30 Day Background Check

[VikingsGuy]

1) Your questions are NOT sincere.
2) Your presumptions of "laws" creating a gun utopia are unrealistic.
3) ...and you are totally full of male bovine feces.

1) I was sincerely asking if you supported the outcome you claimed to want by your own comment of eliminating all gun laws including the 1934 act. If you now look at that list and realize that would be a bad outcome, then it is your post that is not sincere.
2) I have no presumptions about any law or lack of laws creating a utopia on any topic. I stand with Scalia in Heller. A strong 2A governed by the same type of limitations that apply to the 1A, 4A etc.
3) Given the quality of your argumentation to date I will take that as seriously as your other remarks.

 

[Otto Matic]

VikingsGuy is a piece of work.

When I go to McDonald's and order a Big Mac meal in the drive-thru, they don't check my blood pressure, weight, waist circumference or BMI even though I may be an obese, overweight, diabetic, food-a-holic with a bad driving record.

VG, I'm so sorry that reality has hurt your feelings and I'm tired of having to explain that to adults, so don't even ask!

I don't go into a store and "demand" a gun.
I enter a store with the intention of trading goods of value (money, another gun, etc, etc) to possess a firearm. To purchase a firearm is a "right".
The 2A makes no mention of "mental capacity, past criminal acts or exceptions for prior unsavory activities".

Perhaps it is inconsequential to you that a convicted felon can purchase and complete an 80% lower to construct his/her own AR?
That anyone who fits any of you predefined conditions, can, in time, find some one willing to sell a firearm for a price!

You're a real dope.

 

[Otto Matic]

1) I was sincerely asking if you supported the outcome you claimed to want by your own comment of eliminating all gun laws including the 1934 act. If you now look at that list and realize that would be a bad outcome, then it is your post that is not sincere.
2) I have no presumptions about any law or lack of laws creating a utopia on any topic. I stand with Scalia in Heller. A strong 2A governed by the same type of limitations that apply to the 1A, 4A etc.
3) Given the quality of your argumentation to date I will take that as seriously as your other remarks.

Given the quantity of your "hot air", you should have been in Texas a couple of weeks back!

 

[Otto Matic]

VikingsGuy said:
"... 1) I was sincerely asking if you supported the outcome ..."

No.
No you're not.
You're being a supercilious twit.

 

[FI460]

VikingsGuy is a piece of work.

When I go to McDonald's and order a Big Mac meal in the drive-thru, they don't check my blood pressure, weight, waist circumference or BMI even though I may be an obese, overweight, diabetic, food-a-holic with a bad driving record.

VG, I'm so sorry that reality has hurt your feelings and I'm tired of having to explain that to adults, so don't even ask!

I don't go into a store and "demand" a gun.
I enter a store with the intention of trading goods of value (money, another gun, etc, etc) to possess a firearm. To purchase a firearm is a "right".
The 2A makes no mention of "mental capacity, past criminal acts or exceptions for prior unsavory activities".

Perhaps it is inconsequential to you that a convicted felon can purchase and complete an 80% lower to construct his/her own AR?
That anyone who fits any of you predefined conditions, can, in time, find some one willing to sell a firearm for a price!

You're a real dope.

The 2A absolutists won't start making any progress until they give equal acknowledgement to Article 3 and Marbury v. Madison.

Edit: and Heller.

 

[VikingsGuy]

The 2A makes no mention of "mental capacity, past criminal acts or exceptions for prior unsavory activities".

While I am too dim to understand how McDonald's and BMI relate to the 2A, I will take this as your answer to my original question. It only took you 4 or 5 insults to get there. Which is nice.

 

[Trial153]

VikingsGuy is a piece of work.

When I go to McDonald's and order a Big Mac meal in the drive-thru, they don't check my blood pressure, weight, waist circumference or BMI even though I may be an obese, overweight, diabetic, food-a-holic with a bad driving record.

VG, I'm so sorry that reality has hurt your feelings and I'm tired of having to explain that to adults, so don't even ask!

I don't go into a store and "demand" a gun.
I enter a store with the intention of trading goods of value (money, another gun, etc, etc) to possess a firearm. To purchase a firearm is a "right".
The 2A makes no mention of "mental capacity, past criminal acts or exceptions for prior unsavory activities".

Perhaps it is inconsequential to you that a convicted felon can purchase and complete an 80% lower to construct his/her own AR?
That anyone who fits any of you predefined conditions, can, in time, find some one willing to sell a firearm for a price!

You're a real dope.

Maybe the 2a should have referenced mental capacity because you're a real wing nut.

 

[longbow51]

You know, my wife really likes the Stiltons, Camemberts, and always took the cheese tray rather than dessert. I prefer the harder cheeses, Jarlsberg and other Swiss and Alpine types, and good old American cheddar.

 

[Otto Matic]

The 2A absolutists won't start making any progress until they give equal acknowledgement to Article 3 and Marbury v. Madison.

Edit: and Heller.

Hmmm.....

"... Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review in the United States, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws, statutes, and some government actions that they find to violate the Constitution of the United States. ..."

Nothing here about changing, amending or revamping the "Constitution".

Article III Section 1., 2. AND 3.

Still nothing on redefining any of the 27 Amendments.

That is, unless you have some bastardized, liberalized, "reinterpretation" of the Constitution.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Hmmm.....

"... Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review in the United States, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws, statutes, and some government actions that they find to violate the Constitution of the United States. ..."

Nothing here about changing, amending or revamping the "Constitution".

Article III Section 1., 2. AND 3.

That is, unless you have some bastardized, liberalized, "reinterpretation" of the Constitution.

1. If we are breaking out the case books, please show me a credible binding citation that provides for a single constitutional right that is absolute and is allowed to have no restriction, clarification, or qualification.
2. Please remember that none of the Bill of Rights including the 2A applied to state laws at all until it was "bastardized, liberalized and re-interpreted" in the form of the Incorporation Doctrine. The 2A did not apply to the States until 2010 under McDonald. So, until Scalia and Thomas "bastardized, liberalized and re-interpreted" the constitution any state could prevent citizens from buying guns if they so chose without violating the 2A. I for one thank Scalia and Thomas for their efforts and don't view that work as "bastardizing, liberalizing or reinterpretation" of the Constitution. YMMV.

 

[Pmacc60]

For a minute there I had a GOP/Trump flashback . . .

Not a shot , lol Trump talked to much Joe can’t put together a sentence ! Come on VG your better than that that ! I know Joe Biden personally , I’ve been to his fund raisers , I know his friends and neighbors and he was my parents attorney for a while before he entered the Senate. We all agree ( the people who know the man ) this is not Joe Biden anymore, he is a shell of who he was.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Not a shot , lol Trump talked to much Joe can’t put together a sentence ! Come on VG your better than that that ! I know Joe Biden personally , I’ve been to his fund raisers , I know his friends and neighbors and he was my parents attorney for a while before he entered the Senate. We all agree ( the people who know the man ) this is not Joe Biden anymore, he is a shell of who he was.

It was a joke, and your text was the perfect "straight man" - hence the smiley wink emoji. Frankly, if the two of them are the best we can do, we are doomed.

 

[N2TRKYS]

I think we must be misunderstanding each other. I don't want a post-clearance waiting period. I was just responding to your "right vs privilege" remark.

The right vs privilege remark was a correct one.

 

[FI460]

Hmmm.....

"... Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review in the United States, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws, statutes, and some government actions that they find to violate the Constitution of the United States. ..."

Nothing here about changing, amending or revamping the "Constitution".

Article III Section 1., 2. AND 3.View attachment 177584

Still nothing on redefining any of the 27 Amendments.

That is, unless you have some bastardized, liberalized, "reinterpretation" of the Constitution.

Marbury v Madison yielded judicial review. Judicial review in the Heller decision found that the 2A grants an individual right to bear firearms, but that some restrictions are constitutional. - Scalia, paraphrased.

 

[Otto Matic]

1. If we are breaking out the case books, please show me a credible binding citation that provides for a single constitutional right that is absolute and is allowed to have no restriction, clarification, or qualification.
2. Please remember that none of the Bill of Rights including the 2A applied to state laws at all until it was "bastardized, liberalized and re-interpreted" in the form of the Incorporation Doctrine. The 2A did not apply to the States until 2010 under McDonald. So, until Scalia and Thomas "bastardized, liberalized and re-interpreted" the constitution any state could prevent citizens from buying guns if they so chose without violating the 2A. I for one thank Scalia and Thomas for their efforts and don't view that work as "bastardizing, liberalizing or reinterpretation" of the Constitution. YMMV.

Yup! Two bit ambulance chaser.
No sir. I don't need no stinking "case books".

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being "necessary" to the security of a free State, the "right" of the people to "keep and bear Arms", shall not be infringed.

Pretty damned simple.
Stop trying to make it something it ain't!
You can put all your fancy words in your pipe and smoke it.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Yup! Two bit ambulance chaser.
No sir. I don't need no stinking "case books".

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being "necessary" to the security of a free State, the "right" of the people to "keep and bear Arms", shall not be infringed.

Pretty damned simple.
Stop trying to make it something it ain't!
You can put all your fancy words in your pipe and smoke it.

Simple if you ignore that the Bill of Rights does not explicitly apply to the States and was not believed to apply to them by any of the founders. But handy that they bastardized it in 2010 to include that.

Simple if you decide to not highlight "Militia" like you did the others.

Simple if you actually believe that each Bill of Rights amendment is absolute and we can now incite rebellion, commit libel, slander, sedition, treason etc under the 1A, and fringe religious groups can sacrifice virgins under the 2A, etc etc.

Simple if you decide that SCOTUS is not allowed to interpret the constitution.

But since I chose none of those "simple" leaps, it is not so simple at all. But thanks for your hooked on phonics version of Con Law.

 

[Pmacc60]

I think at this point we all realize we don’t have a absolute rights to own firearm however that’s not what is at stake here. The banning of black guns , high capacity magazines and 30 day wait periods to stop citizens from having or purchasing firearms in a timely fashion is unconstitutional! Living in the United States is a risk , liberty is a risk ! Trusting that our neighbor can operate his car or buy a firearm or a alcoholic beverage is the price of freedom . You cannot legislate with a crystal ball ! No one knows what is going to happen tomorrow. For me I trust in the Constitution first, big government not at all!

 

[Pmacc60]

It was a joke, and your text was the perfect "straight man" - hence the smiley wink emoji. Frankly, if the two of them are the best we can do, we are doomed.

I got it , I know you by now! I was wondering where you have been on this subject? Amen to the doomed !

 

[Gunner46]

A background check usually takes just a few minutes, or so. I've had one come back in less than 2 min. 30 days is nothing more than a political encroachment on civil liberty.

 

[Racrawfo1013]

Why do we have any laws or control any behavior then?

The point of any prohibitory law is to mitigate unlawful activities not eliminate them.

If you read through the thread, a number of people have shared first hand experiences with the current way these laws work.

You just said it yourself..laws against behavior...yes...laws to reduce my rights as a gun owner...no way and there is a big difference. We don’t make a person wait to buy a car and they literally could buy it to go run someone over. Actually they would most likely steal one as someone would most likely get a gun the same way.