sohcgt2
Member
Do you own a firearm? Then clearly your rights have not been infringed.
What's wrong on background check's for firearms?
- Thread starter JochenWeber
- Start date
- Status
Do you own a firearm? Then clearly your rights have not been infringed.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Texasrifleman's posts are worth reading.
And then re-reading.
Looking at this from an economic perspective, at best background checks will only cause prohibited persons with ill intent to make a substitution. Rather than getting a gun from a dealer, they will simply steal one, buy one on the black market, or acquire it through other illicit means.
At best, the only prohibited persons who are truly stopped from making such a purchase are those who are too lazy or stupid to acquire a firearm via other means.
Plainly if background checks were so phenomenal at stopping crime, rates of gun crime would be demonstrably lower in states like CA, which require all purchases, even FTF to go through an FFL, versus much of the rest of the nation where FTF sales are commonplace.
And then re-reading.
Looking at this from an economic perspective, at best background checks will only cause prohibited persons with ill intent to make a substitution. Rather than getting a gun from a dealer, they will simply steal one, buy one on the black market, or acquire it through other illicit means.
At best, the only prohibited persons who are truly stopped from making such a purchase are those who are too lazy or stupid to acquire a firearm via other means.
Plainly if background checks were so phenomenal at stopping crime, rates of gun crime would be demonstrably lower in states like CA, which require all purchases, even FTF to go through an FFL, versus much of the rest of the nation where FTF sales are commonplace.
Doggy Daddy
Member
Could this be the problem? Is it that people do not know the meaning of "infringed?"
infringed =/= denied
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infringe
The 2nd was created as a limit on government to allow the people to retain arms to resist foriegn or domestic tyranny.
A requirement to ask the government permission to excercise the 2nd Amendment is no different than a requirement to ask the Burglars' Union permission to install a home security system.
A required background check is a requirement to ask permission.
The right does not stem from citizens' and the eternal struggle civilizations have had with criminal elements. That will always exist, as it did under kings and tyrants, or democracies. Consider the very government chained by the constitution determines what is "criminal".
Every erosion or growth of government is passed as something to the benefit of the people, or as a temporary necessary measure that then becomes permanent. Income tax for example was formerly a temporary war time measure.
Thomas Jefferson viewed the constition and the Bill of Rights as chains on government.
He says something similar in many qoutes.
When addressing someone who may be overly confident in future men that will be rulers within the government they are forming:
"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
Clearly stating that if loosen the chains of the constition by trusting your rights to government you will lose them.
When you release the chains of the constitution from government you unleash the destruction of your rights through "mischief".
It may lead to the destruction of others' rights before your own, even people you do not believe deserve those rights, but you are certainly not safe from the tidal wave when you weaken the only barrier protecting you and everyone else.
Divided and conquered.
When "shall not be infringed" to you means only shall be infringed in ways you agree with, then it opens the gate and means others can likewise justify infringing on you in ways they agree with.
A requirement to ask the government permission to excercise the 2nd Amendment is no different than a requirement to ask the Burglars' Union permission to install a home security system.
A required background check is a requirement to ask permission.
The right does not stem from citizens' and the eternal struggle civilizations have had with criminal elements. That will always exist, as it did under kings and tyrants, or democracies. Consider the very government chained by the constitution determines what is "criminal".
Every erosion or growth of government is passed as something to the benefit of the people, or as a temporary necessary measure that then becomes permanent. Income tax for example was formerly a temporary war time measure.
Thomas Jefferson viewed the constition and the Bill of Rights as chains on government.
He says something similar in many qoutes.
When addressing someone who may be overly confident in future men that will be rulers within the government they are forming:
"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
Clearly stating that if loosen the chains of the constition by trusting your rights to government you will lose them.
When you release the chains of the constitution from government you unleash the destruction of your rights through "mischief".
It may lead to the destruction of others' rights before your own, even people you do not believe deserve those rights, but you are certainly not safe from the tidal wave when you weaken the only barrier protecting you and everyone else.
