# Do You Support The "Gun Show Loophole?"



## Black_Label (Feb 8, 2013)

A spin off of the other thread where I have asked numerous times and not a single right winger has answered, is if you support the gun show loophole.

For those that may not know, under current federal law if you wish to purchases a firearm, you have to be run in a background check to make sure you are not a felon, been convicted of a violent crime, been in a mental institution, etc,..before they give the go ahead to sell that person a weapon. However under the "gun show loophole", there are not background checks at all.

That's right, absoutly nothing. A violent thug fresh out of the penitentiary, a terrorist, or a nutcases ready to commit the next sandy hook could go down to their local gun show, or find a classified ad selling a firearm and they could purchase deadly weapons, _with no questions asked._


----------



## martybegan (Feb 8, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> A spin off of the other thread where I have asked numerous times and not a single right winger has answered, is if you support the gun show loophole.
> 
> For those that may not know, under current federal law if you wish to purchases a firearm, you have to be run in a background check to make sure you are not a felon, been convicted of a violent crime, been in a mental institution, etc,..before they give the go ahead to sell that person a weapon. However under the "gun show loophole", there are not background checks at all.
> 
> That's right, absoutly nothing. A violent thug fresh out of the penitentiary, a terrorist, or a nutcases ready to commit the next sandy hook could go down to their local gun show, or find a classified ad selling a firearm and they could purchase deadly weapons, _with no questions asked._



Selling a firearm to a felon is already illegal, even if you are NOT a federal firearms dealer. 

and what is the difference between a craiglist ad and some guy arranging a street buy for you?  

More restrictions on legal gunowners, and no effect on the illegal gun trade.


----------



## S.J. (Feb 8, 2013)

How stupid can the gun control advocates get?  This is comical.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 8, 2013)

Would you care to reflect reality, I was at a gun show last weekend. Of the thousands of weapons there I might have been able to purcahse a dozen or so that were not being sold by dealers. The so called gun show loop hole only applies to private sales and are few and far between. Why do you folks try to mislead people, is your case really that weak? Never mind we both know the answer is yes.


----------



## Black_Label (Feb 8, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > A spin off of the other thread where I have asked numerous times and not a single right winger has answered, is if you support the gun show loophole.
> ...



That's how the loophole works. While the felon will be committing another felony by owning the gun, the seller is good to go as they do not have to ask any questions or ask the buyer to undergo a background check.


----------



## Locke11_21 (Feb 8, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> A spin off of the other thread where I have asked numerous times and not a single right winger has answered, is if you support the gun show loophole.
> 
> For those that may not know, under current federal law if you wish to purchases a firearm, you have to be run in a background check to make sure you are not a felon, been convicted of a violent crime, been in a mental institution, etc,..before they give the go ahead to sell that person a weapon. However under the "gun show loophole", there are not background checks at all.
> 
> That's right, absoutly nothing. A violent thug fresh out of the penitentiary, a terrorist, or a nutcases ready to commit the next sandy hook could go down to their local gun show, or find a classified ad selling a firearm and they could purchase deadly weapons, _with no questions asked._




There is this radical left-wing nut job, Christopher Dorner who used to be a cop for the LAPD on the loose.  This radical leftist has killed 3 people.  In order to become a cop, he had to go through a far more extensive background check than what one has to go through in order to purchase a firearm.  Alot of good that background check did for Dorner.


----------



## Bigfoot (Feb 8, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Would you care to reflect reality, I was at a gun show last weekend. Of the thousands of weapons there I might have been able to purcahse a dozen or so that were not being sold by dealers. The so called gun show loop hole only applies to private sales and are few and far between. Why do you folks try to mislead people, is your case really that weak? Never mind we both know the answer is yes.



I think that they really believe what the media is telling them.


----------



## Obamanation (Feb 8, 2013)

Bigfoot said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Would you care to reflect reality, I was at a gun show last weekend. Of the thousands of weapons there I might have been able to purcahse a dozen or so that were not being sold by dealers. The so called gun show loop hole only applies to private sales and are few and far between. Why do you folks try to mislead people, is your case really that weak? Never mind we both know the answer is yes.
> ...



No way! Not the lefties!


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 8, 2013)

Black said:
			
		

> A violent thug fresh out of the penitentiary, a terrorist, or a nutcases ready to commit the next sandy hook could go down to their local gun show, or find a classified ad selling a firearm and they could purchase deadly weapons, _with no questions asked._



 A violent thug fresh out of the penitentiary, a terrorist, or a nutcase would not go to a gun show to buy a gun, they would get one off the streets.

/thread.


----------



## S.J. (Feb 8, 2013)

When's the last time you saw a gang banger at a gun show?


----------



## Black_Label (Feb 8, 2013)

Locke11_21 said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > A spin off of the other thread where I have asked numerous times and not a single right winger has answered, is if you support the gun show loophole.
> ...



That's fantastic, and a neo-nazi skinhead committed a massacre at a Sikh temple in wisconsin.

It's a very simple question and topic, I don't think it's _that _hard for you right wingers to figure out


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> A spin off of the other thread where I have asked numerous times and not a single right winger has answered, is if you support the gun show loophole.
> 
> For those that may not know, under current federal law if you wish to purchases a firearm, you have to be run in a background check to make sure you are not a felon, been convicted of a violent crime, been in a mental institution, etc,..before they give the go ahead to sell that person a weapon. However under the "gun show loophole", there are not background checks at all.
> 
> That's right, absoutly nothing. A violent thug fresh out of the penitentiary, a terrorist, or a nutcases ready to commit the next sandy hook could go down to their local gun show, or find a classified ad selling a firearm and they could purchase deadly weapons, _with no questions asked._



What the fuck is the gun show loophole? Every licensed dealer is required to run a background check every time they sell a gun. That applies even at gun shows, which means the only loophole that exists is in your imagination.


----------



## asaratis (Feb 9, 2013)

Bigfoot said:


> Wow, talk about some skewed poll questions. Did a Democrat write those? I'm not clicking one of those idiotic choices.



Exactly!  I would vote in more polls here if the presenters did not qualify each answer with some stupid extensions.

Example:

Do you support the death penalty?
yes, I think all criminals should be killed
no, I am a Christian


----------



## Black_Label (Feb 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > A spin off of the other thread where I have asked numerous times and not a single right winger has answered, is if you support the gun show loophole.
> ...



That's correct, _licensed _dealers are required to implement a background check. Jimmy-bob-bobby-jimmy that has a booth at the same show that is selling some of his arsenal doesn't have to ask any questions or require a background check to whom buys his firearms. Just the same as those that buy from a classified ad or other private sale.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...




If Jimmy Bob wants to sell his guns outside the gun show there is no requirement for a background check either. That means him doing so at the gun show is not a loophole.

Game, set, match.


----------



## Black_Label (Feb 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



That's the point. If Jimmy-bobby wants to sell his guns at the show or on a classified ad, the laws are the same, no background check required.

Check mate.


----------



## The Professor (Feb 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > A spin off of the other thread where I have asked numerous times and not a single right winger has answered, is if you support the gun show loophole.
> ...



You are correct.  The same law applies to gun shows as applies everywhere else:  dealers must run background checks and private sellers do not.   Those people who can legally  sell their gun to another  party without doing a background check  go to gun shows because they know potential buyers will be there.    If private sales were no longer allowed at gun shows, sellers would simply advertise in the newspaper.    Either way, a background check is not required.

At any rate, there is no such thing as the  so-called "gun show loophole."   If the issue is about background checks, perhaps  those who favor stronger gun control should call it "private gun sellers loophole."   I could live with that.  At least it would make sense.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 9, 2013)

40 Percent of Guns Are Sold Without Background Checks, Because of People Like Larry Pratt


----------



## Two Thumbs (Feb 9, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> A spin off of the other thread where I have asked numerous times and not a single right winger has answered, is if you support the gun show loophole.
> 
> For those that may not know, under current federal law if you wish to purchases a firearm, you have to be run in a background check to make sure you are not a felon, been convicted of a violent crime, been in a mental institution, etc,..before they give the go ahead to sell that person a weapon. However under the "gun show loophole", there are not background checks at all.
> 
> That's right, absoutly nothing. A violent thug fresh out of the penitentiary, a terrorist, or a nutcases ready to commit the next sandy hook could go down to their local gun show, or find a classified ad selling a firearm and they could purchase deadly weapons, _with no questions asked._



I support freedom, warts and all.

All tyranny gets us is these same people getting the same guns, cheaper, on the black market.

Not that I think any liberal is smart enough to understand this undeniable fact.


----------



## Black_Label (Feb 9, 2013)

The Professor said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...



Like stated in the first post, the "gun show loophole" refferes to the private sale of guns. 

Gun shows were started as, and at their core are for the sale of firearms by private sellers, but many "legitimate" sellers AKA firearm stores set up booths at these shows as well.

It's a very simple question that this thread is asking is that should there be background checks for all people that want to own a firearm, or should we leave the laws how they are so crooks, felons, and those out to commit crimes are able to obtain firearms with no questions asked under this loophole.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 9, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...



Maybe you should go to a gun show or two and see what really goes on, so you don't look so foolish.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 9, 2013)

Gun Show Attendees Explain 5 Reasons They Want Universal Background Checks | ThinkProgress


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 9, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> Like stated in the first post, the "gun show loophole"* refferes *to the private sale of guns.
> 
> Gun shows were started as, and at their core are for the sale of firearms by private sellers, but many "legitimate" sellers AKA firearm stores set up booths at these shows as well.



A private sale is not a gun show.
Therefore no gun show 'loophole'.



> It's a very simple question that this thread is asking is that should there be background checks for all people that want to own a firearm, or should we leave the laws how they are so crooks, felons, and those out to commit crimes are able to obtain firearms with no questions asked under this loophole.



No. ^^^^that question was not asked^^^^^

This statement was made:


> could go down* to their local gun show*, or find a classified ad selling a firearm and they could purchase deadly weapons, with no questions asked.



You cannot mix gun shows, licensed dealers and private sales together.
Besides, criminals buy from private sales.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 9, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> A spin off of the other thread where I have asked numerous times and not a single right winger has answered, is if you support the gun show loophole.
> 
> For those that may not know, under current federal law if you wish to purchases a firearm, you have to be run in a background check to make sure you are not a felon, been convicted of a violent crime, been in a mental institution, etc,..before they give the go ahead to sell that person a weapon. However under the "gun show loophole", there are not background checks at all.
> 
> That's right, absoutly nothing. A violent thug fresh out of the penitentiary, a terrorist, or a nutcases ready to commit the next sandy hook could go down to their local gun show, or find a classified ad selling a firearm and they could purchase deadly weapons, _with no questions asked._



For the slow and stupid..... All licensed dealers MUST conduct the background check even at a Gun Show. The only exception is a private citizen selling his own firearms. A booth costs 150 or more, exactly how many private citizens have the weapons to make selling them at that booth profitable?


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 9, 2013)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > A spin off of the other thread where I have asked numerous times and not a single right winger has answered, is if you support the gun show loophole.
> ...



Yep, the one I was at last week a few individuals were standing by the walls with a sign, no booth.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 9, 2013)

Sooo, righties are now spinning that the "gun show loophole" doesn't really exist...?

Google "gun show loophole"...


----------



## ABikerSailor (Feb 9, 2013)

If you buy a gun from ANYONE, you should be required to undergo a background check.

I mean.................you have to liscence your car to run it on the roads, right?


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 9, 2013)

> Unfortunately, current federal law requires criminal background checks only for guns sold through licensed firearm dealers, which account for just 60% of all gun sales in the United States. A loophole in the law allows individuals not engaged in the business of selling firearms to sell guns without a licenseand without processing any paperwork. That means that two out of every five guns sold in the United States change hands without a background check.
> 
> Though commonly referred to as the Gun Show Loophole, the private sales described above include guns sold at gun shows, through classified newspaper ads, the Internet, and between individuals virtually anywhere.
> 
> Unfortunately, only six states (CA, CO, IL, NY, OR, RI) require universal background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows. Three more states (CT, MD, PA) require background checks on all handgun sales made at gun shows. Seven other states (HI, IA, MA, MI, NJ, NC, NE) require purchasers to obtain a permit and undergo a background check before buying a handgun. Florida allows its counties to regulate gun shows by requiring background checks on all firearms purchases at these events. 33 states have taken no action whatsoever to close the Gun Show Loophole.



More: Gun Show Loophole - Coalition to Stop Gun Violence


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 9, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> If you buy a gun from ANYONE, you should be required to undergo a background check.
> 
> I mean.................you have to liscence your car to run it on the roads, right?



I do not need nor am I required to license a car I buy from a private person. Granted if I don't want to break the law, before I drive it ona public road I need to license it. But to buy it not even close, and I can use it on my own property with no license.


----------



## S.J. (Feb 9, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> If you buy a gun from ANYONE, you should be required to undergo a background check.
> 
> I mean.................you have to liscence your car to run it on the roads, right?


Then you don't understand the 2nd amendment.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 9, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> Sooo, righties are now spinning that the "gun show loophole" doesn't really exist...?
> 
> Google "gun show loophole"...



Call it what it is, a private sale loophole. If you make the NICS system available to everyone that can be closed. Of course it still won't stop criminal sales.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 9, 2013)

S.J. said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > If you buy a gun from ANYONE, you should be required to undergo a background check.
> ...



Which 2nd Amendment...?


----------



## bayoubill (Feb 9, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> A spin off of the other thread where I have asked numerous times and not a single right winger has answered, is if you support the gun show loophole.
> 
> For those that may not know, under current federal law if you wish to purchases a firearm, you have to be run in a background check to make sure you are not a felon, been convicted of a violent crime, been in a mental institution, etc,..before they give the go ahead to sell that person a weapon. However under the "gun show loophole", there are not background checks at all.
> 
> That's right, absoutly nothing. A violent thug fresh out of the penitentiary, a terrorist, or a nutcases ready to commit the next sandy hook could go down to their local gun show, or find a classified ad selling a firearm and they could purchase deadly weapons, _with no questions asked._



studies have shown that the "gun show loophole" is a non-issue regarding people with bad intent looking to buy guns...

nearly all sales at gun shows are made by federally-licensed gun sellers...

which means that nearly all sales at gun shows go through the mandated background check...

and, while there may be a few private sellers at such gun shows, they seldom have the merchandise that a criminal would be interested in...

and the number of criminally-used weapons traced to legal private sellers is so miniscule that it pales in comparison to, say, the number of bathtubs that have killed people...


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 9, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> > Unfortunately, current federal law requires criminal background checks only for guns sold through licensed firearm dealers, which account for just 60% of all gun sales in the United States. A loophole in the law allows individuals not engaged in the business of selling firearms to sell guns without a licenseand without processing any paperwork. That means that two out of every five guns sold in the United States change hands without a background check.
> >
> > Though commonly referred to as the Gun Show Loophole, the private sales described above include guns sold at gun shows, through classified newspaper ads, the Internet, and between individuals virtually anywhere.
> >
> ...



That 60% lie has been debunked so many times, yet you keep telling it. Grow up man.


----------



## S.J. (Feb 9, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


When I look at the Constitution I only see one, and it's nothing like you try to project.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 9, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > > Unfortunately, current federal law requires criminal background checks only for guns sold through licensed firearm dealers, which account for just 60% of all gun sales in the United States. A loophole in the law allows individuals not &#8220;engaged in the business&#8221; of selling firearms to sell guns without a license&#8212;and without processing any paperwork. That means that two out of every five guns sold in the United States change hands without a background check.
> ...



Debunked by whom?  Please show us some "credible" sources proving it has been factually debunked.


----------



## bayoubill (Feb 9, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Lakhota...! 

good to see you again, ol' friend...

been a while...

hope all is well with you and yours...


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 9, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> If you buy a gun from ANYONE, you should be required to undergo a background check.
> 
> I mean.................you have to liscence your car to run it on the roads, right?



How can one make a seller of a private gun comply with performing a background check?



OTOH
It's been a long time, like never, since I took my car for a run on any road.


----------



## Black_Label (Feb 9, 2013)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > A spin off of the other thread where I have asked numerous times and not a single right winger has answered, is if you support the gun show loophole.
> ...



Another right winger already pulled this BS on the first page. This topic is asking the question if you support the "gun show loophole" which allows the private sale of firearms to people without a background check. 

It's a simple yes or no,...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> 40 Percent of Guns Are Sold Without Background Checks, Because of People Like Larry Pratt



Posting links to inaccurate stories is not a method of arguing a point, you really should learn that since you are one of the biggest whiners about people not arguing points.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > 40 Percent of Guns Are Sold Without Background Checks, Because of People Like Larry Pratt
> ...



Prove it wrong - with credible sources.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> The Professor said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...




Gun shows, like all trade shows, are places where dealers go to see what is available from manufacturers. If the word actually worked the way it did in your imagination MacWorld would be filled to the brim with individuals selling Apple products, and Apple would use press conferences to announce new products.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> Gun Show Attendees Explain 5 Reasons They Want Universal Background Checks | ThinkProgress



Once again, posting links is not making an argument, nor does it add content to the thread.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > A spin off of the other thread where I have asked numerous times and not a single right winger has answered, is if you support the gun show loophole.
> ...



There must be hundreds, since he insists that gun shows are mostly private citizens selling guns.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Gun Show Attendees Explain 5 Reasons They Want Universal Background Checks | ThinkProgress
> ...



The title speaks for itself.  It's there for those who wish to read it...


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 9, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



No-prove it _ right _ with a credible source.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> Sooo, righties are now spinning that the "gun show loophole" doesn't really exist...?
> 
> Google "gun show loophole"...



I can Google all sorts of things that don't exist.

Case in point.

Believe it or not, Google is not the final arbiter of truth, and you can put things on the Internet that are not true.

Are you really the blonde in this commercial?


----------



## Black_Label (Feb 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...



Impressive trolling 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 but let's get back on topic.

It's about the most simple question to be asked. Do you support the "gun show loophole" that allows people to acquire a firearm with no background check? Yes or no.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> If you buy a gun from ANYONE, you should be required to undergo a background check.
> 
> I mean.................you have to liscence your car to run it on the roads, right?



You don't have to license it if you don't run it on the road. That means, using your own logic, that anyone who does not intend to use their guns on public roads should not be required to have a background check. 

I can live with that.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 9, 2013)

Unbelievable!  Come on 2014...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> > Unfortunately, current federal law requires criminal background checks only for guns sold through licensed firearm dealers, which account for just 60% of all gun sales in the United States. A loophole in the law allows individuals not engaged in the business of selling firearms to sell guns without a licenseand without processing any paperwork. That means that two out of every five guns sold in the United States change hands without a background check.
> >
> > Though commonly referred to as the Gun Show Loophole, the private sales described above include guns sold at gun shows, through classified newspaper ads, the Internet, and between individuals virtually anywhere.
> >
> ...



The Brady Campaign to Ban Every Fucking Gun on the Planet is hardly an objective source.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > > Unfortunately, current federal law requires criminal background checks only for guns sold through licensed firearm dealers, which account for just 60% of all gun sales in the United States. A loophole in the law allows individuals not engaged in the business of selling firearms to sell guns without a licenseand without processing any paperwork. That means that two out of every five guns sold in the United States change hands without a background check.
> ...



Prove the facts are wrong - with credible sources.


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 9, 2013)

*omg​*



Black_Label said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...




*You don't get to change the goal posts when you are losing the game.*​
*Original OP:​*


Black_Label said:


> A spin off of the other thread where I have asked numerous times and not a single right winger has answered, is if you *support the gun show loophole.
> *
> For those that may not know, under current federal law if you wish to purchases a firearm, you have to be run in a background check to make sure you are not a felon, been convicted of a violent crime, been in a mental institution, etc,..before they give the go ahead to sell that person a weapon. However under the "gun show loophole", there are not background checks at all.
> 
> That's right, absoutly nothing. A violent thug fresh out of the penitentiary, a terrorist, or a nutcases ready to commit the next sandy hook could go down *to their local gun show*, or find a *classified ad selling a firearm *and they could purchase deadly weapons, _with no questions asked._



*A gun show does not equal a private sale does not equal licensed dealers!*​

Understand now?


night now...just cause I'm leaving this thread doesn't mean I'm leaving the subject matter behind.  ***hugs***


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



When someone puts the word credible in quotes that usually means they intend to reject anything I post. 

PolitiFact | Mayor Michael Bloomberg says 40 percent of guns are sold without a background check


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...



There is no gun show loophole.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



Prove what wrong? You didn't make a point, and I already proved the 40% number is nothing more than a wild guess based on ancient data.


----------



## Charles_Main (Feb 9, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> A spin off of the other thread where I have asked numerous times and not a single right winger has answered, is if you support the gun show loophole.
> 
> For those that may not know, under current federal law if you wish to purchases a firearm, you have to be run in a background check to make sure you are not a felon, been convicted of a violent crime, been in a mental institution, etc,..before they give the go ahead to sell that person a weapon. However under the "gun show loophole", there are not background checks at all.
> 
> That's right, absoutly nothing. A violent thug fresh out of the penitentiary, a terrorist, or a nutcases ready to commit the next sandy hook could go down to their local gun show, or find a classified ad selling a firearm and they could purchase deadly weapons, _with no questions asked._



No I do not. I think you should need a license to own guns. The Back Ground check should be done then, and then you could just carry your License into the Shows to buy guns with out the Sellers having to do Back Ground checks. 

Not very right wing of me I know, sorry to disappoint lol.

But it is rational. You need a license to drive a car. Just so long as it's not used to try and make it unaffordable to own a gun, and only as a way to make sure the Mentally Ill, and people we Felony Records are not able to buy them.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



It does not. 

Let me explain why.


Anyone that wants a clear conscious can already sell his gun to a dealer, or turn it into the police to be destroyed. Thus the first point it an outright lie.
If background checks prevented people who are mentally ill from getting weapons Domer would not have any weapons. He is, quite obviously, mentally ill, yet he managed to purchase guns in California after undergoing extensive background checks. He was even a cop, even though he is crazy.
This is only an opinion. I have to admit that it seems that anecdotal evidence supports it, but it is still an opinion. On top of that, it is irrelevant, because private sales are not businesses.
This is not a reason, and it is also incorrect. Even the Supreme Court has ruled that background checks actually do infringe on the 2nd Amendment, they just ruled that it is a reasonable infringement.
It tends to keep the bad guys away? How many bad guys are at gun shows in the first place? How do you define bad guy?
Not only does the title not speak for itself, reading it actually proves that the author wrote stuff that contradicted the title, managed to find people that don't understand the law, and provably pulled a few of them out of his ass.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



THERE
IS
NO
GUN
SHOW
LOOPHOLE.

In order for a gun show loophole to exist there would have to be a law requiring all gun sales to go through background checks, and there would have to be an exception specifically carved out for sales at trade shows, or in big crowds. Until you show me that you are merely asking me if I support your delusions.

For the record, I do not support your delusion that a gun show loophole exists.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



The title is a lie, something I have already proven. Until you can prove that a gun show loophole actually exist I have no need to prove anything else.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



That's funny...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

Charles_Main said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > A spin off of the other thread where I have asked numerous times and not a single right winger has answered, is if you support the gun show loophole.
> ...



If you want to argue that anyone who wants to use a gun in public, ie CCW permit holders, police, and security guards, should be licensed before they are allowed to do so, I might go along with that. I see no reason to require a person that has no intention of using a gun in public to defend his right to protect himself and his family.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...



Let me guess, I am supposed to be so upset by this that I will immediately drop my insistence that there is no gun show loophole.

How about I try out my own strawman argument instead. 

You support women getting raped because you refuse to let them buy guns from friends when they need them.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 9, 2013)

Gun shows in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Charles_Main (Feb 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...



It's called Compromise bud. The Only Requirements to get said license in my world would be no Felony Record, and no History of Mental Illness. Said license would not be per gun, but just per person. So it would not create some registry of every gun everyone owns. It would simply try and assure the Mentally Ill, and Felons are not able to legally buy a gun.

