Background Checks

[anygunanywhere]

Do not assume that my insistence on absolute rights means that I want a society without laws or adherence to the concept of consequences to actions.

But the problem is that you want it not only both ways but every way. You cannot have an ABSOLUTE "right" and then say that it is acceptable to exclude some from excercising that right. If that is the case, the right is NOT absolute. Make up your mind. If you truely believe that the RKBA is "absolute" or "God-given" then there can be NO, nada, zip, zero limitations placed on the "right" i.e. it is inherent and MUST be freely exercised by EVERYONE including felons, 6 year olds, the mentally incompentent, etc. EVERYONE.

Shaggy,

You are right up to a point. "God given" and "Absolute" are not the same thing.

Some definitions of absolute:

1. free from imperfection; complete; perfect: absolute liberty.
2. complete; outright: an absolute lie; an absolute denial.
4. free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way: absolute command; absolute freedom.
5. unrestrained or unlimited by a constitution, counterbalancing group, etc., in the exercise of governmental power, esp. when arbitrary or despotic: an absolute monarch.

I do understand where my assertion drives some of you nuts. There are those who agree with me on the sidelines. Ask Mrs. Anygun how she tolerates me.

I have never stated that I am an expert debater. There are many on this board much more able to defend their thoughts than I do. I never laid claim to being the sharpest knife in the droor.

I do have my beliefs and they have steered me well for the last 53 years, found me a great wife, helped me raise two fine sons, and helped me achieve a pretty nice living, even without a degree.

My insistence that the 2A is absolute is closer to where the RKBA should be than the current state of affairs. I refuse to accept the notion that any further legislation beyond the estimated 20,000+ firearms laws is going to accomplish anything other than infringe further on our rights.

There is no standard by which the terms "reasonable" and common sense" exists. The same issue exists everywhere.
I thing too much horsepower is reasonable in an American made V-8 (Thank you, Carroll Shelby). Most folks think an anemic 150 horsepower 4-banger that runs on rice is reasonable.

I am not going to convince you of my absolute, uninfringeable right concept. I just find it diffficult to accept "reasonable" and "common sense" infringements to a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights that says "shall not be infringed". Tell me how you resolve the infringe part in your world of restrictable rights and how far you are willing to allow them to be restricted.

Do not be so fast to say that I want it both ways. There are far more individuals that readily accept infringements then complain when they realize their rigths have been trampled on than those who will tolerate no infringement. Unless things change course, you will not have it both ways either. You will not have any firearms at all.

Anygunanywhere

[pt145ss]

If you believe that, then a background check should be irrelevant when it comes to RKBA.

Explain this to me.

It is exactly what it is. If RKBA is absolute as you suggest, then the results of any background check are irrelevant as one could own, possess, and carry, no matter what the results are...felon or not.

Yes, I do believe my RKBA is absolute. I have also stated, and I will do so again, that rights have responsibilities, and actions have consequences.

If RKBA is absolute then any consequences that occur as a result of being a felon could not include forbidding RKBA because it is ABSOLUTE.

Felons must suffer the consequences of their actions. I agree. Certain violent felons must not have firearms. That is not an infringement.

This statement tells me that you do not believe that RKBA is absolute. Explain how excluding a group of people from RKBA who have an absolute (according to you) right is not an infringment?

Felon exclusion can be accomplished without infringing on my RKBA.

That is because you probably are not a felon. If RKBA is absolute and you are a felon...then exclusion would be an infringement on that absolute.

The other day, a child was kidnapped in Houston by a day care worker. The worker, I believe, had a history, maybe criminal. The day care had not performed the required background check. They failed the children. *gasp!*

I agree they failed and should pay for it. But why not simply enforce existing laws and policies that require them to do background checks on employees. Your way seems to me that it makes "big brother" bigger, stronger, and more expensive.

[pt145ss]

My insistence that the 2A is absolute is closer to where the RKBA should be than the current state of affairs. I refuse to accept the notion that any further legislation beyond the estimated 20,000+ firearms laws is going to accomplish anything other than infringe further on our rights.

There is no standard by which the terms "reasonable" and common sense" exists.

I do not agree that RKBA is absolute…but I do agree that RKBA should be closer to absolute in the grand spectrum than it is today. I also agree that “reasonable� and “common sense� are vague at best and are open to debate. This is why we elect officials for whom we believe will represent us in the legislature. It is their job to listen to us and fight for and argue within that vague area and to compromise when necessary for the greater good of their constituents.

For the record, I believe that felons should have the right to protect themselves. If we as a society believe a felon is not trustworthy enough to avail them of a tool for self protection, then they should still be in jail. If they have done their time and repaid their debt to society then they are square with me. This is the scenario that bothers me; a kid at 17 yrs old could do something stupid and get convicted as an adult for a felony. It is entirely possible for that same exact kid to turn his/her life around and be a great asset to society. Should we deny this productive member of society the RKBA? In my opinion…no.

