Replies

If anyone should have a say, it's the parents who have the legal responsibility for their own children.

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.

You're dancing...

EVERY,AND I SAY AGAIN, EVERY NATIONAL OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT THAT HAS REGISTERED EITHER GUNS OR GUN OWNERS, HAS, AT SOME TIME LATER ON, CONFISCATED THE GUNS. I offer, as evidence, Britain, Chicago, Australia, New York, California, Germany, Russia. And we all know how successful THAT has been.

You seem to be entirely oblivious to what is happening right across our border in Canada. The million, (sorry, Billion!) dollar program that turned millions of honest citizens into lawbreakers and felons, overnight.

Neither worship nor (non-slanderous) speech interferes with another's right. Death does. I'm sure the millions at Auschwitz, Treblinka, Bergan-Belsen, Maulthausen, Waco, the WTC, will take comfort that YOU don't think religion is hazardous to your health. History, unfortunately, says otherwise.

If anyone should have a say, it's the parents who have the legal responsibility for their own children. 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. Until 1968, they were. Then, the idea came along that, was ANYTHING really worthy of blame?

Do you think that "children" in South Central LA should be able to walk into a store and purchase a gun?

Yes. Perhaps, just perhaps, since the only ones with guns are the gang-bangers, a little competition might be good for them. The LAPD sure hasn't done a whole lot of good. Maybe a modern version of the Earp Brothers is what's needed.

I didn't say I supported it...just that I didn't see that it violates the 2nd.

The wording of the 2nd says "...Shall Not Be Infringed." I, personally don't see a lot of wiggle room. Not "mostly shall not", or "in large part shall not..."

Based on that thinking, shouldn't anyone crazy enough to actually ENLIST in the USMC be barred from ever having a gun? They KNOW that they might have to land on some hostile foreign shore, and shoot people, and they ACTUALLY ASK to go! They spend weeks of training, pushed to the absolute limits of personal ability, so they can kill strangers. And what's worst, an 18 year old has a pistol. Obviously there is some sort of disconnect here.

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

You are changing the premise, which was: should kids be able to buy guns themselves? and my answer is yes, unless prohibited by their parents. (In which case the matter is between parent and offspring, not government and anyone.) It is already the case that parents are legally responsible for their children's behavior, and I would support laws that hold parents criminally responsible for underage children, in the case that the children can not be charged.

I said you had to prove that you were you.

That is, of course, the same thing. The only reason you would care that I were me is so you don't accidentally sell a gun to a criminal. Right? Or is there some other motivation other than registration that I cannot discern?

Socratic method.

The Socratic Method is that you ignore the other person's questions and continue to press your own?

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?

As a matter of fact, I did answer that question. I said: "If anyone should have a say, it's the parents who have the legal responsibility for their own children." To be more explicit, yes, I do think children in South Central LA should be able to buy guns, except those in prison. (And the ones who belong there should remain there.) I'm not a racist, if that's what you're getting at, who would disarm black kids in urban areas. Are you? Would you? I differ with both the KKK and the NAACP in that regard. They both think people shouldn't sell guns to blacks. (The former for obvious reasons, the latter because "blacks are inordinately victimized by gun violence, which is why gun sales should be curtailed.") I disagree.

Neither worship nor (non-slanderous) speech interfere's with another's right. Death does.

... which is why murder is criminal. But gun ownership does not equal murder. I own guns, yet they haven't killed anyone by themselves, and I haven't used them to kill anyone. Can you see the difference? People are not gagged going into theaters in order to prevent them from shouting fire. If they were to do so, we all agree they can't cite any First Amendment protection. But they do not face prior restraint. Yet you apparently presume that the only possible reason people would buy a gun is to go on a killing spree (which I think we all can agree there is no Second Amendment right to do) and for this reason you wish to restrict gun purchases?

>>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.

On the contrary, you stated: Proving, in person, that you are a responsible law abiding adult citizen before you can purchase a firearm does not, IMO, violated the Constitution and is, indeed, a worthy aim. That's support. I assert that destroying anonymity in gun transaction is a nefarious aim. Period.

That right was found in the "preumbra" that allowed Roe v Wade. You sure you want to go down that road?

Yes. Besides that, it also goes down the Fourth Amendment road, being free from unreasonable searches without a warrant.

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.

That's all well and good, but I still resent having to prove my identity to purchase guns, and having them registered with the ATF.

In other words, you can't understand the Second Amendment. Any infringement is a violation of the Second.

On another note, from the article: THE STATES WHICH HAVE STRONG GUN CONTROL LAWS WILL BE PROTECTED.

Now, more than 30 years later, the results are in and in fact the opposite is true: those places with the strongest gun control laws have the highest violent crime rates. This fact alone ought to serve as the basis for repealing the lot of them, even if we didn't have a Second Amendment or any kind of PKBA at all. The laws were sold to us as ways to reduce crime and they have miserably failed. Get rid of them!