Help support WeTheArmed.com by visiting our sponsors.

Author Topic: A taste of Universal Background Checks  (Read 29518 times)

booksmart

  • Token Left Leaning Idealist Libertarian
  • Senior Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 6596
  • E. Pluribus Unum.

  • Offline
Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
« Reply #50 on: February 27, 2020, 11:31:19 pm »
Thank you for repeating what I just said.

Ann Coulter is a hack.

WeTheArmed.com

  • Advertisement
  • ***

    lesptr

    • Member
    • **
    • Posts: 403

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #51 on: February 27, 2020, 11:56:37 pm »
    Thank you for repeating what I just said.

    Ann Coulter is a hack.
    Booksmart is a Fudd
    Georgia

    LowKey

    • Senior Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 770

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #52 on: February 28, 2020, 12:45:22 am »

    LowKey - I'm saying that Dr. King might have a slightly different view on the matter, were you able to ask him now.
    What he might have to say on the matter today were he still alive is irrelevant to the question asked and which you're trying to avoid answering.


    So do you agree with Dr. King's statement that a right delayed is a right denied, or do you think Dr. King was wrong?

    I assert again that the act of voting does not result in bloodshed - it's a strawman argument.
    The act of purchasing a firearm doesn't result in bloodshed either.  Most owners firearms have never harmed another human being. 
    However voting very much CAN result in bloodshed.   Voting is how we elect those to whom we delegate the power to make choice of starting wars, executing prisoners, and ordering drone strikes.  We are as responsible in those deaths as is a mob boss who orders a hit through an underling, as responsible as a General for casualties inflicted on the enemy by soldiers under his command. Arguments to the contrary by people claiming otherwise are just frantic attempts to scrub the blood off their hands in the same basin Pontius Pilate used, and as pathetic  as people opposing the hunting of animals while they eat the flesh of animals killed on their behalf by the butcher.




    coelacanth

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 10032
    • eccentric orbit

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #53 on: February 28, 2020, 04:19:02 am »
    *cracks knuckles*

    From the top... hit it!

    Coelecanth - And I point out (again) that not all people that are barred from possessing a firearm are career criminals. Domestic abusers (male and female).  Felony DUI convictions.  There are lots of felonies that don't require a life of crime to commit. Some of these are people who otherwise wouldn't dream of breaking the law.  Some of them, sure, are not violent and I don't think would necessarily need to be on a no-sale list.

    Some, however, most certainly would.

    RE: townhalls.  For better or worse, we do live in a representative democratic republic, and governance is a participatory sport. Some times, you gotta stand up and open your mouth.

    SQLBullet - I'm about to freak y'all out: If you'd shown me the DOJ report earlier, this would have been a much shorter conversation (I will even go so far as to share it on Facebook). HOWEVER: an FFL licensed dealer, selling at a gun show, should still run a background check, as they are still bound by the FFL regulations.  If they were at their shop, they'd have to run one. Why should the location make a difference?

    BTW, there's been a spike in gun homicides over the last few years - we're up to around 15k, as of 2018.  Food for thought.

    Goatroper - we've all filled out a form 4473, at one time or another.  As things go, it's relatively painless.  Certainly easier (and less painful) than doing my taxes.

    LowKey - I'm saying that Dr. King might have a slightly different view on the matter, were you able to ask him now.

    I assert again that the act of voting does not result in bloodshed - it's a strawman argument.
    Actually we live in a constitutional republic.  At least for the time being.  Post constitutional America is going to be ugly when it arrives. 

    If you think governance is a sport, of any description, you haven't been paying attention.  Standing up and speaking my mind has never been something I avoided - even when I knew it was likely to cause me trouble.  As I pointed out, that is not the way problems get solved.  They are convenient, easily controlled ways for people to let off a little steam but nothing more.  So, urging SQLBullet to attend some future "townhall" to complain about how things are being mismanaged is the equivalent of recommending he put a band-aid on a sucking chest wound.  The mismanagement isn't the crux of the problem.  We have been trying to point out to you that the problem is not a clerical one or even a lack of resources on the part of the bureaucracy so intent on filing the proper forms.  The problem is a fundamental error in the understanding of and the approach to governance by those we have elected.   We cannot solve the problem(s) being discussed here until we address THAT problem first. 

