Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. r [W:146,164]

[haymarket]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep fight?

How exactly are you going to have this chain of ALL fire arm purchases without a database violating 4th amendment rights?

I though the liberal stance was we are going to require UBCs but no database would be kept?

And why would the Fourth Amendment come into play with simple background checks at all points of purchase?

 

[Slyfox696]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep fight?

So you feel safety is more important than rights?

I feel my right and the rights of others to be alive is greater than your desire to have unrestricted access to any firearm you want, any time you want it.

 

[blaxshep]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep fight?

And why would the Fourth Amendment come into play with simple background checks at all points of purchase?

Privacy issues are always covered by the 4th. Are HIPPA laws are also unconstitutional.

It's not just a simple background checks at all points of purchase, don't play dumb. In order to have a traceable chain of ALL fire arm purchases you have to have a database which contains private information that is NOT available without a warrant. Do you want a warrant issued at every sale? Based on what probable cause? That I want to buy a gun?

 

[blaxshep]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep fight?

I feel my right and the rights of others to be alive is greater than your desire to have unrestricted access to any firearm you want, any time you want it.

Your right to be alive is in no way effected by my access to a firearm unless you assault me.

 

[Slyfox696]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep fight?

Your right to be alive is in no way effected by my access to a firearm unless you assault me.

Tell that to the thousands of people murdered every year by someone else's gun. Such a ridiculous statement and you know it.

 

[blaxshep]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep fight?

Where does the Second Amendment say you can do that?

What if there is no connection between the crime and a gun? Then there is no logical sense behind it attaching the gun penalty to it .

Why is this only selectively and arbitrary applied to the Second Amendment?

Why are not other rights in the bill of rights also denied to this person?

The government may not deprive citizens of “life, liberty, or property” without due process of law.

As long as due process is done, upon conviction, the government can deprive anyone of any property as the law indicates.

 

[blaxshep]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep fight?

Tell that to the thousands of people murdered every year by someone else's gun. Such a ridiculous statement and you know it.

Not by my gun so why should I have my rights infringed? You want to throw me in jail for those murders while your at it?

 

[Federalist]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep fight?

If we do not have them for all firearms purchases then we come to the old adage about the chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

And by your own admission we DO NOT have background checks for some firearms purchases. So either the poster is trying to pull a fast one being dishonest trying to make it look like something is not what it really is or they are simply uninformed and are ignorant about the limited nature of the background checks that do exist.

This is yet another example of your desire for the government to place restrictions on people's ability to freely acquire, keep, and bear arms.

And you constantly wonder why the gun owners on this board consider you anti-gun.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep fight?

Privacy issues are always covered by the 4th. Are HIPPA laws are also unconstitutional.

It's not just a simple background checks at all points of purchase, don't play dumb. In order to have a traceable chain of ALL fire arm purchases you have to have a database which contains private information that is NOT available without a warrant. Do you want a warrant issued at every sale? Based on what probable cause? That I want to buy a gun?

So background checks at all points of purchase would not violate the 4th Amendment.

Does having you file an income tax return violate you right against self incrimination? Not at all.

 

[blaxshep]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep fight?

So background checks at all points of purchase would not violate the 4th Amendment.

Does having you file an income tax return violate you right against self incrimination? Not at all.

The database is the issue. You opened that door when you mentioned a traceable chain of ALL fire arm purchases.

Your income tax return put into a database can not be searched without a warrant. I'll ask again are we going to have a warrant issued at each point of sale and what is the probable cause for doing so?

 

[jamesrage]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep fight?

I am a true gun nut.

Pro-gun is not the same as pro-2nd amendment. I am sure Obama, Pelosi,Fienstien, Bloomberg and other anti-2nd amendment scum in office are pro-gun.I am sure Fidel Castro, Xi Jinping, David Cameron, Elizabeth II, and the leaders of other countries where civilian ownership of firearms are banned or severely restricted are pro-gun. They are pro-having guns for themselves and no one else or pro-having the protection of guns for themselves and no one else.

I truly believe all responsible American adults should be well trained in high school and encouraged to carry when adult.

I agree with that. We tell our kids to not run with scissors, to not do drugs, to not talk to strangers and we even have sex ed classes to teach kids about STDs and pregnancy. But in a country where there is a firearm for every man,woman and child we do not teach little kids to not point that gun at someone","older kids to not point that gun at someone unless they intend to kill that person", "tell an adult if you see an unattended or unsecured firearm", don't touch unattended firearms",and "only handle firearms with adult supervision".Nor do we have school classes to teach kids how to properly handle firearms.

I think the NRA and the rabid right wing are both going to have the biggest negative impact on gun rights over the next decade or two.

The NRA is a pro-2nd amendment group.It is their duty to oppose any-2nd amendment laws.

I find it amazing the RWers are lobbying for felon gun rights and have hissy fits when Psych doctors take guns away from people who should not have scissors

People who served their time behind bars and are released into the general public should have all their constitutional rights restored.If they can not be trusted to have all their constitutional rights restored then they should not be released in the first place. Just because some quack deems to you to be nuts doesn't mean you are a danger to others.If you are danger to others then you should be locked up in the loony bin until you are cured. People who are determined to kill someone else will not be stopped by some anti-2nd amendment law that says they can't have a gun.They will buy a gun legally if they do not have a criminal record, they will steal a gun if they have a record that prevents them from legally buying a gun, they will get a friend, boyfriend,girlfriend or a criminal without record to buy them a gun.Or they will use **** you can buy at the store to construct a firearm or a bomb or just stab or beat someone to death.

, making a guy that killed an unarmed minor a hero,

I do not think anyone is making a guy who killed an assailant that was bashing his head into the pavement a hero.

putting Ted Nugent on the board of the strongest lobby on the right.

People do love celebrity endorsements.

It doesnt take much thinking ot see how the right has went off the deep end, over and over...well the right has certainly lost it way.

If anyone has lost their way it is those who claim to be constitutional rights but seek severely restrict or ban them.

 

[Slyfox696]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep fight?

Not by my gun so why should I have my rights infringed?

No one is infringing upon your rights though. I'm not saying you cannot own a gun nor am I saying you cannot use that gun in dire times for self-defense.

 

[American]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep fight?

WOW!!! :shock: So nobody can buy a firearm legally without a background check!!!! :shock:The things you learn here!!!!!

Show where I said that. I'm waiting...........

 

[jamesrage]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep fight?

It seems a few people in the pro-gun community think there are no pro-gun democrats or liberals. That idea has no basis in reality. one reason why it is hard to even get tighter background checks to keep criminals and crazuies from getting guns while allowing law abiding citizens to do so is because there is support for the pro-gun crowd on the democrat and liberal side. To tell the truth real liberals would be in favor of allowing people to enjoy gun ownership in a responsible way. Yes, i know the word liberal has been perverted sort of like how libertarian has been perverted off it's meaning.

I see the views of gun ownership straying further and further from freedoms for responsible people to a partisan rallying point which seems to put dems and libs into the enemy camp. Really, if the right is so pure it should not be a partisan issue, and if it is that important putting the other side into the enemy camp rather than making things bipartisan seems to be self defeating. That is especially considering the present status of the republicans. One should want democrat support instead of making them the enemy because faux news and partisan hacks say you have to. If dems and libs were on your side instead of being declared the enemy and pissed off by the rhetoric they might actually give a damn about your rights. Instead insults are lobbed at the dems and libs which realluy turns most people off or angers them even if they might normally be open to the issue.

For instance let us say you don't own a gun nor want to, but perhaps uyou would not care that someone else does. Next thing you know you have some NRA twat coming up and insulting you and trying their hardest to set you against them and play the victim game. Lots of people who are out there simply will stop caring about your so called rights and just let them be voted away. One of the reasons the gay community has made progress is because many of them are nice people with reasonable requests for things like a marriage contract. the more people meet the gay community and realize most of them are respectable and pleasant people the more they are concerned with their oppression. There is no gay equivelant of a Ted nugent who just pisses people off and does more to aid the opposition than to get people to join his side. How many gay supremists do you know?

gun owners are sort of like gays. Most of them you don't know are out there because it is not something obvious. Anyone could be a gun owner. however, when they have public rallies and actually show themselves in public it normally drags out the crap in the community. Plus it is often a negative consequence when a gun owner makes the news because killing is often considered the extreme. This partisan fighting is very anti-productive for gun owners. It just contributes to the negative image of gun owners while the positive members are often overlooked simply because it is human nature to not be too bothered to think about gun ownership when confronted with a non-hostile pleasant and responsible person. It simply does not matter that person owns a gun.

Anti-2nd amendment trash exist in both parties.But its mostly the ones we hear about in the democrat party.Because its mostly those in the democrat party that are coming out with the universal background checks, trying to ban standard capacity magazines by calling them high-capacity magazines, trying to ban semi-automatic firearms by calling them assault weapons and other anti-2nd amendment stuff.

