.   And we make it easy for them,  by continuing to indulge in fantasies about citizens using guns to confront government tyranny.
The time to confront Government Tyranny is always now. Especially when this is still a war of words, when the epithet is the worst thing hurled.

Don't forget this country started because people used guns to confront Government tyranny, when all avenues of political approach had failed.

Yes, those citizens were trained later, and we got help from the French, among others, which kept Cornwallis' troops from evacuating Yorktown by sea, but those citizens won. The decisive weapons were not the muskets the British used, but the rifles the Colonists used which were the battle rifles of their day. THat is the very class of weapons that many in our Government would unconstitutionally deny us.

This nonsense of infringing the Second Amendment has only created a class of criminals with a decided firepower advantage over the law abiding in virtually every jurisdiction. With nothing to lose, the criminals may own anything they can get their hands on, and have the means to do so.
With everything to lose, and attempting to remain compliant with the law, the law abiding people are hobbled, are told they cannot own the same weapons the criminals possess, and are left 'outgunned', as the police are so fond of saying. The exceptions in those laws are for police and active duty military, and leave the citizen in the worst legal position, even if they manage to obtain permits, etc.

Every new law only puts the citizenry who comply at a greater disadvantage. This is why that Right of the People was not to be infringed. Every citizen who quietly fails to comply for the purpose of being better armed, risks losing all they own and being branded a criminal. Anyone who might possess arms which do not comply with present law where they are is either forced to move, to run the risk, or surrender items they will never get back--to forcibly divest themselves of property without compensation or with little compensation without having ever been convicted of a crime.
Moving target gun laws only create a new class of criminal every time something else is banned.

We will really find out in a couple of weeks when the bump stock ban, a ban based on a lie, goes into effect.

The bump stock does not materially alter the function of the weapon, it just makes pulling the trigger once per round a very efficient process. It does not permit the weapon to fire fully automatic (one squeeze of the trigger causing the weapon to fire more than once), but enables the user to squeeze the trigger at an optimal rate, once per round fired, making the rate of fire faster than the user might be able to do without it.
Considering the questionable nature of the incident, the general absence of reports, and serious questions about multiple shooters, the Las Vegas incident leaves a lot of questions in the minds of average gun owners who are going to be affected by this legal fallout from the incident.
Are they going to just give them up? Without compensation?--and some 500,000 of them have been sold since the devices went on the market in 2010.

Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on March 08, 2019, 05:24:05 PM
No that's not the end of it.   God can't protect and secure your rights.   That's the purpose of the Constitution, as amended by the Bill of Rights.   Problem is, the 2A's plain language limited its application to the citizen militia,  not the "God given" right of individual self-defense.   It took the Heller opinion to confirm that the Constitution secures and protects that individual right.   Yes, it took the decision of a majority of unelected judges.   And a different future majority can take it away.   So that's why I advocate codifying the individual right.   Go ahead and reject my advice - but don't blame me when a future court decides the 2A has nothing to do with your guns.     
Funny, isn't it that the God who created all of our rights you feel is limited and needs to 'be helped out'.

One day you will find out to your chagrin that He is indeed not limited by you or any other person just because you believe it.

Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: sneakypete on March 08, 2019, 05:47:52 PM
If I may, the Left doesn't see the world as it is either. They see it as they want it to see it and then try to make it happen.

And they're winning.

@skeeter

I have a minor clarification to make. They INSIST it IS the way they want it to be,regardless of the evidence,the logic,or the sanity. That is how they get away with insisting you are wrong and breaking the law if you don't agree with them. Or at least that is the "tool" they use to try to quieten dissent.

Thou must NOT question the religious beliefs of the left or risk being called a Nazi or slave-monger. Even THEY know that if their plans are open to question that they fall apart.

I will take it even one step further. Even THEY KNOW they must lie to the public in order to get the public to support them. They justify this by claiming they are doing it for your own good. How lucky are we to have such thoughtful masters?
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: skeeter on March 08, 2019, 06:13:36 PM
Yes, they are.   And we make it easy for them,  by continuing to indulge in fantasies about citizens using guns to confront government tyranny.

You missed my point entirely. Oh well.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: skeeter on March 08, 2019, 06:14:46 PM
@skeeter

I have a minor clarification to make. They INSIST it IS the way they want it to be,regardless of the evidence,the logic,or the sanity. That is how they get away with insisting you are wrong and breaking the law if you don't agree with them. Or at least that is the "tool" they use to try to quieten dissent.

Thou must NOT question the religious beliefs of the left or risk being called a Nazi or slave-monger. Even THEY know that if their plans are open to question that they fall apart.

I will take it even one step further. Even THEY KNOW they must lie to the public in order to get the public to support them. They justify this by claiming they are doing it for your own good. How lucky are we to have such thoughtful masters?
They are determined. And thats 2/3s of the battle.

We are not.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: sneakypete on March 08, 2019, 06:40:25 PM
They are determined. And thats 2/3s of the battle.

We are not.

@skeeter

That's because we don't want anyone to think we are being mean to them.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Fishrrman on March 08, 2019, 06:42:40 PM
I didn't read this entire thread and I'm not going to.

