Gun control debate (merged)

#1,729
#1,729
Don't think it will fly. It would be to difficult to manage private to private sales.

Allot of this gun control **** revolves around gun shows. If I'm being honest I don't mind someone having to provide proof of a background check before entering. I don't necessarily like it, but I'm not against it either. With the exception... That a carry permit holder be exempt from having to obtain a background for any firearm purchases going forward.
 
#1,730
#1,730
TNsnyper20 said:
Don't think it will fly. It would be to difficult to manage private to private sales.

Allot of this gun control **** revolves around gun shows. If I'm being honest I don't mind someone having to provide proof of a background check before entering. I don't necessarily like it, but I'm not against it either. With the exception... That a carry permit holder be exempt from having to obtain a background for any firearm purchases going forward.
Click to expand...

If you want to get technical, carry permits are against the 2A. How can you legislate a right into a privilege? Rights cannot be legislated away.

But, as usual, what happens is government takes your rights away, then proceeds to sell them back to you in the form of permits and licenses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,731
#1,731
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
If you want to get technical, carry permits are against the 2A. How can you legislate a right into a privilege? Rights cannot be legislated away.

But, as usual, what happens is government takes your rights away, then proceeds to sell them back to you in the form of permits and licenses.
Click to expand...

Technically, you're probably right. But let's be honest... Wouldn't you like the idea of every conceal carry permit holder not having to pay the government for a background check for every gun purchase?
 
#1,732
#1,732
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
If you want to get technical, carry permits are against the 2A. How can you legislate a right into a privilege? Rights cannot be legislated away.

But, as usual, what happens is government takes your rights away, then proceeds to sell them back to you in the form of permits and licenses.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
#1,733
#1,733
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
If you want to get technical, carry permits are against the 2A. How can you legislate a right into a privilege? Rights cannot be legislated away.

But, as usual, what happens is government takes your rights away, then proceeds to sell them back to you in the form of permits and licenses.
Click to expand...

From a legal perspective this is completely incorrect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,736
#1,736
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Please explain.
Click to expand...


Many laws effect fundamental rights. For example, though i have the right of free speech, i cannot use that right to incite a riot. To infringe on a fundamental right the law in question must pass a strict scrutiny test. That is to say that the court will determine whether the law advances a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that goal and is the least restrictive means to accommodate that interest. It is the most stringent standard used by courts when determining the constitutionality of a law.
 
#1,738
#1,738
ClearwaterVol said:
Many laws effect fundamental rights. For example, though i have the right of free speech, i cannot use that right to incite a riot. To infringe on a fundamental right the law in question must pass a strict scrutiny test. That is to say that the court will determine whether the law advances a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that goal and is the least restrictive means to accommodate that interest. It is the most stringent standard used by courts when determining the constitutionality of a law.
Click to expand...

This doesn't explain why my post is incorrect. Do you understand the difference between rights and privileges?
 
#1,742
#1,742
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
By who's authority?
Click to expand...

Now you're in different territory. You're essentially saying you disagree with the supreme court decision. You're argument is theoretical and not based in reality. The statement I challenged was a blanket statement that i said was incorrect from a legal perspective. If you want to discuss how the law and how it should be according to DEFEND THIS HOUSE then i will need to know more about your position.
 
#1,743
#1,743
ClearwaterVol said:
Now you're in different territory. You're essentially saying you disagree with the supreme court decision. You're argument is theoretical and not based in reality. The statement I challenged was a blanket statement that i said was incorrect from a legal perspective. If you want to discuss how the law and how it should be according to DEFEND THIS HOUSE then i will need to know more about your position.
Click to expand...

How do you know the law applies? Is it simply because I'm there in that jurisdiction?
 
#1,744
#1,744
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
How do you know the law applies? Is it simply because I'm there in that jurisdiction?
Click to expand...

How do I know what law applies? Well, living in Florida I'm certainly not bound by the laws of new York. I'm bound by federal law and the law of Florida. So, yes i would say physical presence within a particular jurisdiction subjects one to the law of that jurisdiction.
 
#1,746
#1,746
ClearwaterVol said:
How do I know what law applies? Well, living in Florida I'm certainly not bound by the laws of new York. I'm bound by federal law and the law of Florida. So, yes i would say physical presence within a particular jurisdiction subjects one to the law of that jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

What evidence do you have of that assertion?
 
Last edited:
#1,747
#1,747
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
 
#1,748
#1,748
ClearwaterVol said:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
Click to expand...

Again, that's an assertion. What evidence do you have showing that the law applies. Or, does the law apply because the law applies?

Where is the authority derived from? And how?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,749
#1,749
Again, your argument is one of theory. You don't believe that you SHOULD be bound by the law, yet the reality is that you are so bound. You've voluntarily submitted to the law of the land your entire life.
 
#1,750
#1,750
ClearwaterVol said:
Again, your argument is one of theory. You don't believe that you SHOULD be bound by the law, yet the reality is that you are so bound. You've voluntarily submitted to the law of the land your entire life.
Click to expand...

I'm not making an argument, you are. I'm asking for evidence of the fact that the law/code applies, other than the code applies, because the code applies.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top