This was the law of the land prior to 1968; the country somehow managed to survive nearly 200 years with this policy. If anyone should have a say, it's the parents who have the legal responsibility for their own children.
Should an Amazon.com computer ship out an order for a high-powered rifle to any address?
Again this was the law of the land prior to 1968. How could we have possibly made it this far?
Any rational, adult non-felon shall not have his or her right to keep and bear arms infringed in any manner.
Having to prove that oneself is not a criminal is an infringement ... you didn't answer my questions but instead are asking me some of your own. Should people have to prove who they are to worship or speak freely?
Proving that you are the person you claim to be (with no record of the transaction required to kept on any file or computer) is not unreasonable.
Well that's nice, though I disagree, but it certainly isn't what we have now: the "background check" includes make, model, and serial numbers of guns purchased - full blown registration.
Will it do much good? I doubt it.
I ask again: then why do you support it?
About a month before Whitman's Texas Tower adventure, Richard Speck strangled 8 nurses in Chicago.
S#it happens. Good thing the police were able to solicit the assistance of deer hunters to pin the guy down while they rushed him, no? Even if they hadn't, gun control wouldn't have stopped this guy, as you yourself admit. So why support it?
But neither do I see it doing any harm.
I do, it's a privacy violation. Why should I have to prove who I am, because the government releases people into society, to live among us, that it does not trust with guns?
If you have a convincing arguement otherwise,
I don't need one, you yourself admit the laws don't do work.
or can show a violation of the 2nd Amendment, I'm all ears.
If you were to look up "right" "people" "not" and "infringed" you could probably figure out the violations all by yourself. But knowing that violations occur is a far cry from having a court rule a law unconstitutional. I presume this is what you actually mean when asking me to "show" a violation. They're there, they're just not recognized (yet).
If they wish to buy one for their child, more power to them.
But they should be prepare to be culpable for the child's actions
Having to prove that oneself is not a criminal is an infringement ...
I did not say that.
I said you had to prove that you were you.
you didn't answer my questions but instead are asking me some of your own
Socratic method.
BTW...you didn't answer mine.
Do you think that "children" in South Central LA should be able to walk into a store and purchase a gun?
Should people have to prove who they are to worship or speak freely?
Neither worship nor (non-slanderous) speech interfere's with another's right. Death does.
Well that's nice, though I disagree, but it certainly isn't what we have now: the "background check" includes make, model, and serial numbers of guns purchased - full blown registration.
And I'm against it....thus my statement.
I ask again: then why do you support it?
I didn't say I supported it...just that I didn't see that it violates the 2nd.
I do, it's a privacy violation.
That right was found in the "preumbra" that allowed Roe v Wade.
You sure you want to go down that road?
Why should I have to prove who I am, because the government releases people into society, to live among us, that it does not trust with guns?
Because S$%t happens.
Now I am not coming at this from a bleeding-heart frame of mind.
I have NO sympathy for criminals and think incarceration should be both longer and tougher. I made my peace with 'vengeance as justice a long time ago.
But in this case, I will take the old "Government is the people" argument and say "it's a good thing" to try and attempt to lessen the cases of children, criminals, and nutcases having guns.... as long as it does not violate the 2nd.