Except people usually report stolen goods before they are found.
Do you have an analogous situation for guns? Do the straw buyers report them stolen?
Irrelevant.
More like inconvenient to your argument.
And I take it that you have no analogous example for guns. So no argument at all.
Your assertion that it could be obtained without proof of need was in error.
Haha!
Any case in which the origins of a gun are in question - any illegal supplier is taking a risk of finding themselves investigated, which reduces supply and increases price of illegal guns.
So some vague nonsense unconnected to reality. Got it.
To repeat: By interviews, interrogations, surveillance, and other routine police procedures. Same way one traces illegal explosives, illegal animals and drugs, illegal gambling and loan sharking, liquor and tobacco tax evasion, and so forth.
Since interviews and interrogation (only with probable cause) only results in "he said, she said" unless the person confesses, you'd be relying on surveillance alone. Explosives are registered and tracked, just like full-auto firearms. There must be evidence to convict of illegal gambling or loan sharking, etc.. You've yet to give any such evidence for universal background check evasion.
But I have. It's called nation-wide gun registration.
Yes, that's called brandishing, and it's illegal. The guy would have been justified calling the police.
It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured.
http://firearmtrainingstore.com/about-us/blog/what-is-brandishing/
this is patently false. the question of positive and negative rights is still hotly debated but considering the courts ruled in favor of abortion rights that has been implemented as a positive right. you do realize medicine predate history right? however life was shit without it. but given your heavy political bias and over all low intellectual capacity i doubt your goping to admit this.
No, it's not. Some rights clearly require the action/labor of others, while some do not. Pretty clear distinction.
The right to seek an abortion doesn't mean you will find someone willing to perform one, and no law exists compelling anyone to do so.
"medicine predate history"? That's obviously and ignorantly wrong.
The quality of your life does not justify forcing others into slave labor.
completely different there is a huge difference between allowing tagged items to travel through black market channels in an effort to track them and deliberately creating the means for crimianls to getting guns.
Except they failed, and some of those same guns were used to kill border guards. So the end result was arming cartels.
gun registry. could you please explain how a gun registry has anything to do with prevent the fwederal government from disarming the state miltias? because that the intent of the second amendment anything else is your own private delusion
Militias are just every capable adult male, and knowing who has guns is the first step to removing them.
economics still not your forte i see. the costs involved in gun theft are the ease of capture and traceability of the crime. if you make it all but guaranteed they will get caught and convicted you make less likely they will commit the crime. just look at the yakuza in japan. the opportunity costs of gun usage is so high they actually kill members who use them because of the heat it brings.
Again, that would require a national gun registry. Wish in one hand, poo in the other, and see which fills first.
true which if you'll note was 10 years ago and overturned over 200 years of precident. if crybabies like your self can whine and get 200 years of precident over turned by whinying like spoiled children for 40 years i can still argue the original precident should be brought back. ie by using and relying heller your essentially admitting you ran a con game to get the interpertation changed. the second amendment still stands as an anachronism and the historical precident will eventual come back. yuou and your are to violent and hatefilled for anything else to come about.
Really?
In Dred Scott the chief justice said: "It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right ... to keep and carry arms wherever they went." Those recognized as citizens have the right to keep and carry arms.
In Cruikshank it was held that: "The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress." This allows local restrictions, but not national ones.
Presser: "We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Limits militia actyivity but not individual rights.
Miller v Texas again held that the federal government could not infringe on the individual right.
Robertson v Baldwin held that prohibitions against concealed carry was not infringement.
US v Miller held that militias were primarily citizens and that the right to militia weapons was protected.
Lewis reaffirmed the Second Amendment protects the ownership of militia-grade weapons.
Verdugo-Urquidez: "While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. " Citizens are the people the rights are protected for.
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/sct.htm
considering your the one using the great ape as your moniker perhaps you should be carefully about the defecating in ones hands comments though you tend to defecate from your mouth with your posting.
You seem to sling poo just fine.
to all those confused about the intent of the second amendment like vociferous and ice here is the second amendment as it passed the house of representives
please note the last clause explictly talking about military service. while not the version that passed it does help crystalize the intent
since your both dishonest and will only see what you want to. it specifically spells out that bearing arms is serving militarily no personal right to self defense at all. you'd be better served using the ninth amendment and english common law but you prefer twisting the second because you do not want anything that might force you to be responsible
Notice that the only complete sentence, and obviously the operative part, is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
"A well regulated militia,composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state" Nope, incomplete without the individual right.
"but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person." Nope, likewise incomplete.
The operative part of any sentence is the phrase that, on its own, forms a complete thought.
As Heller proved, the right to own guns is not unlimited, and restrictions/regulations on gun ownership do not violate the 2nd Amendment.
Who said it was unlimited? Obviously you can't use a gun in the commission of a crime.
Restrictions/regulations are a far cry from a national gun registry.
We should not try to interpret the 2nd amendment beyond what was the original context of the amendment as written by the founding fathers.
Everyone should have the right to own a musket.
Ah, you're unaware of what weapons we had before the Second Amendment was written:
