The GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE FIGHT IS BACK - Congressional Hearings 8/19/2010 in CHICAGO!

trooper46 · Aug 21, 2010

Jack House said:
Complain about someone making a personal attack against you, then direct a personal attack against them. Nice job.

You may hate Doug, I might have a distaste for him. But that doesn't change the fact that he's right about it being wrong to infringe on the rights of the people to keep and bare arms, regardless of the circumstance.

He's also right that denying the right of "criminals" to own and carry weapons is a slippery slope that we are already sliding down. Did you know that under the current law, you can have right to self defense restricted for life over a simple third degree misdemeanor?

I have no problem with his opinion on the issue. I have debated with others on this thread without resorting to such and he is perfectly capable of giving the same respect. I do have a problem with adding a negative attack at the end of an argument under the guise of just making a legitimate opinion. He choose to open up his argument by wishing harm befall me so I simply responded in kind. I don't...hate..Doug, I just find both his negative comments and grammar nazism distracting from meaningful debate.

trooper46 · Aug 21, 2010

rodbender said:
Doug may be a lot of things, a troll he is not. He is a liberty loving individual with some really good thoughts (occasionally). More times than not actually.

Lets see, shall not be infringed, giving up liberties for security, lowering the bar of felony seems like a pretty good one if you ask me. If the despots in power want to disarm the American persons, all they have to do is...let's say make speeding, running a red light or stop sign, failure to use turn signal, jaywalking, cursing in public and a host of other infractions a felony. That should do the trick. All of a sudden you have probably 7 people left in the U.S. that still have the RKBA.

This GCA '68 really stinks to high heaven.

Edit: He's up to 31 posts now. He'll be taking over the entire forum shortly.

Who gives a crap about post count? What exactly does that have to do with the debate? Do you think your some how superior because you've run your mouth more than I. Wow...thats a real achievement. I've been watching the forums long before I made an account to engage in debate. Only recently has my schedule allowed me the lee way to do so. Get over yourself and then may'be we'll discuss big boy things.

trooper46 · Aug 21, 2010

eye95 said:
It is still a crime. Rights are routinely revoked after conviction of a crime via due process. That a right can be revoked under such circumstances is undeniable. Which rights and for how long they are denied is a matter of policy to be determined using republican methods of legislation.

I would argue that a policy revoking the RKBA for only a third degree misdemeanor is unduly harsh and should be changed. But, the ability of the State to revoke the RKBA for life for certain crimes is reasonable in theory and in practice.

That I wouldn't have too much of an issue with a change in that regard. My concern is more focussed towards violent or drug related criminals being able to purchase a firearm without some type of background check barrier. It would depend on what the misdemeanor entailed exactly.

trooper46 · Aug 21, 2010

Thundar said:
OK Trooper, lets put the philosophical arguments about whether background checks really do more good than harm aside.

Here are 3 really good arguments:

1) Significant cost. The background check can only be provided by a Class I FFL. They normally charge $30 to do the work. Who should pay for this? The buyer? Would you be so kind as to open your wallet for this cause?

Ruins Gun Collecting. Licensed Gun collectors are FFLs (FFL III) that are permitted to buy and sell interstate. There are lots of these guys at gun shows. They will not be allowed to engage in interstate gun trading at gun shows if this law passes. FFL I (Dealer) cannot transfer that nice vintage Colt 45 to you if you are from out of state. Yup the law you are supporting is extremely destructive to gun collectors.

No Constitutional Basis. The law would restrict intrastate trade in firearms, which is not permitted under the US Constitution. Yup the law you are supporting tears at the founding principles of our Republic.

I apologize if I was unclear in my opening posts regarding the gun show issue. I am not specifically endorsing this law in particular as I haven't had the time pour over it and make a determination. I do however support requiring a background for anyone that wishes to purchase a firearm from any source. But I will answer those good points that are in respect to that idea.