    As to the assumption that you can sort people into neat, tidy groups that can be managed for their own good like so many head of livestock is patently absurd.  We cannot be graded like a truckload of apples or oranges and thus easily separated into groups which we deem acceptable to own and employ the effective means of self defense and those not so fortunate.  Who decides?  You?  Me?  Some newly minted statist toady fresh out of college who already knows like, just everything already?  No.  Even a "domestic abuser" or a career criminal and violent felon has the innate right to self defense or defense of family.  Its called justifiable use of force and it is an inalienable right of all people.  Neither you nor I nor anyone else has the right or moral authority to prevent that. 

    "Under what circumstances is it moral for a group to do that which is not moral for a member of that group to do alone?" 

    "In terms of morals there is no such thing as 'state'.  Just men.  Individuals.  Each responsible for his own acts." 

    "When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force.  And force, my friends, is violence.  The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived." 

    All the above are quotes are from the writings of Robert A. Heinlein.  You might try reading some of them if you no longer have the stomach for Ann Coulter.     :coffee

    You say that actions have consequences but have not yet addressed the points several of us have made regarding the consequences of widespread lawless behavior by others in our society.  Example:  "I assert again that the act of voting does not result in bloodshed - its a strawman argument."  Wrong.  Even a casual observation of the news in recent years refutes that idea completely.   

    I understand the inclination to pick and choose points about which to argue.  Its a long established debate tactic some of us learned way back in high school where we learned to score points based on how well we emphasized our ideas and talking points while minimizing or ignoring those of our opponents. 

    "The commonest weakness of our race is to rationalize our most selfish purposes."   Robert A. Heinlein, again.   

    So, here's a couple of questions for us to think about.  What has been the net result of all the so called "gun legislation" passed in the last 50 years?   Is the net value of all the time and money spent filling out and processing 4473 forms since their inception something we would have been better off spending in other ways and on other things?   :hmm
    Arizona" A republic, if you can keep it."

                                                   Benjamin Franklin

    booksmart

    • Token Left Leaning Idealist Libertarian
    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 6596
    • E. Pluribus Unum.

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #54 on: February 28, 2020, 08:23:34 am »
    Booksmart is a Fudd

    *snort* Namecalling, now? How... presidential of you.

    C - I was reading Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, and Herbert... more than 30 years ago.
    « Last Edit: February 28, 2020, 09:21:21 am by booksmart »

    sqlbullet

    • Contributor
    • ****
    • Posts: 1593

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #55 on: February 28, 2020, 11:39:54 am »
    *cracks knuckles*

    From the top... hit it!

    Coelecanth - And I point out (again) that not all people that are barred from possessing a firearm are career criminals. Domestic abusers (male and female).  Felony DUI convictions.  There are lots of felonies that don't require a life of crime to commit. Some of these are people who otherwise wouldn't dream of breaking the law.  Some of them, sure, are not violent and I don't think would necessarily need to be on a no-sale list.

    Some, however, most certainly would.

    RE: townhalls.  For better or worse, we do live in a representative democratic republic, and governance is a participatory sport. Some times, you gotta stand up and open your mouth.

    SQLBullet - I'm about to freak y'all out: If you'd shown me the DOJ report earlier, this would have been a much shorter conversation (I will even go so far as to share it on Facebook). HOWEVER: an FFL licensed dealer, selling at a gun show, should still run a background check, as they are still bound by the FFL regulations.  If they were at their shop, they'd have to run one. Why should the location make a difference?

    BTW, there's been a spike in gun homicides over the last few years - we're up to around 15k, as of 2018.  Food for thought.

    Just to make sure the message wasn't lost...

    An FFL has to run a background check no matter where they are.  There is not "gun show loophole" for dealers.  The "gun show loophole" is only that it brings private parties together at a commercial event.  An ffl has to follow FFL rules no matter what.

    You can add this to the list of things you have been mislead about regarding background checks.  Do you see now why we all feel like there is an agenda?

    The spike appears to be most focused on the age groups between 15-44. I could suppose a lot of things, but this is an opportunity to ask some more why questions.

    Utah

    booksmart

    • Token Left Leaning Idealist Libertarian
    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 6596
    • E. Pluribus Unum.

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #56 on: February 28, 2020, 12:26:55 pm »

    You can add this to the list of things you have been mislead about regarding background checks.  Do you see now why we all feel like there is an agenda?


    Um, no, I was just re-inforcing my message that removing background checks altogether is a Bad Idea.

