|
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 |
January 26, 2013, 10:03 AM | #76 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
|
Quote:
We have the constitutional right to travel, but no means are specified. This only means that if you want to pick up and go somewhere you cannot be prevented from doing so; unless certain circumstances exist, such as not being able to leave a state due to criminal conviction/parole/probation etc. |
|
January 26, 2013, 10:04 AM | #77 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
January 26, 2013, 02:20 PM | #78 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
|
Quote:
As for gun control in America i think further gun control won't prevent incidents like the school shooting. But i don't buy the argument that more guns mean less gun crime. It depends on the circumstances in this country more firearms in the past would undoubtedly of lead to thousands more deaths and perhaps a civil war. Last edited by manta49; January 26, 2013 at 02:53 PM. |
|
January 26, 2013, 03:36 PM | #79 |
Staff
Join Date: October 13, 2001
Posts: 3,355
|
Manta, in all fairness, most other countries have, in some ways, a more reasonable legal system than we have in the United States.
We have an adversarial system, where prosecutors are tasked with, and rewarded for, getting a conviction. There are some limits; for instance, they have to disclose exculpatory evidence (and when they don't and are caught, there are usually consequences), but they are not expected to try to ensure that justice is done; they are expected to get convictions. "Justice" is up to juries (often stupid, poorly informed, or disinterested) or judges, relying on cherry-picked legal citations (because like the UK we have a common law system relying heavily on case law, not a simpler civil law system). Prosecutors often aspire to political office, which can affect their actions. This is not a good legal system to have when the government makes more things illegal and conducts increasingly intrusive domestic surveillance. Have you seen this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
__________________
“The egg hatched...” “...the egg hatched... and a hundred baby spiders came out...” (blade runner) “Who are you?” “A friend. I'm here to prevent you from making a mistake.” “You have no idea what I'm doing here, friend.” “In specific terms, no, but I swore an oath to protect the world...” (continuum) “It's a goal you won't understand until later. Your job is to make sure he doesn't achieve the goal.” (bsg) |
January 26, 2013, 03:39 PM | #80 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
manta49, privileges are not the same as rights. You keep referring to driver's licenses, but those are poor examples - they can be revoked by bureaucrats and administrative functionaries. "Rights" typically require legislative and judicial action to suspend, and the more basic the right is considered to be, the harder it is to curtail - and that is as it should be.
I get that you come from a history of serfdom. We do not. |
January 26, 2013, 03:42 PM | #81 | |||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,815
|
Quote:
Quote:
One of my other problems (among several that I have) is that such a system presumes that the government knows better than I about the people to whom I might transfer a firearm. We often speak of these private transfers, we discuss them as though they always occur between total strangers. I will grant you that many private transfers do occur between strangers, to be fair. However, under a universal background check system, I would be unable to give my child a rifle for Christmas without heading down somewhere and having it transferred, for a fee. I'm well aware that the Little McGee has no felony record, has never been adjudicated as a mentally defective, nor convicted of the misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. Why should I have to get a background check done before I can give Little McGee a rifle? What about my bestest buddy? I've known him for 30+ years, and I know that he's been in LE for ~20. If I hit the lottery and choose to buy him a gun out of the goodness of my heart, why should I have to go and pay someone to have a background check performed on him? Because some third party somewhere else did something bad? The folks who really, really shouldn't have firearms (violent felons and violent, mentally ill), won't get background checks, anyway. If you don't think universal background checks are a restriction, you're sadly mistaken. It will add extra cost, which is a restriction, and it will increase delay times, which is a restriction. It'll be a stroke of the pen to change the rules on who gets a firearm and how long the NICS check can delay someone. If the government wants to impose further restrictions on my rights, I, for one, insist that they come up with some reason better than "because some unknown third party might do bad things."
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|||
January 26, 2013, 03:50 PM | #82 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
+1 Spats, plus mandatory universal checks set the foundation for national registration and, potentially, attempts at confiscation.
Just ask New Yorkers... |
January 26, 2013, 04:28 PM | #83 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Changing the rules with the stroke of a pen? If it were that easy we would not even be having this discussion.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday. |
||||
January 26, 2013, 04:37 PM | #84 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
|
Quote:
Last edited by manta49; January 26, 2013 at 04:47 PM. |
|
January 26, 2013, 04:59 PM | #85 | |
Member
Join Date: January 22, 2013
Location: Rogers, Arkansas
Posts: 36
|
Quote:
Felons have undergone judicial proceedings that declare them as such. Background checks imho constitute unreasonable searches, investigations without probable cause that can potentially deny a citizen the ability to exercise a right without due process. See the discussion above on the difference between rights and privileges. Closer to my heart is the reluctance I have to give the ever-expanding army of Federal bureaucrats even more power than they already have. |
|
January 26, 2013, 05:01 PM | #86 | ||
Member
Join Date: January 22, 2013
Location: Rogers, Arkansas
Posts: 36
|
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by RockSmoot; January 26, 2013 at 05:08 PM. |
||
January 26, 2013, 05:11 PM | #87 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
|
Quote:
|
|
January 26, 2013, 05:15 PM | #88 | |
Member
Join Date: January 22, 2013
Location: Rogers, Arkansas
Posts: 36
|
Quote:
Until that little change is made, I'm not going to be supporting any kind of universal background check. |
|
January 26, 2013, 05:25 PM | #89 |
Member
Join Date: January 22, 2013
Location: Rogers, Arkansas
Posts: 36
|
My comment was directed to your question about a history of serfdom, not about what personal freedoms you have or don't have. I have little knowledge of the theory and practice of individual rights under UK law, so I cannot comment on that.