1. Yes, a law requiring background checks between private sales would cost an additional amount in the exchange. The seller could include this in the price of the sale (or we could always make the brady campaign pay for it...they want it anyway) . It is my opinion that the extra cost on this issue is outweighed by the creation of yet another barrier to criminals buying firearms, it makes the market more expensive and more difficult for them to acquire them.

I do agree with the points regarding interstate trade and contend that they would violate the constitution. Having not studied the specific law, I will trust your judgement on that. My argument is based more towards that idea that criminals have forfeited their rights purchase a firearm , backgrounds checks are a necessary barrier to this occurring, and that gun shows provide a venue for purchases without background checks.

rodbender · Aug 21, 2010

trooper46 said:
Who gives a crap about post count? What exactly does that have to do with the debate? Do you think your some how superior because you've run your mouth more than I. Wow...thats a real achievement. I've been watching the forums long before I made an account to engage in debate. Only recently has my schedule allowed me the lee way to do so. Get over yourself and then may'be we'll discuss big boy things.

Well, you addressed the last statement in the quote. Are you going to address the real issues I mentioned or is your tactic to avoid them.

Post count affords us the oportunity to determine if you may simply be a troll, sent to divide and conquer, or maybe just a newby. Personally, I don't think you are a troll, but I do think you are misguided in the fact that you think this government (any government) can and will keep you safe.

Criminals are going to get their guns. They don't care about the law, thus they are called criminals. GCA '68 and background checks do nothing more than make criminals out of dealers that don't do their paperwork quite right. Sure there are the FFLs that ignore the law about selling to felons and straw purchases, but then you'll always have that.

Criminals are going to get their guns. Whether it be through crooked FFLs, private sales, straw purchases, on the black market, or even stealing them directly. It doesn't matter, they will get their guns. If it is more expensive for them to get guns, they will simply commit that one or two extra robberies or burglaries, or they will sell more dope to get the money.

If you give up liberties for safety you will get neither. I think Ben Franklin said something along those lines. We should listen to the founders of this federation and the framers of the Constitution. They were very wise men, one and all.

Sure there is the provision about "felon in possession" included in the GCA '68, but according to the 2 DAs that I know, it is almost always the first charge to be dropped in the process of a plea bargain. Very few felons are ever tried on the all important "felon in possession" charge.

Background checks and GCA '68 do nothing to stop criminals from getting their guns.

trooper46 · Aug 21, 2010

rodbender said:
Well, you addressed the last statement in the quote. Are you going to address the real issues I mentioned or is your tactic to avoid them.

Post count affords us the oportunity to determine if you may simply be a troll, sent to divide and conquer, or maybe just a newby. Personally, I don't think you are a troll, but I do think you are misguided in the fact that you think this government (any government) can and will keep you safe.

Criminals are going to get their guns. They don't care about the law, thus they are called criminals. GCA '68 and background checks do nothing more than make criminals out of dealers that don't do their paperwork quite right. Sure there are the FFLs that ignore the law about selling to felons and straw purchases, but then you'll always have that.

Criminals are going to get their guns. Whether it be through crooked FFLs, private sales, straw purchases, on the black market, or even stealing them directly. It doesn't matter, they will get their guns. If it is more expensive for them to get guns, they will simply commit that one or two extra robberies or burglaries, or they will sell more dope to get the money.

If you give up liberties for safety you will get neither. I think Ben Franklin said something along those lines. We should listen to the founders of this federation and the framers of the Constitution. They were very wise men, one and all.

Sure there is the provision about "felon in possession" included in the GCA '68, but according to the 2 DAs that I know, it is almost always the first charge to be dropped in the process of a plea bargain. Very few felons are ever tried on the all important "felon in possession" charge.

Background checks and GCA '68 do nothing to stop criminals from getting their guns.

I was not aware that you deemed me worthy enough to engage in intelligent debate with you over this issue,....given the attention and remark you added regarding my post count. If that's the direction you would like to go in, then I will be happy to discuss the issue with you. Dissenting opinion on one VERY particular issue does not necessitate trolldom. If you wish, feel free to examen previous threads I have started and you find that I'm hardly someone "sent to divide and conquer" , not that I have the foggiest idea who exactly does the sending your talking about. I've only refereed to one poster in particular as one due to a consistent habit of distracting from the issue of a thread and using negative comments against those who happen to disagree with him. Now...thats all I'm gonna say about that.

