Guns: Yay or nay?

[home]

I can honestly say out of those 14 years.....maybe a total of 7-10 days I didn't have my gun physically on me. I just feel odd when I don't at this point, like something is 'off'....just doesn't feel right.

What kind of country do you guys live in? ...

[future_house_modernist]

I can honestly say out of those 14 years.....maybe a total of 7-10 days I didn't have my gun physically on me. I just feel odd when I don't at this point, like something is 'off'....just doesn't feel right.

What kind of country do you guys live in? ...

A fucked up one, certainly!!!!!!!!

My politics have changed over the past few years (I'm 73109 and have since forgotten all my log in info), but I've actually come to agree with the 2nd Amendment folks that are often so very loud and present in gun discourse in America, though for VERY different reasons. ("Under no pretext" and what not...) But not gonna get into that here.

I've been in Alaska the past month and have fallen in love. Might move out here for a bit in a few years, and if I do, I'm definitely getting a gun for when I'm out in the wilderness. Might use it to hunt too, as that's the most ecological option as it stands, but I'm not sure I have it in me. Definitely for protection though—and not from home intruders (though maybe from Trump and his lackies, but again, this isn't P/R).

[El Barto]

I can honestly say out of those 14 years.....maybe a total of 7-10 days I didn't have my gun physically on me. I just feel odd when I don't at this point, like something is 'off'....just doesn't feel right.

What kind of country do you guys live in? ...

A fucked up one, certainly!!!!!!!!

My politics have changed over the past few years (I'm 73109 and have since forgotten all my log in info), but I've actually come to agree with the 2nd Amendment folks that are often so very loud and present in gun discourse in America, though for VERY different reasons. ("Under no pretext" and what not...) But not gonna get into that here.

I've been in Alaska the past month and have fallen in love. Might move out here for a bit in a few years, and if I do, I'm definitely getting a gun for when I'm out in the wilderness. Might use it to hunt too, as that's the most ecological option as it stands, but I'm not sure I have it in me. Definitely for protection though—and not from home intruders (though maybe from Trump and his lackies, but again, this isn't P/R).

Wow. This oughtta be interesting.

[The Walrus]

I can honestly say out of those 14 years.....maybe a total of 7-10 days I didn't have my gun physically on me. I just feel odd when I don't at this point, like something is 'off'....just doesn't feel right.

What kind of country do you guys live in? ...

The United States, the country that grants people the right to bear arms and people who live in states with concealed carry laws. Nothing weird about it at all.

[future_house_modernist]

I can honestly say out of those 14 years.....maybe a total of 7-10 days I didn't have my gun physically on me. I just feel odd when I don't at this point, like something is 'off'....just doesn't feel right.

What kind of country do you guys live in? ...

A fucked up one, certainly!!!!!!!!

My politics have changed over the past few years (I'm 73109 and have since forgotten all my log in info), but I've actually come to agree with the 2nd Amendment folks that are often so very loud and present in gun discourse in America, though for VERY different reasons. ("Under no pretext" and what not...) But not gonna get into that here.

I've been in Alaska the past month and have fallen in love. Might move out here for a bit in a few years, and if I do, I'm definitely getting a gun for when I'm out in the wilderness. Might use it to hunt too, as that's the most ecological option as it stands, but I'm not sure I have it in me. Definitely for protection though—and not from home intruders (though maybe from Trump and his lackies, but again, this isn't P/R).

Wow. This oughtta be interesting.

I've missed you

And your supreme court interest, something I've developed myself over the past few years. My girlfriend is a law student, so she's forced to be interested in that too. Hopefully I'll get admitted into P/R and I can expand a bit.

[eric42434224]

I can honestly say out of those 14 years.....maybe a total of 7-10 days I didn't have my gun physically on me. I just feel odd when I don't at this point, like something is 'off'....just doesn't feel right.

What kind of country do you guys live in? ...

The United States, the country that grants people the right to bear arms and people who live in states with concealed carry laws. Nothing weird about it at all.

Oh there is PLENTY about the US gun culture that is weird, for lack of a better term.

[The Walrus]

I can honestly say out of those 14 years.....maybe a total of 7-10 days I didn't have my gun physically on me. I just feel odd when I don't at this point, like something is 'off'....just doesn't feel right.

What kind of country do you guys live in? ...

The United States, the country that grants people the right to bear arms and people who live in states with concealed carry laws. Nothing weird about it at all.

Oh there is PLENTY about the US gun culture that is weird, for lack of a better term.

Well, yeah. But there are lots of people out there who do carry their gun on them daily, and you'd never know it. Nothing really weird about that, there are laws to protect those people in a lot of places.

[future_house_modernist]

I mean, simply because the law allows you to do it, that doesn't mean it's right morally speaking. That should be obvious from the word go, but again, this isn't P/R.

[eric42434224]

"Weird" and even "right" can be a matter of perspective

[TAC]

At this point being....well shoot....it's 14 years now I've had my conceal permit...wow....I can honestly say out of those 14 years.....maybe a total of 7-10 days I didn't have my gun physically on me. I just feel odd when I don't at this point, like something is 'off'....just doesn't feel right.

Gary, you're my brother and if we were sitting in a pub, this is what I'd say. It isn't meant to insult you in any way.

But, from here, it seems like more a of a binky, no?

Shoot....even when we plan our family vacations I won't go to a State that doesn't have reciprocity carry with Missouri's permits.

Shoot? 

So when discussing a family vacation "Honey can I bring my gun?" is a major consideration??



And something else we talked about months ago. I wanted to let you know I thought of you on Christmas Day. We went to my stepson's for lunch, and when we gave them their gifts, his partner opened them with a pocket knife.
My son taps me on the arm and says, "Did he just pull a knife out of his pocket?"

[gmillerdrake]

At this point being....well shoot....it's 14 years now I've had my conceal permit...wow....I can honestly say out of those 14 years.....maybe a total of 7-10 days I didn't have my gun physically on me. I just feel odd when I don't at this point, like something is 'off'....just doesn't feel right.

Gary, you're my brother and if we were sitting in a pub, this is what I'd say. It isn't meant to insult you in any way.

But, from here, it seems like more a of a binky, no?

No....not really. It's no different than if you're used to your keys being in your front right pocket or your wallet in your back left. When they're not there you can tell. Same thing. It just feels odd when I'm not carrying my gun because I'm so used to having it on me. Plus, binky's won't do  for you or your family if someone decides to car jack you or any of the 1,000 things that are not out of the realm of possibility in this day and age 

Shoot....even when we plan our family vacations I won't go to a State that doesn't have reciprocity carry with Missouri's permits.

Shoot? 

So when discussing a family vacation "Honey can I bring my gun?" is a major consideration??

Nope. There is no discussion. Not saying that to act like a hard a$$ or anything....but....my wife isn't charged with the protection and safety of our family...I am. She doesn't have much say in the matter and at this point she takes comfort in knowing that we have some level of protection....like I said.....in this day and age it's freaking insane in our country. I'll drive through states that don't recognize Missouri's CCW laws in accordance with the Federal 'Peaceable Journey' law

Peaceable Journey Law
Peaceable Journey refers to federal and state laws that address the transportation of firearms over state lines by firearm owners. The federal code 18 USC § 926A says that as long as the owner of the firearm can legally carry in the state they left and the state they are traveling to, the firearm is unloaded, and that the firearms any ammunition are not easily accessible that they can legally cross state lines.

but will not make one of those states my destination.


And a pocket knife is a must. You just never know when you'll need a pocket knife. Boy Scout motto: Be Prepared. 

[TAC]

Cool, thanks Gary. I wasn't trying to be a dick.

[gmillerdrake]

I mean, simply because the law allows you to do it, that doesn't mean it's right morally speaking. That should be obvious from the word go, but again, this isn't P/R.

I'm trying to understand if this is meant to say that it's immoral to carry a gun? If it is, then.....carry on because there's no way we'd even be able to have a conversation about it because that stance is already loaded to the max.

[El Barto]

I can honestly say out of those 14 years.....maybe a total of 7-10 days I didn't have my gun physically on me. I just feel odd when I don't at this point, like something is 'off'....just doesn't feel right.

What kind of country do you guys live in? ...

A fucked up one, certainly!!!!!!!!

My politics have changed over the past few years (I'm 73109 and have since forgotten all my log in info), but I've actually come to agree with the 2nd Amendment folks that are often so very loud and present in gun discourse in America, though for VERY different reasons. ("Under no pretext" and what not...) But not gonna get into that here.

I've been in Alaska the past month and have fallen in love. Might move out here for a bit in a few years, and if I do, I'm definitely getting a gun for when I'm out in the wilderness. Might use it to hunt too, as that's the most ecological option as it stands, but I'm not sure I have it in me. Definitely for protection though—and not from home intruders (though maybe from Trump and his lackies, but again, this isn't P/R).