    I don't disagree that there's a far-left agenda that would have bad consequences if it were to come to fruition, but  I also recognize that there's a far-right agenda that has equally bad consequences.

    One thing y'all need to remember is that the stats in the report that convinced me are the *result* of the effectiveness of background checks. If background checks (and the laws that loom behind them) were to be removed, I have no doubt those stats would change. And I do *not* think the end results would be pretty.

    lesptr

    • Member
    • **
    • Posts: 403

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #57 on: February 28, 2020, 12:48:11 pm »
    *snort* Namecalling, now? How... presidential of you.

    C - I was reading Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, and Herbert... more than 30 years ago.

    But I’m not wrong.
    Georgia

    NukMed

    • Member
    • **
    • Posts: 421

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #58 on: February 28, 2020, 01:57:19 pm »
    Booksmart,

    You have made clear that you support background checks.  I am not disputing your preferences.  You have your reasons, and I doubt from what I've read here that anyone will dissuade you of the validity of what you believe.

    What I would like you to explain is the constitutional argument to support Federal gun control as it stands today.  I can find nothing in the text of the Constitution  authorizing the Federal government to require a 4473, license gun dealers, do NICS checks, define prohibited persons, ban types of ammunition or arms, or any other restriction on the RKBA.  Any stretch of the text used to justify gun control measures would be negated by the 2A.

    So help me understand the legal justification you are using.  For the purposes of this question let's focus on what SQL went through.  What clause of the Constitution authorizes the Federal government to require the NICS check, declare some persons to be prohibited the use of their RKBA, and to compile a list of said prohibited persons the NICS check is looking for?

    Please use your own logic.  I am not interested in strict reliance on Supreme Court decisions.  The court can be mistaken and has been known to reverse itself.  You and the Court may agree, but please "show your work" so to speak.



    Freedom trumps fear.  Rights trump security.  Free will trumps order.

    sqlbullet

    • Contributor
    • ****
    • Posts: 1593

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #59 on: February 28, 2020, 02:38:34 pm »
    Um, no, I was just re-inforcing my message that removing background checks altogether is a Bad Idea.

    Sorry, I missed that.
    Utah

    coelacanth

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 10032
    • eccentric orbit

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #60 on: February 28, 2020, 05:24:56 pm »
    Um, no, I was just re-inforcing my message that removing background checks altogether is a Bad Idea.

    I don't disagree that there's a far-left agenda that would have bad consequences if it were to come to fruition, but  I also recognize that there's a far-right agenda that has equally bad consequences.

    One thing y'all need to remember is that the stats in the report that convinced me are the *result* of the effectiveness of background checks. If background checks (and the laws that loom behind them) were to be removed, I have no doubt those stats would change. And I do *not* think the end results would be pretty.
    OK.  Since you have no interest in answering any of my previous questions let's try some new ones.( sigh  :facepalm ) What exactly is this " . . . far right agenda that has equally bad consequences." ?   Are any of us here members of the "far right" in your opinion?    :hmm

    What would you cite as evidence that any of the statistics you refer to are  " .  .  .  the *result* of the effectiveness of background checks." ? 

    You have no corresponding data to draw from that would show what the result(s) would have been had there been no such legislation in force so it seems you must rely on either extrapolation or speculation.  Neither of those pass muster as any sort of reliable gauge of what might have happened during the time in question or what might happen in the future.  Correlation is not causation.  Or, as my Grandaddy used to say, "And, if frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their little green asses every time they jumped."  True dat.   :cool

    Your feelings on the issue are just that.  You may be right and you may be wrong but you are entitled to your opinion and always welcome to share it with us here.   Even if you don't convince us to come around to your way of thinking its good to hear different points of view.   

    I think I'll leave you with just one more quotation that I think applies to not only this issue we are discussing but the current news cycle:

    "Civilization, in fact, grows more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed ( and hence clamorous to be led to safety ) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary. " 
                                             H. L. Mencken, In Defense of Women  ca. 1918



    « Last Edit: February 28, 2020, 05:48:28 pm by coelacanth »
    Arizona" A republic, if you can keep it."

                                                   Benjamin Franklin

    booksmart

    • Token Left Leaning Idealist Libertarian
    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 6596
    • E. Pluribus Unum.

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #61 on: February 28, 2020, 05:39:42 pm »

    So help me understand the legal justification you are using.  For the purposes of this question let's focus on what SQL went through.  What clause of the Constitution authorizes the Federal government to require the NICS check, declare some persons to be prohibited the use of their RKBA, and to compile a list of said prohibited persons the NICS check is looking for?


