Background checks - controversy

I am against any form of Gun Control. I also am against Gun Free Zones. I am however in favor of Swift Justice, and The Death Penalty ! Its time to punish the Criminal and Not blame the Weapons used !
 
Zukiphile, Spats, I want to veer off topic for a minute to thank you both. I realize arguing with me is akin to letting a guy on a Rec league softball team play with the College World Series champs, so I appreciate you guys "batting off handed" and throwing me some slow pitch so I can keep up. You've made this a lot of fun, as well as educational.
 
JD said:
Criminals get firearms, ergo background checks failed is post hoc ergo propter hoc isn't it? And isn't that the gist of at least part of your opposition?
Click to expand...

Post hoc ergo propter hoc is an allegation of causation based merely on the sequence of events, and is therefore poor reasoning. The sun rises after I have breakfast, therefore the sun rises because I have breakfast is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

The observation here is different. "Criminals get firearms, therefore background checks do not [and will not ] prevent criminals from getting firearms" is much closer to the observation.

JD said:
Zukiphile, Spats, I want to veer off topic for a minute to thank you both.
Click to expand...

You are entirely welcome. This is the way a discussion is supposed to proceed, with candor and courtesy. We are not actually solving any problems here; we are just pushing some ideas around the table. Undue vehemence would serve no purpose here, or dampening discussion with an invocation of personal authority on the basis that one has a magic piece of paper from his state's Supreme Court serve no good purpose.
 
zukiphile said:
This is the way a discussion is supposed to proceed, with candor and courtesy. We are not actually solving any problems here; we are just pushing some ideas around the table. Undue vehemence would serve no purpose here, or dampening discussion with an invocation of personal authority on the basis that one has a magic piece of paper from his state's Supreme Court serve no good purpose.
Click to expand...
Oh, my. This is very fine.

Zukiphile, may we quote you? :)
 
kochman said:
...get as close as we can.
Click to expand...

"As we can" means in line with enumerated powers, inline with fundamental rights and inline with other jurisprudence.

Universal background checks are "none of the above".
 
JimDandy said:
The CMP is very special and unique. They don't run NICS checks from what I understand, through some assumption of you already passing one by joining approved firearms groups.
Click to expand...

The COO of the Civilian Marksmanship Program has stated on the CMP Forum that NICS checks are run on CMP purchasers.
 
Woo hoo!

The statute under consideration defines these localities and forbids slaughtering in any other. It does not, as has been asserted, prevent the butcher from doing his own slaughtering. On the contrary, the Slaughter-House Company is required, under a heavy penalty, to permit any person who wishes to do so to slaughter in their houses, and they are bound to make ample provision for the convenience of all the slaughtering for the entire city. The butcher then is still permitted to slaughter, to prepare, and to sell his own meats; but he is required to slaughter at a specified place, and to pay a reasonable compensation for the use of the accommodations furnished him at that place.

The wisdom of the monopoly granted by the legislature may be open to question, but it is difficult to see a justification for the assertion that the butchers are deprived of the right to labor in their occupation, or the people of their daily service in preparing food, or how this statute, with the [p62] duties and guards imposed upon the company, can be said to destroy the business of the butcher, or seriously interfere with its pursuit.
Click to expand...

This section of the Slaughterhouse cases does seem to imply, though I may be reading it wrong given the formal language of the period and legalese, that while affirming the right of the State of Louisiana to regulate where a butcher may engage in his chosen profession, they do stipulate that a butcher DOES still have a right to engage in his chosen profession.

Now the obvious counter point is that a drug dealer does not have the right to sell illicit drugs... but that is a criminal act, and no criminal act gets protections- while a pharmaceutical company rep would likely have these protections to sell their wares to various hospitals, pharmacies, apothecaries, and so on, as allowed by the states exercising their police power?

Edit to add: I realize I'm also a long ways away from where I am/was going. But you have to set this stuff up like building blocks right?
 
Last edited:
Vanya said:
Zukiphile, may we quote you?
Click to expand...

Certainly, though when I read my own writing quoted in other posts, I see all the warts. On revision, I would have removed a redundnant phrase:

This is the way a discussion is supposed to proceed, with candor and courtesy. We are not actually solving any problems here; we are just pushing some ideas around the table. Undue vehemence, or dampening discussion with an invocation of personal authority on the basis that one has a magic piece of paper from his state's Supreme Court serve no good purpose.
 