That is a reasonable Compromise that should end this debate if you ask me. Now you and I know that it will not stop Criminals from getting guns, But the lefties think it will, and they are not going to shut up about it anytime soon.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> Gun shows in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Still no actual content.

Or any proof that this mythical loophole actually exists.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

Charles_Main said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



I see no reason to compromise with anyone that wants to lock me in a cage.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Gun shows in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...



Au contraire, that link provides a wealth of information - with source references.


----------



## Black_Label (Feb 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



When you are pinned in the corner with no where to go, it's OK to use your common sense on what your actual stances are, and not the ultra-right wing views the propaganda machine tries to brainwashed you with,..


----------



## Charles_Main (Feb 9, 2013)

Loop Hole Smoop Hole. You guys are arguing Semantics IMO.


----------



## Charles_Main (Feb 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I own a handful of guns Including an AR15 that I will not give up even if they say I have to, I am fully Pro Second. I just think Compromise now, or lose bigger later. If you have not noticed we are losing a lot of fights lately lol.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 9, 2013)

It's a "loophole" in the sense that private sellers can sell at gun shows without performing background checks.  Hence, "gun show loophole"...


----------



## Charles_Main (Feb 9, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> It's a "loophole" in the sense that private sellers can sell at gun shows without performing background checks.  Hence, "gun show loophole"...



Like I said, Arguing Semantics.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 9, 2013)

charles_main said:


> quantum windbag said:
> 
> 
> > charles_main said:
> ...



Exactly.


----------



## Black_Label (Feb 9, 2013)

Charles_Main said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



Just when I thought you were another ultra-right wing hack, you post an honest, and intelligent post. 
The first from any right winger on this thread!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 9, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> A spin off of the other thread where I have asked numerous times and not a single right winger has answered, is if you support the gun show loophole.
> 
> For those that may not know, under current federal law if you wish to purchases a firearm, you have to be run in a background check to make sure you are not a felon, been convicted of a violent crime, been in a mental institution, etc,..before they give the go ahead to sell that person a weapon. However under the "gun show loophole", there are not background checks at all.
> 
> That's right, absoutly nothing. A violent thug fresh out of the penitentiary, a terrorist, or a nutcases ready to commit the next sandy hook could go down to their local gun show, or find a classified ad selling a firearm and they could purchase deadly weapons, _with no questions asked._


Why does someone who claims to be black support the racist agenda of gun control?


----------



## Black_Label (Feb 9, 2013)

MeBelle60 said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > MeBelle60 said:
> ...



You know when you're hanging out at the bar, having a good time, and there is that person that is completely drunk, spewing a bunch of nonsense, yet thinks they are a professor of all knowledge?

They say "I'll :hick!: be rirrrght back!" when they making a stumbling attempt for the door, while the rest of the group is a having a conversation, yet shaking their heads at them stumbling towards the door. 

The conversation keeps on going until a disgusting sound of puking is heard by all, when they look in disgust toward the door, they see that person stumbling in, kicking over chairs and stating, "i'z got yuz dumb!" at that ongoing conversation that they interrupted?

Yeah, that's you.


----------



## Noomi (Feb 9, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> A spin off of the other thread where I have asked numerous times and not a single right winger has answered, is if you support the gun show loophole.
> 
> For those that may not know, under current federal law if you wish to purchases a firearm, you have to be run in a background check to make sure you are not a felon, been convicted of a violent crime, been in a mental institution, etc,..before they give the go ahead to sell that person a weapon. However under the "gun show loophole", there are not background checks at all.
> 
> That's right, absoutly nothing. A violent thug fresh out of the penitentiary, a terrorist, or a nutcases ready to commit the next sandy hook could go down to their local gun show, or find a classified ad selling a firearm and they could purchase deadly weapons, _with no questions asked._



No should be allowed to buy a gun at a gun show.


----------



## bayoubill (Feb 9, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > A spin off of the other thread where I have asked numerous times and not a single right winger has answered, is if you support the gun show loophole.
> ...



I quite agree...

for their safety, people should be kept in tightly-controlled boxes from the moment they're born 'til the moment they die...

at which point their remains can be placed in another box...


----------



## Charles_Main (Feb 9, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Perhaps your problem is you think in terms of only Left or Only Right


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 9, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...



OK! That load of attempted insults you just posted is on topic how? OOOPPPSSS TOS!!!!

How does insulting people affect your agenda? Badly.
How does your 'not discussing' your 'OP'  make you look? Foolish.



> A spin off of the other thread where I have asked numerous times and not a single right winger has answered, is if you support the gun show loophole.



There is no such thing as a 'gun show loophole'.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 9, 2013)

MeBelle60 said:


> Black said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Really? Why?? Can you spot these people??? What gives them away, their robe? Their scythe??


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 9, 2013)

Charles_Main said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



Would you still be so "reasonable" if your side hadn't been losing so many "fights" lately?

Regardless, I applaud your common sense - on this issue.


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 9, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...




Where does he support closing the "gun show loop hole"??


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 9, 2013)

MeBelle60 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



But, but, but...you said the is no 'gun show loophole'...


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 9, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...



Did you forget the topic? Insult is all you can do! 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/277759-do-you-support-the-gun-show-loophole.html#post6793763

There's your topic!

There is no such thing as a 'gun show loop hole' as you claim in your OP!


----------



## Dubya (Feb 9, 2013)

This issue isn't even universal background checks, because it only involves gun shows. You may notice like I did that the opinions are a complete yes or no pertaining to whether a background check should be required for all sales at gun shows.

I'm going to examine the people who said no. I noticed many pointed out that the issue was a non-issue, so it makes someone wonder why no to a non-issue is of so much importance to the person opposing a background check at a gun show. 

My question to all the nayers is what is to prevent me paying my $150 for a booth at a gun show and making money by not giving background checks? If I can pass a background check, why can't I purchase a gun at the gun show and resell it to someone without a background check? For that matter, what is to prevent a licensed dealer setting up someone who isn't a licensed dealer to sell firearms without a background check at a premium price?

If you don't think these private sales are an important issue, why do you oppose a background check? Couldn't they just set up an area at a gun show to do background checks and require it being done before a private sale can be accomplished? Let me spell it out to you! Somebody wants to buy a gun for a price from a private person, but before it can be sold, they have to go to an area, pay a fee and get a background check done. It's possible a licensed dealer at the gun show may want to do it for the fees to give him a steady cash stream independent of sales. The person is handed paperwork that they passed the background check and uses it to buy the gun. Let's also say a private person takes a gun to a gun show to sell it. They could put the gun on display with someone at the gun show and get them to sell it in a way that includes a background check.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 9, 2013)

MeBelle60 said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > MeBelle60 said:
> ...



Anyone, including 'violent thugs fresh out of the penitentiary, terrorists, or nutcases' can go to a gun show and buy weapons from a 'private' seller without submitting to a background check. THAT is a loophole.


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 9, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...



What's the title of the thread??

It's been fun, but I must depart this hate fest!


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 9, 2013)

MeBelle60 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > MeBelle60 said:
> ...



I didn't attribute the OP to you. Now what? An apology? A pos rep??


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 9, 2013)

S.J. said:


> How stupid can the gun control advocates get?  This is comical.



Actually, it's tragic, not comical.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 9, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > A spin off of the other thread where I have asked numerous times and not a single right winger has answered, is if you support the gun show loophole.
> ...



Explain, in detail and with links to sources, EXACTLY how me buying a pistol from a dealer at a gun show is any different from buying the same pistol from the same dealer at a store.  Be specific.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> This issue isn't even universal background checks, because it only involves gun shows. You may notice like I did that the opinions are a complete yes or no pertaining to whether a background check should be required for all sales at gun shows.
> 
> I'm going to examine the people who said no. I noticed many pointed out that the issue was a non-issue, so it makes someone wonder why no to a non-issue is of so much importance to the person opposing a background check at a gun show.
> 
> My question to all the nayers is what is to prevent me paying my $150 for a booth at a gun show and making money by not giving background checks? If I can pass a background check, why can't I purchase a gun at the gun show and resell it to someone without a background check? For that matter, what is to prevent a licensed dealer setting up someone who isn't a licensed dealer to sell firearms without a background check at a premium price?



Because that is not legal.



> If you don't think these private sales are an important issue, why do you oppose a background check?



Because it's a ridiculous idea, not to mention an unenforceable law.



> Couldn't they just set up an area at a gun show to do background checks and require it being done before a private sale can be accomplished? Let me spell it out to you! Somebody wants to buy a gun for a price from a private person, but before it can be sold, they have to go to an area, pay a fee and get a background check done. It's possible a licensed dealer at the gun show may want to do it for the fees to give him a steady cash stream independent of sales. The person is handed paperwork that they passed the background check and uses it to buy the gun. Let's also say a private person takes a gun to a gun show to sell it. They could put the gun on display with someone at the gun show and get them to sell it in a way that includes a background check.



More likely: the dude that wants a gun just looks on Craigslist.


----------



## PredFan (Feb 9, 2013)

There is no "gun show loophole", it's bull shit made up by the left and the MSM. It doesn't exist.


----------



## Black_Label (Feb 9, 2013)

PredFan said:


> There is no "gun show loophole", it's bull shit made up by the left and the MSM. It doesn't exist.



Everyone, even the private sales undergo a background check? Do explain


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 9, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > There is no "gun show loophole", it's bull shit made up by the left and the MSM. It doesn't exist.
> ...



Most private sales are completed between friends, if you don't know your friends background you're a stupid son of a bitch.,


----------



## Two Thumbs (Feb 9, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> If you buy a gun from ANYONE, you should be required to undergo a background check.
> 
> I mean.................you have to liscence your car to run it on the roads, right?



ok buffoon, describe what a background check takes and how much it costs.

Then explain how a local will go about doing this.

Then apologies for supporting tyranny over freedom


----------



## Black_Label (Feb 9, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Which don't require any kind of background check, correct bigreb?

Also I'd love to see the link proving that most sales are between friends, otherwise I'd hate to think you are a lying sack of shit,...


----------



## Oddball (Feb 9, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> A spin off of the other thread where I have asked numerous times and not a single right winger has answered, is if you support the gun show loophole.
> *
> For those that may not know, under current federal law if you wish to purchases a firearm, you have to be run in a background check to make sure you are not a felon, been convicted of a violent crime, been in a mental institution, etc,..before they give the go ahead to sell that person a weapon. However under the "gun show loophole", there are not background checks at all.*
> 
> That's right, absoutly nothing. A violent thug fresh out of the penitentiary, a terrorist, or a nutcases ready to commit the next sandy hook could go down to their local gun show, or find a classified ad selling a firearm and they could purchase deadly weapons, _with no questions asked._


You're either a stone liar or completely ignorant...My bet is on the former.

95+% of the sellers of weapons at gun shows are federally licensed dealers, who are _*required*_ to run background checks _*no matter where*_ they sell their guns.

Fucking lying sack of shit.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Feb 9, 2013)

Two Thumbs said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > A spin off of the other thread where I have asked numerous times and not a single right winger has answered, is if you support the gun show loophole.
> ...



Best thing about that post, aside form 4 reps and lots of :2ups:

The leftist couldn't respond to the undeniable facts.



mmmm, sweet like cahndy


----------



## PredFan (Feb 9, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > There is no "gun show loophole", it's bull shit made up by the left and the MSM. It doesn't exist.
> ...



How is that a loophole? It's the law isn't it? Private sales doesn't require a background check. It isn't a loophole.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Feb 9, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



HOLD THE FUCK ON.

That makes WAY to much sense, so the liberals won't get it.


----------



## Intense (Feb 9, 2013)

> There is a lot of misinformation circulating about background checks for gun ownership.
> 
> Under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act&#8212;which created the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)&#8212;all federal firearms licensees are required to conduct a background check for all firearms transactions, even if they sell the firearm at a gun show. This is to make sure that the gun isn&#8217;t being sold to a person who is prohibited from purchasing a gun under Section 922(g) or (n) of Title 18 of the United States Code, which would include convicted felons, people who have been adjudicated to be severely mentally ill, and people who have been convicted of a domestic violence offense.
> 
> ...