|
January 26, 2013, 05:29 PM | #90 | ||||||||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,815
|
Quote:
And what, exactly, are you trying to make "practically happen?" Further restriction of my rights? That doesn't seem practical to me. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I feel fairly certain that transfers are not free everywhere, and some states even charge taxes on the transfer. Even if it is only $5, feel free to give away your own money to useless causes. Don't give away mine. I also question whether your "not a restriction limit" is at $5, or some percentage of that new AR that you seem to think I can afford. On top of all that, I have serious doubts as to whether universal checks will have any effect on crime in the absence of full firearm registration. If universal checks go through, I give it 3-5 years before more calls for full registration are heard.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||||||||
January 26, 2013, 05:31 PM | #91 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
In theory, since our country was founded we could openly criticize our government. This was not the case in your country, manta49.
My country has no House of Lords, nor Royal Family, even though those have become symbols, they had actual power no more than 100 years ago. We have no tradition of doffing caps for our betters, here, so we did not need to overcome that. Some people come from a lineage that is so accustomed to being told what to do and how to act that they think that is how things should be. |
January 26, 2013, 05:34 PM | #92 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
|
Quote:
|
|
January 26, 2013, 05:37 PM | #93 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
manta49, it impacts your entire mental process. Some things that you consider gains would be a step backward for us, with regard to individual liberties.
|
January 26, 2013, 05:54 PM | #94 | ||
Member
Join Date: January 22, 2013
Location: Rogers, Arkansas
Posts: 36
|
Quote:
Quote:
Under American law, rights are a natural part of a human's existence, not granted by a benevolent government or a generous noble. The 2nd Amendment does not grant us the right to bear arms at all. It simply directs that the government may not infringe on our natural right to keep and bear arms. While an armed population has huge benefits for liberty and the body of research on this subject is truly vast, it's not really the point of my antagonism to background checks or other kinds of constraints. The point is this: if government can eradicate one of your natural rights, it can eradicate all of them. |
||
January 26, 2013, 05:55 PM | #95 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
|
Quote:
Last edited by manta49; January 26, 2013 at 06:04 PM. |
|
January 26, 2013, 05:58 PM | #96 | |
Member
Join Date: January 22, 2013
Location: Rogers, Arkansas
Posts: 36
|
Quote:
Once a government gets in the mood to control its population, it just doesn't stop until the population makes it stop. |
|
January 26, 2013, 06:02 PM | #97 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
|
I'm okay with universal checks, I live in Illinois and the FOID card doesn't suck that bad.
Yep, you all read that right, all along nate45 has lived in Illinois. I have an Arizona and Pennsylvania CCW permit, but can't carry here in my home state, yet. I carry unloaded in the case, with ammo close by. The reason I came out of the closet, is because I want to help Texans(where I was born and raised) and others understand that FOID isn't that bad. Sure I believe it shouldn't exist, but its not commie-ville like a lot pretend.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ (>_<) |
January 26, 2013, 06:09 PM | #98 | ||
Member
Join Date: January 22, 2013
Location: Rogers, Arkansas
Posts: 36
|
Quote:
Quote:
In short, we start from the assumption that I can do any damned thing I want to and the government can limit me only by jumping through a bunch of hoops, whereas in other parts of the world (including to some extent in the UK) they start with a list of stuff the government lets you do. While the effective freedoms may be the same, in the latter form it's much easier to have your liberties curtailed. Most Americans know how precious that difference is, and we get pretty upset when the balance shifts away from rights toward privileges. |
||
January 26, 2013, 06:10 PM | #99 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Let us turn back to background checks. Whether Manta thinks the UK is wonderful and we stink and vice versa isn't part of the issue here. It's an old debate with him, so let it go.
Politico.com has two stories. One is on the utility of background checks. One point is that state aren't complying with the existing requirements to report adjudications. The other is that the Administration is probably going to focus on the dreaded loophole as as compared to an AWB when push comes to shove. Manta - if you don't like the RKBA - we know that by now and spare us. Australia is a nice place where the PM who did their gun ban says it was possible because they didn't have a BOR and they don't need one. Thus liberties can be abridged without the pesky courts.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
January 26, 2013, 06:12 PM | #100 |
Member
Join Date: January 22, 2013
Location: Rogers, Arkansas
Posts: 36
|
You're right, my apologies.
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|