INGO'ers REQUIRE background checks??

[SSGSAD]

I'm actually surprised that so many people on here support mandatory background checks for purchasing firearms.

YES, but when you read certain threads, about purchasing firearms, from Members, they don't want to show an LTCH, or have a RECIEPT !!!!!

WHAT kind of SENSE, does THAT make ?????

 

[Kutnupe14]

............................
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.

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?

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.

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.

That's exactly what we are talking about. Surely you aren't so intellectually dishonest with yourself, that you don't see the hyprocrisy in the same men who signed the Declaration of Independence and drafted the Constitution, ignoring the observation of these natural rights.

Simply put, I judge a man on his actions rather than his words. You can write all the noble words on a piece of parchment as you want, but they mean absolutely nothing if you fail to put them into practice.

So now you're insulting them instead of backing up your claims that they believed something other than what they specifically wrote. The fact that not everybody was treated equally back then does not mean "...shall not be infringed" means "...may be infringed however we want."

I'm still waiting for you to provide those quotes from the Constitution. After all, you said it is obviously in there.

I'll bet you've never actually even read it. If you had, you wouldn't be making such stupid claims

I'm intellectually dishonest? ME??? Lololololololololol.

I'm not the one who believes they meant something other than what they said when they wrote the Bill of Rights. I'm not the one who claims to believe in rights, but actually believes in revocable privileges. As far as the words on the parchment go, YOU ARE THE ONE FAILING TO PUT THOSE INTO PRACTICE. Not me. YOU.

And like I said before... What is the point of arguing this with you? You're never going to give up your love of government control. You're never going to accept rights over privileges. Ever.

We both know it.

Very. But you will have you "proof."

This, from the man who can't even back up what he says. The man who believes in the Bill of Revocable Privileges.

Riiiiiight. I would love to see you make that case.

You already made it for me, like you've done many, many times on this forum.

Here are the pertinent posts:

You STILL have not provided that quote....


How patient does "Padawan" need to be? Exactly how long is this going to take for you to get your information together?

First, let me say that Jbombelli did NOT mis-represent my posts in the other thread. Second, I didn't know you could be taken to an original posting by clicking the arrow next to a quoted post. I could totally see how one would think I was avoiding answering his challenge.

Now to answer his questions. I hold that the 2nd Amendment, as it was ORIGINALLY conceived, and certainly practiced, that if still being interpreted the same way, would NOT have an issue with background checks. I still hold that view.

As a quick history reference, in the mid-1800's, the word "Are" was used, rather than "Is," when one referenced the United States. For instance, today, we say "The United States 'IS' the dominating world power," whereas back then, we would have said "The United States 'Are'....". This is important, as the use of "is," implies 100% uniormity, and "are" implies more of a loose confederation of states.
The United States Is... Or Are? : Word Routes : Thinkmap Visual Thesaurus

Anyways, as originally conceived, the Bill of Rights was a set of restrictions solely upon the Federal Govt. I'm not so sure why people have an issue with believing this, but whether one wants to like it or not, this is the truth. The United States Supreme Court ruled as much in cases Barron v. Baltimore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and United States v. Cruikshank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . That alone, given the power the Constituition gives to Supreme Court, in it's original drafting, should end the debate. However, that won't satisfy some, so we'll go back further, to the Constitutional Convention.

It should be well-known, that prior to the drafting, the Constitution was NOT to contain the Bill of Rights. The BoRs were only added at the insistence of the Anti-Federalist. The AF's believed that the Constitution devoid of the BoRs gave the national/federal govt too much power over the states. James Madison "Father of the Constitution", upon the introduction of the BoRs stated the following:

But although the case may be widely different, and it may not be thought necessary to provide limits for the legislative power in that country, yet a different opinion prevails in the United States. The people of many States have thought it necessary to raise barriers against power in all forms and departments of Government, and I am inclined to believe, if once bills of rights are established in all the States as well as the federal constitution, we shall find that although some of them are rather unimportant, yet, upon the whole, they will have a salutary tendency.