Divided and conquered.
When "shall not be infringed" to you means only shall be infringed in ways you agree with, then it opens the gate and means others can likewise justify infringing on you in ways they agree with.
If you guys would like to get technical, any sort of gun control law or background check IS an infringement.
Where in the 2nd amendment does it exclude criminals from buying guns? I don't like the idea of someone who is more prone to commit a gun related crime to possess a gun but, I do believe the 2nd amendment included criminals, it did not exclude them. I'll gladly change my opinion if anyone can offer evidence of the contrary.
Where in the 2nd amendment does it exclude criminals from buying guns? I don't like the idea of someone who is more prone to commit a gun related crime to possess a gun but, I do believe the 2nd amendment included criminals, it did not exclude them. I'll gladly change my opinion if anyone can offer evidence of the contrary.
crebralfix
member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,356
Background checks have led to the government treating our Second Amendment rights as OPTIONAL.
Doggy Daddy
Member
:banghead:
General Geoff
Member
It is better to furnish a felon with a firearm, than to deny an honest, law abiding person from purchasing one.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
No kidding, I'd rather take that risk too.
Or better yet, don't let people out of prison that still pose a danger to society.
Oh, that might hurt someone's FEELINGS and this is all about feelings.
General Geoff
Member
Well the issue there is that there are far too many victimless crimes which turn people into felons these days. I don't care about people who are a danger to society. I care about people who are a danger to other people.
"Crimes against society" are just lawyerese for "we don't like what you're doing, so now it's illegal, even though there's no victim."
"Crimes against society" are just lawyerese for "we don't like what you're doing, so now it's illegal, even though there's no victim."
People should be more concerned with gun grabbin politicians than armed criminals. I certainly am. They're more of a threat to your physical well being than Rico the identity thief.
Even criminals should be able to protect themselves from foreign forces, a tyrannical government, or other criminals. If they keep leading their less-than-high-road life style, they'll eventually get theirs.
Even criminals should be able to protect themselves from foreign forces, a tyrannical government, or other criminals. If they keep leading their less-than-high-road life style, they'll eventually get theirs.
ScottG1911
Member
I couldnt agree more, afterall these are called Inalienable rights
Main Entry: in·alien·able
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)i-ˈnāl-yə-nə-bəl, -ˈnā-lē-ə-nə-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: probably from French inaliénable, from in- + aliénable alienable
Date: circa 1645
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred <inalienable rights>
— in·alien·abil·i·ty \-ˌnāl-yə-nə-ˈbi-lə-tē, -ˌnā-lē-ə-nə-\ noun
General Geoff
Member
Gun grabbing politicians ARE criminals, they're just armed with pens, which can be just as powerful as guns.
Just because we passed our background checks doesn't mean it isn't an infringement.
Is NICS an infringement?
You cannot charge a $20 or $25 poll tax on voting.
You cannot charge an special excise tax to newspapers for newsprint.
You cannot infringe upon other Constitutional rights by artificially making it more expensive.
Many states (most states) charge money for the NICS check. The Brady Bill pretends to get beyond the infringement question by claiming that it is absolutely necessary for achieving public safety, where voting and the press are not public safety threats.
But as rbernie keeps pointing out, if the NICS is flawed then it isn't really protecting public safety, is it?
Instead, it's just another roadblock. You and I may be able to get past the roadblock easily, but roadblocks are disallowed as barriers to civil rights.
On the other hand, an effective instant background check that costs nothing and actually works would be no infringement whatsoever.
Is NICS an infringement?
You cannot charge a $20 or $25 poll tax on voting.
You cannot charge an special excise tax to newspapers for newsprint.
You cannot infringe upon other Constitutional rights by artificially making it more expensive.
Many states (most states) charge money for the NICS check. The Brady Bill pretends to get beyond the infringement question by claiming that it is absolutely necessary for achieving public safety, where voting and the press are not public safety threats.