Now, the issue at hand. I agree that the government cannot protect us sufficiently no matter how many laws are past. That is why I made the decision to open carry in the first place obviously. Murder is illegal, but it still occurs on a regular basis in some areas. However, just because criminals are going to find a way to murder their victims whether it is illegal or not, does not mean that we should not have a law against murder. I contend the same for background checks on weapon sales. It is true as you've stated that criminals will always find a way to get weapons. But requiring background checks for any weapons transactions severely cuts the sources from where one could acquire a firearm. No law is a stop all, if they were, we wouldn't need to carry. But again, this creates a more difficult world for the criminal to acquire his weapon in and cuts his options.

For example, lets say Criminal Ass hat wants to purchase a firearm so that he can rob you or me. As of current, he can goto a gun show which acts as an effective shopping mall of private sellers who sell without background checks . As such, Criminal Ass hat is able to a get a good deal on a handgun (insert your favorite brand) and has a wide selection of weapons to choose from that he can purchase with no background check to impede him. Now let's say there is a law and system created for private sellers to call and complete a background check that would be required for all firearms sales. Now in order for Criminal Ass hat to find a firearm, he must first find himself either a crooked FFL dealer or an illegal street dealer. Because of economics, the access to the firearms to criminals has been cut due to the law and the price of an illegal hand gun increases and becomes vastly more expensive. Now Criminal Ass hat must ration his money towards a very small set of options, assuming he can find a crooked dealer. Thus he must now purchase a crappier, worn, firearm (insert your least favorite brand)

I would much rather go up against a criminal who was extremely limited in his options for picking the weapon than one who got to shop around for a day through a cache of no background check required licenses. On a personal note...I also enjoy making life more difficult for the average criminal.

I do contend however that an effective implementation of this law would require the development of a system to easily and cheaply walk private sellers through the background check process. The result would be the inclusion of the cost in the price of firearm. As for the other aspects of the law you mentioned. Please see my previous post. I do NOT support this law in particular. My post was regarding the belief that all firearms transactions, including those that occur at gun shows or anywhere else, should require a back ground check, and that criminals have forfeited their rights to bear arms when they chose to violate the rights of others. I do not find the extra effort of conducting a background check to be a significant loss of liberty as you describe.

rodbender · Aug 21, 2010

All good points, trooper46. You see, I don't know if you are a trooper as in a state trooper or law enforcement of any type. You may well be.

My problem is the fact that I do not want to trade any liberty for any security. I will make myself secure, thank you very much. You see, the reason that the founders and framers wanted ALL men to be able to arm themselves was; 1. They knew that there would always be the criminal type among us. 2. So that every man would be able to have their own security. 3. So that all men could be armed to protect the state. 4. So that all men could be involved in the replacement of the government should it become too tyranical. I don't see this happening for quite some time yet. They talked about this at length in the framing of the Constitution. This was also one of the conditions of ratification by many of the states. The states wanted a Bill of Rights. Nowhere in these debates was it ever mentioned that anyone was to be barred the use of arms. This before there were actually any organized police forces.

Gun control (1934 was the first for the feds), in any form, is not about guns. It is about control. Do you think that Obamacare (2010) is about healthcare? There are a lot of different ways to Constitutionally address the problem of healthcare cost. It is about control. Do you think that the income tax (1913) is about money for the government? There are a lot of different ways to get money for the government. It is about control. Do you think that public education (1890) is about education? U.S. Dept. of Education (1978). It is about control. Do you think that the federal reserve bank (1913) is about keeping the money supply stable? Not very stable today, is it? It is about control. Three of the above mentioned items are part of the communist's manifesto. Do you know which 3? Anytime the government does anything, I ask myself, "Is this really about this, or is it about something else".

