Las Vegas...

Senan wrote: I'm open to discuss these other topics you mention, but I haven't seen them come up in this thread

That is because the other topics are twisted back to guns. Like below

I don't think I was making my self clear in my earlier response to you. I don't think it is feasible to question the intention of ANY purchase, including guns, because people don't have to be truthful.

I was not referring to the intention behind the purchase of an item.

I was referring to the intention behind killing masses of innocents.

Two totally different things.

But any who. Carry on.

MadHatter wrote: The fact is that the 9th amendment states that unless the States or Federal government is given the right to invade our privacy then that privacy is retained by us and its further clarified by the other mentioned amendments. Privacy is indeed a right we have. Further I do not think we should need to have so many barriers between us and constitutional rights. Never mind so many costly ones that deny our right for a period of time while we wait.

I understand your point...though you inserted quite a few words into what the 9th Amendment would actually read verbatim. The 9th amendment does not contain the actual word "privacy"...for if it did, many of our social institutions and administrative processes throughout federal, state, and public interactions would be incredibly different than they are today. Although, applying the concept of privacy under the 9th amendment is a relatively fair thing to do, but the amendment itself seems to me to be more designed to highlight the notions that "just because we did not list it here doesn't mean it doesn't count" along the lines of "because it is not specifically forbidden, or because it is noticeably absent, then it should be so". Almost as if they wanted to make sure that future interpreters of their words did not understand the original 10 amendments to be the ONLY rights protected by the constitution.

What barriers specifically are we referring to on your other points?

I am assuming the waiting period for background checks, and that the issuant has to pay for themselves?

SamThift wrote:

MadHatter wrote: The fact is that the 9th amendment states that unless the States or Federal government is given the right to invade our privacy then that privacy is retained by us and its further clarified by the other mentioned amendments. Privacy is indeed a right we have. Further I do not think we should need to have so many barriers between us and constitutional rights. Never mind so many costly ones that deny our right for a period of time while we wait.

I understand your point...though you inserted quite a few words into what the 9th Amendment would actually read verbatim. The 9th amendment does not contain the actual word "privacy"...for if it did, many of our social institutions and administrative processes throughout federal, state, and public interactions would be incredibly different than they are today. Although, applying the concept of privacy under the 9th amendment is a relatively fair thing to do, but the amendment itself seems to me to be more designed to highlight the notions that "just because we did not list it here doesn't mean it doesn't count" along the lines of "because it is not specifically forbidden, or because it is noticeably absent, then it should be so". Almost as if they wanted to make sure that future interpreters of their words did not understand the original 10 amendments to be the ONLY rights protected by the constitution.

What barriers specifically are we referring to on your other points?

I am assuming the waiting period for background checks, and that the issuant has to pay for themselves?

I am a paralegal major so what I am doing is explaining that unless the government is given a right be that government state or federal then the right is retained by the people. Thus unless you can show me a right to the government to invade privacy it is indeed a right. And keep in mind a right that requires a court to give you permission is not a right but a privilege so warrants and the like are not an example. So yes it is a right inferred in other areas as I have shown and it is a right retained as its not specifically given away.

The things I am talking about is the cost of pistol permits, the cost of training certificates demanded to get said permit, the delay of background checks and two week waiting periods.

That explanation seems valid...though it does sound like it smashes elements of the 10th amendment into it..."retained by the people".

The application of laws surrounding our constitution, however, suggests that none of these "rights", inherent, inferred, or otherwise, are untouchable. The PATRIOT Act is a pretty good look at where actual privacy can be forsaken under law. If we interpret it all literally though, upon what grounds is it permissible under our constitution to remove any rights from anyone (such in that a convicted felon cannot purchase a firearm or vote)?

I am interested and somewhat agreeable to the concern about barriers between us and our rights...as it would be interesting to see similar restrictions placed on the news media for example...what if they had to wait 2 weeks to post a story/article/expose of certain topical areas, or even to post any story at all? Run a "background" check on their source material and what not...?

If I am not mistaken, you live in a state which more recently (in the past 3-4 years) enacted some new "gun control" laws. Have you interacted with any of those since the changes took effect?

SamThift wrote: That explanation seems valid...though it does sound like it smashes elements of the 10th amendment into it..."retained by the people".

The application of laws surrounding our constitution, however, suggests that none of these "rights", inherent, inferred, or otherwise, are untouchable. The PATRIOT Act is a pretty good look at where actual privacy can be forsaken under law. If we interpret it all literally though, upon what grounds is it permissible under our constitution to remove any rights from anyone (such in that a convicted felon cannot purchase a firearm or vote)?

I am interested and somewhat agreeable to the concern about barriers between us and our rights...as it would be interesting to see similar restrictions placed on the news media for example...what if they had to wait 2 weeks to post a story/article/expose of certain topical areas, or even to post any story at all? Run a "background" check on their source material and what not...?

If I am not mistaken, you live in a state which more recently (in the past 3-4 years) enacted some new "gun control" laws. Have you interacted with any of those since the changes took effect?

You are right I mistakenly smashed the 9th and 10th together when I meant to list both. What areas of the patriot act show privacy can be forsaken without a court? Further, we can deny rights based on a trial or court order that require evidence to do so. But I do not agree with felons rights being taken away AFTER jail and probation are done.
I moved from my home state due to the gun laws they put in place. The only laws enacted where I live now are a magazine limit and that law is basically unenforceable and much local law enforcement has stated they will not enforce it. On top of that, I intend to move from this state when I am done with my college degree.

MadHatter wrote: Senan you said your right to privacy is violated at the hospital. Well that would imply you are forced to be there. You go willingly and they have a procedure in place to ensure that your safety is ensured while you are there. Not exactly a violation of anything if you willingly go and can leave at any time.
But lets roll with your example when I want to get a gun I have to fill out a form with all my personal information, present my id, in some states my pistol permit as well, and then I have a background check run on me. Thanks to firearms purchases, various permits and security clearances I have had a background check run on me at least once every two years, often more, for the last 12 years of my life. How much more vetting can you want for a gun owner?

I don’t want this to turn into a thing, but you are WAY underestimating the severity of my circumstances. I am forced to be in this chemo chair today, by a disease that would have killed me already if I hadn’t come to this hospital a year ago. Sure, I could “choose” death, but who would do that over a violation of privacy? Seriously? I can leave at anytime, but it would mean certain death, not an inconvenience of waiting a week for something I want.

That doesn’t change the fact that the violation of my privacy happens every time I go to the hospital just as much as asking you to go through a background check every time you buy a gun. I need chemo more than you need a gun. Your weapon isn’t required for your physical health, and to compare the two is absurd. I willingly submit to the violation of privacy because I’m dead if I don’t. Period.

Oh, and if you think the forms you fill out to get a gun are bad (I’ve done it in California which is one of the worst states) try filling out the forms to have a life saving surgery. They actually ran a credit report on me like I was financing a car. And then I submit to weekly required blood tests that I have to pay for to justify a simple treatment. I have to give my actual blood, my literal DNA, before I can receive life saving medication that I’ve had fifteen times already. They still require me to show them my ID, AFTER taking my actual blood. And then there’s the biannual colonoscopies, PET and CT scans, all ordered by my insurance company so they can justify spending money to save my life or deny it and let me die. I’d gladly have extensive background checks once a month if I didn’t have to have a camera shoved up my rear twice a year. How much more vetting do I need to just get the same treatment I’ve had over and over already? Ive done both, and gun owners get off light in comparison.

Senan I have tried for an hour to word my response in a way that is compassionate and properly explains what I want to get across. I cannot find a way to do that so I am going to let this point go because compassion is more important than this philosophical debate. Further, I want to add that I did not wish to seem callous to your situation and I do to a degree understand it as I helped my mother through her own chemo process. So if it came off that way I am sorry. If I can think of a way to word my response that is compassionate and intelligent I will respond later

MadHatter wrote: Senan I have tried for an hour to word my response in a way that is compassionate and properly explains what I want to get across. I cannot find a way to do that so I am going to let this point go because compassion is more important than this philosophical debate. Further, I want to add that I did not wish to seem callous to your situation and I do to a degree understand it as I helped my mother through her own chemo process. So if it came off that way I am sorry. If I can think of a way to word my response that is compassionate and intelligent I will respond later

I know you didn't mean to be insensitive. I overreacted a bit. For now, I'm going to blame it on chemo brain and leave this thread alone. We've shared our thoughts sufficiently, I believe. Thank you for always thinking of my feelings too.

