If Machine Guns are illegal

Why would states be allowed to further restrict a right in violation of Second Amendment protections?

Any many of those laws should not be in place given their unconstitutionality. Should citizens be required to get permits for all rights from the government, subject to further restrictions by the states?

 

A benefit of a universal permit.

Nonsense. Gangs fear the law even if they don't respect it. A national firearms permit would make gangs less likely to openly carry weapons and ease some concerns that people openly carrying firearms are "bad guys."

You would have us believe criminals without a felony conviction would openly display firearms in a public place where police can spot them when they would be committing a felony?

 

What do you know about how history is taught in public schools, and why would anyone take you seriously? Get your head out of the Angry Middle-Aged White Male Religious Traditionalist Rightwing Open Mouth Media Echo Chamber.

 

This supports anything you've said how? You seemed to be above these kinds of insults.

 

Instead of ginning up insurrection, I suggest you try to win an election or have your day in court before you put yourself at loggerheads with the vast majority of Americans.

 

Does a majority vote of the people determine Constitutionality?

 

I don't take kindly to being called a liar.

 

No one would. Your question would have been fine on its own.

 

I've been working with computers since the 1960s. Go ahead and explain how you're going to come up with a fraudulent Nexus Pass without first coming up with an entirely fraudulent identity, and the biometric data associated with the false identity can't be linked to a real identity.

The "Googled crap article" is the U.S. government website for the Nexus pass.

Over to you.

 

The technology is already available on a cellphone and police body camera.

 

Are you referring to technology similar to RFID electronic tags that can be read at a distance, so that the police could simply scan anyone to determine if they possessed a license?

 

That explains your antiquated or fossilized ideas, makes you over 70 years old and quite ready.....

First, I am not in the Business of Computer or Technical Fraud, and there are Law Enforcement Technicians that Investigate such Crimes, and it is done.

 

I did. Again...

https://www.alz.org/national/documents/topicsheet_hallucinations.pdf​

The test would only be applied to elderly citizens--say, over 85--who want to possess firearms. I think it could be administered for under $20.

What on earth does this have to do with taking firearms out of the hands of people who may suffer from hallucinations? Egads.

Every gang member doesn't have a felony conviction. As it stands, the police have to have probable cause the person the run across with a weapon is a gang member. The permit is another tool for us to put heat on the bad guys.

Non sequitur. Do you really think people afraid for their lives (see above picture) are going to be impressed by or care about your bathroom rejoinder?

Total nonsense. We've been discussing the evidence and the investigation of whether or not an individual has a permit is simple. I'm wondering how well you understand the law.

The tecnology is already available on police body cams and cellphones.

It's a "logistical nightmare" in your mind because you don't understand how the Nexus pass works and that the technology is already available?

The Nexus pass is tied to a biometric database whereas the Social Security Card is not.

Non Sequitur. The police will have a lot easier time figuring out if the guys above have a firearms permit than they would on another concern.

 

You're ideas are muddled nonsense.

You: "[babble, babble]..."

 

Because the Constitution gives them the right.

Some of the laws may be unconstitutional because of recent SCOTUS decisions, but most are perfectly legal.

 

SCOTUS determines that.

 

No, I'm talking about fingerprint and face recognition.

 

So that the cops can just scan a crowd to see who has a gun license?

 

What are the limits of what states can do the further restrict the rights of the citizens?

How can unconstitutional laws be legal?

 

If they truly feared the law as is being claimed by yourself, they would not engage in criminal behavior to begin with. They would not acquire firearms through illegal means that subvert existing laws, nor would they be engaged in any of the other illicit actions they commit on a daily basis.

The belief that criminal individuals actually fear the law is nothing more than nonsense, put forth by those who do not actually possess an understanding of basic human nature.

 

Factually incorrect at every level. States do not possess anything even remotely related to rights. They possess powers and authorities, but they do not possess rights. Nowhere is the concept of rights held by states recognized in united states law. Rights are held by the people, and only the people.

