Would background checks stop mass sho...

Would background checks stop mass shootings?

There are 186 comments on the Local TV Station KTVZ story from Apr 11, 2013, titled Would background checks stop mass shootings?. In it, Local TV Station KTVZ reports that:

The tragic shootings in each of these and other towns have ignited public sentiment for some kind of gun reforms and fired up gun advocates to protect what they see as their constitutional right of easy access to firearms.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Local TV Station KTVZ.

Tray

Ecru, MS

#95 Apr 29, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't have a constitutional right to sell firearms to felons.
And you don't have a "Constitutional right" to tell him he can't.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#96 Apr 29, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
Biblical Quotes on Arms and Defense
GayDavy quote mining.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#97 Apr 29, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
"Constitutions are not primarily designed to protect majorities
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

Justice Scalia
Speaking for the SCOTUS majority
this century

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#98 Apr 29, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> And you don't have a "Constitutional right" to tell him he can't.
But I do.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#99 Apr 29, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't have a constitutional right to sell firearms to felons.
Here you go, troll:

"...Baldwin J charged the jury...."

"The first section of the bill of rights in the constitution of Pennsylvania declares that all men have the inherent and indefeasible right of enjoying and defending life and liberty of acquiring possessing and protecting property that no man can be deprived of his liberty or property but by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land Sect 9 That the right of citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state shall not be questioned Sect 21 The second section of the fourth article of the constitution of the United States declares the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. The tenth section of the first article prohibits any state from passing any law which impairs the obligation of a contract. The second amendment provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

"...We shall pursue this subject no further, in its bearing on the political rights of the states composing the union--in recalling your attention to these rights, which are the subject of this controversy, we declare to you as the law of the case, that they are inherent and unalienable--so recognised by all our fundamental laws.

"The constitution of the state or union is not the source of these rights, or the others to which we have referred you, they existed in their plenitude before any constitutions, which do not create but protect and secure them against any violation by the legislatures or courts, in making, expounding or administering laws.

"The nature of this case, its history, and the course of the argument, call on us to declare explicitly what is the effect of a constitutional protection or guarantee of any right, or the injunction of any duty. The twenty sixth section of the bill of rights in the constitution of Pennsylvania, is in these words; "to guard against transgressions of the high powers we have delegated we declare [we the people of Pennsylvania], that every thing in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall for ever remain inviolate." A higher power declares this constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme laws of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding" Const U.S., art. 6, clause 2.

"An amendment of the constitution is of still higher authority, for it has the effect of controlling and repealing the express provisions of the constitution authorizing a power to be exercised, by a declaration that it shall not be construed to give such power. 3 Dall 382.

"We have stated to you the various provisions of the constitution of the United States and its amendments, as well as that of this state; you see their authority and obligation to be supreme over any laws or regulations which are repugnant to them, or which violate, infringe or impair any right thereby secured; the conclusions which result are too obvious to be more than stated."

- U.S. Supreme Court Justice BALDWIN, Circuit Court of The United States,[PENNSYLVANIA APRIL TERM 1833 BEFORE Hon. HENRY BALDWIN, Associate Justice of the [U.S.] Supreme Court, Hon JOSEPH HOPKINSON District Judge, Johnson v Tompkins,(13 F. Cas. 840 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1833)), and others.]

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#100 Apr 29, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
"Like most rights...
Sorry troll, but TRUE precedence is what really matters:

"...Baldwin J charged the jury...."

"The first section of the bill of rights in the constitution of Pennsylvania declares that all men have the inherent and indefeasible right of enjoying and defending life and liberty of acquiring possessing and protecting property that no man can be deprived of his liberty or property but by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land Sect 9 That the right of citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state shall not be questioned Sect 21 The second section of the fourth article of the constitution of the United States declares the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. The tenth section of the first article prohibits any state from passing any law which impairs the obligation of a contract. The second amendment provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

"...We shall pursue this subject no further, in its bearing on the political rights of the states composing the union--in recalling your attention to these rights, which are the subject of this controversy, we declare to you as the law of the case, that they are inherent and unalienable--so recognised by all our fundamental laws.

"The constitution of the state or union is not the source of these rights, or the others to which we have referred you, they existed in their plenitude before any constitutions, which do not create but protect and secure them against any violation by the legislatures or courts, in making, expounding or administering laws.

"The nature of this case, its history, and the course of the argument, call on us to declare explicitly what is the effect of a constitutional protection or guarantee of any right, or the injunction of any duty. The twenty sixth section of the bill of rights in the constitution of Pennsylvania, is in these words; "to guard against transgressions of the high powers we have delegated we declare [we the people of Pennsylvania], that every thing in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall for ever remain inviolate." A higher power declares this constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme laws of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding" Const U.S., art. 6, clause 2.

"An amendment of the constitution is of still higher authority, for it has the effect of controlling and repealing the express provisions of the constitution authorizing a power to be exercised, by a declaration that it shall not be construed to give such power. 3 Dall 382.

"We have stated to you the various provisions of the constitution of the United States and its amendments, as well as that of this state; you see their authority and obligation to be supreme over any laws or regulations which are repugnant to them, or which violate, infringe or impair any right thereby secured; the conclusions which result are too obvious to be more than stated."

- U.S. Supreme Court Justice BALDWIN, Circuit Court of The United States,[PENNSYLVANIA APRIL TERM 1833 BEFORE Hon. HENRY BALDWIN, Associate Justice of the [U.S.] Supreme Court, Hon JOSEPH HOPKINSON District Judge, Johnson v Tompkins,(13 F. Cas. 840 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1833)), and others.]

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#101 Apr 29, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> And you don't have a "Constitutional right" to tell him he can't.
Waste of time attempting to make sense with that troll, Tray. How's it going?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#102 Apr 29, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Here you go, troll:
WAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/u...

FOR RELEASE:
APRIL 4, 2013

BACKGROUND CHECKS COULD LEAD TO GUN CONFISCATION MANY VOTERS TELL QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY NATIONAL POLL BUT 91 PERCENT WANT UNIVERSAL GUN CHECKS

American voters say 48 – 38 percent that the government could use the information from universal background checks to confiscate legally owned guns, but voters still support universal gun background checks 91 –8 percent, including 88 – 11 percent among voters in households with guns, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#103 Apr 29, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry troll, but TRUE precedence
Heller.

TruE precedence.

Poor GayDavy: who can blame him for changing his alias?

All he has is his quote mine.
moronfinder

Martinsville, VA

#104 Apr 29, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."--Miller v U.S. 230 F 486, at 489
"No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it."--Miller v U.S., U.S. Supreme Court,[319 U.S. 105 (1943).
"If a state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity."--Shuttlesworth v Birmingham, U.S. Supreme Court.[394 U.S. 147 (1969).]
"Constitutional rights cannot be denied simply because of hostility to their assertions and exercise; vindication of conceded Constitutional Rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them."--Watson v. Memphis, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921),
"Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property ... and is regarded as inalienable."--16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.
"The basic purpose of a written constitution has a twofold aspect, first the securing to the people of certain unchangeable rights and remedies, and second, the curtailment of unrestricted governmental activity within certain defined fields."--DuPont v. DuPont, Sup. 32 Ded. Ch. 413; 85 A 2d 724.
"Constitutions are not primarily designed to protect majorities, who are usually able to protect themselves, but rather to preserve and protect the rights of individuals and minorities against arbitrary action of those in authority."--Houston County v. Martin, 232 A 1 511; 169 So. 13.
"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions."---State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921).
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be NO rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."--Miranda v Arizona, U.S. Supreme Court, 384 US 436, 491 (1966).
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."--Snerer v Cullen 481 F. 946.
"The state cannot diminish Rights of the people."-- Hurtado vs. California, 110 US 516
"Bearing arms for the common defense may well be held to be a political right, or for the protection and maintenance of such rights, intended to be guaranteed; but the right to keep them, with all that is implied fairly as an incident to this right, is a private individual right, guaranteed to the citizen, not the soldier."-- Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. at 156, 3 Heisk. at 182.(1871).
"... to prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm ... is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege."--WILSON V. STATE, 33 Ark. 557 (1878).
Looks like you should've been born 400 years ago.
moronfinder

Martinsville, VA

#105 Apr 29, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> And you don't have a "Constitutional right" to tell him he can't.
Indeed he does. It's called freedom of speech.
Grumpy553

Bronx, NY

#106 Apr 30, 2013
moronfinder wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed he does. It's called freedom of speech.
So you want to stand on the first ammendment while you piss all over the second. The constitution is a great doccument, except for those pesky sections you dont agree with, right?
August

Silver Springs, FL

#107 Apr 30, 2013
Grumpy553 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you want to stand on the first ammendment while you piss all over the second. The constitution is a great doccument, except for those pesky sections you dont agree with, right?
Yup, that's the liberal way!