    You can start here...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act


    OK.  Since you have no interest in answering any of my previous questions let's try some new ones.( sigh  :facepalm ) What exactly is this " . . . far right agenda that has equally bad consequences." ?   

    Removal of every single gun control law on the books.

    The US, far and away, has the highest rate of death by firearms in the world.  We seem to be the only high income country that has this issue.

    Many of you advocate for 'an armed society is a polite society,' but that logic doesn't pan out.  It certainly didn't work in the Wild West. And it doesn't appear to be necessary in large swaths of the rest of the world.

    Quote
    Are any of us here members of the "far right" in your opinion?    :hmm

    Probably (please don't take it personally).
    « Last Edit: February 28, 2020, 05:50:52 pm by booksmart »

    LowKey

    • Senior Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 770

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #62 on: February 28, 2020, 06:40:17 pm »
    You can start here...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

    From this answer of your's I can only come to the conclusion that you've never actually read the US Constitution, because if you had you'd quite easily see that the National Firearms Act of 1934
    is not contained in said Constitution which was ratified June 21, 1788, 146 years before the passing for the NFA.
    Perhaps you'll next suggest that the Germans bombing Pearl Harbor is what prompted President Theodore Roosevelt  to  enter us into World War Two.

    I must ask...
    Do you meet with Joe Biden often for drinks?
    Share the same fact checker?

    coelacanth

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 10032
    • eccentric orbit

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #63 on: February 28, 2020, 07:14:55 pm »
    You can start here...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act


    Removal of every single gun control law on the books.

    The US, far and away, has the highest rate of death by firearms in the world.  We seem to be the only high income country that has this issue.

    Many of you advocate for 'an armed society is a polite society,' but that logic doesn't pan out.  It certainly didn't work in the Wild West. And it doesn't appear to be necessary in large swaths of the rest of the world.

    Probably (please don't take it personally).


    So far, I am still able to bear the disapproval of others.  No qualifiers necessary in my case.    :coffee

    I can't seem to locate any data that supports your assertion(s) regarding firearms related deaths.   Unless you are conflating seemingly unrelated categories like homicide and suicide we are neither at the top of the list in total deaths or deaths per 100,000 population.  Even rudimentary statistical analysis shows the majority of U.S. deaths related to firearms use occur in large urban centers and among a relatively narrow set of demographic parameters.  Coincidentally many of those locations already have relatively strict firearms legislation in place. 

    So, tell me what legislation you believe is ineffective and what needs to be repealed?   Is there, in fact, any firearms related legislation you are not in favor of either philosophically or as a practical matter? 

    You have paraphrased Robert A. Heinlein's work;  "Many of you advocate for ' an armed society is a polite society ' .  .  .

    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." R.A.H. ,  Beyond This Horizon

    and claim " .  .  .  but that logic doesn't pan out." .   Really?  How so?  What part of the quote above do you find untrue or even unworkable?   

    All the people I know who carry firearms every day are remarkably calm and even tempered folks well versed in the the law(s) regarding such things and of the opinion that using that tool must always be a last resort in defense of their life or someone else's.   There is no law ever passed, or even conceived, that would make us safer from these people than we already are. 

    As for the "Wild West" ?  I'm old but not that old.   :P     Neither are you.  Your speculation about that era and the region it refers to seem to be fueled more by consumption of Hollywood movie thrillers than any sort of sober examination of historical fact and record.   My state was admitted to the union in 1912 so I am closer to it in terms of geography and time than you will ever be.  I have personally sat and talked to people whose families pioneered this area in the mid 19th century and still farm and ranch here today.  When you take the time to learn about these things and visit the places that are part of history and legend you get a different picture than is portrayed on a big screen in a cinema with a sound track and a tub of popcorn. 

    As for the rest of the world, totalitarian governments killed over a hundred million people and attempted to wipe out entire ethnic groups in the 20th century alone.  A lot of that was at the point of a gun so kindly spare us the contorted logic that allows you to arrive at the conclusion,
    " .  .  .  And it doesn't appear to be necessary in large swaths of the rest of the world." .     I doubt that point of view is going to be shared, or even tolerated by those unfortunates fleeing places where the means of effective self defense were taken from them by force.  I think they would also take issue with your previous contention that " .  .  .  the act of voting does not result in bloodshed - its a strawman argument.". 

