Scott Walker supports eliminating 48-hour waiting period for handgun purchases

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm fortraditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER

Your argument has been regarded by the courts as moot. It is no longer a valid argument to make. It is no more valid than claiming the earth is flat in the face of all evidence showing that it is round.

 

Why do conservatives all argue by appealing to extremes?

Utterly irrelevant to the current discussion. If you think about it even you will realize that if someone already owns one they don't need to buy one.

Again you are appealing to extremes. I never claimed it was any sort of perfect solution, just that it might help in certain situations.

Again you try to make the accusation that I am naive or inexperienced without any assertion that you are not. I assure you I am neither. I have been accused of being somewhat callous but in this case I don't think I am being so.

 

So "god" wants you to be able to buy a handgun without a two day wait? Or who or what has conferred this right upon you?

- - - Updated - - -

I don't. I admit the possibility that they might be.

 

As has been explained elsewhere, I am of no particular loyalty to any side or viewpoint that is shared by others. Simply I will argue whatever point or position that is necessary to bring forth the facts and the full truth of the matter. Rhetoric and pseudo sciences have no place in a debate of serious matters and will not be treated as such. Facts are all that is truly relevant, as is a willingness to rely on them and only them.

And yet there is nothing to stop someone from buying more than one firearm. Which brings us back to the previous question. What is the legal justification for mandating a forty eight hour waiting period for someone who is not a first-time firearms purchaser?

Incorrect.

If you are going to continually cite vague generalizations, soundbyte logic, and political talking points to support your position, then I will cite whatever facts I reasonably believe will discredit whatever attempts at argument you put forth. Case in point, the existence of folding rifles that can easily be stowed away within a backpack; in essence slipping a rifle into a pocket.

Insufficient justification.

You disregard out of hand the notion that some individuals do not have the luxury of waiting forty eight hours before taking possession of something they may be purchasing to protect themselves and their families from harm. If that is not callous then what do you believe is?

- - - Updated - - -

Just as they may possibly be murdered if forced to endure an arbitrarily determined wait time.

 

Most already can.

But gun laws aren't going to keep people from killing themselves, or others.

You may not know this.... but there are other ways.

 

This is the only thing you said that wasn't misdirection or completely unrelated to my post so this is what I will respond to:

They may possibly murder someone if not required to wait a short period of time before taking possession of a handgun.

 

And yet you cannot cite any examples that would lend even minor support to your argument, otherwise you would have by now. You are making an argument for which there is no credibility. You are relying on feelings, emotional appeal, and conjecture to justify your position. You cannot even explain how your position can withstand even passing scrutiny when it is pointed out that the waiting period will not prevent a murder after the fact. As you yourself said "After 48 hours it is no longer such a hastily made decision . it may still be a bad one, but at least there has been a little more consideration." In simple terms you are admitting that they have made the decision to commit a wrongful act and will not sway from that decision simply because they must wait. You seem to be arguing that there is a justified difference between a decision to commit a wrongful act, and a decision to commit a wrongful act that was possibly made in haste.

Nor can you explain how the waiting period is moot if the purchaser is already in possession of a firearm and wishes for a second, third, or even twentieth firearm at the time of the purchase in question. All you have to offer is the statement of "If you think about it even you will realize that if someone already owns one they don't need to buy one" as if it has any bearing on the matter. It does not.

Why should your hypothetical possibility of proceeding future events be given anymore consideration than you are willing to show to anyone else?

 

OK. I'm done. You continue inject things that have no bearing on the subject and taking what I say to illogical extremes. You ask for evidence of incidents (expecting me to prove a negative BTW) without providing any of your own, and simply repeat the same RW talking points over and over.

Have a nice day.

 

There is more than sufficient evidence to prove that when a person is in need of a firearm, they need it within seconds rather than days.

There is no evidence to prove that a person in need of a firearm has the luxury of waiting an arbitrarily determined amount of time before taking possession of what is their property.

The fact that you are choosing to discontinue your discussion suggests you have conceded that you cannot defend your position in light of real world facts that discount it as factually lacking and unjustifiable beyond unsubstantiated emotional rhetoric; the same basis behind the notion of "if it saves one life."

 

Interesting that you admit you cannot prove something that does not exist.

 

Because it serves no purpose. I can walk out with a semi auto 50 call rifle, same day, but have to wait 2 days for a 9mm.

How?

 

Mr rahl, you are confusing me. I thought you are on the pro side of prohibition? What is a little 48 hours? We should increase it to 30 - 45 days waiting time. It serves a purpose to the domestic violence crowd, gives them time to think things over. It saves life. It is good for the society.

 

Mr rahl? Just yesterday you educated me on prohibition, what went wrong between then and now?

 

And I suppose you have a study or stats that prove that?

This is an idiotic law that serves no purpose. If someone is pissed off enough, or whacked enough to want to go buy a gun to immediately go back and shoot someone, they'll forgo the pistol and just walk out the door in a few minutes with a rifle.

 

Ultraliberal Oregon has NO WAITING PERIOD and you can walk into a gun store and buy as many guns as you want as often as you want. Oregon has practically no violent crime...

 

Good morning Mr Wake. I am pro 2A and Pro ammo. No study that I know of can prove my statement. Yesterday Mr rahl educated me that prohibition is a good thing in the ammo (M855) section but today he is against a waiting period for a hand gun. I am merely trying to find out how this fine forum member can do a complete 180 over night and change his opinion.

Please go to the banning ammo thread, this will help you understand my stance between Mr rahl and myself. Yes, the 48 law is idiotic.

 

you can also buy a crossbow and those can be quite lethal.

If a person has homicide on the mind, a gun is not the only tool to accomplish their goal.

 

True, but hoplophobes are only afraid of one thing.....

 

Again, I own several handguns. Why should I have to wait to buy another one?

I'm more concerned about self defense than I fear the misuse. 48 or 72 hours just isn't enough time to cool down for the cheater's victim or the one swindled. 48 or 72 hours is an eternity for someone that is being threatened.

 

Correct. I didn't even think of archery.

 

All licensed gun dealers are required to do background checks at gun shows.

 

yep, I hate the stock character on crime shows of the "gun dealer" who finds a way to sell a gun illegally.

Before background checks at gun shows, I have witnessed gun dealers at gun shows telling a potential customer to go home and cool off. My general view of gun dealers is that most are ex or retired cops or military. They don't want to sell guns to people up to no good.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, that and it seems reasonable, until you really think about it (i.e. the case of somebody who has been threatened).

 

Lanza tried to buy a rifle a few days before. He wouldn't wait for a two week waiting period. That said, it didn't stop the tragedy at all.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/de...nman-tried-to-buy-rifile-days-before-20121215

The VA tech shooter bought his guns months in advance. The Aurora shooter bought his guns months and weeks in advance. Giffords shooter bought his guns months in advance.

Mass shooters have patience......

 

As I said, in most cases I agree with you. The thing is, I don't want to deny a gun to that lady who caught her ex cheating, kicked him out, and now he wants revenge, etc. I don't see much help that the waiting period provides in reducing crime. I do see possible harm.

 

God, Allah, karma, or simply the design of the universe. It does not matter. Nothing is a 'right' if weenies in government can regulate it past the point of use and value.