gazzthompson Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 Or maybe attempt to change that "cultural/social thing" without effecting the millions of gun owners rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aris Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 Or maybe attempt to change that "cultural/social thing" without effecting the millions of gun owners rights. I don't see how licensing and/or more stringent vetting will affect a gun owners rights in the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazzthompson Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 (edited) If you need a license to express/use a right, it's not a right surely. Edited February 14, 2013 by gazzthompson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steppenwolf Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 Exactly. Licencing and the Second Amendment don't go hand in hand. Personally I think Americans should involve themselves in mental health more, should restrict the use of Prozac and SSRI's given to teenager who already have unbalanced hormones. They should get rid of gun free zones, they are a joke in a heavily armed society like America. IN fact legislation aimed at either arming teachers or cancelling gun free zones are being introduced in Houses at state level in about 20 states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazzthompson Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 (edited) Never understood the idea behind "gun free zones" Edited February 14, 2013 by gazzthompson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aris Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 Exactly. Licencing and the Second Amendment don't go hand in hand. Personally I think Americans should involve themselves in mental health more, should restrict the use of Prozac and SSRI's given to teenager who already have unbalanced hormones. They should get rid of gun free zones, they are a joke in a heavily armed society like America. IN fact legislation aimed at either arming teachers or cancelling gun free zones are being introduced in Houses at state level in about 20 states. Why don't licensing and the 2nd amendment go hand in hand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazzthompson Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 Why don't licensing and the 2nd amendment go hand in hand? Because if you need a licence to do something , its not a right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steppenwolf Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 That makes sense. It doesn't say: "The right of the peopel to keep and bear arms WITH A LICENSE shall not be infringed" If you can't understand that I am afraid you can't understand fundamental feedom and we'll either have to agree to disagree since I don't know a more simple method to explain to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aris Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 That makes sense. It doesn't say: "The right of the peopel to keep and bear arms WITH A LICENSE shall not be infringed" If you can't understand that I am afraid you can't understand fundamental feedom and we'll either have to agree to disagree since I don't know a more simple method to explain to you. There are plenty of US states which restrict who can own a firearm. Are their 2nd amendment rights being infringed? It would seem to me that there is legal scope for a licensing scheme in the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steppenwolf Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 There are plenty of US states which restrict who can own a firearm. Are their 2nd amendment rights being infringed? It would seem to me that there is legal scope for a licensing scheme in the US. Yes they are. Their laws are unconstitutional. In fact in every state in the USA the NRA regularly bring legal challenges to say towns and counties enforcing any form of gun control. Most times winning suits, therefore allowing citizen laxer gun laws. This is how most of conceal carry laws were brouhgt into the USA. Conceal carry was illegal in most states as eraly as 25 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lock Stock & Barrel Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 Because if you need a licence to do something , its not a right. No, that's flawed logic: everyone in the UK has the right to own a dog (unless barred for legal reasons from doing so - e.g. after being found guilty of animal cruelty), but they need a license to own one. People have the right in the UK to watch TV, but they need a license to do so - or are you saying that people who live in areas where they can't get TV reception are haing their rights are infringed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazzthompson Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 (edited) Where does it say we have a right to own a dog and watch TV? Edited February 14, 2013 by gazzthompson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steppenwolf Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 No, that's flawed logic: everyone in the UK has the right to own a dog (unless barred for legal reasons from doing so - e.g. after being found guilty of animal cruelty), but they need a license to own one. People have the right in the UK to watch TV, but they need a license to do so - or are you saying that people who live in areas where they can't get TV reception are haing their rights are infringed? It's clear that both your examples are not rights. Since they need licencing. People don't have a right to watch TV or own dogs because they need a licence, they can after paying for the licence but they couldn't before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steppenwolf Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 For example: I have the right to a fair trial, I have the right to not be subjected to unusual and cruel punishment, I have the right to free spech, I am talking of course of common law rights. Owning a dog and watching TV are not rights. Of course I don't think you should need to have a licence to own a dog or watch tv, but I am just trying to explain the difference in what you think are "rights" and what natural rights actually are. For a little homework try reading Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, John Locke etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aris Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 So then the law requiring a background check