What about bags of left over fertilizer that I'm not using on my farm? As we all know, fertilizer can be used to make bombs and kill people. Should I be required to do a background check before I give this deadly material to my brother for use on his farm?

 

 

I'm sure that in Logic class or Law School there is a name for the above type of questioning. Let me change it a bit to show why it doesn't work.

 

It's proposed to set the DUI limit at .075 instead of .08.

 

The above type of questioning would result in the following:

 

Why not .07? People can be drunk at .07.

Why not then .05? I've seen people drunk at .05.

Why not .02? I know people that can't handle ANY liquor.

 

You see the problem with that line of questioning?

Am I correct that many states already require gun owners to register their weapons?

It comes down to common sense and priorities IMO.

 

Someone earlier stated that any gun owners who are intelligent already notify police of a lost or stolen gun. I want the police to be able to look at a gun that has been found and/or used in a crime and be able to see if it's on the registry. Yes, I know that there will be many guns who were not registered and that many will not be on any registry. Irrelevant. Requiring that guns be registered allows for the chance that linking a gun to a crime and a criminal is easier. The downsides of registry ( I don't see any) are far outweighed by the potential benefit.

 

IF a citizen chooses to not comply and then are found to have an unregistered gun they are charged with a crime. Simple solution to the "they won't comply" argument.

 

And yet you could make the same argument as to why voters should be required to have a photo ID, but you cried about how that served no purpose. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

Are you saying the SCOTUS has never placed an "infringement" or limitation on gun owners?

 

I said the Bill of Rights, not the SCOTUS. So no, that wasn't at all what I was saying.

 

Are you saying the Supreme Court has a great track record when it comes to preserving liberties?

And yet you could make the same argument as to why voters should be required to have a photo ID, but you cried about how that served no purpose. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

 

Cried? I guess that's in the eye of the beholder. Against? Yes. Hypocritical? I say no because of the last thing I said. The downside vs the gain. I see a big potential for gain in the gun issue and no gain for the Voter ID issue.

 

Now you may disagree with me on the Voter ID gain/no gain issue which is cool but that doesn't make my gun argument hypocritical.

I said the Bill of Rights, not the SCOTUS. So no, that wasn't at all what I was saying.

 

Are you saying the Supreme Court has a great track record when it comes to preserving liberties?

 

SCOTUS gets to decide what rights we have under the Bill of Rights. So let's not play games here.

 

As to their track record, it's irrelevant to the argument. I asked a simple question. Has SCOTUS placed limitations or not? If so, then that takes away your argument that any restrictions I put forth are invalid because of the 2nd Amendment.

Because it serves no purpose.

 

If you know of one, please do tell.

 

Something of substance. Not hypothetical scenarios.

 

Sale to convicted felons. Sales to those found to have mental disorders/currently receiving psychiatric help or care.

 

And for voter ID? Why is that so difficult or wrong? You have to show ID to buy beer, why not to vote on our future leaders and law makers?

The Constitutional right comes with responsibilities and requirements.

 

Registering a gun would not preclude anyone from owning a gun and would not preclude anyone from protecting their family.

 

Gun registration would come with a renewal process. At that time a background check can be made to make sure something hasn't changed that would prevent that person from owning a gun.

 

Police responding to a scene could benefit from knowing what guns are registered to the owner.

 

It would make it more difficult (note I didn't say impossible) for those that shouldn't be able to buy guns from actually purchasing them.

 

So you are saying that the government needs to know the firearms each citizen owns? Are you listening to your argument? Do you not see just a little bit of liberty being surpassed and violated by that remark?

Am I correct that many states already require gun owners to register their weapons?

 

Your dealer registers new weapons under your name. However, used weapons are not registered under private sales. Also, how many is many?

SCOTUS gets to decide what rights we have under the Bill of Rights. So let's not play games here.

 

As to their track record, it's irrelevant to the argument. I asked a simple question. Has SCOTUS placed limitations or not? If so, then that takes away your argument that any restrictions I put forth are invalid because of the 2nd Amendment.

 

Scotus is supposed to be deciding Constitutionality. Common sense, according to your description, is not supposed to be the grounds Scotus uses in determining Constitutionality. It is the written words and the intent of those that produced our Constitution and its amendments.

Your dealer registers new weapons under your name. However, used weapons are not registered under private sales. Also, how many is many?

 

Good question. Quick Google search said that about 40% of all gun sales are through private transactions. I didn't find out which states do but apparently about 25% of them require background checks even for private sales. CA, RI, and IL have some form of background check/registration for private transactions. Onerous?

Scotus is supposed to be deciding Constitutionality. Common sense, according to your description, is not supposed to be the grounds Scotus uses in determining Constitutionality. It is the written words and the intent of those that produced our Constitution and its amendments.

 

Right. So Marvel said that the BOR guarantees rights "without infringements." True or not?

Good question. Quick Google search said that about 40% of all gun sales are through private transactions. I didn't find out which states do but apparently about 25% of them require background checks even for private sales. CA, RI, and IL have some form of background check/registration for private transactions. Onerous?

 

I have zero doubt that CA, RI, and IL have those restrictions. I hope to never be under the type of oppressive laws that those states, their voters, and their representatives place upon law abiding citizens. To put it simply, CA and IL have proven their horrible state leadership record on many issue, not just guns.

Right. So Marvel said that the BOR guarantees rights "without infringements." True or not?

 

It is obvious that Scotus hasn't upheld the words of the Constitution several times concerning the 2nd Amendment, lest there would be no type of gun control or restrictions. The first restrictions came in the 1800's when some cities chose to make it illegal for firarms to be carried within their city limits. Marvel is simply going off of what the 2nd Amendment states, which is what Scotus is supposed to do.

It is obvious that Scotus hasn't upheld the words of the Constitution several times concerning the 2nd Amendment, lest there would be no type of gun control or restrictions. The first restrictions came in the 1800's when some cities chose to make it illegal for firarms to be carried within their city limits. Marvel is simply going off of what the 2nd Amendment states, which is what Scotus is supposed to do.

 

That's fine. He never expressed it as an opinion. He used it as supporting evidence.