1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Thought experiment RE: private sales of firearms

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by ngnrd, Jan 16, 2013.

  1. brboyer

    brboyer Well-Known Member

    Your proposal would force everyone to go through a background check.....everyone! Not to mention the fact that the background check itself is repugnant to the Constitution.
  2. brboyer

    brboyer Well-Known Member

    Why is the government even involved in the personal choices people make? Until those choices infringing on someone else's rights, the .gov should keep their noses out it!
  3. brboyer

    brboyer Well-Known Member

    So because of a minute number of people do something the government does not want them to do, it's OK to force everyone to submit to some form of test and proved they are a 'good guy'

    Expand your suggestion to any other Constitutionally protected right. Maybe the government should force us to take some test before voting, just in case we are in the less than 1% of people that have tyrannical leanings. Or how about a personality profile before you can go to the church of your choice or post on THR to make sure you have never been convicted of libel or slander before?
  4. Clean97GTI

    Clean97GTI Well-Known Member

    Hate to break it to you, but the supreme court disagrees.
    You have to give a little in your interpretation. If you want the government to have the ability to remove rights via due process, you need to allow government the ability to determine who is and is not disqualified.
  5. chipcom

    chipcom member

    A workable solution to what? Gun violence? How about we cure the common cold while we are at it too. You cure things by attacking root causes, not making our symptoms feel a little better while allowing the disease to keep eating away.
  6. chipcom

    chipcom member

    The problem is the process that gets you tagged as not legally able to purchase.

    If you walk into a gun store and they turn you down because your DL, for example, has you flagged as not legal, you're not going to be very happy, are you. You'll be even unhappier when you find that nobody can tell you WHY you were flagged, cuz it's a secret. Again, no-fly lists are one great example. Ask anyone who discovered they were on one if they ever got an answer as to why, if they could even figure out who to ask.
  7. Clean97GTI

    Clean97GTI Well-Known Member

    Lets do that. Lets explore your idea of a background check before exercising rights.
    A test for voting is not the same as a background check. Would you support the idea of a background check to ensure that someone who has been stripped of the right to vote does not go in and cheapen the right for the rest of us? Oh wait, you mean they can't even get registered? Do you believe voter registration infringes on your right to vote? Or is the minor inconvenience of having to give information to a poll worker (or write it down and drop the form off at your local DMV) acceptable in order to guard against unqualified people voting in our country?

    Freedom of speech does not kill people as the word is spoken or written and there are methods of redress should someone lie about you. The word is not a physical weapon capable of great bodily injury.
    In other words, you are talking apples and oranges. Yes, speech, voting and gun ownership are rights but the responsibilities that go with those rights are different.

    Still waiting on that data you talked about earlier.
  8. chipcom

    chipcom member

    tagging people with the equivalent of the mark of the devil with no oversight of the process involved and no ability to challenge or even ask why they were tagged is isn't a tool, it's needless oppression.
  9. chipcom

    chipcom member

    how many of those 700k were wrongfully denied? What is the process of appeal, if any? The devil is in the details...based on history, I don't trust any government agency not to abuse their power to advance political ends. If you do, I have some swamp land that I'm sure you'll jump at the chance to buy.
  10. Clean97GTI

    Clean97GTI Well-Known Member

    I absolutely agree with attacking the root causes.

    Start by voting against republicans who do everything they can to keep drugs from being legalized and further the culture of gang violence that plagues our cities and keeps those gun murder rates high.
  11. Clean97GTI

    Clean97GTI Well-Known Member

    Click the link I posted in the post you quoted if you're not too busy in your swampland. You'll find information on appealing a wrongful denial.
  12. ngnrd

    ngnrd Well-Known Member

    Apparently, you have not read the whole thread. Please, don't make baseless comments just to try to derail the discussion.

    1- The "tags" would only be given to those that have been stripped of their right to own firearms via lawful court order

    2- There would have to be an appeal/investigation process in place to address false positives

    3- There is no oppression. Just a check of an already existing State database that included information regarding criminals that have ALREADY had their rights lawfully revoked.

    There's no conspiracy here. There's no method to deny lawful purchase. There's no infringement.
  13. brboyer

    brboyer Well-Known Member

    You should have to prove you live where you are supposed to vote, you know to make sure you vote only once and only in your district.

    You cannot vote if you are locked up for a crime that includes civil rights being plased on hold while in prision.

    Also, it's hard to commit a crime on innocent people if you are locked up.

    How about we just punish people for doing bad stuff, instead of what we think they might do?

    If you are too untrustworthy to vote or live among others, than you should remain locked up, simple.
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2013
  14. ngnrd

    ngnrd Well-Known Member

    If you are too lazy to look at your ID card and see that it is stamped "NO FIREARMS" before you walk into a gun store and get turned down for a firearms purchase, I don't really think you are justified in "not being happy" about it. That's just silly.
  15. ngnrd

    ngnrd Well-Known Member

    And people were accusing me of living in a fairy tale world... sheesh. Let's at least try to keep the conversation based in reality, shall we?
  16. soonerfan85

    soonerfan85 Well-Known Member

    Divide and conquer.

    We have met the enemy, and he is us.

    We're acting just like the gun grabbers would have us act.
  17. brboyer

    brboyer Well-Known Member

    That is the problem. My solution is simple and efficient and does not require us to violate the Constitutional rights of the huge, overwhelming majority of law abiding folks in order to ineffectively try to prevent possible future crime by criminals (folks that don't follow the law anyway.)
  18. ngnrd

    ngnrd Well-Known Member

    First, the ACLU does not make the law of the land.

    Second, maybe you didn't read my first post. It clearly said that this would be modeled on an existing system being used in Alaska that tags ID's with "NO ALCOHOL". It doesn't keep repeat offenders from stealing booze out of their mother's liquor cabinet. But, it does keep a significant portion of them from loading up at the liquor store or bar. It's not perfect, but it is a tool that servers and cashiers can use to try to keep booze away from those that have standing court orders prohibiting their possession of alcohol.

    That being said, I will no longer respond to your posts until you answer the questions I posed to you in post #67.
  19. Clean97GTI

    Clean97GTI Well-Known Member

    They HAVE been punished for actually doing bad stuff. Thats why they lost the right to keep and bear arms.
  20. ngnrd

    ngnrd Well-Known Member

    That's the sticking point on this entire discussion. You (and others) believe that any kind of check to ensure that you are not a prohibited person is a violation of your rights. But, that is just not the case in the country we live in. The courts have confirmed, and re-confirmed the need for checks. And these confirmations are just as valid as the Heller decision that everybody here (myself included) supports.

    So, are you now going to throw out the baby with the bathwater? Because you need to realize that you can't have it both ways. You may not like it, but you need to make a decision: respect the decisions of the courts, or don't. Just don't think for a minute that you get to pick and choose which court rulings you will accept, and which ones you will ignore. It doesn't work like that.

    Now, when you're done snarling and gnashing your teeth, just ask, and I will gladly help you down off of your high horse. That way maybe we can find a way to see eye to eye.

Share This Page