Total Gun Ban: A Question

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Tipper101, May 25, 2022.

  1. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    20,141
    Likes Received:
    7,342
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  2. Noone

    Noone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2021
    Messages:
    13,525
    Likes Received:
    7,976
    Trophy Points:
    113
    First off, why so presumptive? You can dissect my post all you like in attempt to obfuscat the point that your post, as someone else put it, is just a rambling search for a point. Conflating boarder security and gun bans muddies both issues and they are NOT directly related; was my point. So, now, are you wanting to discuss gun bans or boarder security?
     
    Quantum Nerd likes this.
  3. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,680
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Where have you been?

    [​IMG]
    Mariupol, Ukraine
     
    Noone likes this.
  4. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,762
    Likes Received:
    14,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
  5. Hotdogr

    Hotdogr Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2013
    Messages:
    11,021
    Likes Received:
    5,250
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The goal of "universal background checks" is to background check every gun purchase. That's what the word "universal" means. There are already background checks in place for commercial sellers, so the challenge is to have some way to force private sellers to background check their perspective buyers, in order to comply with law and not put themselves at risk. The only way to do that is to hold all sellers responsible for selling to prohibited persons. And the only way to do that is to be able to trace a firearm from the prohibited person, back to the person or business who sold it to them. The only way to do that is to have a complete and accurate registry, which is not practically possible.
     
  6. Noone

    Noone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2021
    Messages:
    13,525
    Likes Received:
    7,976
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In YOUR self defined context. What most people think of, however, is that "new gun sales" have a requirement of some form of check on the buyer.
    SO! IF, something "is not practically possible" as YOU define it, the rest of the country needs to throw their hands in the air and give up? I don't think so!
     
    Lucifer likes this.
  7. Hotdogr

    Hotdogr Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2013
    Messages:
    11,021
    Likes Received:
    5,250
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are already background checks, by federal law, on all "new gun sales" (See NICS). Therefore, I'm unsure what you might mean by "universal background checks" if you don't mean expanding that requirement to private "used" gun sales as well.
    I'm sorry, but how I define it is irrelevant. Something that is impractical is objectively impractical. Creating a complete and accurate registry is pre-requisite to effective universal background checks. Such a registry cannot be compiled, because it is impractical (impossible) to do so, and further, there are constitutional barriers that cannot presently be overcome. This is not a subjective opinion, it is just the fact.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2022
  8. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,361
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It certainly could and is.
     
  9. Noone

    Noone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2021
    Messages:
    13,525
    Likes Received:
    7,976
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OK, your approach is a firearms perspective. And, I'm sorry I haven't made myself more clear, my approach is from a people, for lack of a better word, perspective. I think more can and needs to be done to "control" people with firearms, because as we've all been told "guns don't kill people, people do". You're right trying to control ALL the guns in These United States would be impossible without some very UN-Constitutional methods.

    I guess NICS is better than nothing, it takes less than a half hour to complete, more needs to be done. Before anyone buys a firearm they should have to complete a training class (once in a lifetime, at least) that covers safety, safe storage and the basic four principals of safe gun handling. The should have to prove they are mentally capable of being responsible with a firearm and they should have nothing in their history that indicates they are prone to violence. NONE of that violates the Constitution. And I believe it would help dramatically in curbing gun violence of all types.

    Supporting my opinion is what's been done in my state to ensure Hunter Safety. Years ago some knuckle head (happened to be from Texas) shot two kids off a RED Motorcycle. A law was passed requiring all people born after a certain date to take a "Hunter Safety Class" before they could buy a hunting license. Hunting accidents have dropped dramatically since that law was passed. Education and minimal requirements AbsaByGodLutely make a difference.
     
    Lucifer likes this.
  10. FAW

    FAW Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,003
    Likes Received:
    3,848
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am surprised that it even needs to be said, but you do realize that 4kg of smuggled Cocaine costs exorbitantly more than 4kg of smuggled weed?

    The significance is that CLEARLY there is something else that drives the price other than just weight. Therefore, your conclusion that a gun would cost its weight in Cocaine can accurately be declared as sufficiently debunked.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2022
  11. Hotdogr

    Hotdogr Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2013
    Messages:
    11,021
    Likes Received:
    5,250
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I cannot agree more that people who have firearms should absolutely seek some basic firearm safety training.

