Details on a gun background check

This is an Admin / Moderator NO GO ZONE. You're on your own.

Moderator: Team

User avatar
woody b
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1552
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 6:58 pm

Re: Details on a gun background check

Post by woody b » Thu Apr 05, 2018 11:40 am

David Redszus wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 11:27 am
Our Constitution says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Is a background check an infringement?

On what basis can it be considered otherwise?
I think a background check is an infringement, but I'm not sure some kind of check is a bad thing. What IS a bad thing is the government having control......of any of our rights.

I strongly believe that any restrictions on types of weapons is an infringement. I think not allowing (or imposing taxes on) fully automatic weapons, or suppressors is an infringement.
I used to be a people person, but people ruined it.

RevTheory
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4997
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 6:45 am

Re: Details on a gun background check

Post by RevTheory » Thu Apr 05, 2018 1:28 pm

lefty o wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 11:20 am
sanfordandson wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 11:17 am
RevTheory wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 10:41 am
These little squirts would be terrified if they went to school when we did where every lifted truck had a gun rack in the window with at least one loaded rifle in it.

Oddly enough, nobody ever shot up the school.
School shootings did happen back then.

You just have a poor memory. :roll:
why dont you refresh it for him, maybe list all the school shootings between say 1950 to 1970.
I'm sure he's busy gathering up all of the relevant data.

j-c-c
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4267
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:03 pm

Re: Details on a gun background check

Post by j-c-c » Thu Apr 05, 2018 1:36 pm

woody b wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 11:40 am
David Redszus wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 11:27 am
Our Constitution says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Is a background check an infringement?

On what basis can it be considered otherwise?
I think a background check is an infringement, but I'm not sure some kind of check is a bad thing. What IS a bad thing is the government having control......of any of our rights.

I strongly believe that any restrictions on types of weapons is an infringement. I think not allowing (or imposing taxes on) fully automatic weapons, or suppressors is an infringement.
How about then restriction of first Amendment, yelling fire falsely in packed theater?

David Redszus
Guru
Guru
Posts: 6641
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: Details on a gun background check

Post by David Redszus » Thu Apr 05, 2018 6:58 pm

How about then restriction of first Amendment, yelling fire falsely in packed theater?
Not at all the same.

Falsely yelling FIRE in a theater is a misuse of a right which results in a negative impact on others.

Restricting the ownership of a weapon is in direct contradiction of a Constitutional right. Ownership
does not constitute a negative impact on others. The improper USE of a weapon would have a negative
impact and could, under law, be restricted. Which of course, it is.

The misuse of Constitutional Rights is the real issue, not simply the potential for such misuse.
Ownership is not misuse.

sanfordandson
Guru
Guru
Posts: 6033
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 6:28 pm

Re: Details on a gun background check

Post by sanfordandson » Thu Apr 05, 2018 7:02 pm

lefty o wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 11:20 am
sanfordandson wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 11:17 am
RevTheory wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 10:41 am
These little squirts would be terrified if they went to school when we did where every lifted truck had a gun rack in the window with at least one loaded rifle in it.

Oddly enough, nobody ever shot up the school.
School shootings did happen back then.

You just have a poor memory. :roll:
why dont you refresh it for him, maybe list all the school shootings between say 1950 to 1970.
Enjoy... :mrgreen:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... ted_States

David Redszus
Guru
Guru
Posts: 6641
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: Details on a gun background check

Post by David Redszus » Thu Apr 05, 2018 7:40 pm

sanfordandson wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 7:02 pm
lefty o wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 11:20 am
sanfordandson wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 11:17 am


School shootings did happen back then.

You just have a poor memory. :roll:
why dont you refresh it for him, maybe list all the school shootings between say 1950 to 1970.
Enjoy... :mrgreen:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... ted_States
Thanks for posting the listing of school shootings. Several thoughts came to mind as I scanned the list.

Starting back in 1764, school shootings have been very commonplace. Most all have been a serial of shootings involving a limited number of victims. Only a small handful of schools shootings involved mass shootings; perhaps half a dozen in 264 years.

The overwhelming number of school shootings involved the use of handguns; only a few mass shootings made use of rifles. Only one used a select fire weapon.

What makes school shootings so special to the media? They are common in number but not great in number of fatalities.
The odds of getting shot while in the street or local bar is much higher, particularly in certain inner city neighborhoods.

My observation is that serial school shootings are not preventable by any known means. That's because they are so widespread; the number of available targets and circumstances is huge.

School mass shootings are also not preventable since they occur so rarely in scattered sites.

Inner city gangland killings, teen homicides and suicides are where our cultural and mental health efforts should be directed.
But that is right into the Democraps back yard.

j-c-c
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4267
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:03 pm

Re: Details on a gun background check

Post by j-c-c » Thu Apr 05, 2018 7:55 pm

David Redszus wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 6:58 pm
How about then restriction of first Amendment, yelling fire falsely in packed theater?
Not at all the same.

Falsely yelling FIRE in a theater is a misuse of a right which results in a negative impact on others.

Restricting the ownership of a weapon is in direct contradiction of a Constitutional right. Ownership
does not constitute a negative impact on others. The improper USE of a weapon would have a negative
impact and could, under law, be restricted. Which of course, it is.

The misuse of Constitutional Rights is the real issue, not simply the potential for such misuse.
Ownership is not misuse.
You have to admit, everyone gets to make their own decision as to their action that might have a negative impact, and weigh the source, ie, is it a drugged out imbecile, a 7 year old kid, or a panicked person commenting loudly about a fire pictured on the screen?.

Carrying a gun openly in public in a theater could also have the same negative impact, even if a toy and/or unloaded.

David Redszus
Guru
Guru
Posts: 6641
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: Details on a gun background check

Post by David Redszus » Thu Apr 05, 2018 8:23 pm

David Redszus wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 6:58 pm
How about then restriction of first Amendment, yelling fire falsely in packed theater?
Not at all the same.

Falsely yelling FIRE in a theater is a misuse of a right which results in a negative impact on others.

Restricting the ownership of a weapon is in direct contradiction of a Constitutional right. Ownership
does not constitute a negative impact on others. The improper USE of a weapon would have a negative
impact and could, under law, be restricted. Which of course, it is.

The misuse of Constitutional Rights is the real issue, not simply the potential for such misuse.
Ownership is not misuse.
You have to admit, everyone gets to make their own decision as to their action that might have a negative impact, and weigh the source, ie, is it a drugged out imbecile, a 7 year old kid, or a panicked person commenting loudly about a fire pictured on the screen?.

Carrying a gun openly in public in a theater could also have the same negative impact, even if a toy and/or unloaded.
Not so. We must consider the use or non-use of an object of property or Constitutional Right.
Contemplation regarding some persons phobias or imagined fears is not my responsibility; it is their own.
I am responsible for my behavior not their internal fears.

j-c-c
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4267
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:03 pm

Re: Details on a gun background check

Post by j-c-c » Fri Apr 06, 2018 10:33 am

David Redszus wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 8:23 pm
David Redszus wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 6:58 pm
How about then restriction of first Amendment, yelling fire falsely in packed theater?
Not at all the same.

Falsely yelling FIRE in a theater is a misuse of a right which results in a negative impact on others.

Restricting the ownership of a weapon is in direct contradiction of a Constitutional right. Ownership
does not constitute a negative impact on others. The improper USE of a weapon would have a negative
impact and could, under law, be restricted. Which of course, it is.

The misuse of Constitutional Rights is the real issue, not simply the potential for such misuse.
Ownership is not misuse.
You have to admit, everyone gets to make their own decision as to their action that might have a negative impact, and weigh the source, ie, is it a drugged out imbecile, a 7 year old kid, or a panicked person commenting loudly about a fire pictured on the screen?.

Carrying a gun openly in public in a theater could also have the same negative impact, even if a toy and/or unloaded.
Not so. We must consider the use or non-use of an object of property or Constitutional Right.
Contemplation regarding some persons phobias or imagined fears is not my responsibility; it is their own.
I am responsible for my behavior not their internal fears.
If you would have added "IMO" after the "not So", I would left your reply unanswered. "we must consider the use or non use of an object' is a battle lost/resolved long ago, and I am not in agreement with your statement.

I see nothing that detracts correctly/substantially from my original statement above, in that we currently restrict the right of free speech to yell fire in a theater, and we as a society have nearly universally accepted restriction of the right to openly carry a firearm in many locations, use being nearly irrelevant.

David Redszus
Guru
Guru
Posts: 6641
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: Details on a gun background check

Post by David Redszus » Fri Apr 06, 2018 11:04 am

If you would have added "IMO" after the "not So", I would left your reply unanswered. "we must consider the use or non use of an object' is a battle lost/resolved long ago, and I am not in agreement with your statement.
Not so. While you have every right to disagree (which I encourage), you did not preface your comment with "IMO". Further, your comment represents mere loose opinion without supporting fact which you frequently demand of others. Physician heal thyself.
I see nothing that detracts correctly/substantially from my original statement above, in that we currently restrict the right of free speech to yell fire in a theater, and we as a society have nearly universally accepted restriction of the right to openly carry a firearm in many locations, use being nearly irrelevant.
Can you name anyone who has been arrested pre-emptively for yelling fire in a theater? No, of course not.

Yet you accept the concept of pre-emptive restriction with regard to ownership of an inanimate object. Not even its use.

Forty-five states allow open carry of firearms.
There are five states that have laws banning open carry for handguns: California, Florida, Illinois, New York
and South Carolina. Those states with restricted carry laws have not yet been tested in our court system.
They are very apt to be declared unconstitutional.

It’s worth remembering, however, that the laws in some open-carry states are not as permissive as it may seem. Several states have local restrictions on the open carry of certain types of firearms, and in some places the rules are stricter than others. Some localities still ban alcohol.

With each court challenge, the legal restrictions imposed on rights granted by the 2nd Amendment are trimmed away, much to the chagrin of the liberal socialists. Some folks simply take longer to grow up.

exhaustgases
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4242
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:03 pm

Re: Details on a gun background check

Post by exhaustgases » Fri Apr 06, 2018 3:24 pm

Just check out the story about Deerfield Ill. and you will see the back ground check that is really wanted.

j-c-c
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4267
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:03 pm

Re: Details on a gun background check

Post by j-c-c » Fri Apr 06, 2018 8:53 pm

"Not so. While you have every right to disagree (which I encourage), you did not preface your comment with "IMO".

Not sure of the exact comment/context you are referring to in order consider the validity of your comment, IMO.
My intent is normally to clearly differentiate between what I surmise and what is accepted fact, not sure that distinction is often understood in these here parts.
Meaning, if I knew all the answers, I likely would not be hanging out here.

"Can you name anyone who has been arrested pre-emptively for yelling fire in a theater? No, of course not."

A gag order is a simliar pre emptive restriction for also a yet, umproven negative act, and widely accepted..

"Yet you accept the concept of pre-emptive restriction with regard to ownership of an inanimate object. Not even its use."

Yes, regretfully, because this is not a perfect world, and that restriction is mainly achieved by consensus, hopefully not by arbitrary or overly biased methods, and best, subject to the rule of law, review, and change, as needed..

David Redszus
Guru
Guru
Posts: 6641
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: Details on a gun background check

Post by David Redszus » Fri Apr 06, 2018 11:44 pm

No law has ever prevented unwanted behavior. Only physical restraint can accomplish that. At best law
enforcement can seek to apprehend and punish a law breaker after the fact.

GARY C
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4757
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 10:58 pm

Re: Details on a gun background check

Post by GARY C » Sat Apr 07, 2018 12:05 am

What good are more laws when they are not enforcing the ones one the books?

Bump stocks are already covered under gun modifications.

Pulse shooting, the recent Florida shooting and the Tx church shooting or all cases where the laws on the books were not carried out and or did nothing to prevent what they claim new laws would prevent.

Tx shooter is prime example... You can't do a back ground check when the gov fails to enter his multiple offenses into the system.
Please Note!
THE ABOVE POST IN NO WAY REFLECTS THE VIEWS OF SPEED TALK OR IT'S MEMBER AND SHOULD BE VIEWED AS ENTERTAINMENT ONLY...Thanks, The Management!

j-c-c
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4267
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:03 pm

Re: Details on a gun background check

Post by j-c-c » Sat Apr 07, 2018 9:43 am

David Redszus wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 11:44 pm
No law has ever prevented unwanted behavior. Only physical restraint can accomplish that. At best law
enforcement can seek to apprehend and punish a law breaker after the fact.

We agree. except for the "at best" part, for example just rescinding Prohibition (unpopular "unwanted behavior" control) made a lot of people a lot less criminal.

Post Reply