The thing I find most intriguing about the people of today is that they mostly think that all laws that they don't remember being passed have been here since the revolution. Before 1968 even felons could walk into a gun store and buy a firearm. Hell, before 1934 one could walk into most hardware stores and buy a Thompson or a BAR. Has crime increased or decreased since 1968, or has it remained at about the same level? What is the main factor in the cause of a decrease or increase in crime? These are questions that every person should ponder and find the answers to before they form an opinion on the background checks or felons in possession or any other gun control act. In another 30-40 years, the people will think Obamacare has been here since 1776.

I know the answers to these questions and will not give them or even post a link to cite them. I find that the labor of someone is a valuable thing when they have to expend the energy to find answers on their own. I also find that a lot of the time, if I supply a link, someone looks at it, then claims I supplied links to a biased website.

The camel is almost completely inside the tent, only his tail is left in the sunshine. It is time to start beating the camel back so he will once again be looking to get his nose under the edge of the tent. I don't want the feds to gain any more control. I want some of that control to be dissolved. I want the government to have no more power, I want it to lose most of what it has. I know it's hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube, but, WE MUST TRY. ABSOLUTELY NO MORE POWER FOR GOVERNMENT. ABSOLUTELY NO MORE CONTROL.

Hef · Aug 21, 2010

trooper46 said:
I was not aware that you deemed me worthy enough to engage in intelligent debate with you over this issue,....given the attention and remark you added regarding my post count. If that's the direction you would like to go in, then I will be happy to discuss the issue with you. Dissenting opinion on one VERY particular issue does not necessitate trolldom. If you wish, feel free to examen previous threads I have started and you find that I'm hardly someone "sent to divide and conquer" , not that I have the foggiest idea who exactly does the sending your talking about. I've only refereed to one poster in particular as one due to a consistent habit of distracting from the issue of a thread and using negative comments against those who happen to disagree with him. Now...thats all I'm gonna say about that.

Now, the issue at hand. I agree that the government cannot protect us sufficiently no matter how many laws are past. That is why I made the decision to open carry in the first place obviously. Murder is illegal, but it still occurs on a regular basis in some areas. However, just because criminals are going to find a way to murder their victims whether it is illegal or not, does not mean that we should not have a law against murder. I contend the same for background checks on weapon sales. It is true as you've stated that criminals will always find a way to get weapons. But requiring background checks for any weapons transactions severely cuts the sources from where one could acquire a firearm. No law is a stop all, if they were, we wouldn't need to carry. But again, this creates a more difficult world for the criminal to acquire his weapon in and cuts his options.

For example, lets say Criminal Ass hat wants to purchase a firearm so that he can rob you or me. As of current, he can goto a gun show which acts as an effective shopping mall of private sellers who sell without background checks . As such, Criminal Ass hat is able to a get a good deal on a handgun (insert your favorite brand) and has a wide selection of weapons to choose from that he can purchase with no background check to impede him. Now let's say there is a law and system created for private sellers to call and complete a background check that would be required for all firearms sales. Now in order for Criminal Ass hat to find a firearm, he must first find himself either a crooked FFL dealer or an illegal street dealer. Because of economics, the access to the firearms to criminals has been cut due to the law and the price of an illegal hand gun increases and becomes vastly more expensive. Now Criminal Ass hat must ration his money towards a very small set of options, assuming he can find a crooked dealer. Thus he must now purchase a crappier, worn, firearm (insert your least favorite brand)

I would much rather go up against a criminal who was extremely limited in his options for picking the weapon than one who got to shop around for a day through a cache of no background check required licenses. On a personal note...I also enjoy making life more difficult for the average criminal.

I do contend however that an effective implementation of this law would require the development of a system to easily and cheaply walk private sellers through the background check process. The result would be the inclusion of the cost in the price of firearm. As for the other aspects of the law you mentioned. Please see my previous post. I do NOT support this law in particular. My post was regarding the belief that all firearms transactions, including those that occur at gun shows or anywhere else, should require a back ground check, and that criminals have forfeited their rights to bear arms when they chose to violate the rights of others. I do not find the extra effort of conducting a background check to be a significant loss of liberty as you describe.