So I have this PDF from the Justice Department that includes in the third sentence "Each had the right to work in the United States..." And the quoted section of The Slaughterhouse Cases that said
but it is difficult to see a justification for the assertion that the butchers are deprived of the right to labor in their occupation
Click to expand...
holding that the right to work suggested but not authoritatively proven in the PDF includes the "right to labor in their occupation". This may not be authoritative, but I believe it makes the beginnings of a decent case that such a right exists in the 9th amendment much like neither the fourth nor the fifth amendment explicitly enshrine a right to privacy, but taken together suggest there is such a right also in the 9th amendment.

To further define this argument, we can incorporate the thoughts of
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
The Constitution regulates the conduct of government, not that of private persons or entities. Nothing the corner store, your [non-governmental] landlord or your [non-governmental] employer might do (even if illegal for other reasons) can be unconstitutional, because their conduct is not subject to the Constitution.
Click to expand...
to say that all of this is suggestive that there is some narrowly tailored version of a right to attempt to labor in one's chosen profession.
 
"As we can" means in line with enumerated powers, inline with fundamental rights and inline with other jurisprudence.

Universal background checks are "none of the above" IMO.
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you. Many would disagree.
 
No Kochman, none would disagree, not even you.

Your disagreement has been whether the feds should only have enumerated powers, not that UBCs fall under currently enumerated powers, unless you are suddenly changing your argument.

So, "Fixing" it was both presumptuous and erroneous.
 
Other than his tone and presumption to "fix it" appearing to be a bit churlish, I have to side with Kochman on this one.

Many would disagree- meaning many would feel background checks are in some fashion inline with enumerated powers, fundamental rights, and jurisprudence. The fact that we're having this debate here, and across the nation proves that. Some many be uneducated, some may be lawyers. There will even be some who don't even care if they meet that test, and just want them, or oppose them for being what they are, constitutional or not.
 
When I did it, it was to fix what I assumed was a typo, I explained why I did it, and apologized in advance if I was incorrect.

Edit: And then only because without doing so my reply wouldn't have made much sense.

And Edit Again To get us Back on track, Spats or Zukiphile, any response to the jumbled right to work argument i was making? Is there something on point the other way I'm missing? Or something more on point in my favor I'm missing? I assume the Justice Department PDF got it's "had a right to work in the United States" from somewhere?
 
Kochman said:
Fixed that for you. Many would disagree.
Click to expand...

Kochman said:
Ummm, thanks for telling me what to think.
Has that technique worked well for you in the past?
Click to expand...

I have read that "fixed that for you" maneuver on other boards and it always strikes me as coarse, lazy and rude. Pretending that someone else wrote something he did not actually write does not indicate goodwill or good faith.


JD, I have not followed your right to work argument.
 
JimDandy, under which enumerated power do you think this falls?

So far, I have only seen the Commerce Clause or the Preamble cited. If you think it falls under an enumerated power, please specify which.

Kochman, I won't tell you what to think, but I will point out when you change arguments midstream, and then pretend it is what you have been saying all along.
 
How is it any different from people in some states being able to use their carry permits in lieu of a NICS check now?
Click to expand...

Good point, ATW525. I forgot there are states where you can avoid a NICs check with a CCW. Here in Pennsylvania we can't. We have to use our own version of NICS that we know as PICS. It must be nice to lay down a card and buy a firearm without waiting an hour or better to do it.
 
MLeake, I'm sorry I haven't taken the time to explain my entire political philosophy, but I figured it would be a "tl;dr" type of thing.

I do go on tangents... often unannounced, that's just how my mind works, and I do realize that isn't condusive to internets discussions.
And am amazed that this thread has stayed more or less on topic for so many pages, and is filled with great comments and thoughts.
 
I am against any form of Gun Control. I also am against Gun Free Zones. I am however in favor of Swift Justice, and The Death Penalty ! Its time to punish the Criminal and Not blame the Weapons used !
Click to expand...

Punish criminals and keep the mentally unstable away from the innocents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top