Wow. This oughtta be interesting.

I've missed you

And your supreme court interest, something I've developed myself over the past few years. My girlfriend is a law student, so she's forced to be interested in that too. Hopefully I'll get admitted into P/R and I can expand a bit.

Look forward to seeing you there. And if they don't want to let you in lemme know and I'll bust a cap in they ass.

[gmillerdrake]

Cool, thanks Gary. I wasn't trying to be a dick.

I know you weren't    I was trying to make sure I worded my response well enough to give you an honest response without seeming like I took offense....which I didn't.

[TAC]

Cool, thanks Gary. I wasn't trying to be a dick.

I know you weren't    I was trying to make sure I worded my response well enough to give you an honest response without seeming like I took offense....which I didn't.

Mission accomplished.

Can't say we'll be holding back when discussing important matters like the Selke though!

[El Barto]

I can honestly say out of those 14 years.....maybe a total of 7-10 days I didn't have my gun physically on me. I just feel odd when I don't at this point, like something is 'off'....just doesn't feel right.

What kind of country do you guys live in? ...

The United States, the country that grants people the right to bear arms and people who live in states with concealed carry laws. Nothing weird about it at all.

Oh there is PLENTY about the US gun culture that is weird, for lack of a better term.

Well, yeah. But there are lots of people out there who do carry their gun on them daily, and you'd never know it. Nothing really weird about that, there are laws to protect those people in a lot of places.

I kind of have to side with the German on this one. I totally get what Garry meant. Carrying a weapon totally changes your mindset (or at least it fucking well should). That's the reason I'm not much for carrying, and it's the reason he feels naked without one. He and I have discussed this before. I've just never gotten the idea that it's a necessary hassle, which is what I gather Home was getting at. If I felt like I couldn't go about my daily life without carrying a gun everywhere I went I'd be looking to GTFO of Dodge.

[future_house_modernist]

I mean, simply because the law allows you to do it, that doesn't mean it's right morally speaking. That should be obvious from the word go, but again, this isn't P/R.

I'm trying to understand if this is meant to say that it's immoral to carry a gun? If it is, then.....carry on because there's no way we'd even be able to have a conversation about it because that stance is already loaded to the max.

That is, in fact, not what I was saying. I was simply saying that what is "right" (ethically, morally, what have you) does not correspond 100% with what is "legal." A bunch of stuff that's completely "legal" is not particularly "right," it seems to me. Gun ownership can fall in any number of locations on the right/wrong and illegal/legal axes.

[gmillerdrake]

Cool, thanks Gary. I wasn't trying to be a dick.

I know you weren't    I was trying to make sure I worded my response well enough to give you an honest response without seeming like I took offense....which I didn't.

Mission accomplished.

Can't say we'll be holding back when discussing important matters like the Selke though!

It's a no brainer. Back to back for O'Reily 

[gmillerdrake]

I mean, simply because the law allows you to do it, that doesn't mean it's right morally speaking. That should be obvious from the word go, but again, this isn't P/R.

I'm trying to understand if this is meant to say that it's immoral to carry a gun? If it is, then.....carry on because there's no way we'd even be able to have a conversation about it because that stance is already loaded to the max.

That is, in fact, not what I was saying. I was simply saying that what is "right" (ethically, morally, what have you) does not correspond 100% with what is "legal." A bunch of stuff that's completely "legal" is not particularly "right," it seems to me. Gun ownership can fall in any number of locations on the right/wrong and illegal/legal axes.

Gotcha 

[Herrick]

Is that a shock?  Not to me really.  Currently 29 states don't require background checks.  And another 5-10 only require it for handguns.  My issue with potential background checks has to do with criteria, and the fact that it's being done by a Govt. agency.  Who let's face it aren't all that reliable.

I'd probably go with insane, rather than shocking. 

Look, I'm one of the pro-gun folks on this board. I sleep with a Sig next to my bead and I've got the upper for an AR platform rifle right next to me (the lower is on the way). I think most of the rules and regs people come up with are pretty fucking stupid. Background checks, though, are about the very least we can do to try and keep guns away from knuckleheads and scumbags, and I think every single one of us thinks that's a pretty good thing to do. It's a quick and painless process, mine took 15 minutes, and the lack of reliability tends to work the wrong way. That is, people slip through the cracks rather than honest folk getting denied. Even the NRA supports background checks, and those guys are fucking terrorists.

Yeah, I'm with Barto.  There isn't a good reason to NOT have background checks, and plenty of good reason FOR.  And they have been expressly found to be Constitutional, so the statement that they are not is just flat out wrong.

I don't really have a problem with background checks. What I do have a problem with is paying the police to investigate me for six months in order to get a permit...for something that's supposed to be a constitutional right.

I've never been convicted of any crimes, nor have I ever been admitted to a mental hospital. It shouldn't take six months to figure out I'm not crazy. I don't own a pistol because I don't want to jump through all the hoops.

[El Barto]

Is that a shock?  Not to me really.  Currently 29 states don't require background checks.  And another 5-10 only require it for handguns.  My issue with potential background checks has to do with criteria, and the fact that it's being done by a Govt. agency.  Who let's face it aren't all that reliable.

I'd probably go with insane, rather than shocking. 

Look, I'm one of the pro-gun folks on this board. I sleep with a Sig next to my bead and I've got the upper for an AR platform rifle right next to me (the lower is on the way). I think most of the rules and regs people come up with are pretty fucking stupid. Background checks, though, are about the very least we can do to try and keep guns away from knuckleheads and scumbags, and I think every single one of us thinks that's a pretty good thing to do. It's a quick and painless process, mine took 15 minutes, and the lack of reliability tends to work the wrong way. That is, people slip through the cracks rather than honest folk getting denied. Even the NRA supports background checks, and those guys are fucking terrorists.

Yeah, I'm with Barto.  There isn't a good reason to NOT have background checks, and plenty of good reason FOR.  And they have been expressly found to be Constitutional, so the statement that they are not is just flat out wrong.

I don't really have a problem with background checks. What I do have a problem with is paying the police to investigate me for six months in order to get a permit...for something that's supposed to be a constitutional right.

And you should have a problem with that, though I'd leave the Constitution out of it. Don't know if you're in Cali or not, but I've definitely heard of the cops up there slow-rolling those things for as long as possible. Certainly more than six months. And it's something that should be pretty easy to fix, too. However, since that's only for a carry permit, it's not really the end of the world. More about the principle, I reckon.

[Herrick]

I don't really have a problem with background checks. What I do have a problem with is paying the police to investigate me for six months in order to get a permit...for something that's supposed to be a constitutional right.

And you should have a problem with that, though I'd leave the Constitution out of it. Don't know if you're in Cali or not, but I've definitely heard of the cops up there slow-rolling those things for as long as possible. Certainly more than six months. And it's something that should be pretty easy to fix, too. However, since that's only for a carry permit, it's not really the end of the world. More about the principle, I reckon.

I'm in New York.

Agreed it's not the end of the world. If I really wanted a pistol, I'd have it by now. I kinda want one and eventually well...my dad is old and wants to leave his guns to Herrick. So I'll have to go through the process in NY eventually.

Why leave the constitution out of it? I don't look at it as a holy document and I'm far from an expert or even a laymang when it comes to the law. Butt having these weapons seems to be a basic right and I don't understand why I should have to pay for a six-month investigation/process for something that is supposed to be my right.

If they want to investigate me, then fine. I shouldn't have to pay them & provide fucking references proving myself to be a "good guy". I don't know. Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way. You and others here are much more knowledgeable about this stuff. 

[Stadler]

I mean, simply because the law allows you to do it, that doesn't mean it's right morally speaking. That should be obvious from the word go, but again, this isn't P/R.

I'm trying to understand if this is meant to say that it's immoral to carry a gun? If it is, then.....carry on because there's no way we'd even be able to have a conversation about it because that stance is already loaded to the max.

That is, in fact, not what I was saying. I was simply saying that what is "right" (ethically, morally, what have you) does not correspond 100% with what is "legal." A bunch of stuff that's completely "legal" is not particularly "right," it seems to me. Gun ownership can fall in any number of locations on the right/wrong and illegal/legal axes.

The problem is in the use of the word "right", and applying it in this context.  It's not apples to apples.  As a lawyer, for me, the only "right" (as in correct) is "legal".  The rest - morals, ethics - is in the eye of the beholder.  I don't tell you what your morals/ethics should be, and you stay the hell away from mine, thanks.  Each and every one of us can and should operate to the highest standard we hold.  That's what we ASK.   That's what the social contract is predicated on, and what the "tragedy of the commons" hopes to teach us to adopt.   The law is the minimum, and all we can DEMAND.  That's the difference.   

[El Barto]

I don't really have a problem with background checks. What I do have a problem with is paying the police to investigate me for six months in order to get a permit...for something that's supposed to be a constitutional right.

And you should have a problem with that, though I'd leave the Constitution out of it. Don't know if you're in Cali or not, but I've definitely heard of the cops up there slow-rolling those things for as long as possible. Certainly more than six months. And it's something that should be pretty easy to fix, too. However, since that's only for a carry permit, it's not really the end of the world. More about the principle, I reckon.

I'm in New York.

Agreed it's not the end of the world. If I really wanted a pistol, I'd have it by now. I kinda want one and eventually well...my dad is old and wants to leave his guns to Herrick. So I'll have to go through the process in NY eventually.

Why leave the constitution out of it? I don't look at it as a holy document and I'm far from an expert or even a laymang when it comes to the law. Butt having these weapons seems to be a basic right and I don't understand why I should have to pay for a six-month investigation/process for something that is supposed to be my right.

If they want to investigate me, then fine. I shouldn't have to pay them & provide fucking references proving myself to be a "good guy". I don't know. Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way. You and others here are much more knowledgeable about this stuff.

Having to secure a permit simply to possess a handgun that won't even leave the house is a little rough.

I suggested leaving the Constitution out of it because it really doesn't effect your situation. Two hundred years of jurisprudence has allowed for the states and federal government to impose reasonable restrictions, just like there are reasonable restrictions to free speech (FIRE!!!!!). The Man can bar certain people from possessing guns, lest OJ Simpson be allowed to arm himself, and none of us want to see that happen. The state can prohibit people from possessing certain types of weapons. Machine guns and sawed off shotguns being the obvious ones. The state can impose restrictions on where guns can be  allowed. Allowing guns on airplanes or in prisons seems like a rotten idea to me. Unless the belief is that the founding fathers were securing the rights of known killers and psychopaths to own any weapons they wanted and take them anyplace they wished then using the 2A as a blanket authority to do same just doesn't make much sense.

It sucks that good people get caught up in it, but the reality is that the Constitution doesn't preclude background checks or limits on where weapons can be possessed.

[Herrick]

I don't really have a problem with background checks. What I do have a problem with is paying the police to investigate me for six months in order to get a permit...for something that's supposed to be a constitutional right.

And you should have a problem with that, though I'd leave the Constitution out of it. Don't know if you're in Cali or not, but I've definitely heard of the cops up there slow-rolling those things for as long as possible. Certainly more than six months. And it's something that should be pretty easy to fix, too. However, since that's only for a carry permit, it's not really the end of the world. More about the principle, I reckon.

I'm in New York.

Agreed it's not the end of the world. If I really wanted a pistol, I'd have it by now. I kinda want one and eventually well...my dad is old and wants to leave his guns to Herrick. So I'll have to go through the process in NY eventually.

Why leave the constitution out of it? I don't look at it as a holy document and I'm far from an expert or even a laymang when it comes to the law. Butt having these weapons seems to be a basic right and I don't understand why I should have to pay for a six-month investigation/process for something that is supposed to be my right.

If they want to investigate me, then fine. I shouldn't have to pay them & provide fucking references proving myself to be a "good guy". I don't know. Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way. You and others here are much more knowledgeable about this stuff.

Having to secure a permit simply to possess a handgun that won't even leave the house is a little rough.

I suggested leaving the Constitution out of it because it really doesn't effect your situation. Two hundred years of jurisprudence has allowed for the states and federal government to impose reasonable restrictions, just like there are reasonable restrictions to free speech (FIRE!!!!!). The Man can bar certain people from possessing guns, lest OJ Simpson be allowed to arm himself, and none of us want to see that happen. The state can prohibit people from possessing certain types of weapons. Machine guns and sawed off shotguns being the obvious ones. The state can impose restrictions on where guns can be  allowed. Allowing guns on airplanes or in prisons seems like a rotten idea to me. Unless the belief is that the founding fathers were securing the rights of known killers and psychopaths to own any weapons they wanted and take them anyplace they wished then using the 2A as a blanket authority to do same just doesn't make much sense.

It sucks that good people get caught up in it, but the reality is that the Constitution doesn't preclude background checks or limits on where weapons can be possessed.

Certainly not known killers and psychos but what about known herricks 

[Northern Lion]

Is that a shock?  Not to me really.  Currently 29 states don't require background checks.  And another 5-10 only require it for handguns.  My issue with potential background checks has to do with criteria, and the fact that it's being done by a Govt. agency.  Who let's face it aren't all that reliable.

I'd probably go with insane, rather than shocking. 

Look, I'm one of the pro-gun folks on this board. I sleep with a Sig next to my bead and I've got the upper for an AR platform rifle right next to me (the lower is on the way). I think most of the rules and regs people come up with are pretty fucking stupid. Background checks, though, are about the very least we can do to try and keep guns away from knuckleheads and scumbags, and I think every single one of us thinks that's a pretty good thing to do. It's a quick and painless process, mine took 15 minutes, and the lack of reliability tends to work the wrong way. That is, people slip through the cracks rather than honest folk getting denied. Even the NRA supports background checks, and those guys are fucking terrorists.

Yeah, I'm with Barto.  There isn't a good reason to NOT have background checks, and plenty of good reason FOR.  And they have been expressly found to be Constitutional, so the statement that they are not is just flat out wrong.

I'll have to disagree a little with your statement.  There are good reasons to not have background checks.  Here are mine.

1. Background checks, to my understanding, are to keep guns out of the hands of violent and or mentally ill people.  Sounds fine, until you factor in that this group contains a LOT of innocent people.  People heal from mental illness all the time (I'm one of them)  I should not have to prove this through the courts.  It would be insanely expensive and I'd probably loose.

2. Also, many people are charged with violent crimes these days for protecting themselves, their property, and protecting others.  These good guys should also not be deprived of haveing a firearm.  But under background checks they would be.

3. Mistakes happen in our judicial system all the time which could cause many innocent people from being able to own a firearm to protect themselves, their family and their property.  Background checks would prevent this.

4. Criminals reform all the time as well and become former criminals.  Once they have paid their debt to society and they are able to stay away from that former life, there is no reason they should not be able to own a gun to protect themselves, their family and their property.  Background checks would prevent this also.

[bosk1]

Those are all facts.  But none of them move the needle on the analysis.  All of that has been taken into account, and background checks have still, without question, been found to be constitutional.

[Chino]

In Connecticut, you're not allowed to own a gun or get your CC permit if you have a license/card for medical weed (which shows up in the background check). You can be a raging alcoholic with an opioid prescription and still have as many guns in your house as you want though. It makes zero sense.

[Northern Lion]

Those are all facts.  But none of them move the needle on the analysis.  All of that has been taken into account, and background checks have still, without question, been found to be constitutional.

Perhaps, but an inalienable right is... inalienable.  Once a person has paid their debt to society, it is paid.  Thus ALL their liberties should be restored, including the right own a gun.  I understand what the courts have decided, but I don't believe the courts have rulled in conjunction with the constitution for a long time now.  So, as I see it, background checks are completely unconstitutional and an "infringement" on that right for citizens.

Precedent rules the day in courts nowadays, not the constitution unfortunately.

Once the government finds reasons to take that right away from some folks, it becomes a slippery slope and it won't take long for them to keep expanding that list to include most folks.

All that being said, under the current social climate that exists in our country as well as the horrible mass shootings that have happened in the last several years, I can understand why most folks are in favor of background checks.  And I don't blame anyone for feeling that way.  I'm just not one of them.  But I also know I'm standing in the wrong side of a loosing battle.

[Northern Lion]

Is that a shock?  Not to me really.  Currently 29 states don't require background checks.  And another 5-10 only require it for handguns.  My issue with potential background checks has to do with criteria, and the fact that it's being done by a Govt. agency.  Who let's face it aren't all that reliable.

I'd probably go with insane, rather than shocking. 

Look, I'm one of the pro-gun folks on this board. I sleep with a Sig next to my bead and I've got the upper for an AR platform rifle right next to me (the lower is on the way). I think most of the rules and regs people come up with are pretty fucking stupid. Background checks, though, are about the very least we can do to try and keep guns away from knuckleheads and scumbags, and I think every single one of us thinks that's a pretty good thing to do. It's a quick and painless process, mine took 15 minutes, and the lack of reliability tends to work the wrong way. That is, people slip through the cracks rather than honest folk getting denied. Even the NRA supports background checks, and those guys are fucking terrorists.

Yeah, I'm with Barto.  There isn't a good reason to NOT have background checks, and plenty of good reason FOR.  And they have been expressly found to be Constitutional, so the statement that they are not is just flat out wrong.

I don't really have a problem with background checks. What I do have a problem with is paying the police to investigate me for six months in order to get a permit...for something that's supposed to be a constitutional right.

I've never been convicted of any crimes, nor have I ever been admitted to a mental hospital. It shouldn't take six months to figure out I'm not crazy. I don't own a pistol because I don't want to jump through all the hoops.

Very good point.

[future_house_modernist]

I mean, simply because the law allows you to do it, that doesn't mean it's right morally speaking. That should be obvious from the word go, but again, this isn't P/R.

I'm trying to understand if this is meant to say that it's immoral to carry a gun? If it is, then.....carry on because there's no way we'd even be able to have a conversation about it because that stance is already loaded to the max.

That is, in fact, not what I was saying. I was simply saying that what is "right" (ethically, morally, what have you) does not correspond 100% with what is "legal." A bunch of stuff that's completely "legal" is not particularly "right," it seems to me. Gun ownership can fall in any number of locations on the right/wrong and illegal/legal axes.

The problem is in the use of the word "right", and applying it in this context.  It's not apples to apples.  As a lawyer, for me, the only "right" (as in correct) is "legal".  The rest - morals, ethics - is in the eye of the beholder.  I don't tell you what your morals/ethics should be, and you stay the hell away from mine, thanks.  Each and every one of us can and should operate to the highest standard we hold.  That's what we ASK.   That's what the social contract is predicated on, and what the "tragedy of the commons" hopes to teach us to adopt.   The law is the minimum, and all we can DEMAND.  That's the difference.

OK, still doesn't change the fact that lawyers—shockingly—can discourse on the various ethical merits of the laws and legal arguments with which they engage. I know for a fact it can happen—my girlfriend is currently in law school!!!

It also seems like something of a non sequitur to bring up how you are forced to go about engaging with "the law" when I made a broader point, one with which I am sure you agree: legal does not always mean moral. And moreover, I completely disagree with you on the subject of "I don't tell you what your morals/ethics should be, and you stay the hell away from mine, thanks." It's that sort of laissez-faire attitude that gets people killed. If you see people acting in a way you find unethical, by all means shout, vote, talk to your senator, or, even, in certain cases, act violently (which in many cases is illegal).

And the tragedy of the commons is a bogus idea anyway...

Edit: Also, the idea that right and wrong is simply in the eye of the beholder has to prove, after a moment's thought, specious. This is not to say I have a comprehensive ethical philosophy worked out, but relativism just seems so obviously wrong.

[El Barto]

Those are all facts.  But none of them move the needle on the analysis.  All of that has been taken into account, and background checks have still, without question, been found to be constitutional.

Perhaps, but an inalienable right is... inalienable.  Once a person has paid their debt to society, it is paid.  Thus ALL their liberties should be restored, including the right own a gun.  I understand what the courts have decided, but I don't believe the courts have rulled in conjunction with the constitution for a long time now.  So, as I see it, background checks are completely unconstitutional and an "infringement" on that right for citizens.

Precedent rules the day in courts nowadays, not the constitution unfortunately.

Once the government finds reasons to take that right away from some folks, it becomes a slippery slope and it won't take long for them to keep expanding that list to include most folks.

All that being said, under the current social climate that exists in our country as well as the horrible mass shootings that have happened in the last several years, I can understand why most folks are in favor of background checks.  And I don't blame anyone for feeling that way.  I'm just not one of them.  But I also know I'm standing in the wrong side of a loosing battle.

If it's inalienable then what right did you have taking away their guns when you imprisoned them in the first place?

Look, I actually agree with some of your objections here. There are certainly people who've been disenfranchised and that's a raw deal in my book. If you want to suggest improvements to the system then go for it. I'll be on board. This isn't really a constitutional thing, though. There will always be necessary restrictions on rights, just like the convict who can't take his arsenal to prison with him, and insofar as restrictions go this one's narrowly tailored, not very restrictive, and serves a very compelling interest.

[Stadler]

I mean, simply because the law allows you to do it, that doesn't mean it's right morally speaking. That should be obvious from the word go, but again, this isn't P/R.

I'm trying to understand if this is meant to say that it's immoral to carry a gun? If it is, then.....carry on because there's no way we'd even be able to have a conversation about it because that stance is already loaded to the max.

That is, in fact, not what I was saying. I was simply saying that what is "right" (ethically, morally, what have you) does not correspond 100% with what is "legal." A bunch of stuff that's completely "legal" is not particularly "right," it seems to me. Gun ownership can fall in any number of locations on the right/wrong and illegal/legal axes.

The problem is in the use of the word "right", and applying it in this context.  It's not apples to apples.  As a lawyer, for me, the only "right" (as in correct) is "legal".  The rest - morals, ethics - is in the eye of the beholder.  I don't tell you what your morals/ethics should be, and you stay the hell away from mine, thanks.  Each and every one of us can and should operate to the highest standard we hold.  That's what we ASK.   That's what the social contract is predicated on, and what the "tragedy of the commons" hopes to teach us to adopt.   The law is the minimum, and all we can DEMAND.  That's the difference.

OK, still doesn't change the fact that lawyers—shockingly—can discourse on the various ethical merits of the laws and legal arguments with which they engage. I know for a fact it can happen—my girlfriend is currently in law school!!!

It also seems like something of a non sequitur to bring up how you are forced to go about engaging with "the law" when I made a broader point, one with which I am sure you agree: legal does not always mean moral. And moreover, I completely disagree with you on the subject of "I don't tell you what your morals/ethics should be, and you stay the hell away from mine, thanks." It's that sort of laissez-faire attitude that gets people killed. If you see people acting in a way you find unethical, by all means shout, vote, talk to your senator, or, even, in certain cases, act violently (which in many cases is illegal).

We disagree on this.  Vehemently.   Whether I find homosexuality "immoral" or not (I don't, but go with me here), I don't get to tell <insert homosexual person yuo know here> what to do with their partner in the bedroom.  Whether I find pornography to be immoral, or the practice of producing porn unethical (I don't, but go with me here), I don't get to tell you what you can watch in your quietest of moments, or whether - with consent (a rights issue, not a moral or ethical one) - you can film your girlfriend in flagrante delicto. 

I don't know what you mean by "getting people killed"; if someone dies, it's no longer a moral or ethical thing, it's a civil rights thing.   For me, whether it's a lawyer, a politician, or someone else, the "ethical" argument for practical legal positions is, more often than not, the argument of the weak.  For me, ANY of the so-called ethical arguments we can talk about boil down also to some infringement on rights, and that's where the DEMAND comes from.

Again, we're talking about what we can (or should) FORCE someone else to do.

And the tragedy of the commons is a bogus idea anyway...

Well, provably false, but okay.  "Climate change" is but one of many, obvious, egregious examples of that idea.   Climate change is bogus?

Edit: Also, the idea that right and wrong is simply in the eye of the beholder has to prove, after a moment's thought, specious. This is not to say I have a comprehensive ethical philosophy worked out, but relativism just seems so obviously wrong.

So who, then, gets to decide?  And are you willing to live by that yourself?  There's NOTHING you find perfectly acceptable that someone, somewhere (left or right) would deem problematic?   

[Northern Lion]

Those are all facts.  But none of them move the needle on the analysis.  All of that has been taken into account, and background checks have still, without question, been found to be constitutional.

Perhaps, but an inalienable right is... inalienable.  Once a person has paid their debt to society, it is paid.  Thus ALL their liberties should be restored, including the right own a gun.  I understand what the courts have decided, but I don't believe the courts have rulled in conjunction with the constitution for a long time now.  So, as I see it, background checks are completely unconstitutional and an "infringement" on that right for citizens.

Precedent rules the day in courts nowadays, not the constitution unfortunately.

Once the government finds reasons to take that right away from some folks, it becomes a slippery slope and it won't take long for them to keep expanding that list to include most folks.

All that being said, under the current social climate that exists in our country as well as the horrible mass shootings that have happened in the last several years, I can understand why most folks are in favor of background checks.  And I don't blame anyone for feeling that way.  I'm just not one of them.  But I also know I'm standing in the wrong side of a loosing battle.

If it's inalienable then what right did you have taking away their guns when you imprisoned them in the first place?

Look, I actually agree with some of your objections here. There are certainly people who've been disenfranchised and that's a raw deal in my book. If you want to suggest improvements to the system then go for it. I'll be on board. This isn't really a constitutional thing, though. There will always be necessary restrictions on rights, just like the convict who can't take his arsenal to prison with him, and insofar as restrictions go this one's narrowly tailored, not very restrictive, and serves a very compelling interest.

That's a good point.  And, ruluctantly, I don't have a good answer for that because I haven't thought through it.

Other than imprisonment, I don't think there should ever be restrictions on rights and, at least off the top of my head, I can't think of any good reasons for it.  But I'm kind of an odd ball in that regard