INGO'ers REQUIRE background checks??

[CarmelHP]

I voted yes, and with a resounding affirmation.

Not surprised. You've shown time and again that you'll back the gun owners' opposition, every time. Why do you even pretend differently anymore?

 

[Spazzmodicus]

The point is that it's unreasonable to expect that there won't be challenges, and that "all or nothing" brinksmanship is a dangerous strategy. The "all or nothing" proponents tend to get marginalized, and when you draw a line in the sand, there's a huge risk of ending up with nothing.

Sounds like something a pro-crown loyalist would have said 230+ years ago. We would be known today as the "United States of England" if the authors of the 2nd amendment seen it that way.

 

[Spazzmodicus]

I'm really confused by all the no's. why would you not want everyone to be checked out before they buy a firearm. That is just a narrow minded outlook.

For one reason, it's called "incrementalism."

In tiny bite-sized portions, our liberties and freedoms are eroded and taken away. But it will not satisfy the haters of liberty and independence whom claim patriotism, but their actions say everything but....and they will return for more tiny bite-sized portions before the last are even digested.

More gun laws such as this background checks or magazine caps are simply a smokescreen and a means to their ends, which is to eliminate firearms in the hands of the public.

The well-meaning, well intentioned but naive members of the public and office are duped into compromise in the name of non-partisan conciliation and a hopeful answer to the violence problem, or face the wrath of the guilt-tripping liberal media and others.

But as others have said, the solutions currently offered on the table will do nothing to solve the problem, and they're not designed to. At face value yes, new laws appears to be possible solutions ( to the unsuspecting and ignorant) but at a cost and inconvenience to those of us whom are abiding by the laws already established.

Some folks have a deficiency in their perception in that they're unable to view the government with any amount of suspicion or mistrust, apparently taking everything put out by the current administration and medias at honest and true.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Figures.

I posted a well reasoned argument, at least as far as I'm concerned. If you have issue with it, feel free to interject a rebuttal.

Not surprised. You've shown time and again that you'll back the gun owners' opposition, every time. Why do you even pretend differently anymore?

CarmelHP, you often teeter between misrepresention, or outright lying, concerning other peoples posts. I support background checks, and do so strongly. However, the bolded part of your post is either a misrepresentation, or an outright lie. I do not support firearm registration, any ban on magazines, nor any ban on any type of firearm, and there is not a single post to prove otherwise.

 

[Kutnupe14]

For one reason, it's called "incrementalism."

In tiny bite-sized portions, our liberties and freedoms are eroded and taken away. But it will not satisfy the haters of liberty and independence whom claim patriotism but their actions say everything but....

More gun laws such as this background checks or magazine caps are simply a smokescreen and a means to their ends, which is to eliminate firearms in the hands of the public.

The well-meaning, well intentioned but naive members of the public and office are duped into compromise in the name of non-partisan conciliation and a hopeful answer to the violence problem, or face the wrath of the guilt-tripping liberal media and others.

But as others have said, the solutions currently offered on the table will do nothing to solve the problem, and they're not designed to. At face value yes, new laws appears to be possible solutions ( to the unsuspecting and ignorant) but at a cost and inconvenience to those of us whom are abiding by the laws already established.

Some folks have a deficiency in their perception in that they're unable to view the government with any amount of suspicion or mistrust, apparently taking everything put out by the current administration and medias at honest and true.

Which basically, is a belief in the "what might happen." I, can honestly appreciate the notion, but at the end of the day it is tantamount to "pre-crime."
A background check does not infringe on the 2nd Amendment in any way; at least in how it was originally concieved and practiced, by the founders.

 

[jbombelli]

I posted a well reasoned argument, at least as far as I'm concerned. If you have issue with it, feel free to interject a rebuttal.

What would be the point? I've gone down this road with you before. You flat don't believe in a "Bill of Rights" - you believe in a "Bill of Revocable Privileges."

You believe "...shall not be infringed" means "... may be infringed in whatever way the courts, the legislature, law enforcement, or Kutnup14, think is reasonable."

You will not be dissuaded, so there is no point in me trying. You flat don't believe in rights, and you never will. You've made it obvious time and again.

 

[Kutnupe14]

What would be the point? I've gone down this road with you before. You flat don't believe in a "Bill of Rights" - you believe in a "Bill of Revocable Privileges."

You believe "...shall not be infringed" means "... may be infringed in whatever way the courts, the legislature, law enforcement, or Kutnup14, think is reasonable."

You will not be dissuaded, so there is no point in me trying. You flat don't believe in rights, and you never will. You've made it obvious time and again.

