So...?Crooks would find a way arounf the F on the DL. They could forge the DL and IMHO forge a database.
So...?
You do NOT support the idea?
And you oppose it... because criminals can get around it?No I do not. I have no problem with a waiting period so multiple checks can be made.
And you oppose it... because criminals can get around it?
Correct?
How so?I oppose it because I see it as a more flawed system than say a waiting period..
I wasnt really serious about that, which is why I offered the idea of the letter on the DLWhat, like the Scarlet Letter? Hardly. First off, we've done away with public ridicule as a form of punishment.
As is most gun control.Second, it's easily defeated.
I thought that was clear:Third, WTF is the point?
-This would prevent criminals from getting guns (from gun dealers, anyway)
How so?
And how is the infringement of the rights of the law abiding,
created by the prior restraint created by the waiting period/background check, not a larger flaw?
If "easily defeated" is your argument, then you cannot support any gun control at all, as it is all 'easily defeated'.But as we agreed that this was easily defeated, then the above statement becomes false. If easily defeated, it won't prevent criminals from getting guns.
You dont see the violation of the rights of the law abiding as a 'flaw'?I don't see it as a flaw like you do. I can wait three days to get my gun. Nor do I have a problem registering with DHS and the FBI when I buy photo chemicals.
If "easily defeated" is your argument, then you cannot support any gun control at all, as it is all 'easily defeated'.
You dont see the violation of the rights of the law abiding as a 'flaw'?
A right delayed is not a right denied?I don't see 72 hours as a violation of rights
A right delayed is not a right denied?
What if the police were able to get a warrant 72 hours after they tapped your telephone, or searched your house?
What if the state was able to force you to asnwer their questions for 72 hours before they allowed you to NOT answer their questions under the 5th amendment?
What about the much-discussed prior-restraint parallel created by the check itself?
Indeed, I do -- you dont want to have to defend your argument that a 72 hour delay of the exercise of a right is a not a violation of said right.I think you have the answers to all your own questions.
You cannot prohibit someone from exercising their rights on the grounds that they -might- be committing a crime, allowing them only to exercise that roght -after- you determine that they are not commiting said crime.If there is a Constitutional limit on felons possessing fire arms I see no infringement on the common citizens rights to make sure they are not felon.
Pursuant to my conversation with Tucker... :2wave:
In order to stop criminals from illegally buying guns in a manner that does NOT infringe on the rights of the law abiding, I argue that, upon conviction, the state should tattoo a large red F on their foreheads.
In alternate, I would have a similar F placed onto their driver's license, as part of the background behind the personal information, in a manner plainly visible to anyone looking at it.
Other letters may be used to denote other legal handicaps, as necessary.
This would prevent criminals from getting guns (from gun dealers, anyway)
This would not infringe on the rights of the law abiding.
Would you support this as 'common sense' gun control?
If not, why not?
<poll pending>
Options:
Yes
No
Indeed, I do -- you dont want to have to defend your argument that a 72 hour delay of the exercise of a right is a not a violation of said right.
You cannot prohibit someone from exercising their rights on the grounds that they -might- be committing a crime, allowing them only to exercise that roght -after- you determine that they are not commiting said crime.
This is called prior restraint, and is unconstitutional.
What if the police were able to get a warrant 72 hours after they tapped your telephone, or searched your house?Giving three days to check records is not a violation of your rights.
Until 1968 -- they did.Unless you think felons with criminal records have a right to buy guns.
That's not the item up for discussion.Do you agree or disagree that it is Constitutional for felons being bared from purchasing fire arms?
What if the police were able to get a warrant 72 hours after they tapped your telephone, or searched your house?
What if the state was able to force you to asnwer their questions for 72 hours before they allowed you to NOT answer their questions under the 5th amendment?
What about the much-discussed prior-restraint parallel created by the check itself?
You certainly beleive that these things are also not a violation of your rights -- right?
Until 1968 -- they did.
That's not the item up for discussion.
So...Okay nevermind.
I don't see 72 hours as a violation of rights. You can still get your gun.
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?