Poll: 92 percent of gun owners support universal background checks

I am not prepared to debate the 4th amendment with you, since I have not studied it. However, I do not believe in tying law enforcement's hands behind their back so that the bad guys get off scot free.

 

That is a matter for debate, since these statements had to do with the American Revolution, and not about today's gun situation.

 

The Constitution and Bill of Rights was written and ratified post-Revolution. Feel free to suggest changes that are Constitutional, effective, enforceable and able to be enforced.

 

No, you're wrong. The statements the Founders made about the right to bear arms were made long AFTER the American revolution, in the period surrounding ratification of the Constitution.

Yet again, your perceptions about whether or not the 2nd Amendment is valid today are irrelevant without a Constitutional Amendment to address the situation.

 

The Gun Ban clack wants confusion, and to deny people the Right to defend themselves and become dependent on the State for their own defense.

 

Thank you for allowing me this opportunity. Regardless, the rules regarding guns were for militia purposes during those times. Let's
not thread the needle and be so literal.
Understand that law abiding citizens should have nothing to fear from some form of gun owning regulation today. The problem
is that it is as easy to buy a firearm as it is to buy a bag of m&m's. There should be more to it when owning something as inherently
dangerous as a gun, no?

 

That would be fine with me. However, it is a matter of interpretation, maybe not in your mind, but in my mind. Constitutional experts
have been tossing this around forever. Are you a constitutional expert?

 

Basic principles of privacy and "innocent until proven guilty." I can pass a background check as well, but I don't believe that requiring background checks will do a thing for reducing crime, and that it's the first step towards registration, which historically has often led to confiscation.

 

Are you familiar with the 9th and 10th Amendments? The federal government was not given the power to regulate private ownership of firearms by the Constitution or BOR. There were never any federal laws regulating firearm ownership until 1934.

Unless you live in Connecticut, New York, Maryland, New Jersey or California. Criminals also have nothing to fear from gun regulations that can't be enforced.

Hyperbole regarding candy, and should the same level of regulation apply to everything with some inherent danger when misused?

 

Then why in other threads have you persisted in posting VPC propaganda? AKA liars.....

 

You sure are not a Constitutional expert.

 

Nonsense. Useless, unenforceable restrictions on any right should have everyone concerned.

Unsupportable hyperbole.

 

And it has since been settled:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

 

Background checks are a form of prior restraint; 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.

 

How is the current interpretation unsound?

 

Thank you for sharing.
I am very aware of that, big guy. If I was, I would have shot you down big time(no pun intended).

 

The Constitution requires us to be literal in how we follow it. If a provision of the Constitution is not sufficient to deal with a circumstance or situation the Founders failed to account for, THEN WE HAVE THE AMENDMENT PROCESS TO MAKE THE APPROPRIATE CHANGES. We cannot simply ignore the Constitution where we find it inconvenient!

...And you just cost yourself a great deal of credibility with such a ludicrous statement. I don't know where you live, but I've never had to fill out a form or pass a Federal background check to buy a bag of M&M's.

 

Or show your ID in order to exercise a constitutionally protected right, which, if we believe our friends on the left, violates your rights because it discriminates against minorities and the poor.

 

I would not call myself an "expert" but I would call myself a dedicated student on the subject. I am far better versed in the Constitution than most people... and far better versed than someone like you, who wants to simply ignore the Constitution whenever it becomes inconvenient to your agenda.

 

Kellermann's research found a relationship between a gun being kept in the home and a greater risk of homicide even when no one in the home had an arrest record.

 

It found that only for handguns, and living alone and renting were much riskier behaviors.

 

Then find and present a law that existed at the time, that held that firearms could not legally be used for any other purposes, be it hunting, or self defense.

Except said regulations have been used to confiscate legally owned firearms in various states of the united states, despite those owning them having done nothing wrong.

If you are going to present nothing but falsehoods, there is no point in yourself even being present any further. Firearms are significantly more difficult to acquire than any snack food, sold at any grocery or convenience store.

For what purpose? How do proposals for making it more difficult to legally acquire a firearm, do anything to prevent the legal owner from one day deciding to engage in criminal activity?

 

The research presented by Arthur Kellerman came to this conclusion when firearms possession was coupled with illegal activity such as abuse of alcoholic beverages, illicit narcotic substances, and domestic violence. Said activity is most often performed and practiced by those who already have disqualifying criminal records, or by those who have consciously chosen to participate in criminal activity. It is intellectually dishonest to apply such standards to everyone that legally owns a firearm, either for purposes of self defense, or for other reasons.

Beyond such, it was asked if the research did anything to show in a conclusive manner that it is legal firearms ownership that is directly responsible for homicide rates? That presented by Arthur Kellerman does not do such. It suggests there is the possibility of a connection between the two, but does nothing to prove it. It does nothing more than present the vague notion of firearms in general, with no distinction between legal ownership, and illegal possession.

 

so you should quit posting...I believe in restricting the uneducated opinions ability to post comments on the topic of another amendment.

 

Good for you. I bought my gun and no Federal background check, no form to fill out. Knew nothing about firearms and stopped at a shooting range to shoot for the first time. I used that as an example. Waiting period? Gun class? Certainly something more than we have now.The Constitution has been interpreted differently by people who are experts on the subject. I would love an AMENDMENT, but
that WON'T HAPPEN in this climate. The gun situation is out of control in this country. Too many killings.