But as rbernie keeps pointing out, if the NICS is flawed then it isn't really protecting public safety, is it?
Instead, it's just another roadblock. You and I may be able to get past the roadblock easily, but roadblocks are disallowed as barriers to civil rights.
On the other hand, an effective instant background check that costs nothing and actually works would be no infringement whatsoever.
rbernie
Contributing Member
Why introduce empirical data into the debate when we have 'common sense' to guide us?
<sigh>
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
First off, it would still be an infringement but the point is moot.
You are asking for a government run thing to be cost-free and accurate.
That's hilarious.....
rbernie
Contributing Member
All of the 'realists' here who are arguing in support of a background check needs to muster up the intellectual fortitude to sally forth and do an 'net search for 'prior restraint', and then spend a bit of time reading the material presented.
Then come back and talk about how a Brady Check doesn't fall into that same category of General Badness as does Prior Restraint upon the written/spoken word, and how prohibiting me from buying a gun because I 'might' do something bad is considered A Good Thing and a principle upon which we want our lives governed.
Then come back and talk about how a Brady Check doesn't fall into that same category of General Badness as does Prior Restraint upon the written/spoken word, and how prohibiting me from buying a gun because I 'might' do something bad is considered A Good Thing and a principle upon which we want our lives governed.
Can you imagine the upheaval if the government charged a fee and required a background check in order to voice your opinion (1a)? or to be able to refuse to incriminate yourself (5a)? to freely practice whatever religion you want (1a)? to receive counsel if brought to trial (6a)? to prevent unreasonable search and seizures (4a)?
The constitution isn't a "members only" club. It's unconstitutional to charge money or even a second of your time in order to receive certain rights and liberties.
The constitution isn't a "members only" club. It's unconstitutional to charge money or even a second of your time in order to receive certain rights and liberties.
CoRoMo
Member
It is an infringement, plain and simple.
Infringe is defined... to dabble in, encroach, encumber, fool with, hinder, horn in, impede.
The 4473/NICS impedes, encumbers, and hinders my 2nd Amendment right. And it outright denies that right to free citizens of this nation.
I wonder how that might affect the outcome of our elections. Which party would be most likely to prevail?
Infringe is defined... to dabble in, encroach, encumber, fool with, hinder, horn in, impede.
The 4473/NICS impedes, encumbers, and hinders my 2nd Amendment right. And it outright denies that right to free citizens of this nation.
I wonder how that might affect the outcome of our elections. Which party would be most likely to prevail?
how is a backround check PREVENTING you from getting a gun because you might do something bad. In Alabama, there is a possibility of a maximum 3 day delay. if you have nothing in your history that prevents you from being able to buy a gun, then you've nothing to worry about.. I am not saying it isnt annoying but show me where in the 2a it says right to bear arms instantly?
I do not support backround checks, but I can understand their use. we all know that in the end if someone with a record wants a gun, they are going to get one, but if backround checks prevent known criminals from buying guns legally, then what the hell are you complaining about.. you should use that to support the prevention of any more gun control. When the idea of gun control comes up, the first thing said is it is only removing protection from those who need it while doing nothing to prevent criminals from getting the guns because they aquire them illegally anyway. Am I the only one who sees backround checks as supportive of this idea.
Known felon kills using a gun he acquired illegally vs. the same felon bought a gun new from a dealer prior to killing. Which scenario supports gun control more?
On another note... Do you really think pleading the 5th doesnt incriminate you in the eyes of a jury?
Do you really think we all have the right to practice whatever religion no matter what? this is only true until ib bumps against the established norms. Run down the street naked and see if the "I am practicing my religion" argument gets you anywhere.
lastly, unreasonable search and seizure.. that is the most vaguely written right PEROID. because you are not the one to determine what is reasonable... If a judge determines it is reasonable to break down your door because you may be doing something you shouldnt, then get ready to buy a new door...
