A constitutional right to privacy?

Watermark said:
And all crimes are committed by previous felons with unregistered firearms?
Click to expand...

with current law and rights as they are, one would NEVER know. Granted, there are alot of stupid people out there, but smart ones would KNOW that if they commit a crime with a registered gun, to get rid of the gun immediately and then claim it was stolen.

As it currently stands, I am unaware of any case where a weapon found at the scene was ever traced back to the doer, unless the doer was already dead at the scene as well. I don't think weapons registration laws would help crime solving.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
with current law and rights as they are, one would NEVER know. Granted, there are alot of stupid people out there, but smart ones would KNOW that if they commit a crime with a registered gun, to get rid of the gun immediately and then claim it was stolen.

As it currently stands, I am unaware of any case where a weapon found at the scene was ever traced back to the doer, unless the doer was already dead at the scene as well. I don't think weapons registration laws would help crime solving.
Click to expand...

Guns pass thru many hands....
I saw on a cold case cop show last night where an empty pistol box with the SN at a crime scene was used to track the murderer down. After it was stolen from the crime scene it was sold at a gun show and ten was involved in a concelaled weapon carry crime. the person who bought it at a gun show was able to identify the person who sold it to him.
 
uscitizen said:
"the argument has been raised throughout our history that registration leads to confiscation"

And this has proven to be untrue, except in cases of crimes or mental instability.
Click to expand...

you, sir, are either completely full of shit, or just plain shit stupid. I have proven this to be true many times.

All you need to read about is how California required SKS rifles to be registered, then when the Roberti-Roos AWB was implemented 3 years later, all SKS rifles were ordered to be surrendered to law enforcement.
 
uscitizen said:
Guns pass thru many hands....
I saw on a cold case cop show last night where an empty pistol box with the SN at a crime scene was used to track the murderer down. After it was stolen from the crime scene it was sold at a gun show and ten was involved in a concelaled weapon carry crime. the person who bought it at a gun show was able to identify the person who sold it to him.
Click to expand...

you're seriously going to use a television show (I've seen that episode btw) designed for 'entertainment' purposes as evidence of your claim?
 
Yurt said:
you never said whether you believe it to be a constitutional right or not

all you had to do was say

yes i believe there is a constitutional right or no there isn't

easy
Click to expand...

I said:
"What happens between consenting adults is their business and not that of the government. My opinion legal opinions may differ."

A little reading comprehension problem. Ok a bit clearer for your limited intelligence. If it is none of the governments business it is not in the constitution one way or the other.
 
uscitizen said:
I said:
"What happens between consenting adults is their business and not that of the government. My opinion legal opinions may differ."

A little reading comprehension problem. Ok a bit clearer for your limited intelligence. If it is none of the governments business it is not in the constitution one way or the other.
Click to expand...

no, you have a thought to type problem, you think a thought in your head and it is not what is in print.

so what it appears you're saying is there is no constitutional right to butt sex

yet the scotus says there is, and all you're doing is tap dancing around it, if it is none of the government's business....WHERE do you get your authority for that

just your 1. opinion or the 2. constitution?
 
Yurt said:
no, you have a thought to type problem, you think a thought in your head and it is not what is in print.

so what it appears you're saying is there is no constitutional right to butt sex

yet the scotus says there is, and all you're doing is tap dancing around it, if it is none of the government's business....WHERE do you get your authority for that

just your 1. opinion or the 2. constitution?
Click to expand...

As I said before judicial opinions. which may or may not differ from my own opinion. However unlike my opinions judicial opinions are required to be upheld by our government.

Again the constitution does not say that donating money to a candidate is free speech. That is a judicial oipinion which our constitution says we have to uphold.

contrary to an AC/DC song money does not actually talk.
 
Last edited:
There should be a constitutional amendment that guarantees a right to privacy.

Roe vs. Wade will be overturned someday, and I don't want the fate of a right as important as privacy to rely on that poorly decided and politically-fragile precedent.
 
uscitizen said:
It claimed to be based on an actual factual case.

And I believe this was not an isolated case.
Click to expand...

nowhere in that episode did I ever see a claim based on a factual case. But lets say that it actually was....

The crime happened in 1987, a full year after brand new machine guns were prohibited from civilian possession, so the only entity that could have possibly 'registered' this gun would have been some government or law enforcement agency.

It's not terribly bright to try to use a television show to denote real life, unless it's an actual real life show.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
nowhere in that episode did I ever see a claim based on a factual case. But lets say that it actually was....

The crime happened in 1987, a full year after brand new machine guns were prohibited from civilian possession, so the only entity that could have possibly 'registered' this gun would have been some government or law enforcement agency.

It's not terribly bright to try to use a television show to denote real life, unless it's an actual real life show.
Click to expand...

LOL this from a fan of right wing pundits.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
ouch, my whiplash just got worse from following that tremendous misdirection. :(
Click to expand...

My reply was based on this statement by you.
"It's not terribly bright to try to use a television show to denote real life,"

90% of my tv viewing is the history channel, Nat Geo and PBS. With some movies thrown in.
 
uscitizen said:
My reply was based on this statement by you.
"It's not terribly bright to try to use a television show to denote real life,"

90% of my tv viewing is the history channel, Nat Geo and PBS. With some movies thrown in.
Click to expand...

and I watch alot of animal planet also. It doesn't mean you should take a primetime entertainment show and try to use it as evidence that some law or other works like a champ.
 
uscitizen said:
"the argument has been raised throughout our history that registration leads to confiscation"

And this has proven to be untrue, except in cases of crimes or mental instability.
Click to expand...


So you're saying that there were no confiscations implemented, in Canada or Australia, after registration was begun??
 
uscitizen said:
umm didn't you say our history? Which of those countries do you live in? I live in the USA.
Click to expand...

Then why don't you address the California confiscation, after registration was implemented.

I figured you were avoiding it, so maybe I could lure you into being honest.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Then why don't you address the California confiscation, after registration was implemented.

I figured you were avoiding it, so maybe I could lure you into being honest.
Click to expand...

Link?

I did not know of any california confiscation.

I think fully auto weapons were confiscated too, but that was before registration I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top