Poll: 92 percent of gun owners support universal background checks

And if one knows where to look, they can acquire prescription narcotics being sold illegally by the patients they are prescribed to. However this is not a legal activity, and does nothing to indicate what degree of restrictions are placed on such medication.

Which would ultimately do what meaningful good? Is a waiting period or a class going to stop someone from choosing to engage in criminal behavior, and murdering someone else with a firearm?

And the united state supreme court has final say on the matter. Their interpretation in Heller, McDonald and Caetano is final, and there is nothing that anyone can say or do to change that.

Then cease and desist with wasting the time of others present.

The majority of which are committed by those who cannot legally possess firearms, but do so regardless because they were acquired through illegal channels. What is your proposal for combating and crippling these individuals?

 

Yeah, sure, too many killings in the Ghetto......
How is that a problem ?

 

Murders are at less than half the rate they were during the 1990s. Guns are not out of control in this country. The last time murder rates were this low was in the early 1960s.

 

This is my view. What do you propose?

 

Where were you educated?

 

My gun was purchased legally. And your proposal is?

 

So in your view, we are in good shape with the current set-up?

 

Many places, but you should really stop posting now, eh?

 

I should stop posting because you say so? Talk to me. What is your education, and I don't mean on the streets or in bars after work.
I would like to know what sort I am dealing with.

 

If the current laws were actually enforced we should see a significant improvement.

 

How is the current interpretation unsound?

 

Then you failed in your responsibilities. EVERY right requires responsible exercise. Distilled down to its simplest definition, Freedom is ultimately the Right to Take Responsibility for Yourself. If you choose to own a gun, it is YOUR responsibility to make sure you have what you need to own that gun responsibly and safely. It is not society's job to mandate how you exercise your rights! If it were, we wouldn't have rights; we'd have readily revoked privileges.

And if you can't get an amendment enacted, then you can't just ignore the Constitution and do whatever you want anyway. You say "the gun situation is out of control", when, ironically, more people own guns now than have owned them in history and our homicide rates have fallen dramatically in the last few years, back to early 1960's levels.

Unfortunately, lots of those "Constitutional experts" are lawyers, and lawyers want to argue meaning right down to what the meaning of the world "is" is. They can have a degree in Constitutional law and pursue an unconstitutional agenda, proclaiming themselves "experts" whose actual goal is the destruction of the Constitution from within.

 

What is the above bolded belief based upon?

Historically? In the USA? Where and why were those weapons confiscated?

 

Of the bolded, says who and by what authority?

 

Prior restraint and its violation of the Constitution has quite a bit of jurisprudence behind it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint
Background checks for the purchase of firearms are a form of this

 

In other countries, the same countries that keep getting referred to by the anti's as "gun control success stories".

 

Your link does not even mention background checks. As it was you who claimed that "Background checks are a forum of prior restraint", it is you who must provide evidence that background checks are a form of prior restraint. Do you have a link to an objective legal source that backs your claim?

 

I did that. Read what I said:

They violate the constitution every bit as much as a police officer, absent probable cause or reasonable suspicion, stopping you on the sidewalk and holding you there while he runs your ID to see if you have a warrant for your arrest, an escaped convict, etc.

Tell me how I am wrong.

 

So what evidence do you have to prove that registration would lead to gun confiscation in the USA?

 

Now you're being silly.

 

In the intel biz, they don't talk intentions. They talk capabilities. We know that Connecticut and New York had mandatory registration for some classes of firearms and accessories, which enjoyed a compliance rate of about 15%. Guess which two states now don't allow ownership of those classes of weapons and require that they be turned into law enforcement or otherwise disposed of?

 

I am looking for fact, not opinion. Get back to me when you can provide objective source citation that directly links background checks to prior restraint.

 

Ad hominem.

 

Is the word "abortion" mentioned in the 14th Amendment?