February 12, 201313 yr That's fine. He never expressed it as an opinion. He used it as supporting evidence. He is right, the BOR does declare "Shall Not Be Infringed."
February 12, 201313 yr 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. We obviously differ as to where our rights come from. My rights are already outlined in the Bill of Rights, Clyde. The Bill of Rights recognizes my rights that I am entitled to, rights that I am born with, and it ensures their protection. The Supreme Court, nor any government entity, should not get to dictate my natural rights. Those rights should be free from infringements, unless you are affecting the life, liberty, or property of another individual. That is the intention of Law. Many people, including you, have this mentation that just because Congress passes this or the Supreme Court upholds that, and makes it law, this somehow equates to being right and justified. It doesn't. Laws are man-made. Man has always been attracted to the power to control their fellow man. When you allow more law to the extent of perverting it, you will endure less freedom, making you into a criminal -- or worse, even a slave. You should always question the Supreme Court's rulings - past and present - as well as every single proposed bill that comes from any branch. To be honest, I don't know of any big-time rulings the SCOTUS has had regarding the 2nd. To your last point -- your restrictions are invalid not only because of the 2nd, but the 4th amendment as well (but the SCOTUS did an awesome job upholding your 4th amendment rights when it came to the PATRIOT Act)
February 12, 201313 yr I'm still waiting for Clyde to show what he has called common sense , to show me what impact it would have. You have showed no tangible evidence that it would improve the violence situation in this nation. I can take 30 mins doing just small amounts of quanatative research and put together an argument against any stricter gun control laws than this nation already has. I'll put it in capital letter this time so maybe Clyde won't dance around it. WHY IS YOUR FIRST REACTION TO CREATE LAWS THAT INFRINGE ON LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AND NOT THE CRIMINALS.
February 12, 201313 yr SCOTUS opinions, while the law when issued, are not always right. If they were, we'd still be operating under separate but equal. Sometimes the Supremes are wrong.
February 12, 201313 yr SCOTUS opinions, while the law when issued, are not always right. If they were, we'd still be operating under separate but equal. Sometimes the Supremes are wrong. And women would not be allowed to vote (Minor v. Happersett).
February 12, 201313 yr A few thoughts before I head out to a game. For the sake of this argument I don't care about previous cases by the SCOTUS. I only brought them up when Marvel said that they do not "infringe" upon rights given in the BOR. That's obviously not the case so his basis is incorrect. Most people in the US believe that "infringe upon" is not carte blanche for citizens. We will ALWAYS have restrictions and interpretations regarding how far we can go and still be within our rights. That's common sense.
February 12, 201313 yr I'll put it in capital letter this time so maybe Clyde won't dance around it. WHY IS YOUR FIRST REACTION TO CREATE LAWS THAT INFRINGE ON LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AND NOT THE CRIMINALS. I don't calling it "infringing." You do. Secondly, if you TRULY believe that no law should ever be put forth that infringe upon a law-abiding citzen's rights granted under the BOR then you would not support Voter ID laws. Right? Lastly, I've given a few examples of how those laws can be of benefit. You disagree. Cool. I say the ability to track a gun through a registry is of benefit. You don't. Again, cool.
February 13, 201313 yr A few thoughts before I head out to a game. For the sake of this argument I don't care about previous cases by the SCOTUS. I only brought them up when Marvel said that they do not "infringe" upon rights given in the BOR. That's obviously not the case so his basis is incorrect. Most people in the US believe that "infringe upon" is not carte blanche for citizens. We will ALWAYS have restrictions and interpretations regarding how far we can go and still be within our rights. That's common sense. I'm well aware every government entity has and still seeks to infringe on an individuals liberty. If you have any observant skills, which I have faith you do, you will know that my posts tend to moan and complain about how the government is doing this or that -- unnecessarily of course. So, to say I stated the SCOTUS said " they do not 'infringe' upon rights given in the BOR." is a tad off base. The Supreme Court, nor any government entity, should not get to dictate my natural rights. Those rights should be free from infringements, unless you are affecting the life, liberty, or property of another individual. That is the intention of Law. Many people, including you, have this mentation that just because Congress passes this or the Supreme Court upholds that, and makes it law, this somehow equates to being right and justified. It doesn't. Laws are man-made. Man has always been attracted to the power to control their fellow man. When you allow more law to the extent of perverting it, you will endure less freedom, making you into a criminal -- or worse, even a slave. You should always question the Supreme Court's rulings - past and present - as well as every single proposed bill that comes from any branch. Pay attention to my posts, Clyde. What I was telling you the basis of how our government is SUPPOSED to work. Just because our government has set the precedent of not following the law doesn't mean we should omit the original intention of the Constitution. I wanted to know what how gun-control and this tax is worthy of having my fellow law-abiding citizens who are doing no harm, have their fourth and second amendment rights abused. The reasons you gave me "its not onerous", you pointed to an NRA member survey, and you said "Taxes are slapped on a lot of items. Why should guns be any different?" That was my basis. You then said I wanted a clear, coherent, substantive answer. It took you 8 pages to give me a study. But at least it has some breadth.
February 13, 201313 yr 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? Where was the data on 40% pulled from? Seems to be a hard transaction to track which makes this stat irrelevant .
February 13, 201313 yr Where was the data on 40% pulled from? Seems to be a hard transaction to track which makes this stat irrelevant .The data was pulled from a 1994 study when the battle for the Brady bill was going on.. The 40% figure is a huge stretch of the truth.. The actual percentage is around 10%...
February 13, 201313 yr The data was pulled from a 1994 study when the battle for the Brady bill was going on.. The 40% figure is a huge stretch of the truth.. The actual percentage is around 10%... Not sure. It was in an article I read - didn't cite where they got it.
February 13, 201313 yr Quick search cited this 1997 study. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf This study is extremely out of date Clyde. I personally know of more than a dozen households that had no guns in them until 2008, which has been changed since. I also know of many more people that went from owning long guns only, to owning handguns and black rifles since 2008. Most of these purchases are going to have been from dealers, who would have the firearms registered upon sale. Gun ownership has gone through drastic changes in this country in the last fifteen years.
February 13, 201313 yr This study is extremely out of date Clyde. I personally know of more than a dozen households that had no guns in them until 2008, which has been changed since. . You could be right about being out of date but your argument surely doesn't show that. No one is saying gun ownership hasn't increased.
February 13, 201313 yr Found this summary about the 40% claim. Some think it's false. Others think it's close to accurate. Hard to gauge. PolitiFact Rhode Island | U.S. Rep. David Cicilline says 40 percent of gun sales are made without background checks
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.