    Oh, and you actually didn't answer NukMed's question regarding the Constitution.  Were you planning to get back to him on that?  ( asking for a friend  :whistle

    Arizona" A republic, if you can keep it."

                                                   Benjamin Franklin

    NukMed

    • Member
    • **
    • Posts: 421

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #64 on: February 28, 2020, 08:13:54 pm »
    You can start here...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

    Really?  More than one person on this thread has already shown how this is not an answer to my questions, so I won't go any further into that.

    Look, "I don't know" is a legitimate answer.  I'm not trying to trick you.  This isn't an attack.  I'm trying to get to the legal root of your position.  "I don't have a legal leg to stand on" is also a legitimate answer.

    You are entitled to your opinions and preferences.  This is not in question.  Though I would hope that you are self aware enough that if you can't clearly articulate the constitutional basis of the laws you support then you may not be in full support of the rule of law.
    Freedom trumps fear.  Rights trump security.  Free will trumps order.

    booksmart

    • Token Left Leaning Idealist Libertarian
    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 6596
    • E. Pluribus Unum.

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #65 on: February 29, 2020, 10:34:12 am »
    NukMed -

    I'm confident with the proposition that Congress has the legal standing to right laws that lay out the rules we have to live by, that being the *purpose of the body*.

    I'm also confident with the proposition that, as a country governed by laws, that we must follow a law as long as it's on the books, and has not been repealed.

    Whether you like it or not, the National Firearms Act of 1934 is law, and should therefore be followed.

    Coelecanth -

    I think anyone describing the Wild West era as "polite" would be blowing so much smoke it'd put a coal power plant to shame.

    The statistic should have been "the US has the highest gun homicide rate of the high earning countries. By far." My mistake to not finish the qualifier.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate (click on the arrows by the categories to sort)

    The GDP of the countries ahead of us... probably don't add up to ours, but I don't have the time this morning to do the research (renovations to do, so I won't be on the rest of the weekend). But it's most of Central & South America, plus the Phillipines, Jamaica, and Eswatini.

    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/theres-a-new-global-ranking-of-gun-deaths-heres-where-the-u-s-stands

    NukMed

    • Member
    • **
    • Posts: 421

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #66 on: February 29, 2020, 11:42:44 am »
    NukMed -

    I'm confident with the proposition that Congress has the legal standing to right laws that lay out the rules we have to live by, that being the *purpose of the body*.

    I'm also confident with the proposition that, as a country governed by laws, that we must follow a law as long as it's on the books, and has not been repealed.

    Whether you like it or not, the National Firearms Act of 1934 is law, and should therefore be followed.

    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/theres-a-new-global-ranking-of-gun-deaths-heres-where-the-u-s-stands

    I still don't see where you quote the clause in the Constitution that grants power to the Federal govt. to require a 4473, declare prohibited persons, or require a NICS check despite having asked repeatedly.  At this point I'm going to have to assume that you either can't or won't answer the question.

    Your response instead shows a dangerous naivete toward Federal power.  A bill passed by Congress, signed by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court is not necessarily law.  If said bill is the exercise of a power not granted in the Constitution, then it is not law.  It is instead unconstitutional by definition.  It would be a usurpation of power, an exercise in tyranny, and a violation of rights.

    I can think of any number of examples of what the Federal govt. does today that fall outside of constitutional authority, but I'll use a particularly heinous hypothetical for illustrative purposes.  Let us say that Congress passes a bill that authorizes law enforcement to round up all Jews and hold them in camps until they can be deported.  Said bill also requires anyone with knowledge of the whereabouts of any Jew report same to law enforcement.  It also requires anyone at the request of law enforcement to render assistance in the arrest of Jews.  The President signs the bill and the SC upholds enforcement in its first challenge.

    If I take at face value your quote above I have to conclude that you would report any Jews you know and help law enforcement catch them as well.  To be clear, though, I do not believe any such thing because I am confident that you can see that the Federal govt. has no such power under the Constitution to round up and detain anyone based on religion or ethnicity, much less require the involuntary servitude of citizens in the roundup despite some "law" being on the books.

