Senate Backers of Expanded Gun Background Checks Scramble For Votes......

[Henrin]

Unless you count the ban on machine guns, the gun control act of 1968, the national firearms act, and every one of the gun laws on the books.

Which are all unconstitutional. Look up the definition of "infringed(1780's)" and then look at the word "not". It's important.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

As long as they get "approval" to exercise their rights. Absurd.

Not as absurd as giving a gun to someone who is suffered emotional trauma in war and might lapse back and panic.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Which are all unconstitutional. Look up the definition of "infringed" and then look at the word "not". It's important.

According to you and the pro gun people. But the courts have not seen it that way.

 

[Henrin]

Not as absurd as giving a gun to someone who is suffered emotional trauma in war and might lapse back and panic.

:roll: Rights are not up to the "approval" of some random doctor.

 

[MMC]

Unless you count the ban on machine guns, the gun control act of 1968, the national firearms act, and every one of the gun laws on the books.

I was talking this time around and with EVERY Single one that Obama was looking to break the 2nd with.

This will be good too as it will run into the weekend news.

So Obama will be hearing that word repeatedly. Failed.....which should help to touch up that Ego of his.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

:roll: Rights are not up to the approval of some random doctor.

If a docter says that because you have severe asthma and should not go climbing Mount Everest, would you go ahead and climb the mountian against the docters advice.

 

[Henrin]

According to you and the pro gun people. But the courts have not seen it that way.

That is like the absurd argument that states that the fourteenth amendment deals with private enterprise because absolute language has exceptions. It makes no sense. The second amendment allows no infringements. Its right there in plan english and anyone with any sense can read and understand it. There is no reason to believe a body that can't read.

 

[MMC]

Not as absurd as giving a gun to someone who is suffered emotional trauma in war and might lapse back and panic.

Hows that work with all those Crooked Cops out there now?

 

[Henrin]

If a docter says that because you have severe asthma and should not go climbing Mount Everest, would you go ahead and climb the mountian against the docters advice.

I have the right to follow his advice or ignore it and do it anyway.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

I was talking this time around and with EVERY Single one that Obama was looking to break the 2nd with.

This will be good too as it will run into the weekend news.

So Obama will be hearing that word repeatedly. Failed.....which should help to touch up that Ego of his.

Precedent matters. If the previous laws pass constitutional muster then what makes the current attempts unconstitutional

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Hows that work with all those Crooked Cops out there now?

It will problem work as well as putting armed guards in school or arming the teachers

 

[Unitedwestand13]

That is like the absurd argument that states that the fourteenth amendment deals with private enterprise because absolute language has exceptions. It makes no sense. The second amendment allows no infringements. Its right there in plan english and anyone with any sense can read and understand it. There is no reason to believe a body that can't read.

So you think every gun law is considered a infringement, regardless of all the debate over the laws?

 

[MMC]

Precedent matters. If the previous laws pass constitutional muster then what makes the current attempts unconstitutional

You Right, Precedent matters and one was just keenly set under Obama's Watch. Which means the Rights of Others shall not be Usurped by those that would seek to get around or break the Law in any means.

 

[Arbo]

united, how come you have not answered my question about how many vets have ptsd vs. how many of those have turned into killers back home?


Mag ban appears to have failed as well. Not official result given, but per the roll call of votes I counted 53 against... no way they got 60 to pass it.

 

[Arbo]

Mag ban appears to have failed as well. Not official result given, but per the roll call of votes I counted 53 against... no way they got 60 to pass it.

make that 54 against, Rand Paul just came in and voted.

 

[MMC]

It will problem work as well as putting armed guards in school or arming the teachers

Theres a difference between those there for security......and those that carry a badge and are sworn to uphold and maintain established law.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

You Right, Precedent matters and one was just keenly set under Obama's Watch. Which means the Rights of Others shall not be Usurped by those that would seek to get around or break the Law in any means.

How is making our current gun law laws strong and more enforceable by adding additional laws considered a infringement? Especially when your side has a equal say in this dean ate as our side.

 

[MMC]

How is making our current gun law laws strong and more enforceable by adding additional laws considered a infringement? Especially when your side has a equal say in this dean ate as our side.

Because he wasn't and it was an infringement as well as deception.

First, you have to realize the "at gunshows" part is misleading. All dealers at gunshows do perform background checks. It's sales between private citizens "at gunshows" that are in question. It really doesn't matter if the transaction came about because of an ad in the paper, word-of-mouth, or referrals from friends. -- it's a private transaction between two private citizens. So that part about selling to criminals is a myth. While Private sales do take place at gun shows the percentage of criminals attempting to gain weapons this way is miniscule.

