- Joined
- Sep 9, 2005
- Messages
- 34,967
- Reaction score
- 12,364
- Location
- Pennsylvania
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
What does a past or current law, improperly enforced, have to do with my hypothetical idea as to what a proper law would be?reality sucks doesn't it
a background check that is not enforced when someone is caught trying to buy a gun illegally is a waste of time
What does a past or current law, improperly enforced, have to do with my hypothetical idea as to what a proper law would be?
And reality has always sucked.
But my ideas as to how they should be applied are hypothetical.Hypothetical?
background checks are already the law of the land
Only in that to avoid the background check, they would have to find someone selling weapons illegally, which, depending on the situation, might be more difficult than walking into the local gun store.
Yes.
Interesting.
I am not contending that a background check would keep felons from acquiring a gun, as that would be a blatantly false contention.
I am contending that a background check would accomplish the following:
That said, a potential positive (a bit of a stretch, perhaps) would be that if there were not background checks allowed, cops could stake out gun shops and arrest a convicted felon who purchased a firearm there...
- Prevent convicted felons from purchasing a firearm from a legal vendor of such.
- Protect said legal vendor from potential lawsuits leveled against them by persons who were harmed by a firearm purchased in their store by a convicted felon.
- Prevent convicted felons (except the really stupid ones) from attempting to purchase weapons from legal vendors of such, as they know it would be impossible, due to said background check.
Eh, I don't have the patience. Most of those things came from my legal and poli sci requirements in college, fortunately I had phenomenal instructors who not only facilitated knowledge but critical thinking skills.
I would support registration of weapons and especially bans on certain weapons, unless people here are genuinely ok with American citizens running around with warheads, nukes, or anti-aircraft guns.
you being stupid again? it prevented nothing.
reality sucks doesn't it
a background check that is not enforced when someone is caught trying to buy a gun illegally is a waste of time
Background checks, when required by the government, are a form of prior restraint. Constitutionally, prior restraint is a no-no.I was thinking of a database containing information about all violent criminals (I assume something along those lines exists already), which the ID of the potential firearm purchaser could be quickly compared with to ensure a violent criminal was not trying to legally purchase a firearm.
How could that database be used against those who legally own firearms?
All a database of that sort would do is force criminals to purchase weapons from illegal sources.
All it would do is make it more difficult for a criminal to acquire a weapon.
Last I heard, it was ~100,000 stops. Since 1994.Yes, but it prevented ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND OR MORE FELONS FROM BUYING GUNS.
That was the point of the law, to prevent ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND OR MORE FELONS FROM BUYING GUNS.
No.... An attepmt by a felon to buy a gun is itself a felony.It was enforced. It prevented them from buying a gun.
No.... An attepmt by a felon to buy a gun is itself a felony.
Thus, for every felon stopped, there is a felony to prosecute.
Now its "millions'? Support this.But it still stopped millions of felons from buying guns.
Regardless of intent, there's no sense in having a law if you arent going to enforce it.That is the point of the law. To say the law isn't being fully enforced (which is debatable) does not in the least mean it is ineffective in doing what it is supposed to do
Now its "millions'? Support this.
Regardless of intent, there's no sense in having a law if you arent going to enforce it.
Never mind that background check is a form of prior restraint and therefore violates the Constitution.
I'd say. How many felons have been stopped?Oops, I misspoke.
It is?It IS being enforced.
Prior restraint is a state restriction on the exercise of a right based on the possibility that you might be doing something illegal."Prior restraint"? I've never heard that term used to describe anything but freedom of the press.
Careful Goobie, he thinks each right has individual sub sets of rules for some reason, you might confuse him with the simplicity that is rights.Prior restraint is a state restriction on the exercise of a right based on the possibility that you might be doing something illegal.
Background checks are a state restriction on the exercise of the right to arms based on the possibility that you might be doing something illegal.
Thus, prior restraint.
It is?
What % of the felons denied a sale have been prosecuted?
Prior restraint is a state restriction on the exercise of a right based on the possibility that you might be doing something illegal.
Background checks are a state restriction on the exercise of the right to arms based on the possibility that you might be doing something illegal.
Thus, prior restraint.
Careful Goobie, he thinks each right has individual sub sets of rules for some reason, you might confuse him with the simplicity that is rights.
But there's more to the law than just stopping sales -- it specifies a penalty.It is being enforced by stopping the sales, like I just said.
Happens every now and again.Interesting. Thanks. You might have a point.
But there's more to the law than just stopping sales -- it specifies a penalty.
Nope, you are demonstrating throughout this thread that you think every right has subsets, part of it was your idea that prior restraint only applies to freedom of speech, this is false, but hey, don't mind my logic it's only based on what is patently obvious.Careful, LMR, your hand might get bitten when you try to put words in someone else's mouth.
If it is such a big deal for felons to not have guns, and that everyone's right to arms should be infringed just to stop them from doing so, why should felons that try to buy guns NOT be prosecuted?Yes. And like many other laws, they aren't always prosecuted.
Ok.... and if keeping them from buying a gun is SO important that the right to arms -needs- to be infringed, why should felons that try to buy guns - committing a felony -- not be prosecuted for same?Maybe because convicted cons have either killed people or used guns to comit crimes, meaning they have proven imature to own a gun.
If it is such a big deal for felons to not have guns, and that everyone's right to arms should be infringed just to stop them from doing so, why should felons that try to buy guns NOT be prosecuted?
Either its important or its not; can't have it both ways.
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?