For waltky: http://quakes.globalincidentmap.com/
"The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools."
- Thucydides
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote" B. Franklin
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
For waltky: http://quakes.globalincidentmap.com/
"The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools."
- Thucydides
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote" B. Franklin
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
How do you get that I'm assuming that, based on what I wrote?
With background checks in place, more than 100,000 individuals every year who, at least according to the law, shouldn't be armed were not permitted to buy a gun. Unless you believe that letting a convicted murderer or a certified nutcase purchase a firearm is a good idea, why would you think that background checks are a bad idea?
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing. - Robert E. Howard
"Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing. - Robert E. Howard
"Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing. - Robert E. Howard
"Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry
Call your state legislators and insist they approve the Article V convention of States to propose amendments.
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution as written and understood by this nation's founders, and to the Republic it created, an indivisible union of sovereign States, with liberty and justice for all.
Peter1469 (08-16-2019)
Peter1469 (08-16-2019)
I have mixed feelings on the issue of background checks. I understand the rationale behind them and the desire to keep them out of the hands of people who have an increased likelihood of using them illegally. HOWEVER, it is without doubt an infringement on the citizen's right to keep and bear arms.
I think anyone who is protected by the US Constitution should be able to purchase a firearm, regardless of past transgressions. I think what should happen in place of denying someone a constitutional right because he MIGHT commit a crime, it would be better to make the commission of a crime with a firearm carry a very severe sentence. I don't like the idea of denying someone a right because of something he did for which he has already paid his debt to society.
With freedom comes risk. The only way to reduce or eliminate that risk is to take away freedom. I think anyone who has committed a crime, been caught, tried, convicted and served his sentence to the satisfaction of society, should have restoration of his constitutional rights. I might be comfortable with the idea of a check to see if the purchaser is still on probation/parole because then he is still serving his sentence and has not yet fulfilled his obligations, but once he has, he should be given a clean slate.
What someone did 10 or 20 years ago should not be used to assume he is going to do it again tomorrow.
If someone has been adjudicated mentally incompetent, he has been determined to be unable to make the decisions necessary to interact with society without assistance. That opens up a whole new can of worms for discussion.
Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue. - Barry Goldwater
MisterVeritis (08-16-2019)
Just as reasonable exceptions exist with all the other rights our Constitution recognizes, I believe that reasonable rules and limits can be placed on our exercise of the 2nd Amendment. Of course we can disagree on what is and is not reasonable; your citing the case of the "domestic violence" offender comes to mind. Local laws keeping guns out of the hands of individuals who take certain prescription medications, noted in another recent thread, are another point of contention. Nevertheless, the Second is no more untouchable, if we're all being sane and honest about it, than any of the other rights that we have and value. The First Amendment is, in many instances, not a defense against a charge of slander or libel, nor does it permit some of the more "colorful" religious practices to go unpunished.
As you may remember, my own favorite proposal in order to reduce the incidence of gun-related violence is to GREATLY increase such penalties.
Hey, I'd comment on the rest of your post, but somebody just told me there's cake in the break room...so, later!
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing. - Robert E. Howard
"Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry