RIP james brady

But we don't really know that. Tougher background checks mean its more difficult for your friends to buy heavy weapons For someone who needs one NOW due to an

Reply to
walter_evening
Loading thread data ...

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.

===================================================== [Ed]

Only if you consider our founding fathers to be "liberal thinkers." I'm sure that many here do...

What you're talking about is called "Civil Death," and it was common in Europe until the Enlightenment. When the US was founded, we never adopted those principles.

Felon disenfranchisement is up to the individual states. Felony convictions generally result in loss of federal 2nd Amendment rights. Different states have different restrictions, but, in general, most rights are restored after you've served your time.

Reply to
Ed Huntress

rangerssuck wrote in news:9dab21e0-0d44-4020-be7f- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Right there in Amendment II.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you find confusing?

Not relevant. That's not a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

Likewise not relevant, for the same reason.

The Constitution specifically grants to the states the right to determine "the times, places and manner of holding elections" -- so this objection is also specious.

Here's a hint: you won't look quite so foolish in the future if you take the time to read the Constitution before commenting on it.

Reply to
Doug Miller

And what part of "if congress and the president say you can't do it, then you can't" do you find confusing ??

Unless they say it is.

The congress and the president are the federal government. And they have the right to conduct background checks when and where necessary.

Reply to
mogulah

Selling a firearm to a person you have reason to believe could not pass a background check is a felony. So is purchasing a firearm for someone you have reason to believe could not pass a background check. No rational person would believe that another law requiring a background check would not also be broken by those who would commit either of the two existing felonies.

Reply to
Pete C.

"Pete C." wrote in news:53e119d6$0$27316 $ snipped-for-privacy@news.usenetmonster.com:

[...]

Since there are no records, how can anyone know that?

========================================================

[Ed]

The widespread conclusion, from university researchers to the FBI, is that it probably is still around 40%. And they know that from random-sample surveys.

The surveys from the '90s are available on the Web, somewhere. I've seen them before.

Reply to
Ed Huntress

rangerssuck fired this volley in news:b20fa692- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

In large part, yes. L

{Ed]

...I can't wait to hear how that one works....

Reply to
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" fired this volley in news:G6bEv.258242$ snipped-for-privacy@fx23.iad:

It "works" this way, Ed.

Criminals used to be well-known and had no civil rights.

Libs decided to restore ALL rights to criminals.

"How's that work?" for you?

Lloyd

Reply to
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh

snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com wrote in news:f6d36f49-ae78-422d-81b1-b995d90cf9c1 @googlegroups.com:

It doesn't say that in the Constitution.

It's not there.

Incorrect. There is a third branch of government as well. And the Congress and the President do *not* have the right to anything that they are not specifically authorized to do by the Constitution -- a document which it appears you have not read.

Reply to
Doug Miller

rangerssuck wrote in news:9dab21e0-0d44-4020-be7f- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Right there in Amendment II.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you find confusing?

====================================================================== [Ed]

You must have a special edition of the Bill of Rights. This is ironic because the righties harp so much on the explicit wording of the Constitution. But there is nothing explicit in there that says you can buy one any time you want.

Also, most people here seem not to know what "infringe" means. It's derived from Latin for "break," and it has nothing to do with fringes. d8-) If you're not disallowed from having a gun, your right isn't infringed. It doesn't say you can have any gun you want.

======================================================================

Not relevant. That's not a right guaranteed by the Constitution. ====================================================================== [Ed]

It has EXACTLY the same legal status and weight. That's what the Court does -- it decides what is constitutional.

======================================================================

Likewise not relevant, for the same reason. ====================================================================== [Ed]

Doug, it was a constitutional question! That's why it wound up in the Supreme Court.

======================================================================

The Constitution specifically grants to the states the right to determine "the times, places and manner of holding elections" -- so this objection is also specious.

====================================================================== [Ed]

It was a 14th Amendment question that the Court decided -- Maston v. Lewis (1973), which refers to the 14th Amendment decision in Dunn b. Blumstein (1972) -- which had gone the other way, because the Court drew a timeline for legitimate states' interests to treat new voters differently.

You really should look these things up before you conclude WHY the Court decided one way or the other. The issue almost always is a constitutional one.

======================================================================

Here's a hint: you won't look quite so foolish in the future if you take the time to read the Constitution before commenting on it.

======================================================================

[Ed]

Funny, but that's about what I would say to you. And while you're at it, read some Court cases. You won't look so foolish.

Reply to
Ed Huntress

Glad he finally died, I hope Sarah soon follows.

i
Reply to
Ignoramus16196

"Ed Huntress" fired this volley in news:G6bEv.258242$ snipped-for-privacy@fx23.iad:

It "works" this way, Ed.

Criminals used to be well-known and had no civil rights.

Libs decided to restore ALL rights to criminals.

"How's that work?" for you?

Lloyd

================================================ [Ed]

Not very well, Lloyd. You're talking about Civil Death, which is a legal principle dating from the 4th Century B.C., and which was abandoned by the United States at the time of our founding. There's nothing about it in the Constitution. By the early 1800s, most of the western world had abandoned it.