We can always start a different thread if we want to discuss new legislation developments, but for now, it can probably be left alone.

In all fairness...I feel like I am relatively rather square on the fence between gun rights and gun control. I have a few firearms for hunting, sport, defense, or sheer nostalgic reasons...I also have professional military training, understand to the fullest extent what the tools are capable of, and consider myself to be extremely responsible and borderline excessively careful with them, regardless of what condition they are in, whether in my safe, under the seat of my truck, or slung over my shoulder wearing blaze orange on a mountainsdie.

I have submitted to numerous background checks when looking to purchase a firearm, and in my mind...I don't have anything to "hide" so they do not bother me. I am also not of the mindset that those checks are putting me on some list somewhere that will make it easier for some future regime to come get me and all my equipment. If things went that far south, we'd have other issues anyway, and I doubt they would care whether they had an inventory list of every item I had ever purchased when they decide to go door to door and shake people down.

Equally, waiting a week or two does not particularly bother me...if anything, it also gives me a chance to reevaluate my decision to purchase the item. I trend towards compulsive purchases, and rarely actually "shop around" for best value or anything of the sort. But, at the same time, I don't recall ever waiting that long to purchase a firearm. All of mine felt like they were rather closer to same day transactions...maybe 30 minutes...while I perused the rest of the store?

From a real perspective, if one feels like they are in imminent danger, and seek to purchase a firearm for defense, and thus cannot reasonably wait a day or a week or whatever for the result to come back and allow them to take it home...they should probably be seeking other, more authoritative assistance anyway?

True, there is ZERO commonality behind privacy concerns in a hospital, or those in a gun shop. Sorry if I contributed to a sense that there was an issue in that analogy at all. It wasn't my intent to equate the two, or come off as insensitive to you Senan. Your experience has been a strengthening event not only for yourself, but also for those of us who remain even loosely apprised of the circumstances which consistently express themselves as pure inspiration evident in your general attitude towards life.

*************

If anything, I take greater issue with the amount of personal information and credit checks necessary to renegotiate my monthly cable bill as the "promotional rate" expires every 12 months, than I do with gun ownership, or most other instances where we submit to those incursions on our privacy in return for goods or services. Perhaps we can tackle this question and let it lead us to solutions in other areas more relevant to the question at hand?

SamThift wrote: I have submitted to numerous background checks when looking to purchase a firearm, and in my mind...I don't have anything to "hide" so they do not bother me. I am also not of the mindset that those checks are putting me on some list somewhere that will make it easier for some future regime to come get me and all my equipment. If things went that far south, we'd have other issues anyway, and I doubt they would care whether they had an inventory list of every item I had ever purchased when they decide to go door to door and shake people down.

Equally, waiting a week or two does not particularly bother me...if anything, it also gives me a chance to reevaluate my decision to purchase the item. I trend towards compulsive purchases, and rarely actually "shop around" for best value or anything of the sort. But, at the same time, I don't recall ever waiting that long to purchase a firearm. All of mine felt like they were rather closer to same day transactions...maybe 30 minutes...while I perused the rest of the store?

From a real perspective, if one feels like they are in imminent danger, and seek to purchase a firearm for defense, and thus cannot reasonably wait a day or a week or whatever for the result to come back and allow them to take it home...they should probably be seeking other, more authoritative assistance anyway?

These are two things I take issue with. The first is the whole if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear mentality. First of all that quote is associated with Goebbels and the Nazi regime and its abuse of its citizens' liberty. I should not have to sacrifice my privacy to exercise a right. And my having nothing to hide has nothing to do with it. How far should we go in the name of "safety"

The second part of this really gets under my skin because is shows a lack of knowledge on how the law works. If you are abused women who is in fear for her life from an abusive ex they will tell you to get a restraining order and it requires a LOT of proof to get someone taken in for anything after you get that. Carol Bowne had a restraining order, cameras, the police knew of her situation. And she died waiting for her permit. Going to the cops is not going to do much unless you have hard evidence that can lead to a charge that will get them off the streets for a while. Even then they can get out on bond. So just going to authorities means nothing for many victims of abuse. And if you are male and a victim of abuse forget it good luck getting someone taking you seriously. If your threat is a gang member that has a beef with you do you think they can arrest the whole gang? So this is not really useful advice.