Madison references the establishment of Constitutional language which would restrict the power of the respective states, as a "barrier against power in all forms and department of Government." He's not speaking of redundancy, he's saying that the states need their own BoR as a protection to the people.

The issue of state power imposed upon the individual did come up when Madison attenpted to have this added to the Constitution: No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.
That language was to be added in Article 1 Section 10, but was soundly rejected.
Madison's Introduction of the Bill of Rights - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

I would think, in light of this, the idea that the BoR, as conceived orginally, applied to the states is seriously doubtful.

The convention was almost focused solely on federal power imposed upon the states. And when Madison attempted to add language which would hold the states subject to the BoRs, he was rebuffed. I think this would indicate, based on the history of ratification, that back then, a federal background check would be illegal (based on the BoRs), but a state background check would be quite legal, as it would not have been subject to the BoRs. It wasn't until the incorporation of the BoRs that they applied universally to the states.

 

[Denny347]

First, let me say that Jbombelli did NOT represent my posts in the other thread. Second, I didn't know you could be taken to an original posting by clicking the arrow next to a quoted post. I could totally see how one would think I was avoiding answering his challenge.

Now to answer his questions. I hold that the 2nd Amendment, as it was ORIGINALLY conceived, and certainly practiced, that if still being interpreted the same way, would NOT have an issue with background checks. I still hold that view.

As a quick history reference, in the mid-1800's, the word "Are" was used, rather than "Is," when one referenced the United States. For instance, today, we say "The United States 'IS' the dominating world power," whereas back then, we would have said "The United States 'Are'....". This is important, as the use of "is," implies 100% uniormity, and "are" implies more of a loose confederation of states.
The United States Is... Or Are? : Word Routes : Thinkmap Visual Thesaurus

Anyways, as originally conceived, the Bill of Rights was a set of restrictions solely upon the Federal Govt. I'm not so sure why people have an issue with believing this, but whether one wants to like it or not, this is the truth. The United States Supreme Court ruled as much in cases Barron v. Baltimore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and United States v. Cruikshank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . That alone, given the power the Constituition gives to Supreme Court, in it's original drafting, should end the debate. However, that won't satisfy some, so we'll go back further, to the Constitutional Convention.

It should be well-known, that prior to the drafting, the Constitution was NOT to contain the Bill of Rights. The BoRs were only added at the insistence of the Anti-Federalist. The AF's believed that the Constitution devoid of the BoRs gave the national/federal govt too much power over the states. James Madison "Father of the Constitution", upon the introduction of the BoRs stated the following:



Madison references the establishment of Constitutional language which would restrict the power of the respective states, as a "barrier against power in all forms and department of Government." He's not speaking of redundancy, he's saying that the states need their own BoR as a protection to the people.

The issue of state power imposed upon the individual did come up when Madison attenpted to have this added to the Constitution: No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.
That language was to be added in Article 1 Section 10, but was soundly rejected.
Madison's Introduction of the Bill of Rights - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

I would think, in light of this, the idea that the BoR, as conceived orginally, applied to the states is seriously doubtful.

The convention was almost focused solely on federal power imposed upon the states. And when Madison attempted to add language which would hold the states subject to the BoRs, he was rebuffed. I think this would indicate, based on the history of ratification, that back then, a federal background check would be illegal (based on the BoRs), but a state background check would be quite legal, as it would not have been subject to the BoRs. It wasn't until the incorporation of the BoRs that they applied universally to the states.

Good job on the legwork. Very interesting indeed.

 

[Meister]

So by the same thinking, the states would have the right to restrict every other civil right, forcibly house troops in your home, restrict free speech, allow unjust search and seizure and many others.

Let me be blunt, your opinion on what I wish to do is null and void. Others have no right or regard to force me to do something that causes no harm. If, and it's a huge if, I choose to check a person out who seems to be suspect in my mind, I will do so of my free will. Should I transfer a firearms to a known prohibited person, I should be subject to arrest and conviction for that crime. Adding a background check only infringes on my right to dispose of my property as I see fit.

