[GW:225] It's So Easy To Buy A Gun

Mar 2019
564
266
Oklahoma
What arguement do you think I'm making anyway?

WTF is wrong with you? Where did I say we could not?

Why yes i do. You seem obsessed with only ONE type of weapon the modern infantryman carries. I don't understand why that is.
Wow.


WHAT specifically shows "that further discussion is pointless?"
Pretty much everything you posted above.
 
May 2012
328
96
Upper Bucks County, PA
Is have a driving licence a freedom loss?
No, it is a permit issued from the government that allows you the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on the public roadways. You are tested on, and the license is issued for the specific type of vehicle you are permitted to drive (e.g., passenger car, commercial truck with different grades of license according to gross vehicle weight).

The possession and use of a gun is a right, government has been granted no power to exert any control or influence over the the possession and use of a private citizen's personal arms that is not a breach of peace.

And just so you get the full picture, the background check is a requirement placed on a firearm dealer who is issued a license by the government to conduct business focused on the buying and selling of firearms. The seller is required by law to collect information on the buyer and run the check on anyone buying a gun under his/her license. A citizen allowing the check to be done (showing ID, filling out and signing the requisite forms -- under penalty of law for misrepresentation) is an indignity and intrusion suffered for the access to the retail firearm marketplace -- which the government has deemed to be under its complete regulatory authority.

OTOH, requiring private citizens to perform a check run when they dispose of their personal property (AKA, a "universal background check" on a "private sale) is a freedom loss. The government has no legitimate interest in the property of a private citizen.


Do you have freedom from fear?
The question makes no sense (spamking's use of the word 'freedom' was in the context of liberty) but if you are asking if a person has a "right" to be safe or feel safe, the answer is an unequivocal NO!
 
Likes: Macduff
Nov 2015
6,338
2,058
UK
No, it is a permit issued from the government that allows you the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on the public roadways. You are tested on, and the license is issued for the specific type of vehicle you are permitted to drive (e.g., passenger car, commercial truck with different grades of license according to gross vehicle weight).

The possession and use of a gun is a right, government has been granted no power to exert any control or influence over the the possession and use of a private citizen's personal arms that is not a breach of peace.

And just so you get the full picture, the background check is a requirement placed on a firearm dealer who is issued a license by the government to conduct business focused on the buying and selling of firearms. The seller is required by law to collect information on the buyer and run the check on anyone buying a gun under his/her license. A citizen allowing the check to be done (showing ID, filling out and signing the requisite forms -- under penalty of law for misrepresentation) is an indignity and intrusion suffered for the access to the retail firearm marketplace -- which the government has deemed to be under its complete regulatory authority.

OTOH, requiring private citizens to perform a check run when they dispose of their personal property (AKA, a "universal background check" on a "private sale) is a freedom loss. The government has no legitimate interest in the property of a private citizen.

The question makes no sense (spamking's use of the word 'freedom' was in the context of liberty) but if you are asking if a person has a "right" to be safe or feel safe, the answer is an unequivocal NO!
That's the problem, each generation is indoctrinated with rights as opposed to responsibility.

With reference to fear, we haven't lost at that in the UK. I can imagine you fear others with guns, need guns for protection etc..

I've asked many American to list all your perceived freedoms compared to Western countries and they can't come up with a list. They obviously believe that the 2nd amendment is the only thing, which is a smoke screen in itself.
 
May 2012
328
96
Upper Bucks County, PA
That's the problem, each generation is indoctrinated with rights as opposed to responsibility.
mkay . . .

With reference to fear, we haven't lost at that in the UK. I can imagine you fear others with guns, need guns for protection etc..
Stuck on the "fear" thing huh? Your previous use of "fear" was wrong contextually and very undeveloped as far as any other use goes. Again, spamking's use of "freedom" meant liberty, freedom from the heavy hand of government over your life and affairs. How that morphs into having freedom from fear in your mind you have not explained to the point I know what the heck you are talking about. This latest answer only muddies the water further.

I've asked many American to list all your perceived freedoms compared to Western countries and they can't come up with a list.
Well, that's the best thing about being American, we aren't expected to list them because our rights are as numerous as grains of sand upon the seashore.

The attempt to list our rights is futile because our rights are considered to be everything "We the People" did not confer to government. This is one aspect of a commingled foundational principle; that of conferred powers and retained rights -- all not conferred is retained.

This principle was the basis of the arguments against adding a bill of rights to our Constitution. These specific points of Federalist opposition is acknowledged in the Bill of Rights, first, in the 9th Amendment, regarding our rights;

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Pertaining to the principle of conferred and thus limited powers, we have the 10th Amendment;

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

A distinction was made between the US political system and Britain's at the time; Madison, a Federalist, originally an opponent of adding a bill of rights, was charged with editing the various state proposals and composing a set of amendments to Congress that would become the Bill of Rights.

He noted, when introducing the amendments, that they differed greatly from the English bill of rights. The starkest was that the US Bill of Rights was actually noting exceptions of powers never granted to government and yours was a mere act of Parliament and could just as easily be rescinded by Parliament and thus insecure and subject to momentary whims.

They obviously believe that the 2nd amendment is the only thing, which is a smoke screen in itself.
Not a smokescreen . . . It really just comes down to who is considered sovereign under each form of government. For the USA, it is the People which is ultimately why "We the People" retained the right to keep and bear arms, to be able to rescind our consent to be governed and throw off an illegitimate government . . . Undoubtedly a very important power that the American people retain and possess, that peoples of other nations do not.

Do you still consider yourself a subject or is there another name for your status under the UK government?

.
 
Mar 2019
564
266
Oklahoma
"Wow" is not an answer to the question(s) posed, now is it?
It's about all the answer your little game deserves.

Now, before you start whining about "what game am I playing" . . . or something else that won't contribute to anything just stop it and move on.

Have a great rest of your Saturday.
 
Likes: Macduff

Similar Discussions