View Poll Results: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights?

Voters
38. You may not vote on this poll
  • A license/permit required to exercise certain or all 1st amendment rights

    6 15.79%
  • A license/permit required to exercise certain or all 2nd amendment rights

    22 57.89%
  • Registration requirement of some or all of your books and other 1st amendment related things

    2 5.26%
  • Registration requirement of some or all of your firearms and other weapons.

    30 78.95%
  • A ban on certain books,religions, what the press can report and etc.

    3 7.89%
  • A ban on certain weapons.

    24 63.16%
  • A ban on certain individuals from exercising 1st amendment rights

    3 7.89%
  • A ban on certain individuals form exercising 2nd amendment rights

    17 44.74%
  • A total ban on 1st amendment rights

    2 5.26%
  • A total ban on 2nd amendment rights

    3 7.89%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 25 of 38 FirstFirst ... 15232425262735 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 375

Thread: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights?

  1. #241
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    So basically your idea does not stop criminals from owning firearms and it just gives the government a database which can be used against those who do legally own firearms.
    Of course it doesn't stop criminals from owning firearms. I never said it did.

    Nothing can stop someone who wishes to own a firearm, or any other at least somewhat easily smuggled item, from acquiring said item.

    I was thinking of a database containing information about all violent criminals (I assume something along those lines exists already), which the ID of the potential firearm purchaser could be quickly compared with to ensure a violent criminal was not trying to legally purchase a firearm.

    How could that database be used against those who legally own firearms?

    All a database of that sort would do is force criminals to purchase weapons from illegal sources.

    All it would do is make it more difficult for a criminal to acquire a weapon.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  2. #242
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,703

    Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    Of course it doesn't stop criminals from owning firearms. I never said it did.

    Nothing can stop someone who wishes to own a firearm, or any other at least somewhat easily smuggled item, from acquiring said item.

    I was thinking of a database containing information about all violent criminals (I assume something along those lines exists already), which the ID of the potential firearm purchaser could be quickly compared with to ensure a violent criminal was not trying to legally purchase a firearm.

    How could that database be used against those who legally own firearms?

    All a database of that sort would do is force criminals to purchase weapons from illegal sources.

    All it would do is make it more difficult for a criminal to acquire a weapon.
    How? right now it is TOTALLY completely and 100% illegal for a felon to posses a firearm. Thus ANYWAY a criminal obtains a firearm is already ILLEGAL



  3. #243
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    How? Right now it is TOTALLY completely and 100% illegal for a felon to possess a firearm. Thus ANY WAY a criminal obtains a firearm is already ILLEGAL
    Well, then it would seem completely reasonable for a gun shop to require a background check.

    In order to protect themselves against possible lawsuits by those who might be harmed due to a violent criminal purchasing a firearm and using it against someone.

    Then again, is it illegal to sell a firearm to a felon?

    Hmm.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  4. #244
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,703

    Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    Well, then it would seem completely reasonable for a gun shop to require a background check.

    In order to protect themselves against possible lawsuits by those who might be harmed due to a violent criminal purchasing a firearm and using it against someone.

    Then again, is it illegal to sell a firearm to a felon?

    Hmm.
    how does that make it more difficult for a felon? Does not allowing pharmacies to sell coke or heroin make it tougher for people to get it

    a background check might keep felons from buying a gun at a gunshop but not from getting a gun, I know alot about gunshops, I represented one for years, and I spend lots of time in one because its a range where I shoot and i am on the pro staff there as an archer. Guess who also hangs out in gunshops> cops, some even work in such shops to get good deals on guns. and lots of cops like to shoot. I ran into a ranking SA of the DEA in one the other day. what does that mean? criminals, especially local ones avoid gunshops because other than going to court or a police station, they have a really good chance of running into someone who knows them and knows it is illegal for felons to be handling guns



  5. #245
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    how does that make it more difficult for a felon?
    Only in that to avoid the background check, they would have to find someone selling weapons illegally, which, depending on the situation, might be more difficult than walking into the local gun store.
    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    Does not allowing pharmacies to sell coke or heroin make it tougher for people to get it?
    Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    a background check might keep felons from buying a gun at a gunshop but not from getting a gun, I know alot about gunshops, I represented one for years, and I spend lots of time in one because itís a range where I shoot and I am on the pro staff there as an archer. Guess who also hangs out in gunshops> cops, some even work in such shops to get good deals on guns. and lots of cops like to shoot. I ran into a ranking SA of the DEA in one the other day. what does that mean? criminals, especially local ones avoid gunshops because other than going to court or a police station, they have a really good chance of running into someone who knows them and knows it is illegal for felons to be handling guns
    Interesting.

    I am not contending that a background check would keep felons from acquiring a gun, as that would be a blatantly false contention.

    I am contending that a background check would accomplish the following:
    • Prevent convicted felons from purchasing a firearm from a legal vendor of such.
    • Protect said legal vendor from potential lawsuits leveled against them by persons who were harmed by a firearm purchased in their store by a convicted felon.
    • Prevent convicted felons (except the really stupid ones) from attempting to purchase weapons from legal vendors of such, as they know it would be impossible, due to said background check.

