Punish how? By making them pass the same background check a friggin' school crossing guard has to pass? By making someone have to wait a few days before they can go BOOM? when you say "Punish every single other law-abiding gun-owner in the country," if you are ALREADY a gun owner, I don't see how these laws affect you at all. Where's the damage?
You have shown a side of yourself that isn't very flattering.
======================
Would you tolerate a 5 day wait before exercising your First Amendment rights?
Besides the fact that nearly every legal gun sale already has a background check and has been that way for decades. The claim by the anti gun minority that 40% don't get background checks is absolutely false and has been for decades.
Incorrect. No one has researched this question since the mid-'90s, but I suspect that the number actually is higher, in fact.
Where did you get your information? As of the '90s, surveys showed that around 40% of firearms transactions were private sales. Where's the background check?
Punish how? By making them pass the same background check a friggin' school crossing guard has to pass? By making someone have to wait a few days before they can go BOOM? when you say "Punish every single other law-abiding gun-owner in the country," if you are ALREADY a gun owner, I don't see how these laws affect you at all. Where's the damage?
You have shown a side of yourself that isn't very flattering.
======================
Would you tolerate a 5 day wait before exercising your First Amendment rights?
===================================
[Ed]
If you're going to try to be clever, answer this: Where does it say you have a right to buy a gun any time you want?
But it isn't a question of whether you're clever with word games. It's a question of law. The Supreme Court has upheld waiting periods for abortions (24 hours was the trial case), on the same "cooling off period" basis as the gun-purchase delays. The 9th Circuit held that Oregon's 15-day waiting period for assisted suicide is constitutional, for the same reason. And it wasn't challenged in the S.C.
And the Supreme Court has upheld a state's right to require voters to register 50 days before an election. Based on a wealth of related cases, it appears that the Court would have no problem with waiting periods if there are exceptions for purchasers who are under an immediate threat, and the states that have such provisions are pretty loose in allowing people to make that claim.
So the implication of your silly question is incorrect. It also makes no sense, given the escape clauses that exist in many, or most state waiting-period requirements.
"Pete C." wrote in news:53e100a5$0$27360 $ snipped-for-privacy@news.usenetmonster.com:
Ummmm....no, that's not true at all. If I sell one of my guns to my brother, or my next-door neighbor, the sale is perfectly legal. But there's no background check.
Perhaps you meant "nearly every *dealer* gun sale ... "?
I think that claim is probably true; if anything, it may understate the case. Background checks are required only for sales by licensed firearms dealers. There is not, and never has been, a requirement for private sellers to conduct background checks.
Legal private sales are a tiny percentage of total sales. It is already a federal felony to privately sell a firearm to someone you have reason to suspect would not pass a background check. Thus back alley gun sales by gang members are already felonies and no new background check law will have any effect on them. This is solely a tactic to attack legal gun owners, and has nothing whatsoever to do with preventing illegal gun sales.
The claim is proven false. Private legal gun sales are a single digit percentage of total gun sales.
That is bullshit dogma. The framers had NO WAY of anticipating the weapons available today. The state of the art then was a musket.
And even so, you haven't answered the question I posed: If you are already a gun owner, how does requiring a background check for gun purchases affect you at all?
So, you are willing to create a new class of 'people who have committed gun crimes so the second amendment doesn't apply to them' but do not approve o f a new class of 'people who have committed violent crimes (but not with a gun) so shouldn't be allowed to purchase guns."
As above, bullshit dogma. But I'm a reasonable guy...If you want to go out and buy a thousand muskets, be my guest.
rangerssuck fired this volley in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
Because it forces an honest citizen to WAIT to exercise his Constitutional right. That is, by definition, an "infringement" upon that right. There has been a history of bad infringement upon such rights... Like blacks being required to pass literacy tests before being allowed to vote. And like honest citizens (of any race) being required to wait a "qualification period" to exercise _any_ right guaranteed under the Constitution and its amendments.
Also, the argument that one has the right to "bear" arms, but not to "purchase" arms is an ignorant and deliberately diversive one.
The very statement of the right to bear arms has in it IMPLICITLY the right to _obtain_ arms, whether they be given or purchased. One cannot 'bear' an arm which one does not possess.
rangerssuck fired this volley in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
There has always been - until the 'liberal thinkers' got 'hold of it - a class of people who, due to felonies, had lost all civil rights.
Once upon a time, it was one of the deterrents to committing a crime. No longer. Now, prisoners _in prison_ get 'benefits' some poor people would covet, and once they're released from their "rehabilitation" (translated
-- further training in how to be a 'better' criminal) they are given back all the rights a non-felon enjoys.
rangerssuck wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
By extension of that "reasoning", the First Amendment doesn't apply to telephone conversations or to the internet, which the framers also had no way of anticipating.
And Congress has the authority to fund the Army and the Navy, but not the Air Force.
Clearly it affects him if he wants to buy another firearm.
OK. It's the Liberal's fault that criminals can buy guns. Now, there are la ws that require background checks to prevent felons from buying guns and yo u're against that. Is this one of those "you were for it before you were ag ainst it things?" I really don't understand your objection to background ch ecks.
"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" fired this volley in news:XnsA38099849776Elloydspmindspringcom@216.168.3.70:
Might also say: If felons are given back their civil rights, which they rightfully lost due to commission of a felony, then under a conservative rule, they'd have continued to have no rights thereafter.
Under liberal rule, ALL their rights are restored, as if they'd never committed the crime. But they're still criminals, only better "trained" by their tenure in prison. In fact, they're likely to offend again (unless you haven't looked at _any_ of the stats).
Would you hold that's NOT a 'liberal' cause in effect? It seems obvious even to the most casual observer.
rangerssuck fired this volley in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
Because if they were properly _marked_ as felons by way of personal IDs and other documentation, then the only way they could obtain firearms from a professional seller would be to falsify their documents -- which would itself be another felony.
An honest man should not have to do anything more than present some sort of evidence that he is a citizen in good standing. Having to wait to excercise one's right is an infringement on that right.
I (personally) object to the waiting period only on Constitutional grounds. For me, it's not a burden, because I buy weapons only infrequently. I have enough. For someone who needs one NOW due to an imminent threat, it's not only a burden, it may be a death-sentence.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.