The Preamble is the basis of many aspects of our society... like public school, for example.
Again, those throwing out the preamble, you've lost me.
There were specific court cases listed. Someone said, show me one court case, so I did.
My point, the preamble isn't irrelevant and it has been used in judicial review.
Anything beyond that statement I can't necessarily stand behind.
Now...
@Mleake
Quote:
Kochman,
I am beginning to find you not just wrong, but offensive.
First, you claim that most people who oppose UBCs probably know they should be prohibited persons... Personally, I am a retired Naval Aviator, still work in a job which requires an active clearance, and have no worries about my ability to pass a check. I do think that could change if the government followed the lead of the UK or Australia, and I would rather not enable that.
Spats, whom you treat with veiled insults, is not likely prohibited either, due to a reason that leads to my second problem with you - he is a city attorney. So here is the second problem - you beat us over the head with your "it's all in the Preamble!" business, and act as though we are stupid when we ask when the Preamble has been accepted as case law. Yet some of those "stupid" people you denigrate are lawyers. What is your legal background?
My third problem with you is that you still have not addressed the volume of false positives, though you imply they are minimal. Yet the info you cited claimed 45,000 felons... so if 120,000 were stopped, that means 75,000 were non-felons. To you, this may be trivial...
So, you might try toning yourself down, behaving more respectfully, and actually answering fact-based questions. Or, you could just start to lose the audience when your bag of tricks annoys enough of them.
|
How does that change the point of what I said? You and Spats aren't "most". I don't think responsible gun owners refuse to have background checks.
I think, and if this insults you that's unfortunate because it isn't the point, but I stand by this statement because I genuinely believe it to be morally correct...
If you sell guns to unknown people, without a check, in this day and age, you are an irresponsible gun owner.
I don't care what you used to do for work, what you do now, if you go to church every day, etc... if you're selling guns to unknown people based on your whim, it is irresponsible. You aren't the issue. The unknown nature of the potential purchaser is the issue.
You find that offensive, that's your prerogative.
I find it offensive that some folks believe they are so special they shouldn't have to worry about society and the general safety of the people around them.
45,000 felons. The other rejections stemmed from other reasons they shouldn't have guns. Why do I have to repeat what the article already says?
Since that is being asked, I will post the article's numbers so they aren't overlooked.
Those other reasons are listed as:
Felony, Domestic Violence, Drug Addict, Fugitive, Mentally Ill, and "Other" (defined as "Other" includes aliens, persons dishonorably discharged from the U.S. Armed Forces, persons who have renounced their citizenship, and persons who are prohibited by a state from possessing a firearm.)
That means... they may not have been felons, but they were adjudicated away for a number of reasons. Granted, I would prefer we reduce what is considered a "felon", etc, but until that happens...
And if you're going to advise someone to tone it down, maybe do it without your own uncalled for vitriole.