Who said zero restrictions about a 3rd grader?
- Status
Who said zero restrictions about a 3rd grader?
This feeling I get. I totally understand the frustration. I was just talking to someone today about how exhausting this fight can get. Working toward passage of open carry took a lot of time and energy that I didn't always have to give. It felt really good to get a win here in Oklahoma. It seemed like just as soon as we got to Nov 1 and get the right to tuck in our shirts if we wanted, then some moron shoots up a school with stolen guns and the battle is on again. Overnight.
Banning ARs because they are scary serves no useful public safety purpose and clearly infringes on the right of any person who wants to legally own one.
Continuing to tax silencers and short barrel rifles serves no useful public safety purpose and (less clearly) infringes on the rights of any person who wants to legally own one.
and on and on and on... sheesh just leave us alone already.
Ok, here's a very direct question. Is the current requirement that prospective buyers of firearms from FFL submit to and pass a NICS check an infringement? If so, how? Considering what the SCOTUS has said about this, that you can still buy what you want... and that NICS doesn't know whether you bought a 22 plinker or a 50 cal Barrett, how is it an infringement?
Henschman said natural, inalienable and inherent. I'm trying to explore exactly what those catchwords mean to you. Direct question. Please answer it.
No natural right comes without some limitations based upon the common good - that applies to freedom of speech, the right to own property, conduct business (make a living), protect oneself, or any other right. Here we are discussing IF there are feasible, suitable, and acceptable limitation upon a particular right that would promote a common good. Although that may not be how the thread started.
I think this thread has taken so many twists and turns that it is hard to tell where questions were asked and/or were replies were given and likewise from whom/to whom.
I think this thread has taken so many twists and turns that it is hard to tell where questions were asked and/or were replies were given and likewise from whom/to whom.
I wouldn't waste any more time on him if I were you. We've made our point that his ideas are unacceptable. Now he's all butthurt because we dismissed them. If he doesn't understand how rights are supposed to work by now, he probably never will.
Just because the questions are hard doesn't mean that they are a waste of time to discuss. I got butthurt as you put it, because you decided that insult was an appropriate way to misdirect. Direct questions were asked and summarily misdirected. Be a bully if that's who you want to be. But to answer the question, "In what manner is someones rights violated?" With.."If you are too stupid to understand, then I can't explain it to you"...well that's just a failure on your part. I don't see it, apparently you do. Show me the light.
I'll say it as plainly as I know how.
Lets say I unknowingly sell a walnut stocked M1A to someone that has a felony record. Violent/Non-violent makes no difference. How is it any different from me selling him the double bladed ax I have in my shed? They are both inanimate objects constructed of wood and steel. They are both deadly when used as a weapon. The issue is that a law is already being broken by one of the parties. What you are vying for is law breaking by both parties with no real solution to anything. Criminals are always going to be criminals. They always have and always will.
I know you think you are compromising but in reality we are just losing another sliver of a right that shouldn't have ever been taken away in the first place. Do you think that society begrudged someone having a gun after being released from prison in the first half of the 1800's? No they didn't, but they would damn sure mete out some punishment if they were to use it to commit another crime. But here's the little secret. It wasn't the gun at all, it was the fact that he committed a crime. Where did we go wrong to think otherwise?
You want me to give you a definition of what someone else posted?
there has to be a way to stop felons without hendering the law biding public. i would support a id card state issued to buy a gun from anyone
FFL is not a person it's a business that is Federally Licensed and Governed; and it has no rights.
Persons do.
Why is this so hard to get through?
I think you misunderstood. I didn't suggest that all private sales should be forced to go through an FFL. I also didn't suggest that anyone should be prosecuted for unknowingly selling something to a prohibited person. I suggested that a barrier be put in place so that it was less easy for them to buy at gun shows, and suggested that the benefit would be that felons stop coming to gun shows to buy firearms.
- Status
Similar threads
