Knockout "Game" Not New, Media Cover Up Not Either

[Scataphagos]

Quote from Lucrum:

"... To avoid becoming a felon, anyone with a gun registered before 2011 will have to go to police headquarters to be fingerprinted, photographed, provide proof of address, pay a fee and confirm they may still legally possess the firearm. [/i]

2nd Amendment... does not require any of the above. It's a Constitutional RIGHT to bear arms. "Rights" are inalienable. NOT subject to "conditions".

 

[bigarrow]

Requiring a background check or a permit doesn't violate the constitution any more than requiring a government issued ID violates constitional voting rights.

 

[murray t turtle]

Quote from Lucrum:

Interviews with convicts and studies show that it IS a factor.

=================
Exactly,mr Lu;
its true.

Dont forget the common sense factor;
a 30-06, soft point or hollow point, wiil do wonders on stopping a deer, or crook.

As far as Iran nukes, forget arms control/gun control;
God bless the Israel, or American air force with deady, overwhelming force........................................

Like the Remington ad says'' its the deadliest mushroom in the woods'';
in the city limits, consider using a different load/gun,like a varmint load is made to blow up inside the varmint.
=========================================

 

[PiggyBank]

Quote from bigarrow:

Requiring a background check or a permit doesn't violate the constitution any more than requiring a government issued ID violates constitional voting rights.

Sure it does. A permit is literally permission granted to you by the State to carry a gun. Since you already have a right to carry, what do you need permission for?

Checking your id to prove that you are who you say you are is just common sense. Nothing in the Constitution protects you from proving that you are who you claim to be in order to vote. The 'right to vote' has changed several times throughout our history and already has requirements, like age, written in the document.

 

[bigarrow]

Quote from PiggyBank:

Sure it does. A permit is literally permission given by the State so you can carry a gun. Since you already have a right to carry, what do you need permission for?

Checking your id to prove that you are who you say you are is just common sense. Nothing in the Constitution protects you from proving that you are who you claim to be in order to vote. The 'right to vote' has changed several times throughout our history and has requirements, like age, written in the document.

Oh OK I get it, it's common sense [in your opinion] to have to possess and show a government ID to vote. But not common sense [in your opinion] to show the same ID to purchase a gun and it's just common sense [in my opinion] to go ahead an issue the permit too.

 

[LEAPup]

Quote from bigarrow:

Oh OK I get it, it's common sense [in your opinion] to have to possess and show a government ID to vote. But not common sense [in your opinion] to show the same ID to purchase a gun and it's just common sense [in my opinion] to go ahead an issue the permit too.

We knew you wouldn't (COULDN'T) understand.

 

[bigarrow]

There you again leap couldn't hold a real conversation more than a post or two before you revert back to being a little cunt.

 

[LEAPup]

Quote from bigarrow:

There you again leap couldn't hold a real conversation more than a post or two before you revert back to being a little cunt.

Waste of my time trying to talk you you...

Btw, aren't you living...er, I mean parked in Texas somewhere?

 

[PiggyBank]

Quote from bigarrow:

Oh OK I get it, it's common sense [in your opinion] to have to possess and show a government ID to vote. But not common sense [in your opinion] to show the same ID to purchase a gun and it's just common sense [in my opinion] to go ahead an issue the permit too.

dude, that isn't what i said at all. you equated voter id laws with firearms regulation, under the Constitution. I stated they are not equal in this context. the reasons are 1) there is no language that prohibits restrictions on who may vote (yes the common sense part was my opinion but i think only a liar would disagree) and 2) there IS language that prohibits placing restrictions on who may own/carry firearms.

now if you want to talk about the merits of these policies or lack thereof (our opinions), fine, but don't try and twist what the Constitution actually says to use as an argument. we probably agree on some stuff.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from bigarrow:

Requiring a background check or a permit doesn't violate the constitution...

Actually it does. It just doesn't seem that way to the ignorant and or ill informed. Because the thousands of current infringements have been come along gradually and for the most part have gone unchallenged by the citizenry.


Here, read it again - for the first time.


Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


in·fringe (n-frnj)
v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es
v.tr.
1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate
To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing