quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

Where is it written in the Constitution that we can only bear arms if we submit to a background check? Answer: no where. This "background check" is a political move to make the left think they are keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. Everyone raise their hands if they think background checks keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

quote:

So, why do we care if their are background checks? Because we are supposed to have the right to bear arms in order to defend the nation from a government that becomes oppressive, such as when they chip away at the Constitution, and it is difficult to use these arms in such a legal enterprise if said oppressive government knows exactly where the legal guns are, what type of gun it is and who owns it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

But that cousin to cousin sale you so blithely throw out there is THE GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE.
Any non dealer can sell to any other non dealer and needs do no background check at all
I believe you folks refer to these as private sales ?

But you see, Mike...despite the colorful name...those who sell guns at gun shows ARE gun dealers. The name is a misnomer in that...if it wants to go after private sales...that's what it should do.

The thing is the distortion of language.
Like calling semiautomatics assault weapons because they look like assault weapons. If you said you wanted to ban guns because you don't like the way they look people would laugh at you. If you want a background check because my son and I trade rifles people will look at you like you are nuts, but if you pretend that dealers at gun shows don't do background checks and you just want to do something about it you sound reasonable.



BTW don't you know that everyone who believes in the right to bear arms is a dupe of the NRA? We don't make a move without checking with them which is why we want 6 year old kids taking guns to school because as you know that is a priority of the NRA (sarcasm font off)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hot4bondage

So the government is just granting itself the right to bear arms, and it's too late to do anything about it anyway?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

Where is it written in the Constitution that we can only bear arms if we submit to a background check? Answer: no where. This "background check" is a political move to make the left think they are keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. Everyone raise their hands if they think background checks keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Here's the Amendment in full:
“A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
So you are correct - there' nothing written about 'background checks'. So the drafters of the Constitution clearly intended that every Tom Dick and Harry should be armed to the teeth and that nothing - not even pathological mental illnesses - should stand in the way of Tom Dick and Harry amassing personal armouries.

Can we accept that no sane person would argue that the pathologically ill psychopaths, serial killers and other murderers should have free and unfettered access to firearms? Background checks are one method of filtering out those people (such as the above mentioned), about whom society has a legitimate right in preventing access to firearms . Perhaps you have a better method - if so can we hear it please? .... or perhaps you just don't care who else accesses firearms as long as your right to access them is unfettered.

quote:

So, why do we care if their are background checks? Because we are supposed to have the right to bear arms in order to defend the nation from a government that becomes oppressive, such as when they chip away at the Constitution, and it is difficult to use these arms in such a legal enterprise if said oppressive government knows exactly where the legal guns are, what type of gun it is and who owns it.

There's nothing written in the Amendment about the right to bear arms being there "in order to defend the nation from a government that becomes oppressive", as you claim. Therefore, by your logic as presented in post #223, such a right cannot be founded on this Amendment.

There is reference to relationship between the citizen and the State as it impinges on firearm rights. The Amendment is specific in seeing the right to bear arms as "being necessary to the security of a free State" ie to defend the State ( no mention of whether the State is oppressive or not). This is a radical departure from the position you are claiming, if not a complete contradiction of it. You appear to be advancing a position that is utterly opposite that conveyed by the wording of the Amendment.

I must add that I find the image of the gun toting defender of the Constitution succeeding in overthrowing an oppressive US Govt, (with the massive State security apparatus and overwhelming fire power at the Govt's disposal), romantic, cute and rather amusing (in its sheer naiveté). Anyone who seriously believes that individual gun rights are a protection against oppressive governments in today's world is seriously deluded, if not downright insane. If the Confederacy (of I think 13 states acting in concert, and its army) failed in its attempt to secede from the Union in Lincoln' time, what hope might an individual gun owner (or even large groups of gun owners acting in concert) have? Answer: not a snowball's chance in Hell.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


Read Federalist Papers number 46 you may find it quite enlightening.
It specifically states that unlike Europe, America could not become a tyranny because each individual had the RIGHT to bear arms and could use them AGAINST a tyrannical government. The massive hole in your argument is that at the point it would become necessary to take action the rest of the Constitution would be out the window. Note it does not say protection of the state but protection of a FREE state, to protect a FREE state could require opposition to the government.

quote:


Why is it that insurgents anywhere in the world , according to the left cannot be beaten but insurgents in America would have a snowballs chance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


Read Federalist Papers number 46 you may find it quite enlightening.

Babble... pointless babble at that, but for shits, can I correct you? The left doesn't claim that insurgents cannot be beaten, just that they cannot be beaten using the tired old tactics that the guntards on the right espouse.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


Read Federalist Papers number 46 you may find it quite enlightening.

Babble... pointless babble at that, but for shits, can I correct you? The left doesn't claim that insurgents cannot be beaten, just that they cannot be beaten using the tired old tactics that the guntards on the right espouse.

Since you say they can be beaten but not by the ways of the right, how about filling us in on the left's successful strategy for beating them?