The united state supreme court utilized the term "presumptively lawful" when referring to firearm-related restrictions they have yet to hear. That is a very, very long way away from being the same as perfectly constitutional.

 

Such is the claim. But there is no actual evidence being presented to actually show such is the case.

 

​

Such would most certainly be a rational basis for continuing the so-called "war on drugs" as various psychotropic substances that many individuals with to see legalized, could result in such side effects.

Think. Meaning that it is not actually known for certain by yourself. Meaning that what is being presented by yourself is nothing more than hypothesis, supposition, and blind conjecture. Trust in a system that does not yet exist, and has not even been defined in factual, legal terms.

Potentially everything. The claim made by yourself is that individuals who suffer from senility can be dangerous, and such should be used as the justification for depriving them of their firearms under color of law. To make such an argument is to mistakenly believe that it is not possible for other individuals who are not within the age range of senility to be dangerous, when such could not be further from the truth. Any individual regardless of age, race, nation of origin, or political affiliation, has the potential to be quite dangerous to the public. Anyone who engages in the recreational use and subsequent abuse of any number of intoxicating substances, ranging from alcoholic beverages, to illicit narcotic substances, can potentially engage in violent behavior without even being aware of such. But such is not a basis for legally disarming individuals on the basis that they may potentially act recklessly.

And where is the proof to actually demonstrate such as being the case?

In the united states, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime is a criminal act in itself. A felony to be precise. Even if an individual is not known to have gang affiliations, the mere fact that they possessed a firearm while committing another crime is all the evidence that is needed to charge them for the illegal use of a firearm. The requirement of a hypothetical permit does nothing to change this fact.

If the mere sight of a firearm in the hands of a private individual can legitimately make someone feel that they are in fear of their lives, then the issue lies with them, not the individual who is in legal possession of a firearm. It does not matter what they may feel, as their feelings hold no legitimacy when it comes to matters of law.

Beyond such, how would the proposed permit requirement being presented on the part of yourself, do anything to assuage these fears and assure the frightened individual that their lives are not at threat? They will have no way of knowing whether or not the individual in question possesses a permit. The best they can do is speculate, and such will result in law enforcement being called out all the same, because the individual in question is prone to being frightened by the presence of inanimate objects.

Is it truly believed by yourself that the fear of privately owned firearms, is somehow going to be ended by the presence of a permit? If such is indeed believed, explain precisely how such would hypothetically work out.

Is it being claimed by yourself, that if this hypothetical national permit existed and was mandated, that there would be no frightened and hysterical calls to law enforcement because someone was seen in possession of a firearm in public? The permit requirement would be a complete end to all of the hysteria, and the mistaken belief that it is illegal to have a firearm out in public where it may be seen?

Such is being claimed. But there is no evidence of such. Nor is there evidence that this supposed technology, which has not even been proven as existing, works either instantaneously or reliably. It is all nothing more than conjecture on the part of yourself.

It is a logistical nightmare because it is understood how the united states government not only works, but also does not work. Individual bureaus and agencies simply do not engage in communication with each other, as has been pointed out when one agency possesses information about a potentially dangerous individual, but does not forward it to the agency tasked with actually intervening in the matter. the united states government is one of the most corrupt, inept, poorly managed and organized governments to be found in the entire world. Nothing works as it is supposed to work, and it is constantly tripping over itself as the various regulatory agencies bolster themselves in demonstrations of territorial authority against one another.

Which does not mean anything of actual relevance, other than demonstrating an over-reliance on technology on the part of yourself.

And if they do have a firearms permit, what then? What will such prove? Will they show up, find out a permit is possessed, and then simply leave even though a report has been called in? Why will they not have to investigate the matter, expending finite resources in the process, all because some hysterical individual has no understanding of what is and is not legal? Every officer that must be dispatched to investigate a false report of an individual with a firearm, is an officer that is not available to investigate more serious offenses being committed each day in the united states. Every minute they must spend investigating the hysterical claims of someone who does not know the law, is a minute taken away from a true victim of a true crime.

 

Yep.

 

What would this tell them? Why not just use it to identify felons?