If the ATF Whistleblowers Are Correct, Joe Biden Will Be Ripping Up the Constitution Once Again

[Hank77]

You're missing the point, the Constitution and thus our rights under the Constitution are supposed to come first. Just because it's more something conservatives care about doesn't mean that rules and regulations and "restrictions" should come first.

Are you claiming that only conservatives own guns and care about legal gun ownership?

For example, in this recent case against Trump because "everyone knows Trump is a criminal" did not mean that Trump's right to a speedy trial (charges were from the 1990s) or an impartial jury should have been thrown out the window.

In what case were charges brought in the 1990s? How can there be a speedy trial without charges being brought?

You only consider the comparison "asinine" because it is a right you don't care about or don't think should be in our Constitution.

I'm a gun owner and have been for almost 50 yrs. and I very much support background checks on All gun transfers except those between family members.
Background checks on private sales/transfers don't just protect the public but protect the gun seller. If the gun is later used in a crime the seller will not be a suspect when there is a record of the gun sale and background check proving they no longer own the gun.

 

[Ana the Ist]

"would go all the way, purporting to require background checks for all private gun sales."

What surprises me is this isn't already a thing.

They mean between non-dealers I think.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm a gun owner and have been for almost 50 yrs. and I very much support background checks on All gun transfers except those between family memembers.

I believe there's a pair of parents on trial for what their son did with the gun they gave him.

 

[Valletta]

Are you claiming that only conservatives own guns and care about legal gun ownership?

In what case were charges brought in the 1990s? How can there be a speedy trial without charges being brought?

The whole premise behind the rape/defamation case.

I'm a gun owner and have been for almost 50 yrs. and I very much support background checks on All gun transfers except those between family members.
Background checks on private sales/transfers don't just protect the public but protect the gun seller. If the gun is later used in a crime the seller will not be a suspect when there is a record of the gun sale and background check proving they no longer own the gun.

I disagree, and so far people have resisted the government criminalizing private gun transfers. I think resources should be used to stop the violent criminals from coming over our border and stop our cities from being taken over by the thugs.

 

[Hank77]

I believe there's a pair of parents on trial for what their son did with the gun they gave him.

I believe that case has more evidence of negligence than giving a gun to a son.

 

[Hank77]

The whole premise behind the rape/defamation case.

? Excuse me? I don't understand how your statement answers the question I asked you. Your answer should explain your previous statement about a speedy trial being denied Trump. Please explain.

I disagree, and so far people have resisted the government criminalizing private gun transfers.

How do background checks of gun buyers criminalize private gun transfers? Again please explain this statement. You keep claiming things but don't support your statements in any way that I can understand.
Many people are in favor of background checks in all transfers. Why shouldn't they be? If licensed gun dealers have to do them why shouldn't private sellers?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

The whole premise behind the rape/defamation case.

Are you trying to say that, because she didn't accuse him of sexual assault when it happened in the mid '90s, Trump was denied his right to a speedy trial? Because that's not how the justice system works.

I disagree, and so far people have resisted the government criminalizing private gun transfers.

The regulation proposed in the OP criminalizes nothing. The only people who would be prevented from buying a gun from a private party are those who are already not allowed to own one. If you can't legally buy a gun from a dealer, you shouldn't be able to buy one from your neighbor Joe either.

I think resources should be used to stop the violent criminals from coming over our border and stop our cities from being taken over by the thugs.

I think that requiring background checks on private sales aids in goal #2, and the ATF isn't generally a big part of goal #1. That's primarily the job of ICE and Homeland Security.

 

[Valletta]

Are you trying to say that, because she didn't accuse him of sexual assault when it happened in the mid '90s, Trump was denied his right to a speedy trial? Because that's not how the justice system works.

I understand how the justice system works today--we need to get back to the U.S. Constitution. No two-tiered justice system.

 

[Hank77]

I understand how the justice system works today--we need to get back to the U.S. Constitution. No two-tiered justice system.

Please explain...
What do you mean by how it works TODAY?
What do you mean by get back to the US Constitution as it relates to this specific issue of a speedy trial?
What do you mean by a two-tiered justice system?

Please be specific.
Are you saying that because something happened years ago the defendant shouldn't have to face trial? If so that would cause many criminals, including murderers to remain free.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I understand how the justice system works today--we need to get back to the U.S. Constitution. No two-tiered justice system.

It isn't a question of tiers. The law permits E. Jean Carroll to claim that she was assaulted. If it did not happen, the law permits Donald Trump to sue her for defamation. He chose not to, but instead chose to accuse her of being a liar (and many other nasty things) - as is his legal right. However, just as Trump was permitted to sue for defamation over any statement made about him, so too was Carroll, and she did. A jury, approved by Trump's lawyers, found that she was most likely telling the truth - and was therefore not a liar, as Trump continued to claim. He was, therefore, liable for defaming her.