|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 17, 2013, 09:34 AM | #251 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
2) Criminals getting guns in legal(for the seller) face to face transactions is a problem that DOES exist. The fact that they aren't using these guns for spree killing when they lose their mental faculties does not prove a lack of problem. 3) Kochman may be responding to the spree shooting model, however I have not. Those crimes account for a blessedly small section of violence using firearms. 4) No system will ever be omnipotent. A system that does the most it can, while intruding as little as possible is a goal worth aiming for, however. |
|
April 17, 2013, 09:37 AM | #252 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
I suppose the answer to my question would be some version of Depends on how he was tried, juvenile, adult, but I asked to be sure, and satisfy curiosity. |
|
April 17, 2013, 09:41 AM | #253 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,454
|
Quote:
Quote:
No universal background check has previously been found constitutional or withstood constitutional challenge. Any such system that infringes the right described in the Second Amendment should run afoul of that amendment. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|||||
April 17, 2013, 09:48 AM | #254 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
April 17, 2013, 09:52 AM | #255 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,454
|
Quote:
I believe this is already done.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
April 17, 2013, 10:08 AM | #256 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
|
|
April 17, 2013, 10:15 AM | #257 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,454
|
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
April 17, 2013, 10:16 AM | #258 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
|
|
April 17, 2013, 10:19 AM | #259 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
|
What boggles my mind is that some people act as though if it isn't explicitly in the COTUS, it's not ok.
Some things are implied/understood... the basis of law, through history, is pretty much to encourage the proper behavior or discourage improper behavior... that's why laws exist. The COTUS is not a stand alone document. Hell, to get passed, it had to have an explicit set of amendments right off the bat! |
April 17, 2013, 10:22 AM | #260 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
However, to get back on point- You asserted criminalizing the possession of firearms to prohibited persons will restrict the flow of firearms to their hands. You then further asserted this is already so. I concede both those points. I now ask you- if that is still happening- which I hope you would concede- the purpose is not being served, and it is not restricting the flow of firearms to prohibited persons. I feel that grants me leave to repeat my original question- Have you an idea to efficiently restrict the flow of firearms to prohibited persons? |
|
April 17, 2013, 10:27 AM | #261 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,454
|
Quote:
Mere allegation of a governmental interest in itself is not sufficient to establish constitutionality. It is also not plain that "encouraging the right thing" is itself a governmental interest. People have all sorts of different ideas about what "the right thing" is and the process of moral persuasion is not ideally relegated to the federal government.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||
April 17, 2013, 10:37 AM | #262 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
I was being intentionally broad, that's why I included all three bases for review, because the question itself was general. A law requiring the D.O.T to subsidize a national ad campaign to reduce drunk driving, if challenged for some unlikely but possible reason, would likely fall under Rational Basis review. It would be in the government's interest to encourage its citizens to "do the right thing" and not drive impaired. |
|
April 17, 2013, 10:39 AM | #263 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,454
|
Quote:
We do not require perfection. Quote:
I could fashion legislation that if an active would absolutely stop all speeding, but no reasonable person would consider that sort of law efficient. Apologies. I will have to return to this later; I have a lunch I cannot put off.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; April 17, 2013 at 10:44 AM. |
||
April 17, 2013, 10:41 AM | #264 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Kochman, do you not understand that the feds are only supposd to enjoy enumerated powers, and that the Constitution was deliberately set up in such a way as to leave most criminal law up to the states?
Laws are supposed to serve some good purpose, nobody is arguing against that. What they are arguing is under what circumstances, under the Constitution, the feds are allowed to dictate to the states. Those circumstances are, and were deliberately designed to be, very narrow in scope. You do not seem to want to discuss the issues of federal power grabs, nor the examples I provided where the US government, not Stalin, oppressed and even murdered people on our mainland. Why is that? |
April 17, 2013, 10:42 AM | #265 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
|
|
April 17, 2013, 10:43 AM | #266 | |
Junior member
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
|
Quote:
|
|
April 17, 2013, 10:45 AM | #267 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
No, it did not. You will notice that it, unlike Prohibition, was never repealed.
You do seem to argue quite a bit from a "might makes right" viewpoint, though. |
April 17, 2013, 10:51 AM | #268 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
|
I didn't say I supported it, but merely that that's the reality of the situation.
Bush and Obama both regularly violate the BoR as well... so, those are going away. 4th, 5th, 6th... Obama would love to get rid of the 2A, and turn it only into a privilege (read, something only the rich can do, like in Europe). |
April 17, 2013, 10:53 AM | #269 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,454
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||
April 17, 2013, 10:53 AM | #270 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
So, to prevent them from chiseling away at the BoR, you suggest giving them more power?
Are you familiar with Neville Chamberlain? Edit: question for Kochman, not Z; but Z is correct about one of the major objections. |
April 17, 2013, 10:56 AM | #271 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
|
I don't see expanding background checks as a "giving them more power" situation, really. I see it as a power they already have, and a justifiable power at that... so, I support it, but I support it being done effectively.
And, again, it's not an "unjust" burden to do one... if that's your argument guys, you're going to lose in any court of law in the country. It won't even get lose to the SC. |
April 17, 2013, 10:56 AM | #272 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
|
|
April 17, 2013, 11:01 AM | #273 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
MLeake:
Quote:
|
|
April 17, 2013, 11:01 AM | #274 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Kochman,
Take your only the rich concept... Now let's look at a single mother, whose kids have allergies and require regular treatment. She works, and goes to school in hopes of eventually getting a better paying job. (I know somebody in this position, so I chose it for discussion.) Say she needs a gun due to threats from a guy she had dated, who became a stalker. You want her to come up with not only the money for a decent gun (let us say $275 for a used model 10), but also $50 for the transfer fee in her area, plus the time (between work, school, and kids) and gas money to drive to an FFL? Note: This assumes FFLs don't exploit the newly formed federal racket, and jack fees up to $100 as they have in some areas. Huh.... Sounds kind of like what you describe as a bad thing, in Europe. |
April 17, 2013, 11:06 AM | #275 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|