Criminals don't go through gun boards to buy them when it's far cheaper and easier to steal them. Buying into the background check hype is disingenuous at best. If it were an issue, the national news would have an expose about all the criminals getting guns from INGO. It's literally a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Just like with FFL's, straw buyers can and will be used as a cutout even if the law was implemented. It's a non starter from the gate, so why push it on fellow citizens when there is no verifiable need, only an emotional need.

Ask yourself why you want such a law before you start imposing your will on others. Passing laws to restrict the actions of free men goes against the will of the founding fathers and shows a person to be a statist pawn. If an action has a victim, you have the right to prosecute them. Selling a gun has no victim, and never can have one. If that person uses it in a violent way, then there is a victim and that purchaser can and should be put away, forever. If you want to get a background check when selling, feel free, it's your free will to do so.

Secondly, why are "Prohibited Persons" walking the streets? If they're so dangerous, why are they able to interact with the public? There's a problem alright, it's not with gun sellers.

Lastly, "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" has nothing to do with state law. It's a basic tenant of natural law enumerated by the constitution. Pass all the laws you want, the righteous will choose to ignore them. It comes down to the old "Consent of the governed" rule of unintended consequences and allowing government to De-legitimize itself.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Secondly, why are "Prohibited Persons" walking the streets? If they're so dangerous, why are they able to interact with the public? There's a problem alright, it's not with gun sellers.

Because our justice system is superb.

 

[jbombelli]

I still don't see any quotes from the Constitution explaining how "...shall not be infringed" is synonymous with "...may be infringed in whatever way the government sees fit."

 

[Kutnupe14]

I still don't see any quotes from the Constitution explaining how "...shall not be infringed" is synonymous with "...may be infringed in whatever way the government sees fit."

Did you not read anything that I wrote? The Constitution, back then, applied ONLY to the federal, not state, government. The "...shall not be infringed" would go on to say "...by the federal govt," if it wasn't understood that the Constitution applied to ONLY federal govt.
Are you honestly having trouble grasping that well-understood, documented, idea?

 

[Kutnupe14]

So by the same thinking, the states would have the right to restrict every other civil right, forcibly house troops in your home, restrict free speech, allow unjust search and seizure and many others.

Let me be blunt, your opinion on what I wish to do is null and void. Others have no right or regard to force me to do something that causes no harm. If, and it's a huge if, I choose to check a person out who seems to be suspect in my mind, I will do so of my free will. Should I transfer a firearms to a known prohibited person, I should be subject to arrest and conviction for that crime. Adding a background check only infringes on my right to dispose of my property as I see fit.

Criminals don't go through gun boards to buy them when it's far cheaper and easier to steal them. Buying into the background check hype is disingenuous at best. If it were an issue, the national news would have an expose about all the criminals getting guns from INGO. It's literally a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Just like with FFL's, straw buyers can and will be used as a cutout even if the law was implemented. It's a non starter from the gate, so why push it on fellow citizens when there is no verifiable need, only an emotional need.

Ask yourself why you want such a law before you start imposing your will on others. Passing laws to restrict the actions of free men goes against the will of the founding fathers and shows a person to be a statist pawn. If an action has a victim, you have the right to prosecute them. Selling a gun has no victim, and never can have one. If that person uses it in a violent way, then there is a victim and that purchaser can and should be put away, forever. If you want to get a background check when selling, feel free, it's your free will to do so.

Secondly, why are "Prohibited Persons" walking the streets? If they're so dangerous, why are they able to interact with the public? There's a problem alright, it's not with gun sellers.

Lastly, "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" has nothing to do with state law. It's a basic tenant of natural law enumerated by the constitution. Pass all the laws you want, the righteous will choose to ignore them. It comes down to the old "Consent of the governed" rule of unintended consequences and allowing government to De-legitimize itself.

Your first paragraph is exactly correct. That's the power the states used to have. I don't often get into debated about the rights of men, and the Founding Fathers. I often make people upset because I view them, mostly (not all), as hypocrites. One last thing I will point out, is that simply because a person has legally lost their rights, due to criminal activity or some other means, that does my by default they should be imprisoned. That's a fallacy I often see.