Some people in the community need to calm themselves down and stop making fights about issues that have nothing to do with your gun ownership. get it out of the partisan hackery. Stop playing the victim and setting neutral or even supporting people on the offense against you.

When you people are trying to ban or severely restrict my right to own and carry a firearm it is my business.When you are trying to ban or restrict what kind of firearms or magazines I can purchase it is my business. When you are trying make me pay extra money just so I can exercise a constitutional right it is my business.When you are trying to enact a law that will pave the way for mandatory firearm registrations it is my business.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep fight?

And you constantly wonder why the gun owners on this board consider you anti-gun.

Oh I know the answer to that question.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep fight?

The database is the issue. You opened that door when you mentioned a traceable chain of ALL fire arm purchases.

Your income tax return put into a database can not be searched without a warrant. I'll ask again are we going to have a warrant issued at each point of sale and what is the probable cause for doing so?

The word TRACEABLE was not in my post.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep fight?

Show where I said that. I'm waiting...........

Ypu are catching on. That is indeed the problem because what you said was only a partial truth - which makes it a partial lie as well.

Yes there are background checks on some weapons. And yes there are not on others. For you to say that there are already background checks without admitting that there are not is half a lie.

 

[Goshin]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep fight?

It seems a few people in the pro-gun community think there are no pro-gun democrats or liberals. That idea has no basis in reality. one reason why it is hard to even get tighter background checks to keep criminals and crazuies from getting guns while allowing law abiding citizens to do so is because there is support for the pro-gun crowd on the democrat and liberal side. To tell the truth real liberals would be in favor of allowing people to enjoy gun ownership in a responsible way. Yes, i know the word liberal has been perverted sort of like how libertarian has been perverted off it's meaning.

I see the views of gun ownership straying further and further from freedoms for responsible people to a partisan rallying point which seems to put dems and libs into the enemy camp. Really, if the right is so pure it should not be a partisan issue, and if it is that important putting the other side into the enemy camp rather than making things bipartisan seems to be self defeating. That is especially considering the present status of the republicans. One should want democrat support instead of making them the enemy because faux news and partisan hacks say you have to. If dems and libs were on your side instead of being declared the enemy and pissed off by the rhetoric they might actually give a damn about your rights. Instead insults are lobbed at the dems and libs which realluy turns most people off or angers them even if they might normally be open to the issue.

For instance let us say you don't own a gun nor want to, but perhaps uyou would not care that someone else does. Next thing you know you have some NRA twat coming up and insulting you and trying their hardest to set you against them and play the victim game. Lots of people who are out there simply will stop caring about your so called rights and just let them be voted away. One of the reasons the gay community has made progress is because many of them are nice people with reasonable requests for things like a marriage contract. the more people meet the gay community and realize most of them are respectable and pleasant people the more they are concerned with their oppression. There is no gay equivelant of a Ted nugent who just pisses people off and does more to aid the opposition than to get people to join his side. How many gay supremists do you know?

gun owners are sort of like gays. Most of them you don't know are out there because it is not something obvious. Anyone could be a gun owner. however, when they have public rallies and actually show themselves in public it normally drags out the crap in the community. Plus it is often a negative consequence when a gun owner makes the news because killing is often considered the extreme. This partisan fighting is very anti-productive for gun owners. It just contributes to the negative image of gun owners while the positive members are often overlooked simply because it is human nature to not be too bothered to think about gun ownership when confronted with a non-hostile pleasant and responsible person. It simply does not matter that person owns a gun.

Some people in the community need to calm themselves down and stop making fights about issues that have nothing to do with your gun ownership. get it out of the partisan hackery. Stop playing the victim and setting neutral or even supporting people on the offense against you.

Frankly, that is rather ironic coming from you. I've rarely seen you waste any chance to play the partisan... and that's being polite...



But you're correct about one thing... there is a substantial and growing cadre of pro-gun Democrats and liberals, and I for one am glad of it.


The Democratic Party, however, is another story... as long as the likes of Pelosi and Waxman and Holder are in leading roles, the party as a whole cannot be trusted to protect our 2A rights.

And that is one of the main reasons I rarely vote Democrat... certainly not after Pelosi's most recent horrorshow AWB bill.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep fight?

I am a true gun nut. I truly believe all responsible American adults should be well trained in high school and encouraged to carry when adult. I think the NRA and the rabid right wing are both going to have the biggest negative impact on gun rights over the next decade or two. I find it amazing the RWers are lobbying for felon gun rights and have hissy fits when Psych doctors take guns away from people who should not have scissors, making a guy that killed an unarmed minor a hero, putting Ted Nugent on the board of the strongest lobby on the right. It doesnt take much thinking ot see how the right has went off the deep end, over and over...well the right has certainly lost it way.

