Would you be willing to go back to the old days before NICS?

[LawDog]

Addendum: Sworn peace officers should purchase firearms under the same rules which apply to all citizens.

I do. Thus the three day wait. :banghead:

The only difference between sworn officers and other citizens in my neck of the woods, is that some gun companies will waive some of the taxes on some guns if a sworn officer buys them.

You still have to go through the NICS system, though, sworn officer or not.

If your Department issues you a gun (bought by the department), you don't have to go through the NICS system, but you don't actually own the gun, either. Of course, by that time the officer has gone through a background check the NICS people can only dream of. (Addresses for last ten years? Bank account numbers for last ten years? Complete list of debts?)

Give the gun-grabbers enough time, and background checks like officers get to be employed will be the minimum NICS standard for everybody who buys a gun, not just officers.

LawDog

 

[Byron Quick]

NICS really doesn't affect me that much. CCW applies in lieu of NICS in my state. I'd much rather see the 1968 GCA and the 1934 NFA repealed.

 

[citizen]

Lawdog; not if I'm President!!!!



Seriously; as dire a prediction as I could ever imagine.
Thankfully, I disagree; am more optimistic.
Though your words ring true.

 

[Shooter 2.5]

Yes
Heck yes
Absolutely
Positively

If a felon is dangerous, what are they doing out of jail?

 

[OF]

Chainsaw,

Well said. I really think there is just one point that we are either still miscommunicating over, or are just in plain disagreement over. As far as I'm concerned, respecting freedom for others includes respecting a private enterprise or individual's wishes - even if they are offensive to me. If a private enterprise, say a restaurant, wants to go 'no smoking', that's their business, and I won't force them to do it any other way. That's respecting the freedom of the proprietors to run their property/business the way they wish.

I know where you're coming from re: registration for this site vs. gun registration in principle. But it's not registration that is dangerous, it's registration with the gov't that is dangerous. I can choose not to register here and there is no consequence. Choose not to register with the gov't and there is indeed consequence.

Registering for the forum and registering your guns with the gov't are only similar in that both phrases have the word 'register' in them. There is no hypocrisy, and no slippery slope from one to the other. You would hope that people would be smart enough to see the difference between registering at the hotel front desk, registering at the forums and then be able to stop the addiction before the point where they start registering their guns out of habit.

- Gabe

 

[BogBabe]

Put me down for pre-NICS, pre-Brady, pre-4473, and pre- all the other gun laws in existence.

Criminals will always be able to acquire all the firearms (or other weapons) they want. All the gun control laws do is make things more difficult for law-abiding citizens. And create databases for future confiscation.

 

[Wildalaska]

The "Final Solution to the Jewish Question" did not happen overnight. It started slowly and "innocently" enough. As they would tell you at The Holocaust Center, if there were one message to come back to us from the horror of the ovens, it would be "Beware!"

I neither can totally agree or disagree with that statement, regardless the Holocaust historically is a subject that probably isnt proper for this Board...so Ill forgo further debate on your statement...

 

[Chainsaw]

GRD, I have no quarrel with private property rights. A proprietor can count on me to follow the rules if I partake of his establishment. I follow your thought process completely in your last post.

However, what many on the "other" side have pointed out to me is that here and many places on the net we have discussion boards that require some sort of "control" of our behavior. We know why it is that way and we can agree or disagree to particpate like we do in other situations. The antis however ask me that why is control good in one situation and not in others? That is what they preach and the viewpoint they take in most matters they deal with, that is control of ones behaviors. They see an entity/government as having to control most aspects of life. They have been quite successful with this argument.

Many anit's find things we see as offensive of no real harm or present danger. We see a picture of a person in a certain behavior as pornographic, they see the same person in fatigues holding a battlerifle as obsene. BTW I'm not pushing porn, just citing an example the antis have used against my arguments.

I as much as anyone else don't want to lose my rights, but until we start championing others rights, we will not achieve success in retaining ours. Thanks GRD for the inciteful responce. I think we agree.

 

[Wildalaska]

Wildalaska: I think that you misunderstand the whole 'rule of law' vs. 'rule of men' issue. You have it, actually, completely backwards. The 'rule of law' is the Constitution. The courts interpreting that law to mean something it does not, as they clearly do often with the 2nd, is 'the rule of men'. If the 'rule of law' changes over time as it is re-interpretted by the courts how was it ever the 'rule of law'? The Constitution is the law, not the court.