    There is no "slightly unconstitutional" category of Federal action that we can let slide even if it is something we think is beneficial in some way.  There is no "super unconstitutional" category that will require our attention either.  There is only constitutional and unconstitutional.  If you want 4473's, NICS checks, and the lot to be constitutional, you will have to go through the amendment process.  Only then can you be "confident with the proposition that Congress has the legal standing."
    Freedom trumps fear.  Rights trump security.  Free will trumps order.

    goatroper

    • Contributor
    • ****
    • Posts: 1457

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #67 on: February 29, 2020, 01:23:21 pm »

    So do you agree with Dr. King's statement that a right delayed is a right denied, or do you think Dr. King was wrong?
    The act of purchasing a firearm doesn't result in bloodshed either.  Most owners firearms have never harmed another human being. 
    However voting very much CAN result in bloodshed.   Voting is how we elect those to whom we delegate the power to make choice of starting wars, executing prisoners, and ordering drone strikes.  We are as responsible in those deaths as is a mob boss who orders a hit through an underling, as responsible as a General for casualties inflicted on the enemy by soldiers under his command. Arguments to the contrary by people claiming otherwise are just frantic attempts to scrub the blood off their hands in the same basin Pontius Pilate used, and as pathetic  as people opposing the hunting of animals while they eat the flesh of animals killed on their behalf by the butcher.



    Thanks, LowKey, you beat me to it and saved me the trouble --and said it much better than I would have.

    Booksmart -- responding to your comment on filling out form 4473: "relatively painless" does not make something Constitutional or even the right thing to do.  The list of powers assigned to the fedgov under the Constitution is rather short.

    This article, I think, sheds some light on what's been discussed here:

    https://opensourcedefense.org/blog/the-logic-error-behind-the-whole-gun-debate

    If someone is arguing a point based on acceptance of a premise that others don't consider valid, why would those others not ask the first party  to explain/define/defend that premise?
    VirginiaGoatroper

    coelacanth

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 10032
    • eccentric orbit

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #68 on: February 29, 2020, 01:23:37 pm »
    NukMed -

    I'm confident with the proposition that Congress has the legal standing to right laws that lay out the rules we have to live by, that being the *purpose of the body*.

    I'm also confident with the proposition that, as a country governed by laws, that we must follow a law as long as it's on the books, and has not been repealed.

    Whether you like it or not, the National Firearms Act of 1934 is law, and should therefore be followed.

    Coelecanth -

    I think anyone describing the Wild West era as "polite" would be blowing so much smoke it'd put a coal power plant to shame.

    The statistic should have been "the US has the highest gun homicide rate of the high earning countries. By far." My mistake to not finish the qualifier.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate (click on the arrows by the categories to sort)

    The GDP of the countries ahead of us... probably don't add up to ours, but I don't have the time this morning to do the research (renovations to do, so I won't be on the rest of the weekend). But it's most of Central & South America, plus the Phillipines, Jamaica, and Eswatini.

    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/theres-a-new-global-ranking-of-gun-deaths-heres-where-the-u-s-stands

    I still don't see where you quote the clause in the Constitution that grants power to the Federal govt. to require a 4473, declare prohibited persons, or require a NICS check despite having asked repeatedly.  At this point I'm going to have to assume that you either can't or won't answer the question.

    Your response instead shows a dangerous naivete toward Federal power.  A bill passed by Congress, signed by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court is not necessarily law.  If said bill is the exercise of a power not granted in the Constitution, then it is not law.  It is instead unconstitutional by definition.  It would be a usurpation of power, an exercise in tyranny, and a violation of rights.

    I can think of any number of examples of what the Federal govt. does today that fall outside of constitutional authority, but I'll use a particularly heinous hypothetical for illustrative purposes.  Let us say that Congress passes a bill that authorizes law enforcement to round up all Jews and hold them in camps until they can be deported.  Said bill also requires anyone with knowledge of the whereabouts of any Jew report same to law enforcement.  It also requires anyone at the request of law enforcement to render assistance in the arrest of Jews.  The President signs the bill and the SC upholds enforcement in its first challenge.

    If I take at face value your quote above I have to conclude that you would report any Jews you know and help law enforcement catch them as well.  To be clear, though, I do not believe any such thing because I am confident that you can see that the Federal govt. has no such power under the Constitution to round up and detain anyone based on religion or ethnicity, much less require the involuntary servitude of citizens in the roundup despite some "law" being on the books.

