Who did the criminals get the guns from in the first place? Are you saying they stole ALL of them? LOL
Former gun owner and ten years active duty military. Then you know what I am saying is factually correct
VG, mostly I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Then we can leave it at that. Others here seem to understand me perfectly
We that understand disagree.
I can not make this simpler. Right now you have no idea if you are selling to a criminal in a private sale. You should at least be required to find out
You are not understanding that now in a private sale you do not even need to find out if you are selling to a criminal or not
No. A straw sale means it is purchased for another person. You do not need to find out if he is a criminal or not. And therein lies the problem
They should not be. You may trust your family but I don't or trust you. I don't know you.
I do not like this system based on me trusting you are a good guy. No thanks. The honor system is ridiculous and defeats the entire purpose
Incorrect. First if I ever buy a gun and later decide I no longer need it. I will sell it or gift it to someone I know. I'm certainly not going to post it on Craigslist.
Second, if you've ever read any of my old posts in this Forum you will note two ideals.
1. That when a person has fully served their time for the crime, I support the full return of all rights. If society thinks the specific perpetrator is a permanent threat? Either incarcerate him/her for life, or exercise the death penalty.
2. That the right to keep and bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right, which has always and will always exist as part of one's right to self-defense; with or without the protection of the Constitution.
Nor should you in a private sale. See item 2 above. Sell the gun and let the law decide if the use is criminal or not. That's what the law is for. :shrug:
You keep deflecting from Rucker61's point. Straw sales will go on, legally or illegally anyway. People should not have to register their weapons. See 1 and 2 above.
They should not be. You may trust your family but I don't or trust you. I don't know you[/QUOTE
You don't have to trust me, and I don't have to trust you. You and I are each responsible for out own safety and security. Empowering "Big Brother" government to secure your individual safety is misplaced trust.
Then we need not have border control or customs. Trust me I'm a citizen. Lol
Incorrect. First if I ever buy a gun and later decide I no longer need it. I will sell it or gift it to someone I know. I'm certainly not going to post it on Craigslist.
Second, if you've ever read any of my old posts in this Forum you will note two ideals.
1. That when a person has fully served their time for the crime, I support the full return of all rights. If society thinks the specific perpetrator is a permanent threat? Either incarcerate him/her for life, or exercise the death penalty.
2. That the right to keep and bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right, which has always and will always exist as part of one's right to self-defense; with or without the protection of the Constitution.
Nor should you in a private sale. See item 2 above. Sell the gun and let the law decide if the use is criminal or not. That's what the law is for. :shrug:
You keep deflecting from Rucker61's point. Straw sales will go on, legally or illegally anyway. People should not have to register their weapons. See 1 and 2 above.
You don't have to trust me, and I don't have to trust you. You and I are each responsible for out own safety and security. Empowering "Big Brother" government to secure your individual safety is misplaced trust.
Then we need not have border control or customs. Trust me I'm a citizen. Lol
You are certainly welcome to that opinion
And in my opinion and the opinion of scotus you have the right to bear arms but that right is subject to restrictions like every other rightRed herring. :roll:
IMO they have the right to keep and bear arms...in their own country of origin or here if they immigrate legally.
Immigration has nothing to do with gun rights. It has everything to do with property rights and national integrity.
Please don't derail the thread.
Not an opinion. I disagree.
Does common sense restriction on hate speech restrict it? Answer the question.
You can own guns but like all rights they are subject to restriction
Prior restraint can be applied to rights. It certainly can be applied to gunsThey are subject to restriction when and if those rights are abused. Just as they are in the case of firearms.
And in my opinion and the opinion of scotus you have the right to bear arms but that right is subject to restrictions like every other right
No "right" is absolute. However, in order to restrict a Constitutionally protected individual right SCOTUS will review the law following the strict scrutiny standard.
The government must show that its policy is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. If this is proved, the state must then demonstrate that the legislation is narrowly tailored to achieve the intended result.
What would be the "compelling state interest" requiring universal registration of firearms?
Registration makes it far more difficult to have straw purchases and for guns to get in the hands of criminals. You may feel this does not meet the strict scrutiny standard but I feel it certainly does. Scotus gets the final say. I say make the law and let them decide
I await your evidence
Again, how does it make it far more difficult?
Evidence of what? I disagree with you. What evidence for that fact will be sufficient?
How would prior restraint apply to guns??Prior restraint can be applied to rights. It certainly can be applied to guns
The Constitution identifies the right to keep and bear arms (i.e. to own and carry them) as an individual right like freedom of expression and freedom of worship. This has finally been confirmed by SCOTUS decisions in McDonald and Heller.
I've a very simple question for those who advocate registration of guns in any form...what purpose is served by requiring gun registration?
Here are some common purposes for registration:
1. Vehicle registration:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_registration
2. Voter Registration:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_registration
3. Sex offender registration:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender_registry
Example #1 is about crime detection and taxation, #2 is about controlling access to something you are otherwise entitled to, while #3 is about keeping track of something.
So it seems to me that the purpose of gun registration would fall into one or more (if not all) of these categories; thus gun control is often justified as a means to more easily detect a gun used in a crime, to tax gun owners, to authorize ownership, and to keep track of which citizens own guns.
I wonder which of the above, or other reasons those who advocate for gun registration consider valid and why.
Why should they be taxed?
How does it detect crime?
Why control access (at least to those with no violent criminal record)?
Ultimately, why keep track of who owns, what they own, and where they are?
You claim fact not opinion. Facts require evidence
My evidence is me disagreeing with you.
DERP.
How would prior restraint apply to guns??
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?