- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
they log on to a NICS website and do the background check.
such language is unneccessary TD, and doesn't help the discussion one bit.
Free speech is precisely that, but the right of association, due process, freedom of religion, equal protection, etc, are all there to enable the development, free exchange, and protection of ideas. The right to bear arms used to be about that too back in the day. It was a check on government. But today it has lost that element completely.
If you who claim to be a lawyer who has to have this explained to you I doubt I can help you. I think its important that politicians realize that if they really go way way too far, honest, law abiding citizens have the power to kill them or those who carry out illegal and fascist orders from such people
I like the idea that at the very back of some politician's mind is that fear.
as the old saying goes-when the people fear the government it is called a dictatorship
when the politicians fear the citizenry-its a constitutional republic
Can you explain why it is an important right?
I think the notion that it is a check on government is pretty obviously ridiculous... Self defense... I dunno. I guess... That doesn't seem to rise to the level of things like the freedom of expression or equal protection or whatnot to me.
you keep ignoring what I write
its easy to make a GUN DEALER who receives newly made guns in the course of his business comply
how do you enforce this law among citizens
one day my brother has a gun
where did you get that gun asks Officer Thunder
None of your damn business says my brother-Steve
well did you go through a background check for that gun
None of your damn business says Steve
well I know that the gun was sold to your brother Mr T 17 years ago and last year we required that all citizens must perform background checks
he sold it to me 14 years go, so get Lost
WTH do you think the purpose of the second amendment was
too bad a bunch of Jews couldn't shoot Hitler, Himmler and a bunch of those other goose-stepping bastards
Germany confiscated guns owned by Jews
So you're going for the check on the government angle like I said... That's pretty obviously dumb, so I remain unconvinced.
I mean, it isn't that I want the government to take everybody's guns away or quarter troops in my house, but I don't want the government to take away all the couches or poop on my head either. But it's a constitution. You're just supposed to hit the high points. We can't list off every trivial thing in there.
Godwining the thread huh?
strawman hypothetical, as LEOs never ask folks if they went through a background check to get a gun.
that's because its not the law now
DUH
how are you going to enforce the law without registration?...
As our government inches closer and closer to being a corporatocracy in all but name only, I find I can't agree with that. I am becoming more and more convinced that we need to fight tooth and nail to hold on to this particular check on government.
There does not need to be any ongoing rational defense of one's rights, including gun rights.
Well that's a pretty lame stance... You're just giving up the field?
It makes it look like I'm giving up when you cut out the entirety of my post, except for one sentence. Maybe try responding to the whole thing?
by expecting patriotic Americans to follow the law.
The notion of gun owners being some kind of a check on the government is silly. We spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined. A bunch of dudes with shotguns isn't even close to being a check on say, the Iraqi army from before the Iraq war, and we saw how well they did against the US military... If you really want gun owners to be a check on the US military, you should be fighting to cut military funding down to 5% of what it is first... As it stands, if there were a revolution (which would be pretty ridiculous in a democracy... what, you can't just wait a year or two for the next election?) what would decide it was which side the military was on, not some dudes with shotguns.
Now, back in the founder's time, an armed populace really was a check on the government. Civilians had comparable arms to the military and greater numbers. Not so today, nor could it be without the country being torn apart by Timothy McVeighs equipped with stealth bombers.
The rest of your post was just explanations for why you don't think you should bother defending your position, no?
you really are ignorant on the reality of armed resistance
if some dictator takes over what is the proper response
10 million citizens going toe to toe with the military (who most likely would side with them)
or 10 million citizens making it their most important duty to shoot that dictator
tell me-if you ended up in power and you know that if you say ban guns and order all gun owners jailed, that would mean 10 million guys like turtle-many of us who have years of experience in long range "target interdiction skills"-are going to do every thing we can to say put a 30-06 in the back of your dictatoring head, would you still engage in such nastiness
I think not
The notion of gun owners being some kind of a check on the government is silly. We spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined. A bunch of dudes with shotguns isn't even close to being a check on say, the Iraqi army from before the Iraq war, and we saw how well they did against the US military... If you really want gun owners to be a check on the US military, you should be fighting to cut military funding down to 5% of what it is first... As it stands, if there were a revolution (which would be pretty ridiculous in a democracy... what, you can't just wait a year or two for the next election?) what would decide it was which side the military was on, not some dudes with shotguns.
Now, back in the founder's time, an armed populace really was a check on the government. Civilians had comparable arms to the military and greater numbers. Not so today, nor could it be without the country being torn apart by Timothy McVeighs equipped with stealth bombers.
The notion of gun owners being some kind of a check on the government is silly. We spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined. A bunch of dudes with shotguns isn't even close to being a check on say, the Iraqi army from before the Iraq war, and we saw how well they did against the US military... If you really want gun owners to be a check on the US military, you should be fighting to cut military funding down to 5% of what it is first... As it stands, if there were a revolution (which would be pretty ridiculous in a democracy... what, you can't just wait a year or two for the next election?) what would decide it was which side the military was on, not some dudes with shotguns.
Now, back in the founder's time, an armed populace really was a check on the government. Civilians had comparable arms to the military and greater numbers. Not so today, nor could it be without the country being torn apart by Timothy McVeighs equipped with stealth bombers.
Do all people have a right to free speech? Even the ones who suck at producing a cogent defense of it? Yes.
Another straw man from the NRA fanboys.
No body wants you to give up you liberty. Own your guns. Just fill out some paper work when you buy them and when you sell them.
ten times better armedWell, we've seen how effective insurgency is in Iraq. It's been a headache for sure. But, then again, the insurgents there are 10 times better armed than the American people. They have all kinds of serious military hardware. And, they're 10 times more experienced than the American people. And still, just a headache for the US military really.
I don't think we should ban guns or anything, but calling it a liberty issue is quite a stretch IMO. The real, core, liberties are all about protecting the free flow and expression of ideas. Free speech is precisely that, but the right of association, due process, freedom of religion, equal protection, etc, are all there to enable the development, free exchange, and protection of ideas. The right to bear arms used to be about that too back in the day. It was a check on government. But today it has lost that element completely. Now it just seems to be about people think guys are cool... So, I don't think we should ban them or something, but I think it's pretty grandiose to still be canonizing the right to bear arms along with the more serious rights.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?