[anygunanywhere]

Yes, I do believe my RKBA is absolute. I have also stated, and I will do so again, that rights have responsibilities, and actions have consequences.

If RKBA is absolute then any consequences that occur as a result of being a felon could not include forbidding RKBA because it is ABSOLUTE.

I understand now. You have not read or understand my comments at all about RKBA. Perhaps using the word "absolute" is not exactly expressing my thoughts to you in a manner that you can understand. As I have stated before, rights have responsibilities. Actions have consequences. I never said that being convicted of a crime and losing ones right to vote was a violation of one's rights. If one commits a violent felony and is a threat to society one should not have a weapon.

Your continued insistence that my use of the word "absolute" means that I think that nothing can prevent me from exercising my RKBA is patently as absurd an argument as the argument that more reasonable restrictions and common sense gun laws will not infringe on my rights and will be the ultimate in crime prevention tools.

Your argument did not make me change my mind about my RKBA, it just left me searching for the proper term.

I will let you know when I find it.

I agree they failed and should pay for it. But why not simply enforce existing laws and policies that require them to do background checks on employees. Your way seems to me that it makes "big brother" bigger, stronger, and more expensive.

The example points out that laws fail to prevent crime. Do you think that background checks infringe on RKBA? Do you think that more firearms regulation is a good idea? You have not stated your opinion, you have just argued against mine. If a few background checks are good then a lot should be great! Are constitutional rights the only things that should be controlled by background checks? Lots of folks think showing IDs to vote is unconstitutional but I have to submit to regulation and documentation to exercise my RKBA?

Big brother is growing. Have you been asleep? I would not opt for more intrusion into my life, but it is already there because probably like you, I am a producer, I provide a service for which I am compensated, I earn a paycheck. I pay taxes. I own property. Those who surp slop at the government trough don't have to jump through near the hoops I do to have a roof over their head or food on the table.

I have a CHL so I had background checks run on me. No big deal since I held top secret clearance in the military. They have a big file on me.

I have a passport and ICE has a big file on my travel.

I will have a TWIC card soon. Never heard of it? Department of Homeland Security mandated Transportation Worker Identification Card. I have to have one now just to work.

Department of Homeland Security Real ID is just over the horizon. Don't have one? No air travel for you.

I saw on the news yesterday that soon the airlines will have to start fingerprinting foreign travelers. Nice.

Drivers license, Social Security card.

I fall under the DOT pipeline drug and alcohol test program. Not a real big deal until I have to donate a sample three times in a month because the random tests pick me. I need to buy more lottery tickets.

Why not require a background check before a marriage license is issued? Wouldn't some potential couples be surprised? Marriage is a right but checks would be OK since some criminals would be prevented from being married. Who wants to marry a criminal?

Anygun

[boomerang]

Why not require a background check before a marriage license is issued? Wouldn't some potential couples be surprised? Marriage is a right but checks would be OK since some criminals would be prevented from being married. Who wants to marry a criminal?

If it's "reasonable" to require a background check to buy a firearm, it's "reasonable" to require a background check to get married.

If it's "reasonable" to require a background check to buy a firearm, it's "reasonable" to require a background check (including immigration status) before a company can hire someone.

[pt145ss]

Why not require a background check before a marriage license is issued? Wouldn't some potential couples be surprised? Marriage is a right but checks would be OK since some criminals would be prevented from being married. Who wants to marry a criminal?

If it's "reasonable" to require a background check to buy a firearm, it's "reasonable" to require a background check to get married.

If it's "reasonable" to require a background check to buy a firearm, it's "reasonable" to require a background check (including immigration status) before a company can hire someone.

Watch out for the slippery slope fallacy. Just because something is reasonable for one thing, does not automatically make it reasonable for another.

[frankie_the_yankee]

If it's "reasonable" to require a background check to buy a firearm, it's "reasonable" to require a background check to get married.

If it's "reasonable" to require a background check to buy a firearm, it's "reasonable" to require a background check (including immigration status) before a company can hire someone.

Both of those things may be reasonable or not.

They are both examples of what is called the "does not follow" error in logic.

Each is simply an assertion.

[pt145ss]

I understand now. You have not read or understand my comments at all about RKBA. Perhaps using the word "absolute" is not exactly expressing my thoughts to you in a manner that you can understand. As I have stated before, rights have responsibilities. Actions have consequences. I never said that being convicted of a crime and losing ones right to vote was a violation of one's rights. If one commits a violent felony and is a threat to society one should not have a weapon.

Your continued insistence that my use of the word "absolute" means that I think that nothing can prevent me from exercising my RKBA is patently as absurd an argument as the argument that more reasonable restrictions and common sense gun laws will not infringe on my rights and will be the ultimate in crime prevention tools.

Your argument did not make me change my mind about my RKBA, it just left me searching for the proper term.