Oh, Well.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 9, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...



Actually, again, selling a gun to a felon is illegal, and ignorance of the law does not protect you.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 9, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



And tell us Einstein...HOW would a seller know if a buyer is a felon? By looks? Smell??


----------



## OODA_Loop (Feb 9, 2013)

If I support background checks at gun shows will you give me the protection in the same law to transfer guns to my family or those otherwise known to me as legal recipients ?


----------



## martybegan (Feb 9, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...



A valid seller of good intentions could always go to a gun store, or do a lookup themselves. If the buyer has a CCW permit, then the seller knows all is well. 

A dubious seller would ignore the law anyway. That is the crux of the argument. 

A valid seller could also know the person very well, thus negating the need for the check.


----------



## cereal_killer (Feb 9, 2013)

*~Thread cleaned. Stop with the incessant bickering and insulting. If you see an offending post, report it and move on. DO NOT quote it and respond to it. Ignore them. We will eventually get around to cleaning them out. Get back on topic and stop with the flames. Thank you.~*


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 9, 2013)

Two Thumbs said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...


Better make it five


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 9, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Isn't it amazing how your right wingers are always the guilty until proven innocent anti-American, anti-liberty turds when it comes to a poor man's crime. But when a gun dealer hides behind the gun show loophole and moves HUNDREDS of weapons posing as a 'private' seller, he is just a 'shrewd' entrepreneur?

Nothing doth more hurt in a state than that cunning men pass for wise.
Sir Francis Bacon


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 9, 2013)

There is no such thing as the gun show loophole.   It's a private sale loophole, whether or not weapons are sold at a gun show.  And, it's not a loophole.  A sale between private citizens without a background check is an illegal sale.  

There are already laws, in place, right now, that govern private sales.   Criminals don't obey those laws, so if we pass more laws, it is with the full expectation that criminals will spontaneously decide to obey those laws.  That's what makes this whole little exercise utterly stupid.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 9, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...



Considering grabbers such as yourself want to tax, permit, register and insurance requirement (which all cost $$) firearms out of the reach of poor people, who really are the progressives here?

I don't have an issue with less well off people who work hard and try to better themselves. Criminals and welfare leaches on the other hand, well regardless of color they can go pound sand. 

I certainly don't want to restrict gun ownership to those of means (or governmental connections). Poor people who live in crappy neighborhoods need to be armed, and armed properly, even more than I do.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Feb 9, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...



You were 6, then there's a 7th.

Sweet undeniable truth


----------



## Two Thumbs (Feb 9, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...


liar

When Zimmerman shot Trayvon, it was the liberals that declared him guilty and the conservatives that wanted evidence.

you're pathetic


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 9, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



And it has nothing to do with gun shows!


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 9, 2013)

Charles_Main said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



Hate to say this, but you are a fool. Show me one instance where the left has ever been satisfied with just one step, they will get everything the can now and will be back for more later when this shit proves to be ineffective. They always have and always will, my answer is not just no but HELL NO!


----------



## Oddball (Feb 9, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


Authoritarian douchebags always call freedom a "loophole".


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 9, 2013)

Oddball said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...



Freedom for criminals to buy weapons without a background check is what you are fighting for...great cause Jethro...great cause!


----------



## martybegan (Feb 9, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



And requiring every legal gun transaction to have a background check will stop criminals from getting weapons how?


----------



## PaulS1950 (Feb 9, 2013)

There is no "gun show loophole" as the OP stated.
It is a Federal Law that all dealers have to perform a background check on every sale they make.
I just bought a gun at a gun show and the background check was performed. 

It is  already the law that dealers perform the background checks and it doesn't matter where they are. If they sell a gun then they have to perform the check.
If they don't they can be prosecuted, fined or both.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



That prove what? I could log into Wikipedia and rewrite that entire article so that it says the exact opposite of everything you believe, would that make you wrong? It it would, I would be more than happy to take the time to do just that.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



My actual stance is that the 2nd Amendment says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Since I can easily point to thousands of right wing Republicans that disagree with me, care to point out how that makes me right wing?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 9, 2013)

Two Thumbs said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Yep there were many on the left wanting too lynch Zimmerman it must have been a racial thing


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

Charles_Main said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



Do you honestly think the Brady Campaign to ban Handguns has changed its spots simply because they call themselves the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence? They are in this for the long haul, their compromise is to let you lose small now, more later, and big in a few years because the only way to prevent gun violence is to get rid of the guns.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> It's a "loophole" in the sense that private sellers can sell at gun shows without performing background checks.  Hence, "gun show loophole"...



Except that private sellers can sell anywhere without said checks, which makes it not a loophole as much as an attempt to take away people's rights. You should look up the word liberal sometime, you might learn something.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> charles_main said:
> 
> 
> > quantum windbag said:
> ...



See there Charles, the guy that wants to take away your guns thinks you should compromise with him. Tell me something, what do you get out of the compromise? Do you get a garauntee that they will never again bring up the subject of banning assault weapons? Or is the truth that they are settling for this because this is all they can get tight now?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Another ultra radical gun control nut cheering on your compromise.

Still failing to see what you get that makes it a compromise, can you be more specific about what you get in return for surrendering unconditionally?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > A spin off of the other thread where I have asked numerous times and not a single right winger has answered, is if you support the gun show loophole.
> ...



This is why I won't compromise on the mythical loophole, this is what they all want in the end.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> This issue isn't even universal background checks, because it only involves gun shows. You may notice like I did that the opinions are a complete yes or no pertaining to whether a background check should be required for all sales at gun shows.
> 
> I'm going to examine the people who said no. I noticed many pointed out that the issue was a non-issue, so it makes someone wonder why no to a non-issue is of so much importance to the person opposing a background check at a gun show.
> 
> ...



Trying to move the goal posts again? Weren't you already called on this?

To answer your question, straw man purchases are illegal. If you buy a gun, and resell it, you are breaking the law. Since, in your world, laws prevent people from doing things, you cannot do what you just said already.

End of your diversion, and another failure in your attempt to frame the debate in your terms.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...



You want to make all sales subject to government check then, not just the ones at gun shows, because the only loophole I see is not requiring checks on private sales.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...



It is illegal, standing in court and blithering that you didn't know only works on really bad TV shows.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...



Any gun dealer that did that would lose his license and end up in prison. There are police and feds among the dealers and the buyers at every gun show to prevent exactly the thing you are describing. That is something that will never happen because the dealers that do that don't use gun shows to find customers.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



If freedom lets criminals do bad things than I can live with it. It is a lot better than the alternative, no freedom, and we still have criminals.


----------



## Liability (Feb 9, 2013)

Crack_fable heard something on TV.  He's a simpleton, therefore he believes it.

What is this so-called gun show "loophole"

Crack_Fable cannot answer that by pointing to ANY law.  He never will.  He will not even try.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > MeBelle60 said:
> ...



"It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners"
Albert Camus

Every gun sale should require a background check IMO. But what the gun show loophole allows is dealers who POSE as 'private' sellers to set up a booth at gun shows and sell weapons without a background check. If the 'private' seller suspects the buyer is a criminal, he is supposed to terminate the sale. Undercover buyers/investigators with hidden cameras went to seven gun shows across Ohio, Tennessee and Nevada, and found out just how easy it is for criminals and the mentally ill to walk in and buy guns -- no questions asked.

Investigators told the private sellers that they "probably couldn't pass a background check" -- and at that point, the seller should have sent them away. Because even private sellers are prohibited by federal law from selling to those who they have reason to suspect could not pass a background check.

Instead, 19 out of 30 private sellers made the sale.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

Mustang said:


> They ought to change the name of the gun show loophole into the let's-make-it-as-easy-as-possible-for-criminals-to-buy-guns loophole.



They should change the name of every law to lets take away some more freedom from law abiding citizens act and tack a different number on the end.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > They ought to change the name of the gun show loophole into the let's-make-it-as-easy-as-possible-for-criminals-to-buy-guns loophole.
> ...



No law abiding citizen is losing his or her freedom or liberty making background checks mandatory for all gun sales. It should make perfect SENSE to any law abiding citizen, then, only a criminal would object.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 9, 2013)

"How strict would gun laws have to be to prevent massacres?" 

Strict enough to prevent a criminal from buying guns in the safety, comfort and sanction of a gun show without having a background check run on him. There IS a loophole in the gun show law that allows a big gun dealer to pose as little uncle Joe selling a gun or two, and circumvent doing a background check. 

FACT: Gun sellers who claim to be occasional sellers are not required by current federal law to conduct background checks on their customers. Furthermore, there is no clear definition of how many guns a person can sell as an occasional seller  it could be dozens, or even hundreds.

The Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA) states: 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(21)(D), (22). Those not engaged in the business of dealing guns are exempt from the licensure requirement.

So, closing the gun show loophole would not punish any law abiding gun owner. 

And, as citizens, we can't stop a criminal from buying an illegal firearm from the trunk of another criminal in some dark alley.

But, that's where the criminal *should* be forced to buy a gun. In a totally illegal setting, with all the inherent dangers that come with it. BUT, our current laws sanction criminals being able to walk into a gun show, receive expert advice, discounts, then buy whatever weapon(s) they desire without a background check or having to pay black market prices or risk the dangers of buying a weapon from another criminal in a dark alley.

Here is some info on the loophole...

What is the gun show loophole? 

Federal law allows people who sell guns to avoid running background checks or keeping records by calling themselves occasional sellers, and these sellers often congregate at gun shows.  The loophole provides criminals with easy access to firearms without having to worry about any background checks.


 Current law requires licensed gun dealers to conduct background checks, because that is the only way to determine whether a person is eligible to buy a gun.  Licensed dealers must also keep records about the buyer so ATF can trace the gun if it is recovered at a crime scene._
_
_

The law does not, however, require so-called occasional sellers to do these checks  and theres no clear definition of what qualifies as an occasional seller.[ii]
 
 Many sellers at gun shows abuse that loophole by calling themselves occasional sellers.  Because they concentrate at gun shows, it is easy for felons and other prohibited possessors to find someone who will sell to them without a background check.
...........*ATF concluded that gun shows and flea markets are a major venue for illegal trafficking.[iii]


Gun shows linked to the Pentagon Shooting:  In March 2010, John Bedell  who was prohibited by law from possessing guns  shot two Pentagon police officers with a gun purchased from a private seller at a Las Vegas gun show.
 
Gun shows were tied to a broad range of violations, including straw purchases and the sale of kits to convert legal guns into illegal machine guns.

Solution:  Require occasional sellers to run instant background checks._


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



The executioner always works for the government.

Just saying.

Care to explain how you want to use a quote from Camus to argue for more government power? 

Care to prove to me that those undercover buyers who actually filmed transactions at gun shows did not set this up in advance by putting fake dealers in the shows? That would explain the fact that no criminal prosecutions ever came about as a result of these stings, unlike the MSNBC stings where they set up people trying to sleep with underage girls, wouldn't it?

Simple fact, the ATF monitors gun shows to prevent exactly the thing you are insisting is happening. They live for catching people selling to criminals, and would love to prove it is actually happening at gun shows so they could shut them down. How many cases have they filed over the years?

Stop trying to scare me with stupid stories just because you choose to go along with the executioner instead of thinking.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



If it does not infringe anyone's rights to go through a background check maybe we can require them before an abortion also. Would that make sense to you, or do you suddenly see background checks as a violation of rights when they are applied to things other than guns?

If you require all change of ownership on guns to go through a background check every law abiding citizen will lose a bit of their privacy because the government will eventually know exactly who does, and does not, own a gun. That not only violates the rights of people who buy and sell guns, it violates the rights of those who do not.

Like I said before, stop pretending to be the person who is thinking when all you are doing is going along with the executioner.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> "How strict would gun laws have to be to prevent massacres?"
> 
> Strict enough to prevent a criminal from buying guns in the safety, comfort and sanction of a gun show without having a background check run on him. There IS a loophole in the gun show law that allows a big gun dealer to pose as little uncle Joe selling a gun or two, and circumvent doing a background check.
> 
> ...


_

Quick question, would any of this have stopped Dorner?

Didn't think so._


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Ignorance is bliss. Yea, of course, everyone is a crook, except the gun sellers. They are saints.

BTW, an executioner does not have to work for the government.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 9, 2013)

Jarlaxle said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > This issue isn't even universal background checks, because it only involves gun shows. You may notice like I did that the opinions are a complete yes or no pertaining to whether a background check should be required for all sales at gun shows.
> ...



Don't allow firearm purchases without a background check and registration transfer, so a person isn't going to be allowed to sell firearms on Craigslist. The law is enforceable when people are charged with a crime for not having their guns registered. Possession of the gun should require registration and that should start when the gun is assembled. 

A gun show can easily find a way to get background checks done on all purchases, but they just don't want to do it, because they want the market to sell to people who can't pass a background check. Since you all claim it isn't important, then stop the gun show loophole! The gun show can set up a way for non-licensed dealers to get background checks and may use a licensed dealer to do it for the gun show.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 9, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> "How strict would gun laws have to be to prevent massacres?"
> 
> Strict enough to prevent a criminal from buying guns in the safety, comfort and sanction of a gun show without having a background check run on him. There IS a loophole in the gun show law that allows a big gun dealer to pose as little uncle Joe selling a gun or two, and circumvent doing a background check.
> 
> ...


_

You know claiming to be an occasional seller and then not being one is illegal and a violation of the law, right?

Why not let government crack down on this and leave the rest of us alone?_


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



If an executioner is not working for the government he is, by definition, a murderer.

Just saying.

I oppose background checks because I assume everyone has the right to own a gun.

You support background checks because you think gobs of crooks are buying guns.

And, somehow, this means I think everyone is a crook.

Gotta love the absolute lack of logic and thinking that went int this post. 

Keep up the great work.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 9, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


Piss up a rope, dickweed.

Background checks didn't stop Columbine, Paducah, Jonesboro, Aurora, Sandy Hook, any given post office shooting or the thousands of gangland murders perpetrated in the inner cities across the country.

Your stupid background check are completely ineffective and prevent nothing.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

Attention CharlesMAin.

This is the guy you are surrendering to, he is not interested in compromise.



Dubya said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Anyone at a gun show that wants to go sell his weapon through a background check can get a dealer to run one. Anyone that does not is none of my business.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 9, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



Actually the way this works is YOU have to prove your claim is true not us proving it is wrong. Or don't you know how debates work?


----------



## Charles_Main (Feb 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Like I said, we are losing big right now. The game is totally rigged in their favor. They own the Press, they Educate our kids, they make our movies and entertainment. We are slowly losing this country, and I fear the best we can do now is try and make it as slow a march as possible.


----------



## squeeze berry (Feb 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



every time i made a purchase at a gun show there was a background check .

WTF am I missing?

Also, how do you do a background check on a private sale. None of you gun control advocates have answered that question


----------



## Charles_Main (Feb 9, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



No Argument there man, But like I said, I think we are going to lose either way. Would rather have it be small now and big later than Big right now.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 9, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > "How strict would gun laws have to be to prevent massacres?"
> ...


_

Let's see you define what an occasional seller is and what makes a person qualified to become an occasional seller!

Let's see you describe how the government closing the gun show loophole is bothering you to the point where you have to respond "and leave the rest of us alone." You are left alone with closing the gun show loophole, unless you are an occasional seller or buying a gun from them, aren't you? Is it that big of a deal to get a background check? Is it that big of a deal to make these occasional sellers run background checks at a gun show with many licensed gun dealers running background checks? If the gun show wants to have occasional sellers present, can't they work out a way to easily run background checks?

This is a minor change compared to all that should be done. You NRA types better get off your lazy asses and start supporting common sense changes to gun laws or it's time for us to declare war against your interests and we'll see if the majority of Americans can take away even more of your so-called gun rights. You better start figuring out, we aren't playing with you psychos. Keep pissing us off with your hard line NRA stance and see what you get for doing it! Your New York experience is only the beginning of what you can expect and I could care less how it will inconvenience you. When a group proves itself to be uncooperative with our nation's problems, they lose any consideration for what they desire in society. As far as I'm concerned, they can make the laws as strict as possible just to punish you clowns for being so stubborn. That is the reaction you are creating amongst citizens who have just as much say in what the law will be as you do. Your days of getting away with this bullshit are over and if you don't cooperate, you aren't going to have the political power in the future to maintain your beloved status quo. You are making enemies who are more powerful than you are._


----------



## Charles_Main (Feb 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



You are right, it says that. But the courts have already ruled on "reasonable Infringements before" So that mold is set. It is the courts after all tasked with interpreting the Constitution is it not?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 9, 2013)

squeeze berry said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Jarlaxle said:
> ...



You don't allow private sales without transferring the registration of the weapon and this has been pointed out many times. Gun shows could be used as a means to allow a legal private sale. Gun shops could also be used. There is no potential liability in selling a gun to someone who has passed a background check. 

Occasional sellers are allowed to sell weapons at gun shows and not run background checks.


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 9, 2013)

I just left a gunshow.

There must have been been close to 2,000 people there and I counted 35 people taking the morning CCW/CCP class.    I left before the afternoon one started.

At the private owners area, people who were not licensed sellers, there was only about 15 people there selling up to 10 weapons..  Most only had one or two.

As I entered the gun show, I walked by 3 Deputy Sheriffs.  There were 2 more just inside the door doing safety checks on all weapons.  Each of the 5 rooms of vendors at at least 3 more Deputies standing by the door and or rooming the room.

I also saw 3 City Police there, who were not in uniform, but they weren't buying either.

The first question I heard nearly every vendor ask when someone wanted to buy gun was "Do you have your license?"  When the answer was "No" the response was "You will need to come back in 3 days, that will be on Thursday ( I know that is more than 3 days, but the way the law works is that you can't pick up your weapon on the 3rd day, but on the 4th and weekend day do not count. )


----------



## Dubya (Feb 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Attention CharlesMAin.
> 
> This is the guy you are surrendering to, he is not interested in compromise.
> 
> ...



It's my business if a gun is sold to someone who can't pass a background check at a gun show, so since it isn't your business, butt out and mind your own business!


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 9, 2013)

Charles_Main said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



I don't accept that, there is no will in congress to push this. The commiecrats know what happened last time and they are not really up for the fight. We have to draw the line here and let them know it in no uncertain terms, if they try there will be a price. We don't have the right to surrender the rights of future generations, on the contrary we have a duty to protect them.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Attention CharlesMAin.
> ...



It's none of your fucking business what I do with my fucking private property nor is it the governments.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



The executioners usually use GUNS. It is the right of law abiding citizens to do demand that laws are in place and enforced to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. The ONLY way to identify criminals and the mentally ill is a background check.

Over 90% of citizens support universal background checks on all gun sales. Only gun manufacturers, the NRA which is a shill for the manufacturers, criminals and a tiny percentage of extremist zealots oppose this no brainer law. That makes you an enemy of the people. You are an accomplice to criminals buying guns in a legal setting.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Feb 9, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Liar

We are standing up for our Constitutional rights.

as a lying liberal, you wouldn't understand


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 9, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



I will ask this once again..

Since when do we allow the free exercise of an enumerated Right up for a vote?


----------



## Two Thumbs (Feb 9, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Well this time the law will just work, some how.

and if it doesn't?

Well by science we will pass another!!  LOGIC BE DAMNED


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Attention CharlesMAin.
> ...



It's only your business if you are part of the transaction, otherwise it is NOT any your business.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Feb 9, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



You have links to back up these claims, I assume comrade?


----------



## Two Thumbs (Feb 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Attention CharlesMAin.
> ...



When were you allowed access to another persons privacy?


----------



## Ernie S. (Feb 9, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



So what you're saying is only those planning voter fraud are against ID requirements on election day?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 9, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



If you think you have a right to not get a background check, tell it to the Judge, because if I have my way, your ass is going to jail, if you are caught with an unregistered weapon with background check and you will lose your "right" to own a gun. The 2nd Amendment prohibits the populace from being disarmed. It doesn't prohibit people like you being stupid.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Feb 9, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...




What he said


----------



## Two Thumbs (Feb 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


actually we have the right to privacy

something liberals removed with the background checks


----------



## Ernie S. (Feb 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



So, you want me to register guns I bought mail order in the 60's, guns my dad bought in the 30's, guns taken off the bodies of dead soldiers in WW II? I have guns that were legally purchased that don't have serial #'s.

Any requirement for registration of weapons now legally owned cannot be enforced.


----------



## squeeze berry (Feb 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Attention CharlesMAin.
> 
> This is the guy you are surrendering to, he is not interested in compromise.
> 
> ...



how much does it cost?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

Charles_Main said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



Except we aren't loosing. Opposition to banning assault weapons is actually higher than it was before Sandy Hook despite all the blathering from the politicians and the media. All we have to do is explain how absurd their talking points are, point out that people like Dorner went through multiple background checks yet were still able to buy weapons, even the assault weapons that are actually banned in California, unless you are a police officer. The only way we are going to lose is if we don't fight.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Attention CharlesMAin.
> ...



What makes it your business? Do you make money off the sale? Are you forced to pay for the sale in some way? Did the seller come up to you and slap your face after he sold the gun?

Since the answer to all those questions is no, the sale is not your business. The truth is that you are nosy and want to know what everyone is doing. Do that around the wrong people and you are definitely going to get your ass handed to you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Executioners work for the government, the last time I looked the most common method of execution was lethal injection, not firing squads. You really should stop pulling facts out of your ass in an attempt to impress five year old children.

You have no right to demand that laws exist just because you are afraid to go outside after dark.

The same poll that shows that people support universal background checks also shows that people oppose gun control laws, which include universal background checks. I already pointed that out earlier in this thread, you should go back and read it.

Just so you don't misuse the word executioner again I have provided the definition for you.  noun 1. an official who inflicts capital punishment in pursuance of a legal warrant.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

squeeze berry said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Attention CharlesMAin.
> ...



I neither know nor care because, if I elect to sell something, I see no need to verify the person I am doing business with is approved by the government.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> squeeze berry said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


That's up to you As for me I only would sale to someone I knew.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > squeeze berry said:
> ...



Did you get government approval first?


----------



## Too Tall (Feb 9, 2013)

MeBelle60 said:


> Black said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Every  gun show I have attended had at least one cop, and usually two sitting at the entrance checking out the folks that came in.  That alone would deter a lot of the dirtbags from coming into the show.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I  don't need government approval, just personal preference


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 9, 2013)

Two Thumbs said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



REALLY? Do felons and the mentally ill have the constitutional right to own a weapon?


----------



## martybegan (Feb 9, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Felons do not, and someone has to be declared mentally unfit by a judge (that whole due process thing.) 

But selling to one of them is already illegal. All you seem to want to do is infringe on the rights of people who are eligible to get firearms.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 9, 2013)

Two Thumbs said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Over 90 percent of Americans support gun background checks: poll

By a margin of 92 percent to 7 percent, voters supported background checks, the Quinnipiac University telephone poll showed. In households with a gun, 91 percent were in favor, while 8 percent were opposed, Quinnipiac said.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 9, 2013)

Two Thumbs said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OriginalShroom said:
> ...



This one is so simple even an adult in your home can explain it to you.

If you want to protect your privacy, don't own a gun. Otherwise, you will need to submit to a background check.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 9, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


One of the hallmarks of intellectual honesty and consistency is standing by the the principle, even though it may not end up producing the best case scenario.

That aside, the lunatic perps of Columbine, Jonesboro, Paducah, Aurora, Sandy Hook and innumerable gang related homicides, have had no problem getting weapons, despite your idiotic and ineffective background checks.

Now nitwits like you are screaming to double down on the stupidity and ineffectiveness.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Bingo.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 9, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...



That is a lie. I support the right of law abiding citizens to own firearms to protect themselves, their family and their property. I DON'T support the right of felons and the mentally ill to own a firearm. The universal background check on all sales truly is a no brainer. There is no logical, reasonable or intelligent argument against that common sense law...NONE.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Do you know what the law actually says about felons owning guns?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...




If you want privacy don't do anything I don't like, That certainly is simple, and hypocritical.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



I can think of three reasons not to support it, all of them just as logical as your reason for supporting it. 



I don't like it.
It is creepy.
Fuck off, asshole.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 9, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> The universal background check on all sales truly is a no brainer. .



Little wonder a no-brain like you supports them.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 9, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...



Then why have ANY laws at all you moronic asshole? Let's repeal all laws because people still break them. Let's send you and your butler to Somalia to see how anarchy works out.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 9, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


False dichotomy, no-brain asshole.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



1) game
2) set
3) match
Winner Bfgrn


----------



## freedombecki (Feb 9, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...


 
He missed the stats on socialists' and communists' regime murders for the realm against indigenous citizens According to Walter Williams, 2000 article in Deseret:

Communism

Union of Soviet Socialists' Republic, 1917-1987, 65,000,000

China, 1900s, 35,000,000

The History Place the Statistics of WWII:

Nazis, WWII, 52,199,252


----------



## martybegan (Feb 9, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Except you guys NEVER propose just that. Its about registration, waiting periods (to let the background check happen of course) magazine limits and all the other crap.

Say to our faces you will DROP everything else, AND return gun rights to people in liberal hellholes like NYC Chicago and DC and i "MAY" consider a universal instantaneous background check system (paid by the government)


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 9, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Better have the butler get out the dictionary. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 9, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


The one who has NFI what hes sputtering about is you, you braying jackass....And I damn sure know what a false dichotomy is.

Oh, and your idiotic background checks are still idiotic and completely ineffective...Just to stay on topic so I don't get a spanking from Li'l Bro.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 9, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



OK, then it should be easy for you to explain how it is a false dichotomy?

So, you don't believe anyone should have to have a background check to buy guns?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Did you ever get back to me on how more background checks would have stopped Dorner?

Didn't think so. Can you explain how you won when you can't even answer a simple question?


----------



## Oddball (Feb 9, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


Easy...I said that background checks are idiotic and ineffective (which they are) and you launched off into the all-too-typical progressive/socialist/commie douchebag  "why have any laws at all?....ANARCHY!" rant...That's a textbook false dichotomy.

And your idiotic and completely ineffective background checks are still idiotic and completely ineffective, so, yes, they should be ended altogether.


----------



## Gareyt17 (Feb 9, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> A spin off of the other thread where I have asked numerous times and not a single right winger has answered, is if you support the gun show loophole.
> 
> For those that may not know, under current federal law if you wish to purchases a firearm, you have to be run in a background check to make sure you are not a felon, been convicted of a violent crime, been in a mental institution, etc,..before they give the go ahead to sell that person a weapon. However under the "gun show loophole", there are not background checks at all.
> 
> That's right, absoutly nothing. A violent thug fresh out of the penitentiary, a terrorist, or a nutcases ready to commit the next sandy hook could go down to their local gun show, or find a classified ad selling a firearm and they could purchase deadly weapons, _with no questions asked._



There is no such thing as a "gun show loophole"...this  just another in and endless series of lies told by you whacky leftists....


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 9, 2013)

A couple of experts on the subject.

[ame=http://youtu.be/9ic7TE9IsOQ]Gun Gripes Episode 37: The gun show loop hole - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Dubya (Feb 9, 2013)

Two Thumbs said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OriginalShroom said:
> ...



Background checks aren't hurting your privacy and if you really value your privacy that much, don't buy a gun! It's as simple as that.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 9, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OriginalShroom said:
> ...



I don't care about your problems or family history. The world wasn't built for only your pleasure. 

Even antiques can be registered and they can be assigned a number or identified in some way.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 9, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Which came first gun confiscation or gun registration?


----------



## S.J. (Feb 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...


What a stupid comment.  There shouldn't be conditions attached to a Constitutional right.  Would you like to have to undergo a background check before you could voice your opinion?


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 9, 2013)

I want to ask a question here of the people pushing the "Gun Show Loophole" stuff.


Just how many people do you think shows up at the average Gun Show as a Private seller instead of a Licensed Vender? 

What do you think the Ratio is?  1:1?  1:20?  20:1?


At today's gunshow, as I said earlier, there was 4 rooms of venders.  Each room had at least 10 Licensed Venders.

The area for the "Private Sales"  was a single row of benches, no tables, about 10 feet long.

That's it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 9, 2013)

There is no gun show loophole. 

If one purchases a firearm from a licensed dealer at gun show, a background check is completed, just as if the firearm was purchased at the dealers shop. 

Federal law allows residents of the same state to conduct an intrastate transaction absent a background check, as such a check is utterly unfeasible in the context of a private sale. 

And should such a private sale be conducted at a gun show, no background check is conducted in accordance with the law; that the sale occurs at a gun show venue is coincidental and irrelevant, hence no loophole.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Restrictions on abortions don't violate anyone's rights either. If you don't want the restrictions, don't get an abortion.

Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 9, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...



The only constitutional right is that the populace won't be disarmed. You had to bring a gun of a certain quality to be in the militia, so they have had gun laws since the beginning. They weren't given their choice of the weapons they could bring.

It's really simple dealing with your kind. Get caught breaking the gun laws and see if you have a gun in jail to protect your ass! I want strict gun control laws in America and our present gun control laws are what's going to make it happen. The laws are so lax that another disaster is just a matter of time. See if the Judge buys your bullshit when it's time for sentencing!


----------



## Dubya (Feb 9, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> I want to ask a question here of the people pushing the "Gun Show Loophole" stuff.
> 
> 
> Just how many people do you think shows up at the average Gun Show as a Private seller instead of a Licensed Vender?
> ...



What prevents a private vender buying a gun at a gun show and reselling it without a background check and don't tell me the law stops it?


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 9, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> There is no gun show loophole.
> 
> If one purchases a firearm from a licensed dealer at gun show, a background check is completed, just as if the firearm was purchased at the dealers shop.
> 
> ...



By God I think he's got it. Too bad that ignorant little boy Dubya never will.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...









and you still have not told me your tutu color after you turned off your rep.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > I want to ask a question here of the people pushing the "Gun Show Loophole" stuff.
> ...



And how does a national mandatory background check system stop it?


----------



## Ernie S. (Feb 9, 2013)

How can someone be both banned and on line at the same time?


----------



## S.J. (Feb 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...


I don't care what you want, snitch.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...



Don't you people have a forum on abortion or threads somewhere? Why don't you go there and speak your mind?


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Yet instead of demanding current laws are enforced, which they are not, you being the poster boy statist want new more oppressive laws on the law abiding people. Because even you recognize that criminals will continue laughing at any law you pass. Good job commie boy, good job.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 9, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OriginalShroom said:
> ...



I've already told you how and you know damned well it would work. I'd even make them renew registrations on shotguns.


----------



## Ernie S. (Feb 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...


Tell me exactly how banning scary black guns and 30 round mags is going to prevent the next nut from shooting up a school.

Be specific. Tell me one thing you can do today that will prevent a school shooting 3 months in the future.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 9, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > There is no gun show loophole.
> ...



When you can sell a weapon without a background check, it's a loophole.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



So it would require every gun to be registered then, right?

You failed to bring that up in your previous posts.

Gun registration is a no go. You dont need to be registered to practice free speech, or your freedom of travel, or your right to a trial by jury.

Go an hero yourself.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 9, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Smell the coffee, fool!


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 9, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Did he turn off his rep, or could it have been something else? I wonder.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Keep adding nothing to the conversation. You are the reason gun rights advocates dont trust gun control idiots one bit.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 9, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Which would imply he wasnt smart enough to read forum rules and tried to neg someone twice to quickly.

Either way it is a good indicator of his post quality.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 9, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



It's not oppressive to make a gun owner show up once a year to prove he still has his weapons and allowing him to live in a safer world. It's oppressive when someone gets caught violating the law and gets their ass burnt for doing it. I support losing gun rights if the person is caught with an unregistered weapon and prosecuting the person for a weapons offense with more severe penalties from that point on.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



It is an INFRINGMENT, and will not make the world ANY safer. It will just get us closer to becoming government run lemmings, a state you seem to love. 

Gun rights should only be lost for a felony or a judge related mental defect ruling. Anything else is banning by small cuts, and you know it.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Screw you I only have to renew my CHL every 5 years. I've owned gun for 50 years and not one of them have hurt anyone. Why don't you put you energy in to law enforcement and leave everyone else alone. Criminal ain't going to register shit.


----------



## Ernie S. (Feb 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



I don't care about your problems either dumbo, other than I'm sorry to see you lost your rep. I will not register any weapon I obtained legally before such a law is enacted.
I predict a run on Home Depot for 6" PVC pipe and caps if such a law is passed. I'll need 80 feet and 3 dozen caps


----------



## Ernie S. (Feb 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



But it is oppressive to make him prove he is eligible to cast his vote on ellection day.... Got it.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 9, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



There will be no need, this dips pipe dreams will never be realized. Congress especially the senate don't want this fight. I just like giving the baby boy a hard time.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 9, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Assault weapons are the weapon of choice for shooting it out with the cops, which seldom happens. Handguns are what's generally used in homicides and rifles aren't. I don't think assault weapons are good for home defense, but they are fun to shoot at firing ranges or where you have a lot of land to shoot them safely. I never thought an assault weapons ban was a good idea, but limits on magazine size are in some places, maybe nationally. The smart way is to make these Title II weapons instead of a ban, but I believe weapons need a yearly check and ballistics test to make sure they aren't being trafficked to the wrong people. 

It's you gun nuts caught up on Sandy Hook and you just can't figure out the American people have had enough of the gun violence your bullshit laws allow. Your bullshit ways don't work on rational thinking people.

I keep telling you idiots that when you behave so irresponsibly and try to keep everything as is, the people of this country are going to stick it up your ass and you do deserve it. When you can't be part of the solution, then you have made yourself part of the problem. Don't be surprised when people with less experience with guns make laws that show you no consideration. You didn't show them any consideration, so why should you get it. Our present laws will allow another disaster and it's just a matter of time.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 9, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



I've only brought it up dozens of time. 

You have the right to not have the populace disarmed, so figure it out, fool!


----------



## Dubya (Feb 9, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Who gives a fuck what people who can't even read a simple amendment trust? They only have present power in a Congress they bought and they failed over 99% in the last election. You're kooks and you clowns aren't running this circus.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



I can read it just fine, you just choose to ignore it.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Registration is infringement, no matter how you try to spin it.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 9, 2013)

martybegan said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



That's a great rule, like they just can't set the parameters to not allow it. I guess changing that 24 hours to 48 is too hard to figure out.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Your dear leader is the only one acting irresponsibly, gun prosecutions are way down. And by rational people you mean the lemming easily swayed by the MSM that lack the ability to get the facts for themselves, right?


----------



## martybegan (Feb 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Your solution wont do crap to prevent anything and you know it, or you dont because you lack the cognative function to figure it out.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



You were the one who shut off/had your rep shut off. 

Tutu Tutu Tutu Tutu.


----------



## Crackerjaxon (Feb 9, 2013)

The government keeping closer tabs on people won't do a damned thing to prevent these atrocities.  All it will do is tighten the cinch on personal liberty until the next fiasco.  They they'll use that as an excuse to tighten the cinch a little more.

Liberals soundly reject thie idea of guarding children to keep them safe, unless, of course, they are the children of liberals.

Why shouldn't children in public schools be afforded the same protection as those in elite private schools?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 9, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



I did a thread on the word infringed and it meant destroyed in those days. Broken in the sense of shattering a cup on the floor. It doesn't mean making gun control laws are infringing your rights. They aren't your rights, they are the right to not have the populace disarmed, period. That doesn't mean you can't disarm an individual.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 9, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



We want laws for society and not for you. If don't like it, move!


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



It is 48, although some can't even wait 24, I heard of that recently.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Thats quite a strech...... and you can disarm an individual, ONLY after a conviction for a felony or a judge mandated mental commitment. What you are proposing is prior restraints on ownership, which is infringment, no matter what cup related definition you make up. 

also if you go to the root french word, it is "break, or weaken"

152535;  < Latin infringere  to break, weaken, equivalent to in- in-2  + -fringere,  combining form of frangere  to break


----------



## Dubya (Feb 9, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Why cares if you register, because if that ever becomes law, you will lose the right to have any gun and your guns will be confiscated. If you want to go batshit crazy and die, because you're too stupid to read a constitutional amendment properly, then die. We're better off without you.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



No worries, your pipe dreams will never come to pass, if I thought it would I'd be organizing the militia instead of playing with you.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



How about if you are so scared of lawful gun owners, YOU move to some place that regulates them like you want them?

Hell I'm sure we can get a drive going to buy you a one way plane ticket.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 9, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



ID has always been required in my state, fool!


----------



## asaratis (Feb 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...


I did a thread on the word "W"  (Dubya) one time and it meant "without" as meaning has nothing to offer worth reading.  That doesn't mean you can't post here...just that your posts are completely and utterly meaningless!

There's a category of posters that you, Truthmatters, rdean and a few others belong to.  It's called "Wasted Energy"!


----------



## Dubya (Feb 9, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Congress will make a few changes and some states will make major changes. As time goes by more disasters from our gun laws will happen. Cities and states will notice how gun laws prevent killings and they will change their gun laws. The Republican Party will continue to decline and so will the influence of the NRA. The issue of gun control isn't going to go away.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



And ther changes made by the state so far (NY) is unconsitutional. Whatever happened to equal protection under the law?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 9, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



I researched it and you didn't. You want it to say what you want it to say and not what it says.


----------



## Crackerjaxon (Feb 9, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> If you buy a gun from ANYONE, you should be required to undergo a background check.
> 
> I mean.................you have to liscence your car to run it on the roads, right?



Actually, you don't.  There are all kinds of farm vehicles that aren't licensed because they are not used on public roads.

Schools, the last time I checked, are in loco parentis. They have the same duties as parents to protect the children in their care.

Why aren't the schools protecting our children?  Why are they not taking precautions to prevent the cold-blooded murder of those in their charge?

While lame-brained liberals are running around trying to pass more restrictive laws on law-abiding citizens, our children remain at risk and the schools do nothing.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 9, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Tell it to the Supreme Court, they know how to read!


----------



## martybegan (Feb 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Nah, thats you. I am now leaning towards the "lack of cognative function" for your current viewpoints.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Just like they knew how to read Plessey V. Fergueson? And for some people, Citizen's United?


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



CT already had most of those laws, how that work out. Do you have a learning disability, I wouldn't want to be picking on the handicapped.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 9, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



I don't watch TV, so your bullshit MSM argument is your fabrication. I got my facts by reading the personal letters of the Founders. 

You're just a lying ass gun nut.


----------



## Crackerjaxon (Feb 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Who tells you these things?  Infringe means the same thing today that it meant then.

Go back to school.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 9, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Then it should bother you, should it!


----------



## martybegan (Feb 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Yes, proposing things that do nothing to prevent crime and everything to infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens bothers me. 

I dont think you meant to write it that way... PIYF.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 9, 2013)

Crackerjaxon said:


> The government keeping closer tabs on people won't do a damned thing to prevent these atrocities.  All it will do is tighten the cinch on personal liberty until the next fiasco.  They they'll use that as an excuse to tighten the cinch a little more.
> 
> Liberals soundly reject thie idea of guarding children to keep them safe, unless, of course, they are the children of liberals.
> 
> Why shouldn't children in public schools be afforded the same protection as those in elite private schools?



What tabs are the government keeping on people? They are keeping tabs on guns. People aren't going to want to use a gun in a crime with a ballistics test on file.

If your paranoia is bothering you that bad, get help from a mental health professional, but be careful he doesn't take your guns!


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Damn you flatter yourself, I would never refer to you as anything close to rational, were you only referring to yourself when you used the plural term people? I wasn't referring to you at all.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 9, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



They told me about it and I stayed away for what I thought was 48 hours, but somehow the 6:18 was changed to 9:18 around the time I negged my 14th. I don't know if it was a time zone thing or what and I informed the admin about it.

My policy was to just neg the post and it isn't hard to find them, but you can't neg within 24 hours, because the setting prevent it. You are told to spread some rep around, so why can't they just change the 24 to 48 and either keep it at 20 reps or increase it to 40? Then no one could break the rule. It took me two and a half hours trying to find who to give 20 negs by using the person instead of the post. I'm glad they turned it off, because the PMs were a pain in the ass. I only did it because I gave my word.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 9, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Bullshit! You can disarm someone when they are just charged with a crime.

Face it, you don't know the law or the Constitution!


----------



## Dubya (Feb 9, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



You're militia really has a chance against the Air Force or one Abrams tank. You people are a joke. What makes a man grow up and think he's big and bad enough to take on our military? The military will make sure a tyrant never gains power, so why are you idiots worried about it?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 9, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



I'm not scared of you fucking fools and those laws will be coming to America, because they make sense and we don't want all those unnecessary homicides by gun.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 9, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



I'm not going to say by who but I was negged twice in less than 24 hours in a period that ended yesterday, so yes it can be done. Like I say in my sig, I have never negged anyone who didn't neg me first. I don't need the negative energy (pun intended). I'd rather spar with words than get childish.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



What makes you dumb enough to think the military wouldn't uphold their oath to the Constitution over you milk chocolate dear leader, hell most of them can't stand the sob.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 10, 2013)

asaratis said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



The posts are useless to a gun nut who believes they are right about the 2nd meaning infringed like an infraction and it just doesn't mean that. This isn't like the civil rights days where you rights were violated. The 2nd Amendment only means you can't disarm the populace and that's why I don't confuse you and say public. It's the general public they are talking about when they say people and that doesn't mean person. A person can be disarmed without violating a constititutional right. 

Consider Zimmerman! The cop took his gun as soon as he found him. It's only reasonable to surrender a firearm when you are a suspect in an investigation. When Zimmerman was released, he had death threats against him, but was forbidden to have a gun. He wasn't prosecuted or a convicted felon, but no one claimed his constitutional rights were violated. You people need to get your heads out of your asses.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



He is under indictment, if he is acquitted his firearm will be returned to him.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



You claim there were laws telling the militia what type of gun to buy? Seriously? Do you understand that at the period of history you are expounding there was nothing that you would recognize as a manufacturing base? In fact, at the time, to manufacture something actually meant that it was made by hand.

It would have been impossible for a law that required militia members to buy a certain weapon to be enforced. They were actually smarter back then, so no one would have written such a ridiculous law.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > I want to ask a question here of the people pushing the "Gun Show Loophole" stuff.
> ...



Why not tell you that? You expect us to believe that the laws you support will stop it.


----------



## Ernie S. (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



It's not us "gun nuts" that are shooting up schools. Yearly checks of my legal weapons will serve no useful purpose other than to turn me into a felon when I refuse to comply.
You have a lot of balls sitting there calling us idiots.



> When you can't be part of the solution, then you have made yourself part of the problem.



Your suggestions are not a solution. You would succeed in making more criminals, but you wouldn't save one single school kid.

I asked you to provide a solution that would actually save a life in some random school 3 months forward. Instead you propose more restrictions and responsibilities for people who are not going to stuff their pockets with 30 round mags and walk into a grammar school. 

I gave you one simple task and you can't do that. Answer my question or concede that you have no idea what to do other than disarm Conservatives.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Let me try to answer that in a way you will actually comprehend.







The simple fact is that I am free to say whatever I want, wherever I want. I know that bothers you, and you will work to take away that once you take away the guns. 

I just won't let you take away the guns.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 10, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



I haven't seen any unconstitutional changes in NY law, but I'm sure a gun nut has, because they don't know what is constitutional and they can't learn. That's why they fashion themselves are revolutionaries and play out their childhood fantasies of being a hero. They are too stupid to do proper research and realize the whole thing involves them taking written words and putting their own meaning into those words, instead of what the people writing those words and the people voting to support those words meant. It's no different than someone speaking to you and you telling them what they meant according to what you choose to believe they said. The person insists they meant this and you keep insisting they meant that, as if you controlled what another person meant. It's all the product of a reprobate mind.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



You want background checks on people who buy knives? And some people think I should compromise with you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Assault weapons like these?






The simple truth is that most police who end up in shootouts are going up against people with handguns. The reason for that is pretty obvious to anyone who thinks about it.

By the way, why are the police worried about the fact that Dorner has a .50 caliber rifle if assault weapons are the scariest things on the planet?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 10, 2013)

Crackerjaxon said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > If you buy a gun from ANYONE, you should be required to undergo a background check.
> ...



At least 18 states allow guns in schools, because that's how many there were before states started changing their laws and allowing guns in schools. Most states leave it up to the school to decide and it's a local issue and shouldn't even be a state issue. 

Connecticut allowed guns in their schools, so if the people there want protection all they have to do is hire it and get the school to approve it. It might cost a few extra dollars per year in property taxes and it should be the schools choice. If a state doesn't allow guns in schools, then they can hire cops, because the gun comes with them or they could change their states laws and allow private security. It's not a good idea to have the weapons on teachers who could lose control of that weapon.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 10, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



You're ADHD on guns.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...




Care to link to the thread so I can mock you properly? The practice of using infringe to mean encroach, which is how we use it today, actually predates the Declaration of Independence.



> infringe (v.)
> 
> mid-15c., enfrangen, "to violate," from Latin infringere "to damage, break off, break, bruise," from in- "in" (see in- (2)) + frangere "to break" (see fraction). *Meaning of "encroach" first recorded c.1760. *Related: Infringed; infringing.



Online Etymology Dictionary


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



No it has not.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 10, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



The law is based on case law and the constitutionality in question has been determined. They can't say all pistols or rifles are banned, but they can pick out particular weapons and you have been told that is the law. You don't have to like the law to know what the law is and who would like every law?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Haynes v US says that requiring a person to register a gun violates the 5th Amendment because it forces people to testify against themselves.

Freed reinforced that by ruling that any law requiring registration cannot be used as a means of prosecuting people who comply with it for violating the law by being in possession of a weapon.

Care to explain how any of this is going to magically prevent disasters?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 10, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



CT had a situation involving someone who was mentally ill getting a weapon, but generally that isn't the case for homicide by gun. CT just woke people up to the violence that has been plaguing America, so you learn to deal with it for a change. If the people want to make laws to protect society and those laws are deemed constitutional by the courts, we aren't going to put up with idiots of the right-wing threatening this country with violence. We aren't going to play games with you. You get out of line and we're going to take your ass down. You don't have to live in this country and you don't have to live. We aren't going to put up with right-wing scum telling us how we have to live and if you think that's unfair that's just too bad.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



You can neg a person twice within 3 hours if you work at it. Your CP also has a complete list of every rep you handed out in the last 48 hours, The software didn't screw up, you did.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Tanks are pretty easy for individuals who know what they are doing to take out, which is why they are never used in cities unless they have infantry guarding them. Planes have to land.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



You are as good at history as your are etymology.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 10, 2013)

Crackerjaxon said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



The dictionary tells me, fool, and guess what, they had dictionaries back then.



> in·fringe (n-frnj)
> v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es
> v.tr.
> 1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
> 2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.



Source: infringe - definition of infringe by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

What does the word obsolete mean? This is a modern dictionary telling you the word infringe had a different meaning in the past. You can't know things by just making things up to support what you want it to be.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Baby boy, you didn't answer my question. And if you were really worried about gun violence you would be going after the people that are committing it, so don't sit there and lie your ass off. I'm beginning to think you are learning disabled.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 10, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Do nothing is what you gun nuts stand for and we know that doesn't work. 

I saw the figure that 92% of Americans support universal background checks, but none of you gun nuts support it and now neither does Wayne LaPierre. He is on record supporting it in the past, so why the change? What makes you think that 8% of our people are going to have control over our laws? Do you think the criminals want universal background checks? Gun nuts are part of the problem and they won't be part of the solution. You can find a group on the internet, but you aren't going to find many in society, so you have no power like your fantasies claim.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Did you miss the figure in the same poll that shows over 80% of Americans oppose registration?