Criminals often burglarize homes and steal guns, or buy them from other criminals who do, rather than buy them at gun shows where they risk arrest from the army of plain clothes state, local, and federal LEO's, and that is a well documented fact in BATFE and FBI publications. Gun shows are not a significant source of crime guns and never have been.

Grapeshot · Aug 21, 2010

Background checks in Virginia often take from several hours to several days - so much for the instant background check! That is not a minor inconvenience.

NICS data reduces to an average of one (1) denied transaction every 3 1/2 days per state or an equivalent of .007 ratio of the total such transactions over the last decade.
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics.htm

"$375 million in the Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Resolution under the Department of Justice in order to fully fund the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007." http://budget.house.gov/hearings/2010/membersday/McCarthy.pdf

That is NOT the total expense of the operation of NICS! Simple math just using their figures yields an average expense in excess of $5,300 to find each one disallowed - these are often for non-violent, non -repeat offenders and can include a domestic violence charge or a veteran seeking help.

Let's keep in mind that a vast majority of the high profile shooters have no previous criminal background. The common street hood can buy a stolen gun for less than you or I would likely sell the same model.

Conclusion: IMO the background check system is expensive, does extremely little to keep guns from those that aren't supposed to have them and generally accomplishes little except to keep the government/citizen pyramid top heavy.

Will knives, machetes, baseball bats and fertilizer be on the list next year?

Jack House · Aug 21, 2010

I have a problem with denying any free man/woman any of their rights, simply because they may have done something stupid or maybe because they were arrested under a stupid law.

I hate the domestic violence laws. Most of them need to be scrapped, and all should be reevaluated under very strict scrutiny.

rodbender · Aug 25, 2010

Grapeshot said:
Background checks in Virginia often take from several hours to several days - so much for the instant background check! That is not a minor inconvenience.

NICS data reduces to an average of one (1) denied transaction every 3 1/2 days per state or an equivalent of .007 ratio of the total such transactions over the last decade.
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics.htm

"$375 million in the Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Resolution under the Department of Justice in order to fully fund the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007." http://budget.house.gov/hearings/2010/membersday/McCarthy.pdf

That is NOT the total expense of the operation of NICS! Simple math just using their figures yields an average expense in excess of $5,300 to find each one disallowed - these are often for non-violent, non -repeat offenders and can include a domestic violence charge or a veteran seeking help.

Let's keep in mind that a vast majority of the high profile shooters have no previous criminal background. The common street hood can buy a stolen gun for less than you or I would likely sell the same model.

Conclusion: IMO the background check system is expensive, does extremely little to keep guns from those that aren't supposed to have them and generally accomplishes little except to keep the government/citizen pyramid top heavy.

Will knives, machetes, baseball bats and fertilizer be on the list next year?

You make absolutely too much sense with all of this. You're going to have to quit doing that.

What happened to trooper46? I thought he would have responded by now. He's been on the state forums lately (today).

c45man · Aug 25, 2010

This pathetic group of political hacks in chicago are doing nothing more than showboating in front of the anti-gun organizations that supported them and now want their moneys' worth. The anti-gun groups are becoming more irrelevant, november is getting closer, and whatever is done by this scum-bag congress better be done soon. Their time is limited and their popularity is dwindling. I trust the gun owning community in this upcoming election will galvanize their vote in a more effective and powerful way than they did two years ago.

By the way, one can debate all you want with 46 trooper or whatever his name is..... The gunshow loophole dog and pony show is going nowhere.

johnny amish · Aug 29, 2010

"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one".
Benjamin Franklin

KansasKraut · Aug 29, 2010

Yep.