I will let you know when I find it.

Yes…the argument is mostly semantics. The word “ABSOLUTE,� by your definition (see below), leaves no room for conditions or exceptions but yet your explanations prove to have conditions and/or exceptions. You call those conditions and/or exceptions “Consequences.� In other words, you say RKBA is without exception (absolute) but then contradict yourself and say the exception is if you are a felon.

1. free from imperfection; complete; perfect: absolute liberty.
2. complete; outright: an absolute lie; an absolute denial.
4. free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way: absolute command; absolute freedom.
5. unrestrained or unlimited by a constitution, counterbalancing group, etc., in the exercise of governmental power, esp. when arbitrary or despotic: an absolute monarch

The example points out that laws fail to prevent crime. Do you think that background checks infringe on RKBA? Do you think that more firearms regulation is a good idea? You have not stated your opinion, you have just argued against mine. If a few background checks are good then a lot should be great! Are constitutional rights the only things that should be controlled by background checks? Lots of folks think showing IDs to vote is unconstitutional but I have to submit to regulation and documentation to exercise my RKBA?

Big brother is growing. Have you been asleep? I would not opt for more intrusion into my life, but it is already there because probably like you, I am a producer, I provide a service for which I am compensated, I earn a paycheck. I pay taxes. I own property. Those who surp slop at the government trough don't have to jump through near the hoops I do to have a roof over their head or food on the table.

Yes…Background checks do infringe on RKBA. The better question is…do I believe that it is a reasonable infringment? Yes it is reasonable given our current state of affairs. If felons were not released early and were actually rehabilitated prior to being released, then I would say that background checks are unreasonable…because at that point we would only have productive citizens living among us. Furthermore, if they have been rehabilitated and released…they should be afforded the means to protect themselves. More regulation on anything is only good in very few instances. More regulations equals more big brother and loss of freedom. Your suggestion that everyone get a background check only makes big brother bigger and it introduces a complexly all of its own. For example, will the background checks be as extensive as they are for CHL? How far do they go back? How often must they be done? If something does show up on a background check…what right will be taken away and for how long? Will the background check include juvenile record…if so, how long will that affect your rights? Will the background check include psychiatric medical records…and if so…do you loose any rights and for how long. Will it include substance abuse…and if so…how does that affect each right? I can go on and on. But the bottom line is…How much will this cost the tax payers and how timely would the back ground checks be? I would hate to apply to a drivers license and the process take two years because of a back log of applications. Just look at the current back log of CHL applicants waiting on a background check now…we are a small number compared to the overall population in Texas…imagine if we had to do a background check on everyone in Texas.

[anygunanywhere]

Just look at the current back log of CHL applicants waiting on a background check now…we are a small number compared to the overall population in Texas…imagine if we had to do a background check on everyone in Texas.

Open or concealed carry without a permit.

Just like the Second Amendment states.

Works in Alaska and Vermont.

It would work here too.

Or are there no criminals in those two states?

Anygun

[frankie_the_yankee]

Open or concealed carry without a permit.

Just like the Second Amendment states.

Works in Alaska and Vermont.

It would work here too.

I'm skeptical. TX is a lot different than AK or VT.

I see no problems, constitutional or otherwise, with a shall issue CHL requirement.

As I have stated many times in the past, it makes it harder for the disqualified person to blend in, it increases their risk of getting busted if they carry when out and about, and it impacts someone like me to no more than a negligible degree.

[pt145ss]

Just look at the current back log of CHL applicants waiting on a background check now…we are a small number compared to the overall population in Texas…imagine if we had to do a background check on everyone in Texas.

Open or concealed carry without a permit.

Just like the Second Amendment states.

Works in Alaska and Vermont.

It would work here too.

Or are there no criminals in those two states?

Anygun

In your OP, you proposed that everyone have a background check. And later in the course of this thread you state that felons should not have the RKBA.

Have you changed your stance on both?

[boomerang]

Each is simply an assertion.

Yes. A lot like your assertion.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Each is simply an assertion.

Yes. A lot like your assertion.

Not like mine at all. I can support my assertion with a load of logical arguments that are directly related to purchasing, possessing, and carrying guns.

In contrast, there is no specific relationship between the idea that if background checks to buy guns are reasonable, so too are background checks to get a marriage license or to get a job. The subjects are completely seperate. Things that might make one reasonable have essentially no bearing on the other.

You might as well assert that if background checks to buy guns are reasonable then background checks to buy donuts are reasonable as well.

Like I said, it "does not follow".

[boomerang]

Like I said, it "does not follow".

That is simply an assertion.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Like I said, it "does not follow".

That is simply an assertion.

No, it is a logical fact.

If you do not agree, feel free to post a deductive argument proving that you are correct. So far, you have not done so.

Logic is exactly like math. It is not open to different opinions. You either have a valid argument or you don't.