    There is no "slightly unconstitutional" category of Federal action that we can let slide even if it is something we think is beneficial in some way.  There is no "super unconstitutional" category that will require our attention either.  There is only constitutional and unconstitutional.  If you want 4473's, NICS checks, and the lot to be constitutional, you will have to go through the amendment process.  Only then can you be "confident with the proposition that Congress has the legal standing."

    ^ This ^ .   And we did round up American citizens of Japanese descent and hold them in camps complete with fences and guards - all without the due process guaranteed to all of us under the Constitution.  Clearly a violation of the original ".  .  .  rules we have to live by, .  .  . ", no?   :hmm

    If we value the rule of law it must only be in the context of the consent of the governed.  We are a constitutional republic - not an ochlocracy.  The system of government we live under cannot be allowed to devolve into a tyranny of the majority where the enumerated rights of citizens are a secondary or tertiary consideration to the political whim of the moment.  When a jury refuses to convict a defendant based upon the clear and convincing evidence presented in court they are judging not only the defendant but the law that was passed by a legislative body.   Many examples of this exist in our history and the history of western civilization.  It was, in fact, the exact reason that we declared our independence from England to begin with. 

    If you can find anyone " .  .  .  describing the Wild West era as "polite" .   .   . " please direct your comments to them.    Someone describing something they have little or no knowledge of would have to be considered the definition of "blowing smoke"  - or so it seems to me. 

    So, again you dodge a simple question with a diversionary conversational gambit.  The principle of respecting the capability of a potential enemy is well known and demonstrated at all levels of our society and, indeed, throughout the natural world.  Courteous manners and speech are useful for dealing with all people to avoid giving offense where none is intended.  Failure in that regard has consequences - but you already know that.   The idea that people in a society who routinely go armed are destined to be involved in running gun battles wasn't true in "the Wild West era" and it isn't true today.   A few were.  Most were not.  The ones who weren't don't make for exciting stories in novels and movies.  The ones who were do.   That was true at the close of the era in question and also today.  "If it bleeds it leads." is a familiar concept to anyone who has even a nodding familiarity with modern media.  https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/two-takes-depression/20110   and   https://www.standleague.org/blog/if-it-bleeds-it-leads-no-matter-whose-blood-it-is.html

    And regarding your erroneous contention about U.S. homicide statistics can you tell me what possible relevance the qualifier - " .  .  . high earning countries .  .  .  " - has other than to attempt to find any statistical category or anomaly that supports your predetermined conclusion?

    Throwing out statistics of questionable relevance or validity in an attempt to avoid a meaningful discussion of the issues isn't going to work here - but you already know that. 
    « Last Edit: February 29, 2020, 02:17:09 pm by coelacanth »
    Arizona" A republic, if you can keep it."

                                                   Benjamin Franklin

    goatroper

    • Contributor
    • ****
    • Posts: 1457

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #69 on: February 29, 2020, 01:27:04 pm »

    There is no "slightly unconstitutional" category of Federal action that we can let slide even if it is something we think is beneficial in some way.  There is no "super unconstitutional" category that will require our attention either.  There is only constitutional and unconstitutional.  If you want 4473's, NICS checks, and the lot to be constitutional, you will have to go through the amendment process.  Only then can you be "confident with the proposition that Congress has the legal standing."

    Hear, hear!!
    VirginiaGoatroper

    goatroper

    • Contributor
    • ****
    • Posts: 1457

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #70 on: February 29, 2020, 01:41:14 pm »
    ^ This ^ .   And we did round up American citizens of Japanese descent and hold them in camps complete with fences and guards - all without the due process guaranteed to all of us under the Constitution.  Clearly a violation of the original ".  .  .  rules we have to live by, .  .  . ", no?   :hmm

    If we value the rule of law it must only be in the context of the consent of the governed.  We are a constitutional republic - not an ochlocracy.  The system of government we live under cannot be allowed to devolve into a tyranny of the majority where the enumerated rights of citizens are a secondary or tertiary consideration to the political whim of the moment.  When a jury refuses to convict a defendant based upon the clear and convincing evidence presented in court they are judging not only the defendant but the law that was passed by a legislative body.   Many examples of this exist in our history and the history of western civilization.  It was, in fact, the exact reason that we declared our independence from England to begin with. 

    If you can find anyone " .  .  .  describing the Wild West era as "polite" .   .   . " please direct your comments to them.    Someone describing something they have little or no knowledge of would have to be considered the definition of "blowing smoke"  - or so it seems to me. 

