Is a background check or license to purchase unconstitutional?
- Thread starter Groundhog
- Start date
Wildalaska
Moderator
sPOKEN LIKE A TRUE FREEDOM LOVER
!here try this:
Guns and such is harmful to people and especially children and does nothing but make violence against people more lethal.
Once you agree that it is OK to regulate something, then you cant argue that other things too cant be regulated.
WildronjeremyAlaska
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
One man's view of Pornography is like Zumbo's view of the AR-15.
Is a well done nude to be feared? Progun John Ashcroft was traumatized by the stone breasts of the statue of Justice.
Besides, the data are rather clear that depictions of nonviolent, consenting sexual acts doesn't prime negative violent acts.
The trap of the absolutist on gun rights is the libertarian conundrum. Guns do harm in society. We argue for the ownership based on the countervailing good they do or an argument based on rights.
It is hard to argue that sexual depictions (exempting violence - but what about violent video games) have led to the downfall of society, except in the mind of some conservatives. For them, the existence of sexuality outside of reproduction in a sanctioned marriage is terrible. We have a fine tradition of sexual acts and contraception being opposed by the conservatives who might want to liberalize (huh) gun ownership. They oppose education about disease and measures that would prevent them (as then people would have sex). Abstinence programs haven't been the success story trumpeted by the right - sort of like bringing democracy to Iraq, is bring absistence to the hormone soaked young, Luke.
The liberatarian trap for the absolutist gun rights advocate is that it separates the authoritarian and repressed from those who truly understand freedom.
Controls on adult sexuality come more from personality quirks similar to those in the famous Freud quote about fear guns.
To return to issue at hand - society may impose limits on rights when that right seems to cause true harm to society. A check to keep the violent paranoid schizophrenic seems reasonable. It probably would have saved more lives than banning dirty pictures.
Is a well done nude to be feared? Progun John Ashcroft was traumatized by the stone breasts of the statue of Justice.
Besides, the data are rather clear that depictions of nonviolent, consenting sexual acts doesn't prime negative violent acts.
The trap of the absolutist on gun rights is the libertarian conundrum. Guns do harm in society. We argue for the ownership based on the countervailing good they do or an argument based on rights.
It is hard to argue that sexual depictions (exempting violence - but what about violent video games) have led to the downfall of society, except in the mind of some conservatives. For them, the existence of sexuality outside of reproduction in a sanctioned marriage is terrible. We have a fine tradition of sexual acts and contraception being opposed by the conservatives who might want to liberalize (huh) gun ownership. They oppose education about disease and measures that would prevent them (as then people would have sex). Abstinence programs haven't been the success story trumpeted by the right - sort of like bringing democracy to Iraq, is bring absistence to the hormone soaked young, Luke.
The liberatarian trap for the absolutist gun rights advocate is that it separates the authoritarian and repressed from those who truly understand freedom.
Controls on adult sexuality come more from personality quirks similar to those in the famous Freud quote about fear guns.
To return to issue at hand - society may impose limits on rights when that right seems to cause true harm to society. A check to keep the violent paranoid schizophrenic seems reasonable. It probably would have saved more lives than banning dirty pictures.
Irresponsible is tricky to define and immoral is completely subjective. You may find gay sex on TV immoral but I have no problem with it. I may find talking about Jesus immoral and someone else may have no problem with it. So no, the government does not have the authority to regulate this stuff because morality should not ever be legislated.
The only people who are affected by what you think is immoral are those that choose to be offended. You have no protection from being offended.
Complete and absolute nonesense. Legal pornography does not harm children any more than legal gun ownership harms children.
Okay, Redworm and Glenn Meyer,
I guess you wouldn't mind your 7 year old child tuning in to HBO?
Haven't you noticed that whenever a society starts worshiping sex, as our society does, and perverting it is about when things start to go downhill as a whole (I.E. The Roman Empire, the Aztec Empire, Greek Empire, etc.)
I guess you wouldn't mind your 7 year old child tuning in to HBO?
Haven't you noticed that whenever a society starts worshiping sex, as our society does, and perverting it is about when things start to go downhill as a whole (I.E. The Roman Empire, the Aztec Empire, Greek Empire, etc.)
and why wouldn't you if legal pornography and such does not harm children or anyone else (from the rest of your response, I think you missed the point)
If it can't harm children, as you say, but don't want to miss Sopranos I guess you wouldn't mind your 7 year old child going to a porn website?
If it can't harm children, as you say, but don't want to miss Sopranos I guess you wouldn't mind your 7 year old child going to a porn website?
Are you pretending to be dense? but I thought you said pornography wasn't harmful?
Redworm said:
Now, I wouldn't have any problem showing my 7 year old how to shoot my .38 Special and teaching him how to be responsible with it.
I would have a BIG problem with a 7 year old getting on a porn website under ANY circumstances (heck, I'm 30 and I don't even do it)
But how 'bout you?
This comparing pornography and perverted sex to guns is absurd to say the least. Pornography and perverted sex destroy's lives. I know of cases where lives and marriages have been destroyed by such. No good comes of it.
Guns save lives.
Redworm said:
Now, I wouldn't have any problem showing my 7 year old how to shoot my .38 Special and teaching him how to be responsible with it.
I would have a BIG problem with a 7 year old getting on a porn website under ANY circumstances (heck, I'm 30 and I don't even do it)
But how 'bout you?
This comparing pornography and perverted sex to guns is absurd to say the least. Pornography and perverted sex destroy's lives. I know of cases where lives and marriages have been destroyed by such. No good comes of it.
Guns save lives.
It does if the child sees it. And if you don't believe pornography harms anyone, then why don't you go to porn websites and see what happens to your marriage? Porn and perverted sex can and does destory lives. You are kidding yourself if you think it doesn't.
I wouldn't have a problem handing a loaded gun to a 7 year old, lots of people do it. It's a time of fun and excitement teaching your child to be responsible. My dad taught me how to shoot. It's a normal healthy thing.
I can't imagine ANY sane or rational person letting their 7 year old, supervised or not, go to a porn website.
AGAIN, your guns and porn comparisons are absurd
I wouldn't have a problem handing a loaded gun to a 7 year old, lots of people do it. It's a time of fun and excitement teaching your child to be responsible. My dad taught me how to shoot. It's a normal healthy thing.
I can't imagine ANY sane or rational person letting their 7 year old, supervised or not, go to a porn website.
AGAIN, your guns and porn comparisons are absurd
Thunderhawk88
Moderator
Not in the context of whether the Federal Government has the legal authority to control either. There has to be reasonable controls on porn, like keeping it away from children. There also must be REASONABLE control on firearms, like keeping them from criminals and those deemed dangerous due to mental defect.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Complete and unmitigated balderdash without any historical foundation whatsoever.
WildpsthegreekswereneveranempireandbtwthebestfightersingreecethespartansweregayfriendlyAlaska
+1
I said the Federal Government has not constitutional legal authority to control those things.
States and local communities however, do.
+1, but let me ask this, if porn is harmful to children....why isn't it harmful to adults? And if it is not harmful to adults, how would it be harmful to children?
As said on this forum 10 x 10,000 said criminals and loonys are going to get guns, laws or no laws. All that does is put power in the government's hands to regulate whether you can have a gun or not. If you have to go through a background check, you have to wait, and not only that they are taking notes as to who is buying that gun (that's why carving the serial # is illegal). It is none of the government's (state or federal) business if you have a gun. Criminals are criminals not because they have guns but because they commit crimes. If they are willing to break the law to murder or rob someone, then they are going to break the law and get a gun one way or the other. What is the point of having laws preventing someone with a record from buying a gun?
Thunderhawk88
Moderator
Are you saying there is no difference between children and adults? Also, are you suggesting that if something is deemed harmful the government then has the authority to control it?
You cannot have it both ways. If the government can control one, then it can control the other also. OR is it the government can control that whih YOU say is immoral only?
Sure, they will probably get one some other way anyways, but why make it easy for them by just selling it to them? Just so you don't have to pass a background check?
Wildalaska
Moderator
Oh my gawd
OK tell me what the "Greek Empire" was first. Then tell me how those "perverted practices" contributed to the 'fall" of those empires.
WildletsjustdisregardofcoursethingslikesmallpoxfirearmsbarbarianinvasionsAlaska
JuanCarlos
New member
Yeah, while obviously a majority of people determined to get ahold of a gun will manage to do so, I don't get this whole defeatist "we may as well not try" argument.
By forcing somebody who is legally barred from owning a firearm into illegal channels, you've automatically increased the chances of them being arrested in the process dramatically. You've also managed to prevent at least some people from bothering...either because the additional effort/risk isn't worth it, or because they simply don't know where to start looking for an illegal firearm (in my youth I knew exactly who to talk to to get ahold of one...nowadays I'd have no idea).
Provided that background checks have a low rate of false positives, I don't see how they qualify as an undue burden on the law-abiding. Keep in mind I'm not talking about the waiting periods and other such nonsense that many states enforce in addition to instant background checks...I'm talking about the check in and of itself. Up here I can walk into a gun shop with cash and walk out with a handgun within fifteen minutes or so. I don't feel having to fill out a quick form and wait while the cashier makes a quick phone call is any more onerous than having to register to vote.
This is, of course, getting away from the more interesting question of where the authority to mandate such checks comes from. While I'm not a fan of just how broadly the commerce clause has been interpreted, seeing as a firearm could be purchased in a state with lax/no checks and transported within hours (or, I'd wager in some cases minutes) to a state with tougher restrictions I fail to see how this doesn't fall under the commerce clause as it's currently interpreted. Whether it would fall under it with a less insane interpretation...I don't know. Maybe.