Page 25 of 29 FirstFirst ... 152324252627 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 288

Thread: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

  1. #241
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,622

    Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

    Quote Originally Posted by HenryChinaski View Post
    Agai,n someone who sells buys a gun for a criminal who can't purchase a gun on their own for the intent of murder is also responsible for that murder.
    the law is going to see otherwise. now if you knew the criminal was planning a hit and you supply him a firearm for the hit, that would clearly be an aiding and abetting charge or a conspiracy before the fact indictment



  2. #242
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,622

    Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

    Quote Originally Posted by HenryChinaski View Post
    Only in your mind. You hand over a weapon or a car to someone and they kill someone with them, then you are complicit. Same as if you were the felon shooter or drunk driver.
    YOu are wrong. you have to have knowledge. the act alone is not sufficient. Where we live coyotes are becoming a major nuisance-killing pets, livestock, poultry. Suppose my neighbor who has a massive number of small donkeys comes over and says-hey turtle, the coyotes killed three of my young donkeys-can I borrow one of your 22 rifles tonight

    and I say sure

    and the next day some kid is shooting a slingshot at a donkey and the donkey owner becomes Irate and shoots the kid dead

    I have no legal liability

    now on the other hand, the neighbor tells me that some kid has been tormenting his donkeys and he wants to waste the kid and I still give him the weapon

    I am gonna be in serious trouble



  3. #243
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Melbourne Florida
    Last Seen
    04-18-17 @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    16,763

    Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbo View Post
    Why do those on the left have so much problem assigning responsibility to those that actually commit murder? It's the gun, it's the shop, it's the manufacturer. No, it's the PERSON THAT KILLED PEOPLE.
    Its in their DNA I believe. They are fine with taking the rights of million over the bad acts of a few.

  4. #244
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

    Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    The wording indicates that gun regulations can, in fact, be constitutional. I don't see any issue with preventing a murderer from owning a gun, but he does.
    What part of “…shall not be infringed” do you not understand?
    The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
    We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

  5. #245
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,622

    Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    What part of “…shall not be infringed” do you not understand?
    oh come on Bob-you know that "shall not be infringed" was crafted by the founders to ALLOW all sorts of infringements. that is why the power to so infringe was clearly set forth in the Commerce Clause



  6. #246
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,986

    Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law….

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    Laws which are blatantly unconstitutional in the first place.
    One of the jobs of the SCOTUS is to verify the constitutionality of a law. If this law was "blatantly" unconstitutional, it would have gotten shot down.

    Keep in mind that this is the same composition of the Court that shot down handgun restrictions in DC in the Heller case.


    Why is it OK for government to “bypass” the highest law of the land, in order to enact and enforce laws which violate this highest law, but not OK for us, the rightful masters of this nation, to “bypass” these illegal and unconstitutional laws that the government has no authority to enact or enforce against us?
    To start with, rights are not absolute.

    The 1st Amendment does not grant you the right to defame someone, or to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire, to directly threaten someone. The police can enter your home without a warrant if there are expedient circumstances, e.g. in hot pursuit of a criminal who is fleeing a scene.

    The 2nd Amendment is not absolute. It can be interpreted as "you have the right to own a gun." It doesn't say that "you can transfer a gun to whomever you want, for any reason at any time." It doesn't allow you to own mortars, or a machine gun, or a tank. It doesn't grant you the right to bring a gun into a federal courthouse.

    So yes, the Federal Government can decide that some people should not be allowed to own guns, and it can enact laws that regulate the transfer of guns.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    The law needs to be changed to harshly punish public servants who refuse to obey the Constitution.
    Uh huh. According to whose interpretation?

    Like it or not, the Constitution is not so crystal-clear that every single person in the US agrees about what it says, let alone what it says about laws passed hundreds of years after the Constitution was ratified. In fact, and again: It's the job of the SCOTUS to determine what the Constitution says, and you really aren't going to get a significantly better or different mechanism for this task.

    I might add that if sentence "repeat offenders" to death, we'd have to execute a bunch of the Founding Fathers. Even they didn't agree on what the Constitution meant, e.g. Hamilton supported the idea of a central bank, and many opposed it; Jefferson believed his own purchase of the Louisiana Territory was unconstitutional; many Founding Fathers voted for the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were criticized at the time for violating the 1st Amendment, and would surely be seen that way today as well.

  7. #247
    Guru
    HenryChinaski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Chitown
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    3,533

    Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    YOu are wrong. you have to have knowledge. the act alone is not sufficient. Where we live coyotes are becoming a major nuisance-killing pets, livestock, poultry. Suppose my neighbor who has a massive number of small donkeys comes over and says-hey turtle, the coyotes killed three of my young donkeys-can I borrow one of your 22 rifles tonight

    and I say sure

    and the next day some kid is shooting a slingshot at a donkey and the donkey owner becomes Irate and shoots the kid dead

    I have no legal liability

    now on the other hand, the neighbor tells me that some kid has been tormenting his donkeys and he wants to waste the kid and I still give him the weapon

    I am gonna be in serious trouble
    These guns that are killing children in American cities are bought by people who know full ****ing well that the guns are being put in the hands of criminals street gangs for the purpose of murder.
    Give a man a fish and he can eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he can sit in a boat, drinking beer all day while you fool around with his Woman.

  8. #248
    Guru
    HenryChinaski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Chitown
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    3,533

    Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    the law is going to see otherwise. now if you knew the criminal was planning a hit and you supply him a firearm for the hit, that would clearly be an aiding and abetting charge or a conspiracy before the fact indictment
    Bull****, If I give my gun to someone I know can't legally buy it themselves and also know that they are going to use that weapon to intentionally kill someone, I'm also responsible.
    Give a man a fish and he can eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he can sit in a boat, drinking beer all day while you fool around with his Woman.

  9. #249
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

    Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law….

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    The 2nd Amendment is not absolute. It can be interpreted as "you have the right to own a gun." It doesn't say that "you can transfer a gun to whomever you want, for any reason at any time."…
    ·
    ·
    ·
    Like it or not, the Constitution is not so crystal-clear…
    What part of “…the right of the people…shall not be infringed” is unclear?
    Last edited by Bob Blaylock; 06-17-14 at 01:08 PM.
    The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
    We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

  10. #250
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,986

    Re: Supreme Court rules on 'Straw Purchaser' Law.....

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    See I would harp about her sanity, and mental faculties.
    And your reaction is exactly why the Founding Fathers set up the SCOTUS with lifetime appointments.

    There is no more reason to question Ginsburg's sanity than Scalia's or Roberts' or any other justice. Your suggestion is clearly based on political preferences, and judges (the SCOTUS in particular) are appointed specifically to resist being subjected to those kinds of political pressures.

    I might add that she actually didn't say anything that horrific. There is absolutely nothing impeachable, let alone "insane," about her comments, nor is an expert on the US Constitution obliged to slavishly worship that document. Nations around the world stopped using the US Constitution as a model for managing and articulating protected rights a long time ago, and few do so today. In fact, it's better that we have someone on the court who is familiar with not just US constitutional law, but with the constitutions of many other nations.

Page 25 of 29 FirstFirst ... 152324252627 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •