[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Kochman, arguing against application of "...shall not be infringed.."

I find it amazing that people are throwing out the Preamble to the COTUS.
Picking and choosing is hardly a solid way to debate... you can't just pick and choose the parts of the COTUS you like, folks.

No one threw out the preamble. They disputed your assertion that it is good authority for your proposal. You have been invited to reproduce authority that applies the preamble as you have.

Originally Posted by Zuk

As a preliminary matter, you have not demonstrated let alone proven the appropriate burden imposed by your proposal. Merely shifting the burden of proof does not alter the topography of the argument.

That said, circumstances in which the burden involved is undue are not difficult to explain.

The right described by the Second Amendment is a fundamental right. In order to abridge a fundamental right a law should be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest.

Imposing criminal liability on every individual everywhere who otherwise legally transfers a firearm, the transfer by which the right described in the Second Amendment is exercised, imposes a criminal liability on the exercise a valid constitutional right. The proposal is not narrowly tailored; on the contrary it is so broad that the word universal is the common description for its scope.

Moreover, the federal government has no compelling governmental interest in running a background check on me, an individual entitled to my full complement of civil rights, before I am entitled to exercise that right.

If you doubt that, contemplate whether your proposal would work if applied to the right to vote, also a fundamental right. What is the result of your contemplation on that point?

The pages can pile up fairly quickly, but above you have received a response to your request to demonstrate the undue quality of the burden imposed.