Because of the way our Constitution is written, the states have latitude in deciding the issue of felony disenfranchisement. The states' right was upheld in Richardson v. Ramirez (1974). But 39 states allow felons to get that right back at some time:

formatting link

There are some other restrictions that states can place on felons, and the federal government disallows felons from buying or owning guns. But most legal and civil rights are restored: habeas corpus, trial by jury, right to representation by counsel, to marry, to own businesses, to have children, etc., etc.

Your view of the subject is...er....medieval. The "all rights" business hasn't been part of western law for hundreds of years; long before the first "liberal" (by your definition) was born.

I know you're a conservative, but I think of conservatives as people who want to return to the days of the Founders, not to the days of Vlad the Impaler. d8-)

Reply to
Ed Huntress

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.

=========================================================== [Ed]

Oh, THAT's going to discourage the hell out of them. How about if we just brand them on the forehead?

==========================================================

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.

Lloyd

============================================================

[Ed]

That's why states that have waiting periods also have escape clauses for special cases.

Reply to
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" fired this volley in news:jtcEv.182532$ snipped-for-privacy@fx09.iad:

I want our country to return to the Constitution.

There _are_ times when Vlad had the better idea!

Make no mistake, though; the Constitution is being 'progressively' gutted by those who see it as impediment to liberal 'progress'. Why maintain a document that gives rights, but doesn't 'grant' the priveleges of doing 'whatever feels good at the time', regardless of consequences on society, at large?

LLoyd

Reply to
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh

"Ed Huntress" fired this volley in news:sucEv.173966$ snipped-for-privacy@fx22.iad:

Not out of the question... Seriously, though, there are ways of 'branding' someone without inflicting physical harm.

Lloyd

Reply to
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh

"Ed Huntress" fired this volley in news:jtcEv.182532$ snipped-for-privacy@fx09.iad:

I want our country to return to the Constitution.

There _are_ times when Vlad had the better idea!

Make no mistake, though; the Constitution is being 'progressively' gutted by those who see it as impediment to liberal 'progress'. Why maintain a document that gives rights, but doesn't 'grant' the priveleges of doing 'whatever feels good at the time', regardless of consequences on society, at large?

LLoyd

=========================================================== [Ed]

Without niggling about details, I recognize and largely agree with that part of the conservative attitude.

Regarding the Constitution, though, I think that Jefferson had the right idea if not the right solution (re-write the Constitution every 19 years), and Madison expected us to do a better job of keeping the Constitution up to date with the circumstances of the times. The amendment process is one thing the Founders rather badly misjudged.

So we've made hash of it to try to accomplish what amendments can't, and it leads to a lot of disagreement. That's not good. But it's still better, and longer-lasting, than any other real constitution in the world.

And I'm including the Swiss. I spent 10 months studying that government, as a student in Switzerland, and they can have it.

The 2nd is an anachronism. We gave up on the idea of the militia being necessary to security. We trashed it for a real army. The rest of the Amendment is flabby and non-specific. Now would be a good time to re-write it, because we're at a peak of pro-gun sentiment, one we haven't seen for well over 100 years, and it would come out better than ever.

Frankly, though, it doesn't get me excited anymore, because of the state of gun culture in the United States. It's pathological. I had my first gun in

1959. I had my Marksmanship Merit Badge the same year; six bars on the NRA Sharpshooter medal a year later. I hunted at least three days per week, year around. So I remember the old gun culture. It was much healthier. This one is sick to the core. Iggy even wants Sarah Brady dead. That's a symbol of how degenerate this country's gun culture has become.

I know that most people here will get their asses up over that, but I really don't give a shit. The gun nutz are pathological freaks. I remember when it was normal people.

Reply to
Ed Huntress

Those were the most capable military weapon of the time.

Reply to
Richard

And, by the way, there were firearm control laws even then. the Massachusetts Bay colony had laws prohibiting the selling, giving, or otherwise transferring "fire locks" to the Indians from the 1600's.

And "muskets" should be treated with some respect. If I am not mistaken there were more killed and wounded in several of the battles fought in the U.S. Civil War, essentially with muzzle loading weapons, then the U.S. has experienced in battles fought since the advent of multi shot weapons.

Reply to
slocombjb

But your vaunted "laws that require background checks..." do not work and never have worked. Look up the "Sullivan Law" in New York State and everyone knows that crimes committed with pistols in New York have been essentially non existent since the law was passed. Right?

Now look up "firearms control laws" for the state of New Hampshire and the numbers of gun crimes. then look up the same data for, say Washington, D.C.

It doesn't correlate. New Hampshire has few firearm control laws and very little gun crime. Washington has, or had, draconian control laws and many gun crimes.

Reply to
slocombjb

The "ethnic" neighborhoods in New Hampshire are small but nevertheless quite dangerous.

formatting link

Reply to
Jim Wilkins

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.