for a gun dealer to sell someone a firearm is also unconstitutional. You seem to know alot about US law - I think you've missed your calling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steppenwolf Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 Yes that is correct. Well if I could find a job in the uSA I would move there, but just like Britain work permits are only given to Illegal ailens (Illegal immigrants in the UK) not to hardworking people that want to emmigrate legally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 I don't see how licensing and/or more stringent vetting will affect a gun owners rights in the US. As has been pointed out several times; the Americans don't want licensing because a licensing system can be used as a mean to take guns from them. That is what they are worried will affect their rights and quite reasonably too as it has been used to that effect elsewhere. The bottom line is that that is what a licensing system is there to do. There are really only two things a licening system can help you do, they are; to take away/deny the article to certain people (or control how they use it which is pretty much the same thing) or to tax the article in question which, again, can be used to similar effect. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 Or maybe attempt to change that "cultural/social thing" without effecting the millions of gun owners rights. That's the obvious one but it's too difficult or expensive to bother with. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 So then the law requiring a background check for a gun dealer to sell someone a firearm is also unconstitutional. You seem to know alot about US law - I think you've missed your calling. It isn't unconstitutional because the constitution allows for people like convicted criminals to have their rights infringed. If it didn't then the USA wouldn't be allowed to ever send anyone to prison. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steppenwolf Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 The thing with background checks i the US they are carried out and the information is deleted straight away. It is unlawful to store that information, states have tried and got the hell sued out of them by the NRA. What Obama wants is universal checks which can be stored, efectively creating de facto registration, seeing who bought what. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Logic Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 No, that's flawed logic: everyone in the UK has the right to own a dog (unless barred for legal reasons from doing so - e.g. after being found guilty of animal cruelty), but they need a license to own one. People have the right in the UK to watch TV, but they need a license to do so - or are you saying that people who live in areas where they can't get TV reception are haing their rights are infringed? You do not need a dog licence. http://www.dogstrust.org.uk/az/d/doglicences/default.aspx#.UR0NqqXJR2I The difference is that the right to bear arms is specifically enshrined in the constitution. It cannot be lawfully taken away without repeal of that constitution. I realise I have come to this thread late, but LockStock, please stop telling everyone else to post impartial articles when you post articles from anti-gun propaganda and try to pass it off as fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steppenwolf Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 Thank you Mr Logic. I tried to tell him but to no avail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 No, that's flawed logic: everyone in the UK has the right to own a dog (unless barred for legal reasons from doing so - e.g. after being found guilty of animal cruelty), but they need a license to own one. People have the right in the UK to watch TV, but they need a license to do so - or are you saying that people who live in areas where they can't get TV reception are haing their rights are infringed? That is Northern Ireland! You do not need a dog licence in thre rest of the UK. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lock Stock & Barrel Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 Where does it say we have a right to own a dog and watch TV? That is how the law works: unless something is expressly forbidden (i.e. illegal), it is legal - ergo a right. The fact that you might need a license to do same merely addresses the issue of the concomitant responsibilities which go with that activity - such as driving a car, owning a firearm or watching a TV. The UK doesn't have, thankfully, a written constitution - at least not one that's codified; so we can add to or change our laws as we see fit - unlike the US, who need what amounts to an act of God to try and change their Constitution on any given matter under the guise of an amendment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lock Stock & Barrel Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 You do not need a dog licence. http://www.dogstrust...px#.UR0NqqXJR2I Fair point - my mistake, but let's not get too carried away. The difference is that the right to bear arms is specifically enshrined in the constitution. It cannot be lawfully taken away without repeal of that constitution. Correction: it doesn't take a repeal of the constitution, but an amendment to it. The two are not the same. I realise I have come to this thread late, but LockStock, please stop telling everyone else to post impartial articles when you post articles from anti-gun propaganda and try to pass it off as fact. Nonsense: you can't call something 'propaganda' merely on the flimsy basis that you might disagree with it. With the exception of the Northern Irish dog license, find one example of something I've posted here which you can dispute using impartial, reliable (i.e. not from the NRA, FOX 'News' or other similar partisan voodoo) sources - seeing as a number here seem to think that merely by offering an ill-informed or unsupported opinion they can have any credibility. The thing with background checks i the US they are carried out and the information is deleted straight away. It is unlawful to store that information, states have tried and got the hell sued out of them by the NRA. What Obama wants is universal checks which can be stored, efectively creating de facto registration, seeing who bought what. Can you please provide a verifiable, non-NRA source for this claim? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.