Put your money where you mouth is, and post your proof to that belief. Is it not fair that I ask you to indicate my posting habits that led you that that conclusion? So there's your challenge.... good luck, you'll need it.

 

[CarmelHP]

A background check does not infringe on the 2nd Amendment in any way; at least in how it was originally concieved and practiced, by the founders.

You wouldn't know the Founder's intent if it walked up and introduced itself. The Founders, at the very least, meant the 2nd Amendment to keep the Federal government out of interference in the people's right to arms. We have a Supreme Court case saying RKBA is a fundamental right. In the context of fundamental rights, regulation has meant that a compelling state interest has to be shown (let's give you that one for now) and the regulation sought be narrowly tailored (how can universal anything be narrowly tailored) and the least restrictive means necessary employed. NICS has a nearly 1 in 10 initial denial rate, and out of 50 million checks run (as 0f 2004) less than 350,000 were true positives (a .7% hit rate). How is a system with a .7% hit rate either narrowly tailored or the less restrictive means? It's not, that's how. And the burden is on the government to show how this system is going to accomplish what it is supposedly intended to do. Do you think all of those 350,000 were prosecuted? I doubt it. Do you think they gave up after being denied? Again, I doubt it.

 

[jbombelli]

Put your money where you mouth is, and post your proof to that belief. Is it not fair that I ask you to indicate my posting habits that led you that that conclusion? So there's your challenge.... good luck, you'll need it.

I don't need to. If you believe in background checks before being able to possess a weapon, you believe in revocable privileges. Not rights. If you believe a convicted criminal, who has served his time and is free to walk the streets with the rest of us should not be allowed to possess a firearm, you believe in revocable privileges, not rights.

Rights cannot be taken away based on someone's background.

If it can be taken away, it's no longer a RIGHT. It's a PRIVILEGE subject to revocation.

You seriously can't be this dense.

 

[Spazzmodicus]

Which basically, is a belief in the "what might happen." I, can honestly appreciate the notion, but at the end of the day it is tantamount to "pre-crime."
A background check does not infringe on the 2nd Amendment in any way; at least in how it was originally conceived and practiced, by the founders.

No it doesn't, I agree. As long as the constitution has legs to stand on then there's little to fear in a sense. But with academia and many others constantly claiming that the constitution is out dated and with CBS airing programs saying "Let's do away with the constitution", then it make one wonder if the constitution's days are numbered.

If the governments' current "ownership of firearms" records (possibly held at the also non-existent area 51) are like anything else controlled by the government, then they're in bad shape. A new registry would equip them with a streamlined hit list just in time for the removal of the constitution.

Yeah, I know it sounds extreme and conspiratory. but who would have believed that some of the atrocities that have occurred around the world would come from often benign and insignificant beginnings?

I'm not willing to budge an inch for those that constantly equate guns with evil.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You wouldn't know the Founder's intent if it walked up and introduced itself. The Founders, at the very least, meant the 2nd Amendment to keep the Federal government out of interference in the people's right to arms. We have a Supreme Court case saying RKBA is a fundamental right. In the context of fundamental rights, regulation has meant that a compelling state interest has to be shown (let's give you that one for now) and the regulation sought be narrowly tailored (how can universal anything be narrowly tailored) and the least restrictive means necessary employed. NICS has a nearly 1 in 10 initial denial rate, and out of 50 million checks run (as 0f 2004) less than 350,000 were true positives (a .7% hit rate). How is a system with a .7% hit rate either narrowly tailored or the less restrictive means? It's not, that's how. And the burden is on the government to show how this system is going to accomplish what it is supposedly intended to do. Do you think all of those 350,000 were prosecuted? I doubt it. Do you think they gave up after being denied? Again, I doubt it.

Thank you for this post.

NYFelon, you know the thread we were talking about starting? Here's the intro.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I don't need to. If you believe in background checks before being able to possess a weapon, you believe in revocable privileges. Not rights. If you believe a convicted criminal, who has served his time and is free to walk the streets with the rest of us should not be allowed to possess a firearm, you believe in revocable privileges, not rights.

Rights cannot be taken away based on someone's background.

If it can be taken away, it's no longer a RIGHT. It's a PRIVILEGE subject to revocation.

You seriously can't be this dense.

And you believe the founders would "frown" on such a notion?

 

[jbombelli]

And you believe the founders would "frown" on such a notion?

Please let me know in what document they wrote

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of those people of acceptable moral character based on a background check to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except in such manner as the legislature, courts or law enforcement deem appropriate."