Ah yes, the gun show "loophole" - the ability of two private citizens to conduct a business transaction free from taxation of any form of government intrusion into their affairs. Cant have that, can we?

buster81 · Aug 30, 2010

I keep going to gun shows but can never find this loophole. Can someone point it out at the next show?

trooper46 · Aug 30, 2010

rodbender said:
All good points, trooper46. You see, I don't know if you are a trooper as in a state trooper or law enforcement of any type. You may well be.

My problem is the fact that I do not want to trade any liberty for any security. I will make myself secure, thank you very much. You see, the reason that the founders and framers wanted ALL men to be able to arm themselves was; 1. They knew that there would always be the criminal type among us. 2. So that every man would be able to have their own security. 3. So that all men could be armed to protect the state. 4. So that all men could be involved in the replacement of the government should it become too tyranical. I don't see this happening for quite some time yet. They talked about this at length in the framing of the Constitution. This was also one of the conditions of ratification by many of the states. The states wanted a Bill of Rights. Nowhere in these debates was it ever mentioned that anyone was to be barred the use of arms. This before there were actually any organized police forces.

Gun control (1934 was the first for the feds), in any form, is not about guns. It is about control. Do you think that Obamacare (2010) is about healthcare? There are a lot of different ways to Constitutionally address the problem of healthcare cost. It is about control. Do you think that the income tax (1913) is about money for the government? There are a lot of different ways to get money for the government. It is about control. Do you think that public education (1890) is about education? U.S. Dept. of Education (1978). It is about control. Do you think that the federal reserve bank (1913) is about keeping the money supply stable? Not very stable today, is it? It is about control. Three of the above mentioned items are part of the communist's manifesto. Do you know which 3? Anytime the government does anything, I ask myself, "Is this really about this, or is it about something else".

The thing I find most intriguing about the people of today is that they mostly think that all laws that they don't remember being passed have been here since the revolution. Before 1968 even felons could walk into a gun store and buy a firearm. Hell, before 1934 one could walk into most hardware stores and buy a Thompson or a BAR. Has crime increased or decreased since 1968, or has it remained at about the same level? What is the main factor in the cause of a decrease or increase in crime? These are questions that every person should ponder and find the answers to before they form an opinion on the background checks or felons in possession or any other gun control act. In another 30-40 years, the people will think Obamacare has been here since 1776.

I know the answers to these questions and will not give them or even post a link to cite them. I find that the labor of someone is a valuable thing when they have to expend the energy to find answers on their own. I also find that a lot of the time, if I supply a link, someone looks at it, then claims I supplied links to a biased website.

The camel is almost completely inside the tent, only his tail is left in the sunshine. It is time to start beating the camel back so he will once again be looking to get his nose under the edge of the tent. I don't want the feds to gain any more control. I want some of that control to be dissolved. I want the government to have no more power, I want it to lose most of what it has. I know it's hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube, but, WE MUST TRY. ABSOLUTELY NO MORE POWER FOR GOVERNMENT. ABSOLUTELY NO MORE CONTROL.

Sorry it took so long to respond. I've had only time to glance and make a few posts lately.

Yes, my username is a little misleading and it was made quickly without much thought to it. I'm no state trooper or LEO, I'm a just a paratrooper (the real trooper as far as I'm concerned, we jump outta C-130s and kill bad guys....not jump out of cruisers and write tickets) , nothing against LEO though, just a bit of humor. Sorry about the misleading user name.

My final thoughts on this are that we are simply coming from different, irreconcilable perspectives. I personally would prefer that we know that each person who purchases a firearm is in fact a law abiding citizen. If this creates an inconvenience, then I feel that inconvenience is outweighed by the potential to make it more difficult for criminals to attain weapons. It's a security versus liberty issue, one of the very select few I happen to lean more towards security on.

But I completely understand where most of you are coming from in regards to big government and I respect your opinions. It will eventually be up to the people and the courts to find the proper balance between the two and I have complete faith that our republic will eventually come to the proper solution that is in line with the spirit of the constitution (all be it a long and painful process).

