Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-18-2023, 10:25 PM
 
Location: Wisco Disco
2,145 posts, read 1,212,102 times
Reputation: 3027

Advertisements

Very simple part of the overall solution. For every transaction. Why would law abiding citizens be opposed to this?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-18-2023, 10:42 PM
 
Location: San Diego
18,741 posts, read 7,623,084 times
Reputation: 15011
Quote:
Originally Posted by ManApplet View Post
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?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-18-2023, 10:49 PM
 
Location: Somewhere below Mason/Dixon
9,472 posts, read 10,814,451 times
Reputation: 15980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-18-2023, 10:56 PM
 
Location: San Diego
18,741 posts, read 7,623,084 times
Reputation: 15011
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielj72 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2023, 05:44 AM
 
29,511 posts, read 14,673,560 times
Reputation: 14460
Quote:
Originally Posted by ManApplet View Post
Very simple part of the overall solution. For every transaction. Why would law abiding citizens be opposed to this?
Can't say I've ever purchased a firearm without having one, so not sure what you are talking about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2023, 05:49 AM
 
Location: Native of Any Beach/FL
35,718 posts, read 21,081,460 times
Reputation: 14257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2023, 05:54 AM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
23,861 posts, read 24,125,811 times
Reputation: 15136
Quote:
Originally Posted by ManApplet View Post
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.

No.

That's it. Just no. You can't have it. Not sorry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2023, 05:58 AM
 
Location: On the Chesapeake
45,444 posts, read 60,638,057 times
Reputation: 61060
Quote:
Originally Posted by ManApplet View Post
Very simple part of the overall solution. For every transaction. Why would law abiding citizens be opposed to this?
What organization was the main proponent of background checks when they were first adopted?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2023, 06:02 AM
 
Location: Inland Levy County, FL
8,806 posts, read 6,116,012 times
Reputation: 2949
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabchuck View Post
Can't say I've ever purchased a firearm without having one, so not sure what you are talking about.
Private party transactions don’t require it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2023, 06:05 AM
 
Location: Inland Levy County, FL
8,806 posts, read 6,116,012 times
Reputation: 2949
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top