I do not support backround checks, but I can understand their use. we all know that in the end if someone with a record wants a gun, they are going to get one, but if backround checks prevent known criminals from buying guns legally, then what the hell are you complaining about.. you should use that to support the prevention of any more gun control. When the idea of gun control comes up, the first thing said is it is only removing protection from those who need it while doing nothing to prevent criminals from getting the guns because they aquire them illegally anyway. Am I the only one who sees backround checks as supportive of this idea.
Known felon kills using a gun he acquired illegally vs. the same felon bought a gun new from a dealer prior to killing. Which scenario supports gun control more?
On another note... Do you really think pleading the 5th doesnt incriminate you in the eyes of a jury?
Do you really think we all have the right to practice whatever religion no matter what? this is only true until ib bumps against the established norms. Run down the street naked and see if the "I am practicing my religion" argument gets you anywhere.
lastly, unreasonable search and seizure.. that is the most vaguely written right PEROID. because you are not the one to determine what is reasonable... If a judge determines it is reasonable to break down your door because you may be doing something you shouldnt, then get ready to buy a new door...
How about you pay a fee and submit to a background check (subject to approval by rules/laws set by me) in order to exercise your 15th amendment rights (voting not restricted by race)?
Prevent those that are deemed "unworthy" from voting and possibly giving a right to someone I believe shouldn't have that right.
Background checks aren't preventing me from getting guns, they're preventing a whole lot of free americans from their civil rights though, guaranteed by the bill of rights. It doesn't have to effect me in order for me to view it as wrong. I think alot of people feel this way, such as George Washington or Thomas Jefferson.
Prevent those that are deemed "unworthy" from voting and possibly giving a right to someone I believe shouldn't have that right.
Background checks aren't preventing me from getting guns, they're preventing a whole lot of free americans from their civil rights though, guaranteed by the bill of rights. It doesn't have to effect me in order for me to view it as wrong. I think alot of people feel this way, such as George Washington or Thomas Jefferson.
Last edited:
General Geoff
Member
A felon who has done his time, paid his debt to society, will be denied on a NICS check. Thus it is PREVENTING him from getting a gun because he might do something bad.
JImbothefiveth
Member
Has a felon ever really paid his debt?
90% of murders are by convicted felons. If they wanted to buy guns they shouldn't have commited a felony.
What's next, should we allow prisoners to have guns? I mean, you can't deny them just because they might use it to murder, right?
I think there isn't usually a fee when you buy from a dealer.
Walk through a prison and find everyone who was convicted of a "victimless" crime. Tell me they are not a danger to people.
Whether or not the drug laws are good, the people who get sent to prison for breaking them are very dangerous.
Have you heard of due process? It allows rights to be taken away.
Last edited:
rbernie
Contributing Member
Even putting aside the whole 'restricted persons' argument - the DoJ tracks how many of their rejections were successfully appealled.
The number is surprisingly LARGE. Tens of thousands of folks have been DENIED the right to buy a firearm because of a Brady Check that erroneously flagged them as prohibited, and in most cases it took them years to get the records cleared. Meanwhile, they were prohibited from buying any firearms, getting a CHL, and so forth.
I'd certainly call that a material harm.
When only felons can't have guns, we just make more crimes into felonies. Simple, no? And heck - just look to the Lautenberg amendment to see how they're even proclaiming some misdimeanors to be disqualifying.
he gave up his right when he commited his crime.. I thnk a better argument would be changing what is considered to be a felony as I do agree that some offenses just shouldnt have a bearing on someone's right to own a gun. however, if someone commited a robbery (armed or not), rape, assault, murder, etc, they should never own a gun as it is just another opportunity for them infringe another's right to own property, to freedom, and most importantly to live!.. if you want to arm violent felons then... actually, I am going to stop there as it is just about the most ignorant think I have ever heard... you do realize that the percentage of "rehabilitated" criminals is rediculously low right... some crazy percentage of criminals are back to their own ways within months of their release...
I suggest you advocate for a change in the what is considered a felony and a change in what we currently look to as our "rehabilitation" currently, it is an absolute JOKE....
- Status