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#108 Apr 30, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
WAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/u...
FOR RELEASE:
APRIL 4, 2013
BACKGROUND CHECKS COULD LEAD TO GUN CONFISCATION MANY VOTERS TELL QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY NATIONAL POLL BUT 91 PERCENT WANT UNIVERSAL GUN CHECKS
American voters say 48 – 38 percent that the government could use the information from universal background checks to confiscate legally owned guns, but voters still support universal gun background checks 91 –8 percent, including 88 – 11 percent among voters in households with guns, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today
USA Today poll shows gun-control support slipping still further
posted at 8:01 pm on April 22, 2013 by Erika Johnse

President Obama’s indignant display of outrageously moral outrage following last week’s failed Senate gun-control vote notwithstanding, Americans’ support for further federal gun-control laws is continuing on its downward trajectory, according to USA Today‘s latest measure — which doesn’t do much to bolster the notion that Americans’ support for the legislation’s passage was really quite as robustly universal as its advocates made it out to be.

Four months after the shooting rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School, a USA TODAY Poll finds support for a new gun-control law ebbing as prospects for passage on Capitol Hill seem to fade.

Americans are more narrowly divided on the issue than in recent months, and backing for a bill has slipped below 50%, the poll finds. By 49%-45%, those surveyed favor Congress passing a new gun-control law. In an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll in early April, 55% had backed a stricter gun law, which was down from 61% in February.…

Those who support a bill want advocates in Congress to hang tough and not compromise — an attitude that also could complicate passing legislation. Sixty-one percent say members of Congress “should only agree to a stronger version of the bill, even if it might not pass.” Just 30% say they should “accept a weaker law” they know can win approval.

And this was taken last Thursday through Sunday, with a four percent margin of error. Where is this miraculous and overwhelming surge of gun-control support about which we heard so much?
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/22/usa-tod...

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#109 Apr 30, 2013
moronfinder wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed he does. It's called freedom of speech.
For which there can indeed be severe CONSEQUENCES.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#110 Apr 30, 2013
moronfinder wrote:
<quoted text>
Looks like you should've been born 400 years ago.
Not quite, O' one that lacks the use of their brain:

"Those then who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered, in court as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only law.

"This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions ... It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath, which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

"That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions--a written Constitution--would of itself be sufficient, in America, where written Constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the Constitution."

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void."--Chief Justice Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison, 5, U.S.(Cranch) 137, 174,176.]

A Constitution is FACT. It's meaning does NOT change. Nor is it altered by the whims of the imbecilic.

Looks like you shouldn't have been born at all. At least not here in this country.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#111 Apr 30, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't have a constitutional right to sell firearms to felons.
If they have served their lawfully imposed sentence, and are again free. Then they are NO LONGER "felons".

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#112 Apr 30, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't lifted a finger to serve this country.
The closest you have come is servicing lonely Marines outside the base.
Wipe your chin, GayDavy.
Blow it out your rear, you treasonous dog. I worked for the federal government in two different departments. I've done FAR more for this country than >you< EVER will.

All you are is a LIE-beral scumbag. The same type that used to spit on our servicemen coming home from Vietnam.

One day you will answer for your treason, scumbag. Just wish I could be there to witness it.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#113 Apr 30, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Matthew 10:32-33
Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
++
Gee, quote mining, fun fun fun~
I have no problem at all confessing that Jesus is Lord. In fact, I publish it on my website. And acknowledge that God is the Author of all of our Rights. Which of course makes >you< an enemy of God. For >you< cry out to have those rights INFRINGED.

"Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness [which] they have prescribed;

"To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and [that] they may rob the fatherless!

"And what will ye do in the day of visitation, and in the desolation [which] shall come from far? to whom will ye flee for help? and where will ye leave your glory?

"Without me they shall bow down under the prisoners, and they shall fall under the slain. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand [is] stretched out still."

- Isaiah 10:1-4

You freaks are blind. You have no idea the wrath that will soon descend upon you....
moronfinder

Martinsville, VA

#115 Apr 30, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Blow it out your rear, you treasonous dog. I worked for the federal government in two different departments. I've done FAR more for this country than >you< EVER will.
All you are is a LIE-beral ****. The same type that used to spit on our servicemen coming home from Vietnam.
One day you will answer for your treason,****. Just wish I could be there to witness it.
Cool down there Rambo. Go hug your guns.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Paxton's acceptance of shootings is unacceptable Nov 18 youll shoot your ... 1
Texas mass shooting Nov 11 Canlendyou 13
News Massachusetts 1st to ban bump stocks since Vega... Nov 11 Watchdog 3
News Existing laws should have stopped shooter Nov 10 payme 1
News Texas Attorney General: The way to stop mass sh... Nov 9 Brenda Lasley 16
30-06 (7.62X63) vs .308 (7.62X51) (Feb '11) Nov 7 Charlie 122
News Packing pistols: Is Texas safer with more licen... (Jul '11) Nov 6 Free Farts 12
More from around the web