Please point out where they wrote that, or where they explained that this is what the 2nd Amendment *actually* means.

I'll be waiting. And good luck.

 

[BRILEY]

What is a "proper person"? If they're not in jail, they should be allowed to own a firearm. It's a Right guaranteed by the Constitution. If they're too dangerous to own a firearm, why'd you let them out of prison? Either they've paid their debt or they haven't.

I'm not sure that I've heard anything more ridiculous! So let's say someone rapes, viciously beats, then kills another human, this person is found guilty of said crimes and sentenced to a pathetic excuse for a prison term, then gets several years knocked off for "good behavior", before you know it this person is back walking the streets after 5 years. In your mind this person deserves to own a firearm? I can't understand that! If in fact our Judicial System worked the way it was intended to, I would agree, but unfortunately that system is the farthest thing from "working"...

I personally wouldn't have a problem with a background check on a private firearm purchase, as long as the information obtained during that background check wasn't used for anything else and the information was immediately destroyed.

 

[CarmelHP]

I'm not sure that I've heard anything more ridiculous! So let's say someone rapes, viciously beats, then kills another human, this person is found guilty of said crimes and sentenced to a pathetic excuse for a prison term, then gets several years knocked off for "good behavior", before you know it this person is back walking the streets after 5 years. In your mind this person deserves to own a firearm? I can't understand that! If in fact our Judicial System worked the way it was intended to, I would agree, but unfortunately that system is the farthest thing from "working"...

I personally wouldn't have a problem with a background check on a private firearm purchase, as long as the information obtained during that background check wasn't used for anything else and the information was immediately destroyed.

So, that means we need sentencing reform, not a background check. Let's address those we perceive as the problem rather than everyone else.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Please let me know in what document they wrote

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of those people of acceptable moral character based on a background check to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except in such manner as the legislature, courts or law enforcement deem appropriate."

Please point out where they wrote that, or where they explained that this is what the 2nd Amendment *actually* means.

I'll be waiting. And good luck.

Obviously, that would be found in the Constitution. My question for you, is was this, and the whole concept of rights, understood by our early American Founders, in 1776 (Declaration), 1787 (Constitution), or much earlier?

 

[jbombelli]

Obviously, that would be found in the Constitution. My question for you, is was this, and the whole concept of rights, understood by our early American Founders, in 1776 (Declaration), 1787 (Constitution), or much earlier?

How about you post the verbiage then? If it's so obvious and all, that the founders intended the phrase "...shall not be infringed" to actually mean "...may be infringed in such way as the government sees fit" you should be able to quote it.

So QUOTE IT.

Don't tell me what you THINK they meant. Quote them. I have the actual text of the 2nd Amendment to back my position. Find something in there that confirms your position. Don't just tell me it's in there. Quote it.

Quote the Constitution. Not some incorrect Court decision. The Constitution itself. You said it's in there, now prove it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

How about you post the verbiage then? If it's so obvious and all, that the founders intended the phrase "...shall not be infringed" to actually mean "...may be infringed in such way as the government sees fit" you should be able to quote it.

So QUOTE IT.

Don't tell me what you THINK they meant. Quote them. I have the actual text of the 2nd Amendment to back my position. Find something in there that confirms your position. Don't just tell me it's in there. Quote it.

Quote the Constitution. Not some incorrect Court decision. The Constitution itself. You said it's in there, now prove it.

Patience padawan, I'm on it. I'm simply putting the information together. And, I'm not putting down "thoughts," but rather actual laws and the actions carried out.

 

[Light]

Patience padawan, I'm on it. I'm simply putting the information together. And, I'm not putting down "thoughts," but rather actual laws and the actions carried out.

You would think that after over 200 years, that if such a message existed, that someone with the same views as you would have put it together and paraded it through the streets by now, wouldn't you?

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." - Albert Einstein

The founders meant what they wrote. If they meant it differently, being the great orators of their time, would you not think that they would have written it in the most straightforward way instead of making it a short, blanket policy in your eyes?

 

[jbombelli]

Patience padawan, I'm on it. I'm simply putting the information together. And, I'm not putting down "thoughts," but rather actual laws and the actions carried out.

We're talking about the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. Not laws and court decisions that came later. You said it's in the Constitution. Now quote the part of the Constitution that supports what you say. Not some BS court decision or legislative act that came later that says "...shall not be infringed" means "...may be infringed."

QUOTE THE CONSTITUTION.

Otherwise all you're doing is proving that you're not the only one who believes in revocable privilrges instead of rights, which is what this discussion is actually about. You don't believe in rights, and are just fishing for support from others who also believe as you.