A Fishrrman off-the-wall prediction for the future (probably mid-to-distant):
At some point, those who embrace the Constitutionally-guaranteed right to keep and bear arms are going to have to USE those arms, en masse, to defend that right.

Or else...they're gonna lose it.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: bigheadfred on March 08, 2019, 07:22:01 PM
Here is an offering. I watch different things. I analyze different things. From the New Age movement, the ecomaniacs, the Ufo debate, Black ops. The "asymmetrical warfare": that @Smokin Joe referred to.  The BS artists on any side. I have equal disgust and disrespect for both the Dees and the Rsss.

I admit it. I ain't much in the way this material world judges. And I don't care. @Jazzhead has it in his mind I must be some kind of keyboard warrior who has a fantasy of me standing up to a fed gov gone wrong and going down in a blaze of "glory".

uh huh

yeah no

The next civil war in this country is going to be the most murderous, enpassioned yet dispassionate conflict "our" world has seen.

I have made an attempt with "my" robot thread to point out the dangers of an ever-advancing technology that has no holds barred.

Where to make a stand? Where to make a difference? In my heart and in my head. In my family. In the people around me.

Not here against people who are SO conformed they would rather see litigation than to stand for themselves. They have made their choice. I am here to stand with people to ride the river with. Not people who don't know what a river is. Or where that river is at.

I dare you to watch this video.

Quote
Nation's survive and thrive when they're able to communicate clearly and honestly, and they can just as easily fall to pieces when dishonest actors pollute or confuse language as a means of obtaining their ends.


Error 404 (Not Found)!!1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgReurGebJg#)

Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Smokin Joe on March 08, 2019, 07:25:56 PM
I didn't read this entire thread and I'm not going to.

A Fishrrman off-the-wall prediction for the future (probably mid-to-distant):
At some point, those who embrace the Constitutionally-guaranteed right to keep and bear arms are going to have to USE those arms, en masse, to defend that right.

Or else...they're gonna lose it.
It's a pretty safe prediction, I fear.

The Founders knew this, that ultimately, the only check on the ambition for power is force. The more insistent the ambition, the greater the force that must be used to deter or stop it.

With the current crop of Communists trying to destroy the Republic, whose spiritual predecessors have set precedent for violence in the streets to achieve their ends and the wholesale slaughter of those who would not comply (some 80+ million in the last century, not counting the Nazis), the choice will be clear: resist, or die anyway.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on March 08, 2019, 07:33:32 PM
They are determined. And thats 2/3s of the battle.

We are not.

What we are is divided.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: bigheadfred on March 08, 2019, 07:38:55 PM
What we are is divided.

And who caused this division?
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Jazzhead on March 08, 2019, 07:39:18 PM


Not here against people who are SO conformed they would rather see litigation than to stand for themselves. They have made their choice. I am here to stand with people to ride the river with. Not people who don't know what a river is. Or where that river is at.


Litigation is peaceful dispute resolution.   So is legislation.   I'd rather fix the problem with the 2A than take up arms to murder my brothers.   Americans who are Democrats are still my neighbors.   

But as you say, your reward is in the next world,  so kill 'em all and let God sort it out.   Enjoy!
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: bigheadfred on March 08, 2019, 07:56:30 PM
Litigation is peaceful dispute resolution.   So is legislation.   I'd rather fix the problem with the 2A than take up arms to murder my brothers.   Americans who are Democrats are still my neighbors.   

But as you say, your reward is in the next world,  so kill 'em all and let God sort it out.   Enjoy!

That is stupid thinking as a just reply mirroring your words to me. It isn't meant as an insult to you. I don't think you are stupid. I merely think you have the expectation that someone else HAS to fight your battles for you.

No, my reward is in this world. It is in the satisfaction of having raised two kids who are independent critical thinkers. It is in the "A" honor roll award framed on our wall presented to our third-grade grandson. It is in the HOPE that the S won't hit the fan. But I think it will. And "when" that may unfold, my shit is going to hit the fan.

I'm not looking to kill them all. Just most of them.  :laugh:

If you have never killed anything in your life then STFU. Because I have killed everything in my world worth killing.

My "reward" in the next world is for some little bit of mercy.

Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: skeeter on March 08, 2019, 08:21:19 PM
Litigation is peaceful dispute resolution.   So is legislation.   I'd rather fix the problem with the 2A than take up arms to murder my brothers.   Americans who are Democrats are still my neighbors.   

But as you say, your reward is in the next world,  so kill 'em all and let God sort it out.   Enjoy!

You sound as though you think we are looking forward to whats coming.

We did not choose this. I would be the happiest guy on earth if they would just get out of my life.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Cyber Liberty on March 08, 2019, 08:30:06 PM
Litigation is peaceful dispute resolution.

 :laughingdog: :mauslaff:
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: bigheadfred on March 08, 2019, 08:41:39 PM
@Jazzhead

I would remit the proposition that litigation and legislation has caused, or been the cause, of more murder than outright murder. As it is codified.


Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on March 08, 2019, 09:55:51 PM
@Jazzhead

I would remit the proposition that litigation and legislation has caused, or been the cause, of more murder than outright murder. As it is codified.
All it does is raise the power of the legal profession as well as the judicial system, which causes unelected people to exert more control of the lives of people who live in a Constitutional Republic.

I wonder how we survived as a nation prior to this elevation?
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: bigheadfred on March 08, 2019, 10:29:07 PM
All it does is raise the power of the legal profession as well as the judicial system, which causes unelected people to exert more control of the lives of people who live in a Constitutional Republic.

I wonder how we survived as a nation prior to this elevation?

Having been witness to a double homicide that killed six things all I can do is say:

At a guess I would give credit to my grandma who was always bitching at us kids to stop eating off the Gravy Train.

As an aside I give a challenge to our esteemed member @Jazzhead

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,350928.0.html (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,350928.0.html)

A month-long real world thread with over 7000 page views.  Without the backbiting bitching insulting personal attacks. Yeah. I am a convicted killer. With the will to put forth the education /information to prevent more destruction. Where is his contribution?

@mystery-ak  @Cyber Liberty

I'll kill the robot thread if it is eating too much bandwidth.

Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: LegalAmerican on March 09, 2019, 12:33:59 AM
I didn't read this entire thread and I'm not going to.

A Fishrrman off-the-wall prediction for the future (probably mid-to-distant):
At some point, those who embrace the Constitutionally-guaranteed right to keep and bear arms are going to have to USE those arms, en masse, to defend that right.

Or else...they're gonna lose it.


Yes...needs to be done...now. 
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: LegalAmerican on March 09, 2019, 01:01:41 AM
Red haired cannibals?  NEPHILLUM.  Mixture of fallen angles, who bred with human women.  And Pete's reference sounds like OLD TESTAMENT..or book of enoch, which was removed from Bible and I know nothing about that.  Nephillum, sp?  also have 6 fingers, 6 toes, double row of teeth.  Red hair. They are huge people.  One guy is still alive and weights 800+ pounds, over 7 feet tall. If people google. There is a video of him talking, but no picture. He was in our military, I think, or they just experimented on him.  He is NOT as huge as the original, but still is big. He is not a cannibal. I always wondered why, my old world European mother said, red haired people were from the devil. Now I know.  Has to be old folk lore of Nephillum.  No one liked red hair.  So, my mom-in-law had red hair. She also was a big woman....mmmm.  I wonder?
Just want to finish the it. The best part is at half way point. Red Haired giant. Killed by our soldiers.
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaZsIKt72ss#)
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: AllThatJazzZ on March 09, 2019, 01:23:16 AM
I didn't read this entire thread and I'm not going to.

A Fishrrman off-the-wall prediction for the future (probably mid-to-distant):
At some point, those who embrace the Constitutionally-guaranteed right to keep and bear arms are going to have to USE those arms, en masse, to defend that right.

Or else...they're gonna lose it.

And so, I prepare.

(From my CHL class a few weeks ago)
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: bigheadfred on March 09, 2019, 02:14:59 AM
Red haired cannibals?  NEPHILLUM.  Mixture of fallen angles, who bred with human women.  And Pete's reference sounds like OLD TESTAMENT..or book of enoch, which was removed from Bible and I know nothing about that.  Nephillum, sp?  also have 6 fingers, 6 toes, double row of teeth.  Red hair. They are huge people.  One guy is still alive and weights 800+ pounds, over 7 feet tall. If people google. There is a video of him talking, but no picture. He was in our military, I think, or they just experimented on him.  He is NOT as huge as the original, but still is big. He is not a cannibal. I always wondered why, my old world European mother said, red haired people were from the devil. Now I know.  Has to be old folk lore of Nephillum.  No one liked red hair.  So, my mom-in-law had red hair. She also was a big woman....mmmm.  I wonder?

Don't wonder and don't wander.

The robot thread.  http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,350928.msg1934393.html#msg1934393 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,350928.msg1934393.html#msg1934393)

Or start a new thread. Best put in the category "alternative".

If you are truly interested we can discuss this later. But I need some sleep. My email is posted if you would rather speak there.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Cyber Liberty on March 09, 2019, 09:54:24 AM
Having been witness to a double homicide that killed six things all I can do is say:

At a guess I would give credit to my grandma who was always bitching at us kids to stop eating off the Gravy Train.

As an aside I give a challenge to our esteemed member @Jazzhead

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,350928.0.html (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,350928.0.html)

A month-long real world thread with over 7000 page views.  Without the backbiting bitching insulting personal attacks. Yeah. I am a convicted killer. With the will to put forth the education /information to prevent more destruction. Where is his contribution?

@mystery-ak  @Cyber Liberty

I'll kill the robot thread if it is eating too much bandwidth.

@bigheadfred  Don't you dare touch a hair on that robot thread!  I rather enjoy it.
Title: Re: House passes bill to require universal background checks on gun sales
Post by: Cyber Liberty on March 09, 2019, 09:58:57 AM

Yes...needs to be done...now.

Whoa!  Not yet!

Quote
“America is at that awkward stage; it's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.”

― Claire Wolfe