Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Very simple part of the overall solution. For every transaction. Why would law abiding citizens be opposed to this?
Does that include citizens who want to obey the Constitution?
Amendment 2: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It says (in modern language) that since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, no government in the U.S. can make any law that takes away or restricts ordinary people from owning or carrying guns or other such weapons.
I definitely want to obey that law.
One example of that law being violated, would be that if government required people to pass some sort of test, and if they don't pass it, the govt will prevent them from purchasing a gun. In fact, government has no authority to prevent people from buying a gun, if they flunk some test, or for any other reason.
Or have you seen some law that supersedes the Constitution, saying that the Fed govt (or state govts) CAN prevent them from buying a gun if they flunk some test?
Does a Federal law passed by Congress and signed by a President supersede what the Constitution says?
Does that include citizens who want to obey the Constitution?
Amendment 2: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It says (in modern language) that since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, no government in the U.S. can make any law that takes away or restricts ordinary people from owning or carrying guns or other such weapons.
I definitely want to obey that law.
Does a Federal law passed by Congress and signed by a President supersede what the Constitution says?
They think it does, even when talking about the most sacred part of the constitution…..Our Bill of Rights. Neither congress nor the President can ignore the Bill of Rights. Since several states only agreed to our constitution if the Bill of rights was included it could be argued that NOTHING, not even a constitutional amendment can erase any part of the Bill of Rights without completely rendering our constitution invalid. The Bill of Rights cannot be changed.
They think it does, even when talking about the most sacred part of the constitution…..Our Bill of Rights. Neither congress nor the President can ignore the Bill of Rights.
I agree.
Quote:
Since several states only agreed to our constitution if the Bill of rights was included it could be argued that NOTHING, not even a constitutional amendment can erase any part of the Bill of Rights without completely rendering our constitution invalid. The Bill of Rights cannot be changed.
Is this condition codified in the Constitution? If not, I suggest that a Constitutional amendment to change part of the BOR, proposed by Congress and ratified by 3/4 of the states, can change it. Verbal-only agreements don't hold much water.
Does that include citizens who want to obey the Constitution?
Amendment 2: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It says (in modern language) that since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, no government in the U.S. can make any law that takes away or restricts ordinary people from owning or carrying guns or other such weapons.
I definitely want to obey that law.
One example of that law being violated, would be that if government required people to pass some sort of test, and if they don't pass it, the govt will prevent them from purchasing a gun. In fact, government has no authority to prevent people from buying a gun, if they flunk some test, or for any other reason.
Or have you seen some law that supersedes the Constitution, saying that the Fed govt (or state govts) CAN prevent them from buying a gun if they flunk some test?
Does a Federal law passed by Congress and signed by a President supersede what the Constitution says?
Owning or carrying has nothing to do with purchasing. Really. If you posses some small drug , get a misdemeanor, if you are selling it, it’s a diff charge.
I own a gun, was given to me. But just saying about the rule of law. Just like bullets. They don’t have to sell bullets.
Very simple part of the overall solution. For every transaction. Why would law abiding citizens be opposed to this?
Because it imposes an undue burden on the law abiding and won't affect criminals at all.
The unstated purpose for the concept is a registry. You can't enforce universal background checks without a central registry of who's supposed to be the current owner of a given firearm.
Because it imposes an undue burden on the law abiding and won't affect criminals at all.
The unstated purpose for the concept is a registry. You can't enforce universal background checks without a central registry of who's supposed to be the current owner of a given firearm.
No.
That's it. Just no. You can't have it. Not sorry.
Right. There’s no real way to enforce it (aka punish) for private party sales/trades. There’s no way to know who is supposed to have what unless each gun ever manufactured is registered at the time of transfer to the original dealer and then every time after that. Can you imagine how much work that would take? It’s not like a car where they generally keep them awhile and only have one per person.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.