 

[Trigger Time]

Your first paragraph is exactly correct. That's the power the states used to have. I don't often get into debated about the rights of men, and the Founding Fathers. I often make people upset because I view them, mostly (not all), as hypocrites. One last thing I will point out, is that simply because a person has legally lost their rights, due to criminal activity or some other means, that does my by default they should be imprisoned. That's a fallacy I often see.

I just don't think you are very supportive of the constitution. That's the opinion I've formed since I started to read al of your posts in threads we've been in together. Doesn't mean your not a good guy it just means I wouldn't want you in my corner defending my rights or since your a cop I'd try to stay as far away from you as possible.

 

[level0]

Every free man should have the right to defend himself. Garbage about "felons can't own guns" is garbage.

This putrid garage about states rights to usurp the Constitution is putrid garbage.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I just don't think you are very supportive of the constitution. That's the opinion I've formed since I started to read al of your posts in threads we've been in together. Doesn't mean your not a good guy it just means I wouldn't want you in my corner defending my rights or since your a cop I'd try to stay as far away from you as possible.

Ok, if you're going to make that claim, I challenge you to back it up. Which part of the constitution, as far as your understanding goes, do you think I don't support. Be specific please.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Every free man should have the right to defend himself. Garbage about "felons can't own guns" is garbage.

This putrid garage about states rights to usurp the Constitution is putrid garbage.

What is your definition if free?

 

[level0]

What is your definition if free?

Well, Clinton, I'm not here to play word games with you. You peed on America, and I said my piece.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well, Clinton, I'm not here to play word games with you. You peed on America, and I said my piece.

Huh? Well, if you don't want to support you stance, no problem. But "free" can have a number of meanings. I was wondering if you meant "free" from incarceration, or "free" from all govt restrictions?

 

[Wysko]

One doesn't have to think to deeply to figure out that 'background checks' on 'all' guns will only work if 'all' firearms are registered.
Also fees would be involved. Fact of life=someone must pay for free stuff and that someone is us.
One of the tactics of liberal Democrats is to tax and regulate guns out of existence. Are you all oblivious what the anti's in California, Colorado, Connecticut Chicago, Illinois, Hawaii Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Ohio & Washington D.C. have been up to the last few years???? Go ahead and make it easy for them place more obstructions to firearms ownership and see what it gets us.

 

[Kutnupe14]

One doesn't have to think to deeply to figure out that 'background checks' on 'all' guns will only work if 'all' firearms are registered.
Also fees would be involved. Fact of life=someone must pay for free stuff and that someone is us.
One of the tactics of liberal Democrats is to tax and regulate guns out of existence. Are you all oblivious what the anti's in California, Colorado, Connecticut Chicago, Illinois, Hawaii Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Ohio & Washington D.C. have been up to the last few years???? Go ahead and make it easy for them place more obstructions to firearms ownership and see what it gets us.

Can you explain how a background check is unConstitutional? Nobody has been able to tell me how.

 

[Wysko]

Re read my post and circle the word unconstitutional.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Re read my post and circle the word unconstitutional.

Im speaking generally. I know you didn't say that it was, but a number of people seem to think that it is. I just wondered if you shared the logic, since I'm pretty much tge only person saying that it isn't.

 

[Wysko]

Im speaking generally. I know you didn't say that it was, but a number of people seem to think that it is. I just wondered if you shared the logic, since I'm pretty much tge only person saying that it isn't.

After witnessing the many new registration and restriction laws in the states listed above I would be forced to say its an irrelevant issue as our constitution fades slowly away.

 

[jbombelli]

Did you not read anything that I wrote? The Constitution, back then, applied ONLY to the federal, not state, government. The "...shall not be infringed" would go on to say "...by the federal govt," if it wasn't understood that the Constitution applied to ONLY federal govt.
Are you honestly having trouble grasping that well-understood, documented, idea?

Still awaiting the specific language FROM THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF...

I assume you want the NFA , GCA of 1968, the Brady Bill and every other federal gun law immediately overturned?