Next argument is that in order to implement full background checks between private citizens, you must register all firearms (otherwise, how can you verify that a background check is being implemented). Registration is the first step towards confiscation (see what's happening in New York, California right now -- and North Caroline and Louisiana during hurricanes).

Last argument is that, even if it were passed, there's no process in place for the FBI to extend background check processing to private citizens. They can barely handle the load right now from gun dealers. Which we even have Biden admitting the Fed doesn't have time to check and prosecute.

So -- by passing such laws, you will do something that makes people "feel good", but will have no affect on criminal activity or prevention of future crimes. Basically, you will have ignored the problem.

The bottom line argument is that if you feel action is necessary to reduce or eliminate criminal activity, then you're not accomplishing anything by implementing laws that will not reduce or eliminate criminal activity.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

united, how come you have not answered my question about how many vets have ptsd vs. how many of those have turned into killers back home?


Mag ban appears to have failed as well. Not official result given, but per the roll call of votes I counted 53 against... no way they got 60 to pass it.

The very nature of PTSD makes a victim of it subject to diffrent standards. The unpredictable nature of their condition means that PTSD victims should not endanger themselves or other.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Because he wasn't and it was an infringement as well as deception.

First, you have to realize the "at gunshows" part is misleading. All dealers at gunshows do perform background checks. It's sales between private citizens "at gunshows" that are in question. It really doesn't matter if the transaction came about because of an ad in the paper, word-of-mouth, or referrals from friends. -- it's a private transaction between two private citizens. So that part about selling to criminals is a myth. While Private sales do take place at gun shows the percentage of criminals attempting to gain weapons this way is miniscule.

Next argument is that in order to implement full background checks between private citizens, you must register all firearms (otherwise, how can you verify that a background check is being implemented). Registration is the first step towards confiscation (see what's happening in New York, California right now -- and North Caroline and Louisiana during hurricanes).

Last argument is that, even if it were passed, there's no process in place for the FBI to extend background check processing to private citizens. They can barely handle the load right now from gun dealers. Which we even have Biden admitting the Fed doesn't have time to check and prosecute.

So -- by passing such laws, you will do something that makes people "feel good", but will have no affect on criminal activity or prevention of future crimes. Basically, you will have ignored the problem.

The bottom line argument is that if you feel action is necessary to reduce or eliminate criminal activity, then you're not accomplishing anything by implementing laws that will not reduce or eliminate criminal activity.

Gun crime only becomes a problem when it actually occurs and the damage is already done. It is not the gangs and current criminals that are a problem but future crim as well. And with the amount of guns flooding the market, we may have the best armed citizenry in the world, but potentially the best armed criminals and mass murderers on earth.

 

[Arbo]

The very nature of PTSD makes a victim of it subject to diffrent standards. The unpredictable nature of their condition means that PTSD victims should not endanger themselves or other.

That doesn't answer the question, that dodges all around.. sort of like the idea of trying to baffle with bs. But it fails.

How many Vets have PTSD?

How many Vets with PTSD have murdered other's?

Easy questions...

 

[Henrin]

So you think every gun law is considered a infringement, regardless of all the debate over the laws?

By the rules of english, the definitions of words, the intent of the amendment, and the rules of logic they are all unconstitutional.

 

[Henrin]

The very nature of PTSD makes a victim of it subject to diffrent standards. The unpredictable nature of their condition means that PTSD victims should not endanger themselves or other.

Life is dangerous. The presence of danger has no effects on rights. :shrug:

 

[Unitedwestand13]

That doesn't answer the question, that dodges all around.. sort of like the idea of trying to baffle with bs. But it fails.

How many Vets have PTSD?

How many Vets with PTSD have murdered other's?

Easy questions...

To be honest I don't know how many veterans have PTSD but there is certainly been a case of a PTSD victim killing someone with a gun. In fact it was a topic on this blog. http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-mainstream-media/150673-reports-ex-seal-author-fatally-shot-gun-range.html

As for the number of vets with PTSD, here is site with some stats

Veterans PTSD Statistics | Statistics: Depression, TBI and Suicide

 

[Unitedwestand13]

By the rules of english, the definitions of words, the intent of the amendment, and the rules of logic they are all unconstitutional.

Did a judge rule it so? If not then what proof you have that it is unconstitutional.