Is a background check or license to purchase unconstitutional?

It does if the child sees it.
Then here's a novel idea: DONT LET THE CHILD SEE IT! Holy crap, what a concept! :eek:

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?
Really? What about couples that enjoy porn together?
Porn and perverted sex can and does destory lives. You are kidding yourself if you think it doesn't.
Perverted sex? Who gets to define what sex is and is not perverted?
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)
That's your problem, not mine. I'm 24 and have no issues getting on porn sites. I wouldn't allow my seven year old to do so because a seven year old is not mature enough to handle that kind of material.
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.
And I know of cases where pornography has brought couples closer together, enhanced intimacy and strengthened marriages. That's not even bringing up the positive economic impacts of porn.

Guns don't save lives. Guns are used to save lives but they are also used to take lives. Which is why background checks are a good idea.


hey, at least I brought the argument full circle and back on topic :D
 
:eek:

you guys are nuts:o

I'm dropping out of this....discussion;)



Moving on:
JuanCarlos said:
Owning or carrying a gun is a RIGHT not a privilege to be given or taken away by the government.

So is voter registration unconstitutional?
Actually, voting isn't (or at least it was never supposed to be) a right. Voting is actually supposed to be a privilege. We are suppose to be a Republic not a Democracy. Responsible people were supposed to be the ones voting. Originally, men who owned land and were educated (the ones who held the most responsibility) were the ones allowed to vote. However, it was expected, that as the country grew, more and more people would become landowners and would be allowed to vote. Life, Liberty and Property.
This idea that everybody has a right to vote is an egalitarian modern concept from the past 100-150 years. That is what a Democracy is (or Mobocracy).

So to answer your question, No, voter registration is not unconstitutional.
 
sorry, I didn't mean that personally.
It's just that since that whole discussion is based on relative truth and morality (anything goes, or one man's ceiling is another man's floor) it has nowhere to go except on and on and on. I'd be a fool to keep trying. Next thing is someone will come in and advocate the economic benifits of people walking around naked in public or why the government shouldn't recognize a civil union between a man and his dog.:eek:

40 years ago, nobody would have even thought of arguing such nutty positions.

It's taking this thread off topic anyway.

Is background check or license unconstitutional? I still say yes.
 
Last edited:
It's just that since that whole discussion is based on relative truth and morality (anything goes, or one man's ceiling is another man's floor) it has nowhere to go except on and on and on.

A very true statement! Relatively speaking, of course!!! :D
 
What's the rule for members of the military? Are they suddenly more qualified and granted the right or are they not allowed a sidearm until their birthday?

YES they ARE more qualified. they get training. VS your 19 year old joe smoe down the block aint gots none.

but at least when you are 21, you got more wisdom.
 
You cannot own a long firearm if you are under the age of eighteen.

You cannot own a handgun if you are under the age of twenty-one.

You cannot purchase ammunition unless you are over the age of eighteen.

Yet all other types of age discrimination are illegal as they are considered a constitutional right.

Yet here we have the only physical object mentioned in the Bill of Rights to which all citizens have a constitutional right; and there is an age limit.

This age limit did not always exist so it cannot have been the intention of the founders. Firearms were not age restricted until the twentieth century. Prior to that, American citizens were simply considered responsible and able to exercise their right to arms.

If this were any other age discrimination issue the Congress would be screaming for legislation to undo this terrible wrong.
 
A weapon is only so when applied as such. Until then it is merely a tool.

How many other tools are age restricted?
 
That's the kind of talk that strengthen's the anti's arguments. :o Guns are weapons. They are tools that are designed solely to be used as weapons. If we pretend that they are equal to hammers it gives the antis reason to claim that we don't recognize and respect the power of firearms and would just as soon shoot someone as pound a nail into a 2x4.

Just like swords, guns are still tools but a special kind of tool known as weapons and they are weapons from the moment they are designed. We can't pretend otherwise or we simply drive more and more people away from our side of the argument.
 
A weapon is only so when applied as such.

That is PC bull-%#@&!
Sorry boys but, though you may not want to admit it, guns are weapons. Some may have had their basic design changed for target use, but they are all weapons. To say anything less nullifies them from the protection of the second amendment.
 
The amendments were meant to be used in a responsible manner. Having those rights do not allow you to deprive others of those same rights. That is why the DC court ruled that while you cant ban an individual from owning a firearm, the state can regulate ownership to preserve the rights of others.
 