One thing however I will not and never will concede on is the idea of allowing convicted violent offenders to purchase weapons. I'm sorry, when you chose to violate the rights of another person, you have forfeited your own rights (especially in a domestic abuse case, i.e your an ******* for beating your own family. No man or woman should ever lay his/her hands on their spouse or kids in such a way). This is the basic premise for the philosophy of self-defense in general. When one person attempts to kill another, that person has forfeited his rights to life and liberty by attempting to or actually depriving another of them. If your a felon or a violent criminal, you've shown that you are neither a civilized and responsible citizen of this republic nor trust worthy enough to carry a weapon.

Well, that's just my opinion. I've more than had my say on this topic so I'll let others draw their conclusions and continue the discussion.

buster81 · Aug 30, 2010

Not all felons are violent. The ones that are shouldn't be on the street. If you can't trust them with a gun, I don't trust them with a knife, hammer, hatchet, lacrosse stick, rock or anything else.

trooper46 · Aug 30, 2010

buster81 said:
Not all felons are violent. The ones that are shouldn't be on the street. If you can't trust them with a gun, I don't trust them with a knife, hammer, hatchet, lacrosse stick, rock or anything else.

Lol, no he can have his rock or knife, as long as I can have my gun and he can't. I'd settle for that. True not all felons are violent, I should have said violent felons as well. I mostly mean violent offenders in general.

rodbender · Aug 30, 2010

buster81 said:
Not all felons are violent. The ones that are shouldn't be on the street. If you can't trust them with a gun, I don't trust them with a knife, hammer, hatchet, lacrosse stick, rock or anything else.

Some of my thoughts exactly. Would we or rather should we be opposed to say a white collar felon (embezzlement) to own firearms? Absolutely nothing violent about what he did, he simply took something that did not belong to him without benefit of weapon.

proper solution that is in line with the spirit of the constitution

There is and can never be a spirit of the Constitution. The framers said what they meant and meant what they said. To get the meaning of the Constitution, one needs to go to the framers words while they were debating it all. You will also need to understand and search for the meaning of certain words then that have a different meaning today. This is something that I don't see "Constitutional scholars" making much use of these days.

One example is the word regulate. Today it's most common usage means to control. In 1787 when the Constitution was debated and ratified, it's most common usage meant to make regular or to make even. This is the usage that needs to be applied to this word as it is being used in the Constitutiton. I say this because the regulation of commerce among the states was discussed in length during the Constitutional Convention and in the ratification debates in the state legislatures.

When most of the framers of the second amendment (in the 1st congress) are quoted as saying the same thing (yet, in different ways), wouldn't you think that that was what the second amendment was suppose to mean? All of the quotes on the second amendment say that NO man shall be barred the use of arms. Don't you think that they said what they meant? I certainly do. They are never quoted as saying that it applies to all law abiding men or all non felons. If a man can not be trusted with a firearm, he should not be on the street. They will get their guns. That's why they are called criminals.

Trooper, I am sorry that you cannot find it in yourself to air on the side of liberty, something we all must do if we are to return to a free people. We should always side with liberty over governmental control, no matter how slight the control or how miniscule the liberty we are giving up.

eye95 · Aug 30, 2010

Let me say this again, not to change the minds of those who have already posted in this thread, but to make sure that those who read the thread get both sides of the argument.

Back to the time of the Founders, prior to them, and under the system they set up, people who broke the law had their freedoms restricted after due process determined that they were indeed criminals. Life, Liberty, and Property were routinely forfeit, sometimes forever.

Taking away the RKBA for a period of time, or for life, can be a reasonable part of any punishment, as long as the forfeiture is spelled out in law and occurs only after due process determines that the criminal falls into the legal circumstance for which the forfeiture is legally prescribed.

Under which circumstances the RKBA is forfeit, and for how long, is a matter of public policy. If you feel that your State is too harsh in this regard (or not harsh enough), use the political process to advocate for change.

It is not a matter of constitutional (or natural) rights.

The GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE FIGHT IS BACK - Congressional Hearings 8/19/2010 in CHICAGO!

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member