A whole bunch of states trying to ban guns. (Page 2/6) BingB FEB 19, 08:51 AM quote Originally posted by olejoedad: Red flag laws strip the accused of constitutional rights without the accused having a voice. Do you support that? You are a purveyor of false information. Actually you are the purveyor of false information. "Red Flag Laws" protect the accused's Constitutional rights to due process because a hearing in court is required to permanently take away their guns. BingB FEB 19, 08:58 AM quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Owning a gun is not a privilege... it is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. There is a clear and distinct difference here. . Actually there is no difference under the law at all. Constitutional rights are almost all limited to insure public safety and well-being. We have "Free Speech", but we can't commit slander or libel or perjury or fraud or incite a riot. And have you tried to buy a fully automatic weapon recently? This argument about the difference between a "right" and a "privilege" is meaningless as far as imposing restrictions is involved. It is just more NRA propaganda. cliffw FEB 19, 09:14 AM quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Tell me why the Government should have the right to keep a running list of everyone who owns a gun. Explain to me why that's important? Nearly half the households in the country have at least 1 gun. quote Originally posted by BingB: 1. So that weapons used in crimes can be traced to owners. Do you have any common sense ? Why is that important ? The owner did not commit the crime. quote Originally posted by BingB: 2. So that guns found on criminals can be traced to the people who sold them to them illegally. Do you have any common sense ? Why is that important ? Who says the legal gun owner sold a gun to a criminal illegally ? Or how a citizen would know who is and who is not a criminal ? quote Originally posted by BingB: 3. So that when a police officer is investigating a potential crime he will immediately know if the people involved are legally entitled to own the guns they possess. Do you have any common sense ? A potential crime, ? I thought you used to be a lawyer. A police officer instantly knows if a person who posses a gun is entitled to possess said gun quote Originally posted by BingB: Right now it is almost impossible to control the trafficking of guns to criminals because no one can be held responsible. My oh my. Do you have any common sense ? Trafficking ? You assume a legal gun owner always sell guns to criminals ? quote Originally posted by BingB: We can't enforce the laws we already have in place. That's not true. quote Originally posted by BingB: A gun found in the home or car of a convicted felon can be claimed by another person. That is also not true. quote Originally posted by BingB: Guns confiscated from criminals can't be traced to the seller. So you think that Jack Daniels is responsible for what people who drink their whiskey do ? 82-T/A [At Work] FEB 19, 09:16 AM quote Originally posted by BingB: Actually there is no difference under the law at all. Constitutional rights are almost all limited to insure public safety and well-being. We have "Free Speech", but we can't commit slander or libel or perjury or fraud or incite a riot. And have you tried to buy a fully automatic weapon recently? This argument about the difference between a "right" and a "privilege" is meaningless as far as imposing restrictions is involved. It is just more NRA propaganda. ... IN YOUR OPINION. And you're entitled to it. But the U.S. Supreme Court has decided otherwise several times. And yes, I have a law degree from a really good school, as do a couple others on here. Don't confuse Tort law with criminal law, or constitutional law. cliffw FEB 19, 09:17 AM quote Originally posted by BingB: Constitutional rights are almost all limited to insure public safety and well-being. We have "Free Speech", but we can't commit slander or libel or perjury or fraud or incite a riot. And have you tried to buy a fully automatic weapon recently? When someone does commit slander or libel or perjury or fraud or incite a riot do we take away their right to free speech ? BingB FEB 19, 09:23 AM quote Originally posted by cliffw: When someone does commit slander or libel or perjury or fraud or incite a riot do we take away their right to free speech ? Those limits on free speech apply to everyone. None of us are free to do any of those things. So I don't really understand your question. BingB FEB 19, 09:26 AM quote Originally posted by cliffw: Do you have any common sense ? Why is that important ? The owner did not commit the crime. How do you know who committed the crime? Lots of crimes have been solved by vehicle license plates that place the criminal at the scene. If someones gun is found at a crime scene that could very well lead to the crimnal or information that could identify him. BingB FEB 19, 09:31 AM quote Originally posted by cliffw: Do you have any common sense ? Why is that important ? Who says the legal gun owner sold a gun to a criminal illegally ? Or how a citizen would know who is and who is not a criminal ? I have enough common sense to understand that it is a good idea to keep guns out of the hands of violent convicted felons. Any citizen would know that the buyer is a convicted felon if we had laws requiring background checks for every gun sale. That is my entire point. Every gun has to be licensed to a specific owner so that we can enforce the laws we already have. BingB FEB 19, 09:33 AM quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: ... IN YOUR OPINION. And you're entitled to it. But the U.S. Supreme Court has decided otherwise several times. And yes, I have a law degree from a really good school, as do a couple others on here. Don't confuse Tort law with criminal law, or constitutional law. I can't cite cases or anything like that. but I am pretty sure that the SCOTUS has upheld all the limitations on free speech that I listed. 82-T/A [At Work] FEB 19, 09:36 AM quote Originally posted by BingB: I can't cite cases or anything like that. but I am pretty sure that the SCOTUS has upheld all the limitations on free speech that I listed. The law upholds the individual right, until that individual right infringes on others rights. Screaming fire in a theater (the usual example) can lead to death. Owning a gun does not lead to death... an individual committing homicide in a Democrat city does. It's not the gun's fault any more than it is the fault of an individual's larynx. It's premeditation ... i.e., mens rea, and he actual actus rea that makes it a crime. You are totally distorting everything. The Supreme Court upholds the rights of gun ownership, and continues to rule (quite literally, almost every session) against Democrat laws across the states that infringe on these rights.