    That said, a potential positive (a bit of a stretch, perhaps) would be that if there were not background checks allowed, cops could stake out gun shops and arrest a convicted felon who purchased a firearm there...
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  6. #246
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,703

    Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    Only in that to avoid the background check, they would have to find someone selling weapons illegally, which, depending on the situation, might be more difficult than walking into the local gun store.
    Yes.

    Interesting.

    I am not contending that a background check would keep felons from acquiring a gun, as that would be a blatantly false contention.

    I am contending that a background check would accomplish the following:
    • Prevent convicted felons from purchasing a firearm from a legal vendor of such.
    • Protect said legal vendor from potential lawsuits leveled against them by persons who were harmed by a firearm purchased in their store by a convicted felon.
    • Prevent convicted felons (except the really stupid ones) from attempting to purchase weapons from legal vendors of such, as they know it would be impossible, due to said background check.

    That said, a potential positive (a bit of a stretch, perhaps) would be that if there were not background checks allowed, cops could stake out gun shops and arrest a convicted felon who purchased a firearm there...
    BGCs don't bother me much and yes they protect dealers (but makers still used to be sued by leftwing shysters until the Bush administration signed into law prevention of such BS) but here is an interesting fact about gun haters

    The Clinton administration brayed that the Brady bill prevented ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND OR MORE FELONS FROM BUYING GUNS (they never admitted that merely preventing someone from buying a gun at ABC Gun store didn't prevent the same guy from Buying one from Tyrone's midnight out of the trunk of his pontiac gun store), YET THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION ONLY PROSECUTED 12 people for it

    you see here is how it worked. You go to a gun store and the clerk hands you a Federal form . Now that form has changed several times but before the instant background you filled out a prelminary form that asked if you were a felon etc (the current form is a 4473 and they only require one form-15 years ago it was that and after you passed it then you would fill out the 4473)

    after you filled the form out, the dealer would send it to the constabulary and they would check and if you passed you'd get the gun after a wait. Now, if you pass you get the gun right away

    EITHER WAY if you FLUNK that means YOU LIED ON THE FORM BECAUSE IF YOU ADMIT YOU ARE A FELON, a FUGITIVE, an Illegal etc the clerk denies you a gun and doesn't even call it in

    So if the Clintonistas were telling the truth that means they failed to prosecute over 99.9% of people who had PERJURED THEMSELVES
    Last edited by TurtleDude; 04-07-10 at 11:10 PM.



  7. #247
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    The Clinton administration brayed that the Brady bill prevented ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND OR MORE FELONS FROM BUYING GUNS (they never admitted that merely preventing someone from buying a gun at ABC Gun store didn't prevent the same guy from Buying one from Tyrone's midnight out of the trunk of his pontiac gun store), YET THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION ONLY PROSECUTED 12 people for it
    Yes, but it prevented ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND OR MORE FELONS FROM BUYING GUNS.

    That was the point of the law, to prevent ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND OR MORE FELONS FROM BUYING GUNS.

  8. #248
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,703

    Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Yes, but it prevented ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND OR MORE FELONS FROM BUYING GUNS.

    That was the point of the law, to prevent ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND OR MORE FELONS FROM BUYING GUNS.
    you being stupid again? it prevented nothing.



  9. #249
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    BGCs don't bother me much and yes they protect dealers (but makers still used to be sued by leftwing shysters until the Bush administration signed into law prevention of such BS) but here is an interesting fact about gun haters

    The Clinton administration brayed that the Brady bill prevented ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND OR MORE FELONS FROM BUYING GUNS (they never admitted that merely preventing someone from buying a gun at ABC Gun store didn't prevent the same guy from Buying one from Tyrone's midnight out of the trunk of his pontiac gun store), YET THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION ONLY PROSECUTED 12 people for it

    you see here is how it worked. You go to a gun store and the clerk hands you a Federal form . Now that form has changed several times but before the instant background you filled out a prelminary form that asked if you were a felon etc (the current form is a 4473 and they only require one form-15 years ago it was that and after you passed it then you would fill out the 4473)

    after you filled the form out, the dealer would send it to the constabulary and they would check and if you passed you'd get the gun after a wait. Now, if you pass you get the gun right away

    EITHER WAY if you FLUNK that means YOU LIED ON THE FORM BECAUSE IF YOU ADMIT YOU ARE A FELON, a FUGITIVE, an Illegal etc the clerk denies you a gun and doesn't even call it in

    So if the Clintonistas were telling the truth that means they failed to prosecute over 99.9% of people who had PERJURED THEMSELVES
    What the hell does this have to do with my hypothetical ideas?
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  10. #250
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,703

    Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    What the hell does this have to do with my hypothetical ideas?
    reality sucks doesn't it

    a background check that is not enforced when someone is caught trying to buy a gun illegally is a waste of time



Page 25 of 38 FirstFirst ... 15232425262735 ... 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
  •