Talking points

In 1968 the GCA established (among other things) minimum age requirements to purchase firearms and ammunition. Age restrictions on ownership may be in place in certain states, but there is no Federal requirement for ownership.

In the early 1970s I obtained a pistol permit in the state of NEW YORK at age 18. I know of one case where a permit was granted at age 14. New York law (at that time) did not have age restrictions on ownership, it was up to the discretion of a judge. While I was not legally able to purchase a handgun at age 18, I did have the legal ability to own one.

Both my brother and I obtained our permits at age 18, in Saratoga county. Our rational was that under New York law, the handguns owned by our mother and father would have to be surrendered to the state if they were killed (both had been injured in a car wreck), if no one else in the household had a permit for the guns. Judge agreed, we got permits. The law may have changed since, but that is the way it worked back then.

The '68 GCA imposed license and record keeping requirements for firearms dealers. The "instant check" is imposed on the dealers, not the purchaser. Therefore I believe it does fall under the commerce clause. And therefore is constitutional.

Background checks on purchases between private parties is a whole different thing. As long as it is legal for private citizens to buy and sell their personal property (firearms) without going through a licensed dealer, there should be no Govt. requirement for a background check, because doing so requires the seller to act as an arm of the govt. It is also an unfunded mandate, placing the burden on the private citizen. Bad thing, IMO.

No right is absolute, all come with some kind of restrictions, either codified in law, or by general convention of society. When you exceed the accepted restrictions, you cannot claim exemption from punishment because you are exercising a right. Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.

Arguments equating firearms ownership and pornography are distracting, and other than the fact that certain people want one, or the other, or even both banned, they have nothing in common.

Our society's attitudes about sex originate waaaay back (predating firearms), and comes from religion. Sex for recreation, and sex outside of marriage have been sins in the Judeo-Christian religions since the founding of those beliefs. Our country was founded by people who took their religion very seriously. Today the majority of our population is not as serious about religion as our founders were, and our tolerance for sex reflects that. Other societies who do not have our religious history have somewhat differing attitudes about public sexuality. Muslim societies are very restrictive. Hindu is not etc.

Always keep in mind that while we routinely talk of Constitutional Rights, the Constitution (and amendments) grants us no rights. Our rights are natural rights, and the Constitution only specifies what the Govt cannot do.

While, under a strict interpretation, the Govt has for many years gone along way beyond the boundaries of the Constitution, until and unless it is checked by the SCOTUS, or by the citizenry, it is the law of the land. Sad, but true, nonetheless.
 
Just like swords, guns are still tools but a special kind of tool known as weapons and they are weapons from the moment they are designed.
Then you designate a $7,000 Olympic shooter's .22 handgun or rifle a "weapon" also; and that it was so designated from the moment it was designed?
 
Then you designate a $7,000 Olympic shooter's .22 handgun or rifle a "weapon" also; and that it was so designated from the moment it was designed?
Absolutely. It is a rifle thus a firearm thus a weapon. If it's not a weapon it's not protected by the second amendment. "Arms" refers to weapons. No two ways about it.
 
Did I say offensive? ^_^

Offense or defense, they're designed as weapons. Even if they're for target practice or skeet shooting all guns are weapons by definition. Again, if it's not a weapon then it's not protected by the 2nd amendment.
 
How can a gun be considered defensive? It can't stop bullets from hitting you, it can't hide you... It merely allows you to attack back.

Sometimes the best defense is a good offense.. just ask the Colts ;)
 
Is a background check or license to purchase unconstitutional?

Yes. When does one have to get a background check to exercise a right? Do I need a check of my background to have free speech? Is my right against search and seizure dependent on a background check.

The 2nd amendment is there so WE the People can defend against infringement by the Government. Funny, the one right we will let the Government Infringe upon, more than others, is the 2nd amendment. Reuglate a right, please. Permit (PERMISSION) to exercise a right, come on.
 
Then you designate a $7,000 Olympic shooter's .22 handgun or rifle a "weapon" also; and that it was so designated from the moment it was designed?

Yeppers. It fires the same bullets (albeit probably MUCHO more expensive ones) that the squirrel gun does. You can hunt with it (i.e. KILL animals) and you could kill a person with it. It doesn't matter how pretty you dress it. Render it incapable of firing ammunition permanently and then I'll give it to you.
 
Back
Top