The Doctor, on 10 February 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:
Not trying to turn this into a gun debate, but do you really think background checks for gun purchases are unnecessary and infringing on your rights?
Doctor - I wasn't trying to either. But "necessary" doesn't matter. Fact is, the constitution is the supreme law, and we claim to be a nation of laws, not of men. Well, if men (and women) in congress and the white house impose their will in violation of that supreme law, then it's not really a law, is it. And the word "infringe" means limit or impede. Yes, they're limiting or impeding my right to own a gun - however slight that impediment might be (and by the way, they're going to ban assault weapons again, so it's not like they only make small infringements).
I'm opposed to the federal gov't doing anything that is not expressly authorized to per the constitution. If people feel background checks are reasonable and necessary, then amend the constitution. We've done it before. I'm personally opposed to any infringement, as I don't think the citizenry should have to ask the gov't for it's permission to protect the citizenry from the gov't (remember, we had just fought a war against our own gov't at the time). But if constitution is amended, then that's the law. But if we let people, who by and large cannot be trusted, impose their will in violation of the constitution, where does it stop? It doesn't - unconstitutional department of education, unconstitutional health care, unconstitutional prohibition of growing marijuana in California. It simply will not stop. And that was never the aim of this federation of sovereign states.
Anyway - that's my 2 cents worth.