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

[Thundar]

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.

1) Actually it is a fundamental right and it is a constitutional issue.

2) The feds have a law that restricts your fundamental rights based upon their interpretation of what a felony is and what domestic violence is in each state. The BATFE even claims to be able to determine when a state pardon for a state crime is "good enough" so that you are again "allowed" to exercise a fundamental right.

3) What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED are we confused about?

 

[eye95]

3) What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED are we confused about?

None of it. Rights are routinely infringed after due process as a result of committing a crime. The Constitution recognizes this and only requires due process before rights are restricted (or infringed, if you prefer).

Change your tone or I will simply ignore you. I don't talk to folks who make discussions personal.

 

[rodbender]

Rights are routinely infringed after due process as a result of committing a crime.

Yes, they are today. Before 1968 (GCA '68) felons could legally buy and possess a firearm. Some states had laws against it, which was perfectly legal for them to do. The feds had no law prohibiting felons from possession of firearms.

The Constitution recognizes this and only requires due process before rights are restricted (or infringed, if you prefer).

Where in the Constitution does it say that rights can be restricted for any reason whatsoever? It does say that one can be deprived of life, liberty, or property after due process, but not rights.

 

[Daylen]

If violent felons can no longer be trusted with firearms why should they be trusted with any freedom? If they are so dangerous why release them into the public?

 

[eye95]

If violent felons can no longer be trusted with firearms why should they be trusted with any freedom? If they are so dangerous why release them into the public?

Oh, I don't know...because they served their sentence?

Ya know, sentences are not designed to be just the right length to turn a criminal into a trustworthy person. They are a punishment that involves taking away *gasp* freedom for a period of time determined after due process has found them guilty of a crime and deserving of that removal of freedom.

Again, if you think that taking away the RKBA after due process has determined that someone has committed a crime (or taking it away for life) is unreasonable, that's OK. Work to change your State's laws. This is not a constitutional issue any more than imprisoning people after conviction is.

 

[Thundar]

None of it. Rights are routinely infringed after due process as a result of committing a crime. The Constitution recognizes this and only requires due process before rights are restricted (or infringed, if you prefer).

Change your tone or I will simply ignore you. I don't talk to folks who make discussions personal.

It was a rhetorical question. Do not flatter yourself.

 

[buster81]

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.

So, if a felon is denied the ability to purchase a gun at a gun show because all sales (both private and FFL) are required to have a NICS check, that same felon has no other way to get a gun? He couldn't steal one or buy one from another criminal? Why wouldn't he just buy one through one of the online gun trader sites? No background check required to exchange money for gun in the parking lot of BPS or lowes.

 

[eye95]

No problem. Bye.

 

[Jack House]

Oh, I don't know...because they served their sentence?

And yet they shouldn't be allowed to own a gun, even they served their sentence?

 

[trooper46]

And yet they shouldn't be allowed to own a gun, even they served their sentence?

Would you allow a child molester to work with or be around children after their sentence as well?

We shouldn't allow violent criminals to buy weapons for the same reason we don't want sex offenders around our children. They both have proven they cannot be trusted to behave responsibly with these in their possession.

 

[eye95]

Would you allow a child molester to work with or be around children after their sentence as well?

We shouldn't allow violent criminals to buy weapons for the same reason we don't want sex offenders around our children. They both have proven they cannot be trusted to behave responsibly with these in their possession.

Some folks seem to think that once a criminal has served the incarceration portion of his punishment, all punishments must end. Such linkage only unnecessarily hamstrings the ability of a State to mete out punishment that not only hurts the criminal but protects law-abiding citizens.

 

[rodbender]

Would you allow a child molester to work with or be around children after their sentence as well?

We shouldn't allow violent criminals to buy weapons for the same reason we don't want sex offenders around our children. They both have proven they cannot be trusted to behave responsibly with these in their possession.

No one has the right to be around children. Does not apply to this discussion.

It is fact that a pediphile can not be cured. People do change their behavior from being criminal to law abiding.

 

[Jack House]

Would you allow a child molester to work with or be around children after their sentence as well?

We shouldn't allow violent criminals to buy weapons for the same reason we don't want sex offenders around our children. They both have proven they cannot be trusted to behave responsibly with these in their possession.

1. Like Rod Bender said, no one has a right to be around children.
2. Again, like Rod Bender said: pedophilia(true pedophilia) can not be "cured."
3. I don't think that pedophiles should ever be released from prison and I would even support capital punishment for them, especially repeat offenders.
4. If I can't trust a person with a weapon, I don't want that person being free.
5. No matter how many laws say a felon can not own a gun, no of them will ever prevent a criminal from owning one. Hence why they are criminals.

 

[SlackwareRobert]

If the Pope thinks it's OK, who am I to argue.

Myself, I am waiting for ex gov Blago to bring his suite when they don't return his permit. Here was a man who could be trusted to even conceal in Chicago. If Daley was OK with it, you know he is above reproach.

If you don't like violent felons running around with guns, then get the laws changed to not let them run around outside of prison. Personally as violent as it is rumored to be in prison, they should not be allowed to take your gun from you even in prison till it is a safe environment. They want to remove guns, then they need to remove the reasons to need a gun while you are locked up. I think the biggest fear of the government is that people would see how safe and polite prisons become, the decades of anti propaganda would be for not.

 

[buster81]

A background check would deny all felons, not just the violent ones. We should have a law that makes it illegal for some people to be in possesion of a gun. That would fix it.

 

[Kevin Jensen]

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.

Soooo... Have you already forgotten the oath you took to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that [you] will bear true faith and allegiance to the same"?

...bad soldier.

 

[eye95]

Soooo... Have you already forgotten the oath you took to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that [you] will bear true faith and allegiance to the same"?

...bad soldier.

I disagreed with trooper on the need for a requirement for background checks when an individual sells his personal firearm to another individual.

However, I find your attack, not based on the issue at hand, to be aimed at the person with whom you disagree. It is a cheap shot.

You don't change hearts and minds by taking cheap shots at debate opponents. You change hearts and minds by presenting rational arguments that get others who are reading both sides of the debate to say, "Wow, I hadn't considered that."

You probably won't change trooper's mind. If you post personal insults of him, you certainly won't change anyone else's mind either. You might just get a "rah, rah" from those who already agree with you (not from me, though).

 

[Kevin Jensen]

Where's the insult?

I was simply pointing out that if he is [or was] indeed a U.S. Soldier, then it is my opinion that disregarding the oath he took is a bad thing.

No attack, just one [former] soldier critiquing another.

 

[eye95]

Where's the insult?

I was simply pointing out that if he is [or was] indeed a U.S. Soldier, then it is my opinion that disregarding the oath he took is a bad thing.

No attack, just one [former] soldier critiquing another.

Oh, well, then. It's just a "critique."



"Bad soldier" strikes me as an indisputable insult and turns the whole post into an unjustifiable rebuke.

Trooper: You and I may disagree on this issue. That in no way calls into question your quality as a soldier or your loyalty to the Constitution. Shame on anyone who says otherwise. Shame.

Moving on.

 

[Kevin Jensen]

Oh, well, then. It's just a "critique."



"Bad soldier" strikes me as an indisputable insult and turns the whole post into an unjustifiable rebuke.

Trooper: You and I may disagree on this issue. That in no way calls into question your quality as a soldier or your loyalty to the Constitution. Shame on anyone who says otherwise. Shame.

Moving on.

So how does you "shaming" me differ from me calling trooper a bad soldier?

Or is it simply "un-American" to question a service member on... anything?