Sorry your statement is a logical fallacy. On one hand you claim that the Courts construing the constituion means its "Rule of Men". On the other hand, you claim the Courts are misinterpreting the 2nd am..thats in your view....so you are no different than a Court interpreting, right..???

The Rule of Law means that the Courts, who are charged with the duty of interpreting the constitution, have the last word..not you, not me, not Sarah Brady or Randy Weaver or Chalrton Heston or Chucky Schumer,,,but the Courts...and if the views of what is constituional or not evolve over time, that is becasue our constitution is a living, sacred document that forms guidlines and rules for govenrments relations to its citizens...

 

[mpthole]

Wow, this is a hot one... Here's my 2 cents: Repeal the GCA '68 and NFA '33 (?) and any other "gun-control" law. They don't do a darn bit of good.

And as far as other sub-topics go... don't remember who originally wrote this:

Why should we expect these antis to go away when most of us support some or many of the arguments on freedom that they espouse? ie; Smoking-cell phones-drivers license-zoning rules-rules on what pets we own- The list could go on.

I have to agree with DrJones response earlier. These assumptions are wrong, wrong, WRONG. I for one don't support ANY of these things. I cannot even tell you how much it chaps my hide to have to ask the government for "permission" to remodel my house or to make some small improvement like adding a deck. A "building" permit? ***?!? Or "licensing" my dog. Again - ***? Don't even get me started on driver licensing.

The government is about two things: Money and Control. And in my opinion, the less government the better.

off

 

[Byron Quick]

Chainsaw,

The fact that I require certain knowledge about visitors to my home as well as certain standards of conduct by them while in my home is not analogous to gun control by the government. The gun control advocates with whom you converse are comparing apples and oranges. You haven't noticed it.

The most basic inequality between the two is that you do not have a constitutional right to act as you please in my house. You do have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms without infringement by the government.

 

[80fl]

As posted by Ghost Shooter:

Hum.. I must have missed something in my post when did I call used guns a "black market" or say I wanted to take away your rights? In fact I said that I would take all the laws away but IF I had to compromise I would leave the NICS system. Why don't you try reading what I posted instead of automatically assuming that because I said Democrat I'm a gun grabber. Believe it or not there are pro gun Democrats out there who believe in the second amendment so don't automatically lump everyone togeather.

Easy there scooter: Only my "boo" was in reference to you.

The remainder of my post was in reference to earlier posts.
Sorry, I should have made that clear earlier.
You're a Democrat; I don't agree with you politically, but if we're on the same side on the 2nd, we're good to go.

Wild Alaska.....Just what part of California are you from?

You alluded to a child molester running a day care: Exactly where in the BOR is he afforded that right? I must have missed that part.

 

[Marko Kloos]

You alluded to a child molester running a day care: Exactly where in the BOR is he afforded that right?

The Bill of Rights does not afford any rights to anyone. It recognizes pre-existing rights inherent to all humans, and it acts as a limitation on the actions of government, not private individuals.

The proper way to ask that question is, "Where in the Bill of Rights is the State afforded the authority to prohibit a child molester from running a day care?"

 

[Tamara]

Let me go back and check my Constitution again. Hmmm... raise & train militia, post offices (bad idea, Franklin), military budgets not to exceed two years, borrow money, regulate commerce among states and with foreign nations, coin money... Nope, nothin' about "Licensing Day Care Centers".

 

[GregoryTech]

However, what many on the "other" side have pointed out to me is that here and many places on the net we have discussion boards that require some sort of "control" of our behavior. We know why it is that way and we can agree or disagree to particpate like we do in other situations. The antis however ask me that why is control good in one situation and not in others? That is what they preach and the viewpoint they take in most matters they deal with, that is control of ones behaviors. They see an entity/government as having to control most aspects of life. They have been quite successful with this argument.

Please reconsider the notion that "registering" on a web site is anything at all like registering your firearms. They are so vastly different, it's almost ridiculous to have to explain it.