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


Read Federalist Papers number 46 you may find it quite enlightening.
It specifically states that unlike Europe, America could not become a tyranny because each individual had the RIGHT to bear arms and could use them AGAINST a tyrannical government. The massive hole in your argument is that at the point it would become necessary to take action the rest of the Constitution would be out the window. Note it does not say protection of the state but protection of a FREE state, to protect a FREE state could require opposition to the government.

Do you think that an armed insurrection would topple a US government?

Do you not think that the extent to which America has functioning democratic institutions means that to topple a bad government, all you need to do is .... vote?

If the goal of the 2nd is to enable citizens to rise up against a tryrannical government, then it's fucked.

quote:


Why is it that insurgents anywhere in the world , according to the left cannot be beaten but insurgents in America would have a snowballs chance.

Babble... pointless babble at that, but for shits, can I correct you? The left doesn't claim that insurgents cannot be beaten, just that they cannot be beaten using the tired old tactics that the guntards on the right espouse.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


Read Federalist Papers number 46 you may find it quite enlightening.
It specifically states that unlike Europe, America could not become a tyranny because each individual had the RIGHT to bear arms and could use them AGAINST a tyrannical government. The massive hole in your argument is that at the point it would become necessary to take action the rest of the Constitution would be out the window. Note it does not say protection of the state but protection of a FREE state, to protect a FREE state could require opposition to the government.

Do you think that an armed insurrection would topple a US government?

Do you not think that the extent to which America has functioning democratic institutions means that to topple a bad government, all you need to do is .... vote?

If the goal of the 2nd is to enable citizens to rise up against a tryrannical government, then it's fucked.

quote:


Why is it that insurgents anywhere in the world , according to the left cannot be beaten but insurgents in America would have a snowballs chance.

Babble... pointless babble at that, but for shits, can I correct you? The left doesn't claim that insurgents cannot be beaten, just that they cannot be beaten using the tired old tactics that the guntards on the right espouse.

God, how stupid do you have to be to make this post.
Nowhere did I advocate toppling the government as it now stands.
Yes I know you can change the government by voting (we went a long way in November toward doing just that) .
Where you capable of following the conversation you would know that no one would advocate overthrow unless the checks and balances and the rights of the people are cast away.
She was talking original intent and like most of you on the left argued that since you don't think a revolt could succeed it didn't mean what it meant.
Even if she were correct, and she knows nothing of fighting, it would not affect the original intent. Can you get your head around that?
Remember in 1776 we didn't have a snowballs chance either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


Read Federalist Papers number 46 you may find it quite enlightening.
It specifically states that unlike Europe, America could not become a tyranny because each individual had the RIGHT to bear arms and could use them AGAINST a tyrannical government. The massive hole in your argument is that at the point it would become necessary to take action the rest of the Constitution would be out the window. Note it does not say protection of the state but protection of a FREE state, to protect a FREE state could require opposition to the government.

Do you think that an armed insurrection would topple a US government?

Do you not think that the extent to which America has functioning democratic institutions means that to topple a bad government, all you need to do is .... vote?

If the goal of the 2nd is to enable citizens to rise up against a tryrannical government, then it's fucked.

quote:


Why is it that insurgents anywhere in the world , according to the left cannot be beaten but insurgents in America would have a snowballs chance.

Babble... pointless babble at that, but for shits, can I correct you? The left doesn't claim that insurgents cannot be beaten, just that they cannot be beaten using the tired old tactics that the guntards on the right espouse.

God, how stupid do you have to be to make this post.
Nowhere did I advocate toppling the government as it now stands.
Yes I know you can change the government by voting (we went a long way in November toward doing just that) .
Where you capable of following the conversation you would know that no one would advocate overthrow unless the checks and balances and the rights of the people are cast away.
She was talking original intent and like most of you on the left argued that since you don't think a revolt could succeed it didn't mean what it meant.
Even if she were correct, and she knows nothing of fighting, it would not affect the original intent. Can you get your head around that?
Remember in 1776 we didn't have a snowballs chance either.
Do you even understand what the word tyrannical means?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

We should make reparations to the Native Americans, the blacks, La Raza, the Chinese, the Irish, etc.

Being only ¼ Cherokee, I'm willing to settle with you white devils for just pennies on the dollar. So ... I'll take $20 bucks from each of you.



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

We should make reparations to the Native Americans, the blacks, La Raza, the Chinese, the Irish, etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

That argument (For yet more background checks, many currently exist.) has a fatal flaw. As do most on Either side of the American gun debate.
Assuming changing the various US and State gun laws on gun access will substantially change behavior on the street, or what damaged brains and minds do, shows abysmal understanding of the grey and black markets, which are huge in the US and may be greater in other countries than the official markets. You Really need to get out more?
If you don't know who to go see to buy sex, illegal drugs, legal but unprescribed to You drugs or most types of guns, people on your block or where you shop most certainly do. And many are known to the police. All street people are living in the black market whether they want to or not. Anyone interested finds it quickly.
For better and worse, our society is entrepreneurial far beyond the ability of legislatures and the Law to control. Ask any drug dealer, pimp or real estate developer.

