- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Supreme Court rules against 'Straw Purchasers' of Guns
Posted on 6/16/14 at 8:02 pm to weagle99
Posted on 6/16/14 at 8:02 pm to weagle99
That's my point; I don't see a mechanism you can use to make that distinction at the point of sale.
Therefore, I'd rather err on the side of caution and keep the law slanted against allowing straw purchasers.
The Second says you can own a weapon. It doesn't guarantee a relative can buy one for you.
I'm OK with this ruling simply because I can't envision of a way to distinguish between straw purchasers and gifts for family members at the point of sale.
Therefore, I'd rather err on the side of caution and keep the law slanted against allowing straw purchasers.
The Second says you can own a weapon. It doesn't guarantee a relative can buy one for you.
I'm OK with this ruling simply because I can't envision of a way to distinguish between straw purchasers and gifts for family members at the point of sale.
This post was edited on 6/16/14 at 8:03 pm
1
Posted on 6/16/14 at 8:04 pm to weagle99
quote:
someone who isn't qualified to purchase / own a gun.
Some here interpret the Second to say that it is not possible for the government to declare someone unqualified to own a gun.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 8:05 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
keep the law slanted against allowing straw purchasers.
Understand what you are saying, but remember this wasn't technically a 'straw purchase,' which has been illegal for some time.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 8:07 pm to Vegas Bengal
I think there is a big difference when the ATF gets owners to sell guns to people that they know will then turn those guns over to criminals. Narco criminals in another country at that.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 8:08 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:The ATF didn't allow the purchases to take place, they forced the sale of automatic weapons to drug dealing murderers to take place.
If allowing the straw purchases to take place resulted in over 210 people killed or wounded,
You're way off on this argument.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 8:09 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Some here interpret the Second to say that it is not possible for the government to declare someone unqualified to own a gun.
I can agree with this view in theory, however practically I don't see this being changed anytime soon and I haven't observed a significant portion of the gun rights movement pushing for this.
This post was edited on 6/16/14 at 8:11 pm
Posted on 6/16/14 at 8:12 pm to weagle99
The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
That's a principle I wish we could have a thread on one day.
That's a principle I wish we could have a thread on one day.
This post was edited on 6/16/14 at 8:16 pm
Posted on 6/16/14 at 8:14 pm to Sentrius
The Constitution is clear, no laws shall be passed infringing on the right to bear arms. We are doomed as the United States Supreme Court continues it's unabated path to destroy our rights.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 8:14 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
That's a principle I wish we could have a thread on one day.
Agreed. Won't be a particularly fruitful discussion on this board, though. Unless you have a lot more patience than I have.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 8:15 pm to VOR
Yeah, I don't see it going very far, either
Posted on 6/16/14 at 8:15 pm to themunch
quote:
The Constitution is clear, no laws shall be passed infringing on the right to bear arms.
1. Simplistic.
2. Paraphrase.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 8:16 pm to VOR
We even have a Founding Father echoing the same sentiment..."[a] strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means."
Be interesting to see how some here reconcile the two.
Be interesting to see how some here reconcile the two.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 8:22 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
The problem alot of people have with blind acquiescence to government oversight is that lists of 'prohibited persons' can be expanded due to ideology.
Felons are prohibited from owning firearms. Certain non violent drug offenders are felons. Should their rights continue to be denied? Many on this board who have no real fondness for the 2A would say no.
But that is probably the topic for another thread.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 8:43 pm to boosiebadazz
The reason gun ownership advocates are so easy to get a rise out of is because they understand the end game for those opposed to guns is the outright banning of private ownership.
Compromise is not wise because there is no point at which those opposed to private ownership will say "OK. Good enough." Every compromise gun owners make is just a slow walk to an outright ban.
I've heard it compared to smokers. Smokers were smoking in the restaurant and at some point were asked if they minded sitting in their own section. They said "Sure." Then they were asked to sit out on the patio and they said "Sure." Then they were asked to not smoke in the patio section and to go completely outside to smoke. They said "Sure." Then they were told they couldn't smoke within 30 feet of the entrance. By saying "Sure" they went from their table in the restaurant to halfway down the street in 4 steps.
This is why gun owners don't mind being called reactionary for being upset about what seems to be reasonable compromise. They understand the goals and methods of those that are asking them to compromise.
Compromise is not wise because there is no point at which those opposed to private ownership will say "OK. Good enough." Every compromise gun owners make is just a slow walk to an outright ban.
I've heard it compared to smokers. Smokers were smoking in the restaurant and at some point were asked if they minded sitting in their own section. They said "Sure." Then they were asked to sit out on the patio and they said "Sure." Then they were asked to not smoke in the patio section and to go completely outside to smoke. They said "Sure." Then they were told they couldn't smoke within 30 feet of the entrance. By saying "Sure" they went from their table in the restaurant to halfway down the street in 4 steps.
This is why gun owners don't mind being called reactionary for being upset about what seems to be reasonable compromise. They understand the goals and methods of those that are asking them to compromise.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 8:50 pm to weagle99
quote:
The opponents of the 2nd Amendment never rest, despite the protestations of some misguided souls on this board.
Opposing even the most minimal and commonsensical regulation of firearms transactions is what will ultimately do you and the NRA in.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 8:55 pm to Layabout
quote:
Opposing even the most minimal and commonsensical regulation of firearms transactions is what will ultimately do you and the NRA in.
History is not exactly on your side and thanks so much for looking out for gun owners interest.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 9:09 pm to Layabout
quote:
Opposing even the most minimal and commonsensical regulation of firearms transactions is what will ultimately do you and the NRA in.
What regulation would have prevented Newtown?
Are you willing to do away with all gun free zones if gun owners accept additional regulation? Would that be a true compromise?
You only want compromise in your direction and your knee jerk reactions won't do anything to stop most of the events that you are reacting to.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 9:11 pm to Scoop
quote:
Scoop
This guy gets it.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 9:12 pm to StrangeBrew
And how does this prevent a straw purchase? lol what a joke
Anytime a lib hears about some sort of additional legislation their first reaction is feel good, they say: "why is that bad?" or "how can that be bad?" Which in reality they have no concept how a gun is purchased, or what a straw purchase is or how this ruling will not prohibit future straw purchases.
Anytime a lib hears about some sort of additional legislation their first reaction is feel good, they say: "why is that bad?" or "how can that be bad?" Which in reality they have no concept how a gun is purchased, or what a straw purchase is or how this ruling will not prohibit future straw purchases.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 9:22 pm to Scoop
Valid analogy. Thank you.
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News