Originally Posted by Jerry
Where you are going wrong with you’re logic is... The SCOTS ARE there to rule on if rulings by a lower courts fall within the limits set by the Constitution not to “interpret” the Constitution. What is truly amazing is how anyone can interpret “shall not be infringed” to mean sometimes the government can infringe.
- Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
- Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".
Please show me how any of my stances fit either of those criteria? How do any of my stances infringe upon our right to buy, own, and carry a firearm? I can kinda see the shall issue carry permitting, but I said I'm on the fence on that one. The others? You've got no case for.
Please show me a law the does that. Laws will punish a criminal if caught, but laws only stop honest people. Criminals don’t follow the law. THAT’S WHY THEY ARE CALLED CRIMINALS.
And I don’t know how many times I have to say this but here I go again. If a person is too dangerous to possess a firearm they are too dangerous to be walking the street.
So they're not foolproof. Okay. Does that mean any law we have that doesn't work 100% of the time should be abolished?
Without laws like background checks, a criminal could stroll into a gun shop and buy a gun. I've been there, standing right there, when someone was denied because of their criminal past. That means the law works.
Again, remember that the only gun control measures I support are those that work to proactively keep guns out of criminals' hands without infringing upon our rights.