    Making their ability to purchase a firearm contingent upon completion of a safety course is absolutely unconstitutional.

    On the other hand, requiring firearm dealers to make firearm safety training classes available to their customers after the sale would not be a bad thing.
     
  12. Noone

    Noone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2021
    Messages:
    13,525
    Likes Received:
    7,976
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I would like to see firearms safety classes get a chance to test their Constitutionality. It probably couldn't be a Federal law but it most definitely be a State law; on that all States should pass.
     
  13. Hotdogr

    Hotdogr Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2013
    Messages:
    11,021
    Likes Received:
    5,250
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The class itself is not unconstitutional. Making the sale CONTINGENT upon completing the class, absolutely is. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
     
  14. Noone

    Noone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2021
    Messages:
    13,525
    Likes Received:
    7,976
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Excuse me; there are many State and local laws that are more restrictive already adopted law. Proving your not an incompetent (with firearms) mental case is public safety not infringement.
     
    Lucifer likes this.
  15. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,267
    Likes Received:
    18,032
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How is it not an infringement requiring me to prove that I'm not something?

    I don't have to prove that I'm anything to practice my religion or to speak freely or to not incriminate myself in a court of law or to be free of unlawful searches or seizures.
     
    Hotdogr likes this.
  16. Noone

    Noone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2021
    Messages:
    13,525
    Likes Received:
    7,976
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When you drive you and your car are subject to searches if the officer suspects you've violated the law.
    IF you want a fire arm you background should be thoroughly looked into.
     
  17. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,180
    Likes Received:
    62,818
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Last edited: May 27, 2022
  18. Hotdogr

    Hotdogr Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2013
    Messages:
    11,021
    Likes Received:
    5,250
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just because law is "adopted" does not mean that it's constitutional. Adopted laws get struck down as unconstitutional all the time. An "infringement" is any lessening, erosion, or dilution of the right. Making your right to keep and bear arms contingent upon taking a safety class is EXACTLY like making your right to vote contingent upon taking a civics class.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2022
  19. Hotdogr

    Hotdogr Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2013
    Messages:
    11,021
    Likes Received:
    5,250
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is not accurate. A police officer may only search you or your vehicle without your consent IF he can establish probable cause to do so. "Suspicion" is not probable cause.
     
  20. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,267
    Likes Received:
    18,032
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    no you're not without reasonable suspicion. There is implied consent but you are well within your rights to revoke that.
    There are already background checks. In order to complete a firearms transaction record they do a background check on you.

    If you're going to argue for laws you should know what laws we already have.
     
    Hotdogr likes this.
  21. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    20,141
    Likes Received:
    7,342
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sorry, guns are still part of the problem.
     
  22. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,023
    Likes Received:
    19,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You would have a point if guns and ammo were complicated and difficult to make. Any amateur with a drill press can make one. Ammo is even easier. Perhaps we can test your War on Guns theory with something much more complicated to manufacture, hmmm. how about drugs? Hows that war on drugs working out?
     
    Hotdogr likes this.
  23. Noone

    Noone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2021
    Messages:
    13,525
    Likes Received:
    7,976
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Cheese and Rice, You're wrong but I quit. :bye:
     
  24. Noone

    Noone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2021
    Messages:
    13,525
    Likes Received:
    7,976
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I SAID; "if he suspects".
    Correct there are already background checks, expanding their scope would not be UN-Constitutional.
     
  25. Hotdogr

    Hotdogr Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2013
    Messages:
    11,021
    Likes Received:
    5,250
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I accept your concession. But I think we're closer together than apart. The only point of contention is any requirement to take the class by the government prior to the sale. I think taking a safety course should be a part of owning a firearm, and it could be required by the firearm dealer as a condition of the sale, or even offered by the dealer as an included perk. The government could offer incentives and programs to firearm dealers to support that, but they can't make the sale or delivery of the firearm contingent upon taking the course.

    As an aside, I also think taking a civics course should be part of the voting process, and if you can't demonstrate your knowledge and proficiency with basic civics, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. That's unconstitutional too, but hey, we can dream... :cheerleader:
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2022

Share This Page