There is no way to do anything about underground gun sales until you address the glut of weapons available legally....see the above problem in getting a one month a gun law passed in Virginia.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


Read Federalist Papers number 46 you may find it quite enlightening.
It specifically states that unlike Europe, America could not become a tyranny because each individual had the RIGHT to bear arms and could use them AGAINST a tyrannical government. The massive hole in your argument is that at the point it would become necessary to take action the rest of the Constitution would be out the window. Note it does not say protection of the state but protection of a FREE state, to protect a FREE state could require opposition to the government.

Do you think that an armed insurrection would topple a US government?

Do you not think that the extent to which America has functioning democratic institutions means that to topple a bad government, all you need to do is .... vote?

If the goal of the 2nd is to enable citizens to rise up against a tryrannical government, then it's fucked.

quote:


Why is it that insurgents anywhere in the world , according to the left cannot be beaten but insurgents in America would have a snowballs chance.

Babble... pointless babble at that, but for shits, can I correct you? The left doesn't claim that insurgents cannot be beaten, just that they cannot be beaten using the tired old tactics that the guntards on the right espouse.

God, how stupid do you have to be to make this post.
Nowhere did I advocate toppling the government as it now stands.
Yes I know you can change the government by voting (we went a long way in November toward doing just that) .
Where you capable of following the conversation you would know that no one would advocate overthrow unless the checks and balances and the rights of the people are cast away.
She was talking original intent and like most of you on the left argued that since you don't think a revolt could succeed it didn't mean what it meant.
Even if she were correct, and she knows nothing of fighting, it would not affect the original intent. Can you get your head around that?
Remember in 1776 we didn't have a snowballs chance either.
Do you even understand what the word tyrannical means?

Bullshit Bama ...if you want to keep arguing original intent than we are right back here,whether you like it or not.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery
That was the compromise demanded by the slave states to ratify the constitution and the attendant Bill of Rights.
It's all their in the Federalist papers and the anti-federalist papers...the thing is you can not undo history Bama...you need to deal with the facts,not your romanticized version of them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

That argument (For yet more background checks, many currently exist.) has a fatal flaw. As do most on Either side of the American gun debate.
Assuming changing the various US and State gun laws on gun access will substantially change behavior on the street, or what damaged brains and minds do, shows abysmal understanding of the grey and black markets, which are huge in the US and may be greater in other countries than the official markets. You Really need to get out more?
If you don't know who to go see to buy sex, illegal drugs, legal but unprescribed to You drugs or most types of guns, people on your block or where you shop most certainly do. And many are known to the police. All street people are living in the black market whether they want to or not. Anyone interested finds it quickly.
For better and worse, our society is entrepreneurial far beyond the ability of legislatures and the Law to control. Ask any drug dealer, pimp or real estate developer.

There is no way to do anything about underground gun sales until you address the glut of weapons available legally....see the above problem in getting a one month a gun law passed in Virginia.

Is that like getting rid of illegal drug sales by addressing the glut of legal drugs? You guys Really have to get out now and then. Illegal drug sales are over $100 BILLION/year business in the US alone Abused legal drugs (illegal prescription, negligently written, falsely obtained prescription or outside legal channels) are considered a bigger industry by many. More users, for sure. I'm thinking your great idea of only one drug buy a month will fix that in a New York second?
Energetic 'entrepreneurs' will supply a market, legal or not. Illegal wildlife and animal parts sales world wide are rocketing (Recently passing $40 Billion a year) as E. Asia and other markets acquire disposable income. All are illegal in all the countries the animals are poached or captured, the countries the contraband travels through and the country of sale. People get what they will pay for.
Dozens of laws that were going to fix the gun problem have been proposed and passed. Some discouraging fraction of them are actually enforced, few effectively. Sooooooo. . . let's pass more? I"m with the gun guys here, let's try enforcing a few already passed laws first?
My view is the gun problem Can be solved, at least for the casual emotional defective and the general gang banger, but Not for the politically or ideologically discontent like Jihadists, White Power and Survivalists, or any of the rainbow of radical leftists. It just takes a police state somewhere a bit more repressive than Hitler or Stalin to actually confiscate America's guns. Which problem do you want unsolved, sickening mass murders in the papers a few times a year or thousands to millions disappearing into concentration camps or otherwise eliminated? Every move or conversation anyone has monitored?? We suppose the somewhat rigorous police state will disband as soon as all guns are seized or destroyed?

OPPS, Bulletin! 3D printing just changed all the rules! You Can't eliminate all the guns, people everywhere just print more? Current anticipation by knowledgeable technologists and marketeers have 3D printers as common in a decade as big screen TV, almost as ubiquitous as flat printers before long. Nobody even begins to understand what letting That genie out of the bottle is going to mean.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

But that cousin to cousin sale you so blithely throw out there is THE GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE.
Any non dealer can sell to any other non dealer and needs do no background check at all
I believe you folks refer to these as private sales ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

Repeal is unlikely. Amending the Constitution is difficult (it was meant to be.) Regulations are much easier to pass as well as legislation.