The first is the requirement to "register" to use someone else's private property, over which they have the right to control in any manner they see fit. Hotels ask their guests to register, you must register to use the shooting range, the go-cart park asks all drivers of their little cars to register, and every time I walk into someone's home, I register either by default (they know who I am) or I am introduced. Private property under the control (yes control) of a private individual is not the same things as government mandated registration. If you don't get that, then I can't help you. But the argument is empty and the analogy doesn't work.

Where we do agree, however, that it takes a liberal's mindset to support a ban on smoking in private establishments, even those accessible to the public. It is limiting the freedom of a property owner to do what he wants with his property. I do not smoke, and I hate the smell of smoke. But I would never support a law that required privately owned establishments to ban smoking. If the owner wants my business, then he can make up his own mind. If he wants the business of those who don't mind the smoke, that should be up to him. If I wanted to open a restaurant that allowed ONLY smokers, then I should darn well be able to. My property, my rules. Don't like it, vote with your wallet or open your own place. Unfortunately, I live in FL and no longer have the right to make those decisions about my privately owned property.

 

[gwalchmai]

Excellent post, GregoryTech.

 

[Chris Rhines]

The Rule of Law means that the Courts, who are charged with the duty of interpreting the constitution, have the last word..not you, not me, not Sarah Brady or Randy Weaver or Chalrton Heston or Chucky Schumer,,,but the Courts...and if the views of what is constituional or not evolve over time, that is becasue our constitution is a living, sacred document that forms guidlines and rules for govenrments relations to its citizens...

Sounds like the 'Rule of Law' is just a cryptonym for 'Rule of a Small Number of Men, Not You.'

Here's a question for the house: Why should I, a moderately intelligent (heh...) and ethical sapient being, even bother to obey the laws of this country, given that said laws are crafted by people provably less intelligent and provably less ethical than myself?

"Of course I'm above the law. And so are you." - L. Neil Smith

- Chris

 

[OF]

Wildalaska,

The Constitution is most certainly not a 'living' document that can be interpreted as time goes on. The courts job is to ensure that newly created law as written by the legislature is in accord with the powers granted the legislature by the Constitution (which is the document through which the people have granted gov't it's authority). If the Supreme Court decided 50 years from now, due to changing language usage, that the word 'arms' meant 'little pink flowers' do you believe that they have the authority to interperet the 2nd to mean you have the right to keep and bear little pink flowers? That absurd example is no different from the 'interpretation' of the word 'militia' to mean the National Guard or the 'right' of the state.

The Court is not the 'law'. That is what I mean when I say that what you are proposing (that the Court is the supreme interpreter of law) is the 'rule of men'. The use of the word 'interpret' in relation to the courts is distracting, IMO. They have no power to 'interpret' the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of this country and it is written in very plain language. Any reasonably educated American should be able to clearly understand the meaning of 'shall not' and 'the people'. The court is there to ensure that the other two branches of gov't do not violate the written constitution, and thereby infringe on the rights of the people.

The supreme power is in the hands of the people. A minimum of that power has been granted to the gov't (which includes the courts) from the people via the Constitution. But power is always fully vested in the people. No branch of gov't has the power to violate it in any way. The amendment process is the only tool given them.

Did you read any of the 3 quotes I provided? They make pretty clear how those men saw the relationship between the people, the courts and the Constitution.

- Gabe


PS: Here's a couple more quotes that may help clarify this.

"In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief in the chains of the Constitution."
-- Thomas Jefferson


"...in the chains of the Constitution." Doesn't sound too wishy-washy to me. The Constitution is not available for interpretation by gov't (men). It is compared here to 'chains'. Chains upon men.


"Our legislators are not sufficiently apprised of the rightful limits of their power; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights and duties, and to take none of them from us."
-- Thomas Jefferson Letter to F. W. Gilmer, 1816


This next one speaks of the right of the jury to come to a verdict in spite of the law. Ultimately, the people are in charge not the courts or the legislature.


"If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence ... and the courts must abide by that decision."
-- US v Moylan, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1969, 417 F.2d at 1006


"...and the courts must abide by that decision." Because the court is not in charge, the people are.

 

[ojibweindian]

GRD

Well said!

 

[Hawkman]

Repeal'em all. (I happen to be halfway through my second reading of "Unintended Consequences". Does my heart good)