Funny, you have it completely backwards. Nobody should infringe on the right of an innocent person to own a property, even potentially lethal forms of property. Mental illness isn't a crime, and you have no right to deprive somebody of guns or scissors because of your own irrational prejudice against the way they think.

And, gun ownership is incredibly stupid and a public health problem. Intelligent people stay as far away from guns as possible, and although the right to gun ownership should be respected, society should be actively discouraged from "carrying." Just because you have a right doesn't mean you need to exercise it. In the case of gun ownership, exercising the right is just plaint dumb. Kinda like not wearing a seat belt.

So yeah, you have everything completely backwards:lol:

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep fight?

Funny, you have it completely backwards. Nobody should infringe on the right of an innocent person to own a property, even potentially lethal forms of property. Mental illness isn't a crime, and you have no right to deprive somebody of guns or scissors because of your own irrational prejudice against the way they think.

And, gun ownership is incredibly stupid and a public health problem. Intelligent people stay as far away from guns as possible, and although the right to gun ownership should be respected, society should be actively discouraged from "carrying." Just because you have a right doesn't mean you need to exercise it. In the case of gun ownership, exercising the right is just plaint dumb. Kinda like not wearing a seat belt.

So yeah, you have everything completely backwards:lol:

the idiocy continues. You should post a sign on your house saying your premises are gun free.
and you wonder why people like me note you are a major anti gun poster

 

[blackjack50]

Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep figh

WOW!!! :shock: So nobody can buy a firearm legally without a background check!!!! :shock:The things you learn here!!!!!

That isn't what he said.

 

[blackjack50]

Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep figh

If we do not have them for all firearms purchases then we come to the old adage about the chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

And by your own admission we DO NOT have background checks for some firearms purchases. So either the poster is trying to pull a fast one being dishonest trying to make it look like something is not what it really is or they are simply uninformed and are ignorant about the limited nature of the background checks that do exist.

The only uninformed party here would be you. They aren't limited. Any purchase from a store requires a background check. That isn't "limited." That is a majority of firearms.

I know. You want to cite the 40% that is cited back to 1997 (a 16 year old statistic) that the author of the source states: "we can't actually know." Because of the roughly 2500 people polled...only 251 answered the question about firearms origin.

But back to point. He stated we have background checks. We do. That isn't a misinterpretation or misrepresentation. That is a 100% true statement. Your statement about "weak chains" is irrelevant.

 

[blackjack50]

Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep figh

Ypu are catching on. That is indeed the problem because what you said was only a partial truth - which makes it a partial lie as well.

Yes there are background checks on some weapons. And yes there are not on others. For you to say that there are already background checks without admitting that there are not is half a lie.

How exactly can one be lying and telling the truth? Either his statement is true or false. Do we have background checks?

 

[haymarket]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep figh

That isn't what he said.

this was discussed yesterday. again - for your benefit

That is indeed the problem because what you said was only a partial truth - which makes it a partial lie as well.

Yes there are background checks on some weapons. And yes there are not on others. For you to say that there are already background checks without admitting that there are not is half a lie.

I hope that clears it up.

If we are arguing about what you have to do to become a parent, and somebody says that you have to go through a rigorous background check to see if you will be a fit parent - and leaves it at that - yes, that is a true statement - for adoptions. It is NOT a true statement for procreation. And if one leaves that statement out there without qualification - it is dishonest and disingenuous and intended to deceive by presenting only part of a picture when you know darn well it is not the complete picture.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep figh

How exactly can one be lying and telling the truth? Either his statement is true or false. Do we have background checks?

This was discussed last evening. Perhaps you missed it?

But here it is again for your benefit

this was discussed yesterday. again - for your benefit

That is indeed the problem because what you said was only a partial truth - which makes it a partial lie as well.

Yes there are background checks on some weapons. And yes there are not on others. For you to say that there are already background checks without admitting that there are not is half a lie.

I hope that clears it up.

If we are arguing about what you have to do to become a parent, and somebody says that you have to go through a rigorous background check to see if you will be a fit parent - and leaves it at that - yes, that is a true statement - for adoptions. It is NOT a true statement for procreation. And if one leaves that statement out there without qualification - it is dishonest and disingenuous and intended to deceive by presenting only part of a picture when you know darn well it is not the complete picture.