    So, again you dodge a simple question with a diversionary conversational gambit.  The principle of respecting the capability of a potential enemy is well known and demonstrated at all levels of our society and, indeed, throughout the natural world.  Courteous manners and speech are useful for dealing with all people to avoid giving offense where none is intended.  Failure in that regard has consequences - but you already know that.   The idea that people in a society who routinely go armed are destined to be involved in running gun battles wasn't true in "the Wild West era" and it isn't true today.   A few were.  Most were not.  The ones who weren't don't make for exciting stories in novels and movies.  The ones who were do.   That was true at the close of the era in question and also today.  "If it bleeds it leads." is a familiar concept to anyone who has even a nodding familiarity with modern media.  https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/two-takes-depression/20110

    And regarding your erroneous contention about U.S. homicide statistics can you tell me what possible relevance the qualifier - " .  .  . high earning countries .  .  .  " - has other than to attempt to find any statistical category or anomaly that supports your predetermined conclusion?

    Throwing out statistics of questionable relevance or validity in an attempt to avoid a meaningful discussion of the issues isn't going to work here - but you already know that. 

    Hear, Hear!! again.

    I'm impressed with the caliber of this discussion.  And you taught me a new word: ochlocracy.  That's a good one. 
    VirginiaGoatroper

    booksmart

    • Token Left Leaning Idealist Libertarian
    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 6596
    • E. Pluribus Unum.

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #71 on: February 29, 2020, 02:11:29 pm »
    A bill passed by Congress, signed by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court is not necessarily law.  If said bill is the exercise of a power not granted in the Constitution, then it is not law. 

    Tell you what: go do something that violates the NFA, and use that argument.  Tell us how it plays out.

    Quote from: Coelecanth
    Throwing out statistics of questionable relevance or validity in an attempt to avoid a meaningful discussion of the issues isn't going to work here - but you already know that.

    If you were going to compare the US to another country, would you go with Russia, France, England, or Honduras? GDP, Population, Infrastructure, etc?

    coelacanth

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 10032
    • eccentric orbit

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #72 on: February 29, 2020, 02:41:36 pm »
    Tell you what: go do something that violates the NFA, and use that argument.  Tell us how it plays out.

    If you were going to compare the US to another country, would you go with Russia, France, England, or Honduras? GDP, Population, Infrastructure, etc?


    You mean like the events at Ruby Ridge in Idaho back in 1992?   :hmm    https://www.brittanica.com/event/Ruby-Ridge

    Corollary:  https://www.opensourcedefense.org/blog/the-biggest-danger-of-gun-registration-isnt-jackboots-its-mistakes

    Why are you comparing the U. S. to other countries that don't share our history, culture, governmental structure or societal norms when discussing a subject that is purely an internal matter for us to decide among ourselves based upon those things just mentioned?  If you have to use a base of statistics outside of the situation you are observing or commenting on to bolster an argument you have ventured into the realm of extrapolation and/or speculation - but I already pointed that out. 

    Arizona" A republic, if you can keep it."

                                                   Benjamin Franklin

    booksmart

    • Token Left Leaning Idealist Libertarian
    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 6596
    • E. Pluribus Unum.

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #73 on: February 29, 2020, 02:55:27 pm »
    Because we don't exist in a vacuum, C.

    coelacanth

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 10032
    • eccentric orbit

    • Offline
    Re: A taste of Universal Background Checks
    « Reply #74 on: February 29, 2020, 03:10:01 pm »
    Agreed but citing irrelevant statistics or ones of questionable validity really isn't addressing the issues being discussed here.  Attempting to find statistical support for a logically invalid position is understandable - I think we've all done it - but it is akin to fighting a rear guard action to cover a strategic retreat, no?   Laying down a smoke screen is a cheap and relatively effective defensive tactic for as long as it works.   :coffee

    I've gone back and reread this entire thread twice now and I can find only a single instance where a reply of yours addressed a question or an issue squarely and that was you proclaiming that you were not to be lumped together with hoplophobes.  Fair enough but from the rest of the thread it seems you are not to be lumped in with those determined to halt and, if possible, reverse a long history of usurpations and infringements of an enumerated right of the people either. 

    « Last Edit: February 29, 2020, 03:23:49 pm by coelacanth »
    Arizona" A republic, if you can keep it."

                                                   Benjamin Franklin

    Help support WeTheArmed.com by visiting our sponsors.