guns

[bbsam]

But you are in favor of illegals owning guns and they can't even pass background checks. A background check isn't even supposed to be ran on them. There's your inconsistent thinking again.

Incorrect. It was being discussed that if the 2nd Amendment is afforded us not by the 2nd Amendment but by the Creator and codified in the 2nd Amendment, then all gun laws, background checks, gun-free zones are unconstitutional. Also gone are restrictions for criminals, the mentally ill, and just about anyone who wants a gun can have one. Being granted by a supreme being these rights are not subject to nationality but given to all and not to be taken from any individual by any other individual or group. The individual right is supreme and can only be taken away by God.

That is a far different theory than the simple conclusion you attributed to me.

 

[bbsam]

I never made any claims about what the NRA might have suggested recently so it would be impossible for me to be backing away from a position I never took.

Oh. I thought you had read the article and we're commenting on it.

 

[bbsam]

@oldngray

You didn't read the article @wkmac posted either, did you.

 

[oldngray]

@oldngray

You didn't read the article @wkmac posted either, did you.

What article? Most of his links are just to generate arguments so I seldom read them.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Incorrect. It was being discussed that if the 2nd Amendment is afforded us not by the 2nd Amendment but by the Creator and codified in the 2nd Amendment, then all gun laws, background checks, gun-free zones are unconstitutional. Also gone are restrictions for criminals, the mentally ill, and just about anyone who wants a gun can have one. Being granted by a supreme being these rights are not subject to nationality but given to all and not to be taken from any individual by any other individual or group. The individual right is supreme and can only be taken away by God.

That is a far different theory than the simple conclusion you attributed to me.

Are you saying that you don't believe illegals should be able to own guns?

And what exactly is your issue with what was said in the link?

 

[soberups]

A secret? Not to anyone who has followed the news. It was the NRA that initially pushed the backgrounds checks in the first place.

As an alternative to the Brady waiting period.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

As an alternative to the Brady waiting period.

Shhh. It's a better talking point without that fact.

 

[newfie]

@oldngray

You didn't read the article @wkmac posted either, did you.

does anyone?

 

[soberups]

Incorrect. It was being discussed that if the 2nd Amendment is afforded us not by the 2nd Amendment but by the Creator and codified in the 2nd Amendment, then all gun laws, background checks, gun-free zones are unconstitutional. Also gone are restrictions for criminals, the mentally ill, and just about anyone who wants a gun can have one. Being granted by a supreme being these rights are not subject to nationality but given to all and not to be taken from any individual by any other individual or group. The individual right is supreme and can only be taken away by God.

That is a far different theory than the simple conclusion you attributed to me.

The God-given rights enumerated in the Constitution can be taken away by due process of law. If you commit a crime and are convicted in court by a jury of your peers then your freedom is taken away and you go to jail. No rational person would say that criminals should be allowed to have guns or that all gun laws should be abolished. A rational approach would affirm and respect the fact that law-abiding citizens do have a fundamental right to keep and bear arms and that any restrictions upon that right should follow due process of law and be subject to strict scrutiny.

 

[MAKAVELI]

The God-given rights enumerated in the Constitution can be taken away by due process of law. If you commit a crime and are convicted in court by a jury of your peers then your freedom is taken away and you go to jail. No rational person would say that criminals should be allowed to have guns or that all gun laws should be abolished. A rational approach would affirm and respect the fact that law-abiding citizens do have a fundamental right to keep and bear arms and that any restrictions upon that right should follow due process of law and be subject to strict scrutiny.

So what's the friend....ng problem with background checks? It's not a restriction on " law abiding citizens ".

 

[soberups]

The solution to the debate about background checks is a simple one: a person should be allowed to apply for a "good guy card" at the local DMV office. Once the background check has been completed, possession of said card should allow the bearer to exercise his 2nd Amendment rights in all 50 states without paying a fee or undergoing a waiting period.

I currently hold two concealed handgun licenses, both of which required far stricter and more in-depth background checks than what is needed to simply buy a gun. I also already own 14 guns. I fail to see why I should be forced to pay a fee to the government for additional background checks and be subject to delays simply because I wish to buy a new gun. My carry permit is de facto proof of my law-abiding status, I already paid for it, I shouldn't have to pay for it again.

 

[soberups]

So what's the friend....ng problem with background checks? It's not a restriction on " law abiding citizens ".

I don't have a problem with the idea of requiring background checks, it is the manner in which they are being conducted that bothers me.

 

[MAKAVELI]

The solution to the debate about background checks is a simple one: a person should be allowed to apply for a "good guy card" at the local DMV office. Once the background check has been completed, possession of said card should allow the bearer to exercise his 2nd Amendment rights in all 50 states without paying a fee or undergoing a waiting period.

I currently hold two concealed handgun licenses, both of which required far stricter and more in-depth background checks than what is needed to simply buy a gun. I also already own 14 guns. I fail to see why I should be forced to pay a fee to the government for additional background checks and be subject to delays simply because I wish to buy a new gun. My carry permit is de facto proof of my law-abiding status, I already paid for it, I shouldn't have to pay for it again.

A simple minor inconvenience is not an infringement.

 

[soberups]

A simple minor inconvenience is not an infringement.

Its more than a "simple inconvenience" when a person is denied for no reason and has to continually fight and argue and appeal in order to get the denial overturned. And I am not at all comfortable with the idea of a government that is immutably hostile to gun ownership being in charge of the appeals process.

 

[MAKAVELI]

Its more than a "simple inconvenience" when a person is denied for no reason and has to continually fight and argue and appeal in order to get the denial overturned. And I am not at all comfortable with the idea of a government that is immutably hostile to gun ownership being in charge of the appeals process.

If you have a clean record, what would be the reason for denial?

 

[1BROWNWRENCH]

Mistaken identities. Happens with no fly lists.

 

[MAKAVELI]

Mistaken identities. Happens with no fly lists.

Nothing is perfect, but having a background check system is better than having none.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

The God-given rights enumerated in the Constitution can be taken away by due process of law.

So man has the power to take away rights given by "god". Interesting. I think this line of thinking might have deeper implications than you realize.

 

[1BROWNWRENCH]

They would be even better if information that was important was put in consistently, accurately and in a timely fashion.

 

[soberups]

If you have a clean record, what would be the reason for denial?

You might have the same name as a person with a restraining order or a criminal conviction. It happens more often than you might think. The FBI has recently announced that due to staffing issues they are no longer even processing the backlog of over 7,100 NCIS denial appeals. In other words, if you get denied you have no way of knowing when or if the denial will ever be overturned and your 2nd Amendment rights are gone. Even worse is if your name mistakenly (or intentionally) winds up on a "terrorist watch list"....you have no legal right to appeal it, challenge the evidence, or confront the witnesses against you. There is a total lack of due process or presumption of innocence in the process.