|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 18, 2013, 11:54 AM | #401 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 11, 2010
Location: East Texas USA
Posts: 1,805
|
I am against any form of Gun Control. I also am against Gun Free Zones. I am however in favor of Swift Justice, and The Death Penalty ! Its time to punish the Criminal and Not blame the Weapons used !
|
April 18, 2013, 11:55 AM | #402 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Zukiphile, Spats, I want to veer off topic for a minute to thank you both. I realize arguing with me is akin to letting a guy on a Rec league softball team play with the College World Series champs, so I appreciate you guys "batting off handed" and throwing me some slow pitch so I can keep up. You've made this a lot of fun, as well as educational.
|
April 18, 2013, 12:08 PM | #403 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,436
|
Quote:
The observation here is different. "Criminals get firearms, therefore background checks do not [and will not ] prevent criminals from getting firearms" is much closer to the observation. Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||
April 18, 2013, 12:19 PM | #404 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Quote:
Zukiphile, may we quote you?
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
|
April 18, 2013, 12:20 PM | #405 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
Universal background checks are "none of the above".
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
April 18, 2013, 12:20 PM | #406 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,899
|
Quote:
|
|
April 18, 2013, 12:27 PM | #407 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Woo hoo!
Quote:
Now the obvious counter point is that a drug dealer does not have the right to sell illicit drugs... but that is a criminal act, and no criminal act gets protections- while a pharmaceutical company rep would likely have these protections to sell their wares to various hospitals, pharmacies, apothecaries, and so on, as allowed by the states exercising their police power? Edit to add: I realize I'm also a long ways away from where I am/was going. But you have to set this stuff up like building blocks right? Last edited by JimDandy; April 18, 2013 at 12:40 PM. |
|
April 18, 2013, 12:54 PM | #408 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,436
|
Quote:
This is the way a discussion is supposed to proceed, with candor and courtesy. We are not actually solving any problems here; we are just pushing some ideas around the table. Undue vehemence, or dampening discussion with an invocation of personal authority on the basis that one has a magic piece of paper from his state's Supreme Court serve no good purpose.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
April 18, 2013, 01:51 PM | #409 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
So I have this PDF from the Justice Department that includes in the third sentence "Each had the right to work in the United States..." And the quoted section of The Slaughterhouse Cases that said
Quote:
To further define this argument, we can incorporate the thoughts of Quote:
|
||
April 18, 2013, 02:10 PM | #410 | |
Junior member
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
|
Quote:
|
|
April 18, 2013, 02:11 PM | #411 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
No Kochman, none would disagree, not even you.
Your disagreement has been whether the feds should only have enumerated powers, not that UBCs fall under currently enumerated powers, unless you are suddenly changing your argument. So, "Fixing" it was both presumptuous and erroneous. |
April 18, 2013, 02:16 PM | #412 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
|
Ummm, thanks for telling me what to think.
Has that technique worked well for you in the past? |
April 18, 2013, 02:19 PM | #413 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Other than his tone and presumption to "fix it" appearing to be a bit churlish, I have to side with Kochman on this one.
Many would disagree- meaning many would feel background checks are in some fashion inline with enumerated powers, fundamental rights, and jurisprudence. The fact that we're having this debate here, and across the nation proves that. Some many be uneducated, some may be lawyers. There will even be some who don't even care if they meet that test, and just want them, or oppose them for being what they are, constitutional or not. |
April 18, 2013, 02:24 PM | #414 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
|
Funny, JD, I've seen you do that in this very thread yourself.
|
April 18, 2013, 02:28 PM | #415 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
When I did it, it was to fix what I assumed was a typo, I explained why I did it, and apologized in advance if I was incorrect.
Edit: And then only because without doing so my reply wouldn't have made much sense. And Edit Again To get us Back on track, Spats or Zukiphile, any response to the jumbled right to work argument i was making? Is there something on point the other way I'm missing? Or something more on point in my favor I'm missing? I assume the Justice Department PDF got it's "had a right to work in the United States" from somewhere? |
April 18, 2013, 02:44 PM | #416 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,436
|
Quote:
Quote:
JD, I have not followed your right to work argument.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||
April 18, 2013, 02:45 PM | #417 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
JimDandy, under which enumerated power do you think this falls?
So far, I have only seen the Commerce Clause or the Preamble cited. If you think it falls under an enumerated power, please specify which. Kochman, I won't tell you what to think, but I will point out when you change arguments midstream, and then pretend it is what you have been saying all along. |
April 18, 2013, 02:52 PM | #418 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 17, 2013
Location: Lenhartsville, PA
Posts: 164
|
Quote:
|
|
April 18, 2013, 02:53 PM | #419 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
|
MLeake, I'm sorry I haven't taken the time to explain my entire political philosophy, but I figured it would be a "tl;dr" type of thing.
I do go on tangents... often unannounced, that's just how my mind works, and I do realize that isn't condusive to internets discussions. And am amazed that this thread has stayed more or less on topic for so many pages, and is filled with great comments and thoughts. |
April 18, 2013, 02:58 PM | #420 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 25, 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 736
|
Quote:
|
|
April 18, 2013, 03:07 PM | #421 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
Quote:
While I am open to the idea that this would be overturned on a challenge, it hasn't been so yet, so without that successful challenge, it is presumptively legal and constitutional, and within the Congress's enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce. |
||
April 18, 2013, 03:15 PM | #422 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,815
|
I am utterly certain that Congress thinks it can do UBCs under its Commerce Clause power. Whether or not such a law will stand up to a Constitutional challenge is a separate question.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
April 18, 2013, 03:38 PM | #423 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,135
|
I have no doubt that the courts would construe the Commerce Clause broadly enough to require UBCs, even for intrastate sales. The case for legitimate gifts, especially intrastate, would be weaker but I wouldn't bet any money on it.
|
April 18, 2013, 04:18 PM | #424 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
A gift is still commerce, KyJim. In fact, mere transportation is commerce. That's why Miller got picked up. He took the short barrelled shotgun across state lines.
|
April 18, 2013, 06:29 PM | #425 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
Quote:
comĀ·merce [kom-ers] noun 1. an interchange of goods or commodities, especially on a large scale between different countries (foreign commerce) or between different parts of the same country (domestic commerce) trade; business.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|