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 10, 2013)

Did you check out Bfgrn's link?  [iii]Dept of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, Following the Gun: Enforcing Federal Laws Against Firearms Traffickers (June 2000), *(documents criminal investigations started July 1996 through December 1998).*

Got any current stats?




Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


----------



## Dubya (Feb 10, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



You have a minority point of view that is irrational, so of course, all those rational people are irrational to you. In your little world, you are right and everyone else is wrong. I would say *you* flatter yourself. It's the old everyone is crazy, but you and no wonder you worry about your guns.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

MeBelle60 said:


> Did you check out Bfgrn's link?  [iii]Dept of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, Following the Gun: Enforcing Federal Laws Against Firearms Traffickers (June 2000), *(documents criminal investigations started July 1996 through December 1998).*
> 
> Got any current stats?



For some strange reason, no one has any current stats. This makes me a tad suspicious, why are we constantly relying on data that is almost 20 years old? Since gun violence has gone down since then, is it possible that the entire problem exists only in the imagination of gun control nuts?


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



It's easy to poll bumper sticker bull like "Universal Background Check", how many do you think would support it if you told them what would be required to accomplish that? You fucking commies are always great on slogans and very short on details. And it works on sheep like you.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



So far you're the only person I've talked to that agrees with you, so you might reconsider who is in the minority.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 10, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



I don't give a shit about the person and only the post. When right-wingers are going to neg me for not having the same opinion as they do and troll threads instead of discuss the issues, then they get negged back. I oppose the ideology and it isn't hard to find 20 bad posts. There could be some kind of clock allowing the next round of negs to begin at a certain time of day. Maybe the settings involve having at least 20 others before you can neg the person again, so if a person is negged at a certain time, it's possible negs could be available within 24 hours to do it again. Regardless, it's something the admins should deal with by setting up the system right to prevent it from happening. I'm sure they can change the time parameters for the rep. It's stupid to expect people to watch over 20 people per day that they negged and make sure they don't neg them again in 48 hours.


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Is this how you take responsibility for your actions? Blame others? Blame the rules? 
You can't understand the simple rep system how could you even begin to understand the legal system or that there is no such thing as a "gun show loop hole" no matter how you wish there was?

Thank God you don't own a gun!


----------



## Dubya (Feb 10, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



I've been in the military and they aren't going to agree with you.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 10, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > asaratis said:
> ...



Did you correct the idiot claiming only felons and the mentally ill can be disarmed?


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



You seemed to enjoy negging me and I never did it first. But you one of only about four that I've ever negged, two of the four I didn't return the last one I got from them because it would have been against the terms of service. That's all I got to say about it.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Right, I'm retired military and I think they would, what part of the country do you think the majority of our military come from. It ain't NYC.


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> I don't give a shit about the person and only the post. When right-wingers are going to neg me for not having the same opinion as they do and troll threads instead of discuss the issues, then they get negged back. I oppose the ideology and it isn't hard to find 20 bad posts. There could be some kind of clock allowing the next round of negs to begin at a certain time of day. Maybe the settings involve having at least 20 others before you can neg the person again, so if a person is negged at a certain time, it's possible negs could be available within 24 hours to do it again. Regardless, *it's something the admins should deal with by setting up the system right to prevent it from happening.* I'm sure they can change the time parameters for the rep. It's stupid to expect people to watch over 20 people per day that they negged and make sure they don't neg them again in 48 hours.



Are you saying you want to be nannied so you can opt out of taking personal responsibility for your decisions?
Did you fail Kindergarten where you were taught how to tell time? 



> it's something the * Government * should deal with by setting up the system right to prevent it from happening...


by closing that mythical "gun show loop hole", I'm sure.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Only they can have their rights revoked. Thats different form them being suspended by a court while charges are pending.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 10, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



What is with idiots like you? The world isn't all about your limited understanding, nor is it based on just what you know. I've read problems encountered in training those militia. One of the big problems was supplying shot to various kinds of rifles requiring different shot. Having uniform weapons prevented problems with getting the right shot in the heat of battle. Another major problem was a bayonet. The weapons were very lethal at short ranges, but slow to fire, requiring the rifles to be equipped with a bayonet, so the troops could just keep advancing until they could use their bayonets. There was basically three kinds of forces in those battles. You have your cannon, your cavalry and your infantry riflemen. If your riflemen weren't equipped with bayonets they can't stand against a cavalry charge, that can swoop in quickly against them after they fire and are reloading. With a bayonet the rifle can serve as a pike preventing a cavalry charge. When the lines of infantry approached to the point of hand to hand combat, the bayonet came in much more handy than using a rifle as a club. If a line ran in retreat, they exposed their backside to the enemy and again were subject to a cavalry charge or being shot in the back.

Uniform weapons allowed a militia to have all kinds of advantages. Besides consistent shot and bayonets, identical weapons allowed damaged weapons to exchange parts. The line rifles were different than sharpshooter rifles designed to snipe and pick off officers often on horseback. A well regulated militia required having all the components of their modern army, but the line soldier was needed in sufficient numbers to command the field of battle and avoid being flanked. 

Men of a certain age were required to train with the militia and provide their own weapons. That meant they had to work and pay for a specific weapon and gear. That's why there was so much disagreement over allowing religious exemptions in Congress and they finally just remove all that wording in the 2nd Amendment and allowed the states to decide what to do about it. The dispute was over the fairness issue, because there was a significant expense involved in serving in a militia. Some thought the person getting a religious exemption should pay and it was pointed out that such payments were the same as participation to certain religious sects. Congress couldn't come to a consensus about what to do so they dropped it and allowed the states to figure it out. 

We were manufacturing rifles then and were manufacturing rifles long before the revolutionary war. What the hell do you think Daniel Boone was using?









> The longrifle developed on the American frontier in south eastern Pennsylvania, in the early 1700's. It continued to be developed technically and artistically until it passed out of fashion in the 19th century. Strong pockets of longrifle use and manufacture continued in the Appalachian Mountains of Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio and North Carolina well into the 20th century as a practical and efficient firearm for those rural segments of the nation. Longrifles could be made entirely by hand and hand-operated tooling, in a frontier setting.
> 
> .....By the 1750s it was common to see frontiersmen carrying the new and distinctive style of rifle.



Source: Long rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Dubya (Feb 10, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OriginalShroom said:
> ...



How many times do I have to tell you I don't give a fuck what you believe? You're a gun nut, shouldn't that explain it all?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 10, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I like


----------



## Dubya (Feb 10, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Gun nuts do shoot up schools, do you think only pacifists do it?

Fuck your task and you with it! How many times do you gun nuts have to be told, we don't care what you think or what you want? You can either follow the law or pay the consequences, if ever caught. You've helped so many criminals, you might as well join them. You never have been on the side of law and order, so what else is new?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 10, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Say what you want, fool, but I'm not discussing abortion on a thread about gun control. You're an idiot if you think society can't ban assault weapons.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 10, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



You don't have a clue what infringe means because you have never looked it up in a contemporary dictionary of that time or understood the Latin, which was it's root. When a modern dictionary tells you a word has an obsolete meaning, you don't look for a modern meaning to explain what was meant in the past. You have windbagged all these posts to express your stupid ideas. Why is a fool like you telling people you don't know about abortion and assault weapons and what weapons really means to you instead of what they are saying, Windbag? You don't have a clue of what my position is on abortion or assault weapons, so why waste the posts like you do? You are just a fool running his fool mouth about all kinds of things you don't understand and you usually have some kind of conspiracy theme incorporated in your point of view, like all those scientists and governments lying about warmer temperatures.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 10, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



It's been explained to all you idiots that controlling the guns on the city streets will stop most gun violence and having ballistics tests on file will make a person not want to use that gun. Unregistered firearms will leave America. It's more than going after a criminal, it's making it so someone doesn't become a criminal. Maybe the gun nuts can take their place and we can get rid of your raunchy hides.


----------



## Charles_Main (Feb 10, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



See this is why I think we should go the route of a Gun Owners license. If they are going to have a list. I want it to be just a general list of people licensed to own a gun, not a list of what fucking guns I OWN lol.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 10, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



How many are going to be buying a gun and how long does it take to have a background check done? The odds are they will buy a gun in a gun store and have a background check done without a problem. I think most of them will say if they had to have a background check, then so should everybody else. Only a few gun nuts and criminals don't want background checks.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 10, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



This is a political forum and not society. The people in this forum didn't elect the president by the way they voted. There are people who like my ideas and they believe it will make a difference. If I went to a liberal forum they would approve of those types of policies. Many gun owners would like the protection such laws would bring.


----------



## Clementine (Feb 10, 2013)

A felon can be someone who committed a non-violent crime.   Once they pay their debt to society, do they still have a right to defend themselves?   I say yes.

And who will decide which people are not mentally capable of being responsible with a weapon?   Clearly, there are sociopaths and psychopaths who are dangerous no matter what.   Other people might have other mental illnesses, like a fear of heights or flying.   Should they be denied the right to protect themselves?

Thing is, the criminals will always find a way to obtain weapons, like they always have.   Crazy people hellbent on harming others will always find a way to do that.   

When people are clearly dangerous, such as diagnosed psychopaths or those convicted of violent crimes, then don't allow them to legally purchase a weapon.   Not that it will stop them from illegally purchasing a weapon.

The worst thing we could do is stop law abiding people from purchasing them.   It's a right we have and it's a dangerous world.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 10, 2013)

MeBelle60 said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



Suck a lemon, if your mouth can find the time!

I never saw the rules, so what responsibility? I simply pointed out another way to do the same thing and not have to be bothered by someone breaking the rules, because the rules can't be broken. 

I know it's strange to you, but it's called: using your mind.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 10, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Then let's check a textbook...

false dichotomy

Noun

false dichotomy (plural false dichotomies)

    (logical fallacy) A situation in which two alternative points of views are presented as the only options, whereas others are available.

Now, ask the butler where you went wrong Jethro.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 10, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



You believe the military will support an idiot trying to kill liberals or change this government? That's totally crazy. If I wanted to know where the military came from, I'd look it up like this:

http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/cffr-10.pdf

Now, can you explain why so many people in the Navy come from North Carolina?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 10, 2013)

MeBelle60 said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > I don't give a shit about the person and only the post. When right-wingers are going to neg me for not having the same opinion as they do and troll threads instead of discuss the issues, then they get negged back. I oppose the ideology and it isn't hard to find 20 bad posts. There could be some kind of clock allowing the next round of negs to begin at a certain time of day. Maybe the settings involve having at least 20 others before you can neg the person again, so if a person is negged at a certain time, it's possible negs could be available within 24 hours to do it again. Regardless, *it's something the admins should deal with by setting up the system right to prevent it from happening.* I'm sure they can change the time parameters for the rep. It's stupid to expect people to watch over 20 people per day that they negged and make sure they don't neg them again in 48 hours.
> ...



Nannied? Are you just a fool, only a fool and nothing but a fool? 

What about it takes time to deal with shit so just set the system up to prevent someone from giving negs within 48 hours. Switch the amount of rep to 40 and set the time to 48 hours instead of 24. Problem solved and no one has to do anything.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 10, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



The word used was disarmed.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 10, 2013)

Charles_Main said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



I'm not interested in the guns you own. I'm interesting in the person who doesn't have the guns he owned and I want to know what happened to the guns.


----------



## sfcalifornia (Feb 10, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > A spin off of the other thread where I have asked numerous times and not a single right winger has answered, is if you support the gun show loophole.
> ...



You can't sell a house or a car to just anyone without filling out the proper paperwork and registering it with government agencies.  You even need to carry insurance with both.  The same rules should apply to gun-ownership.  You should have to pass a written test and demonstrate you are able to handle a gun in order to obtain a gun license.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 10, 2013)

Clementine said:


> A felon can be someone who committed a non-violent crime.   Once they pay their debt to society, do they still have a right to defend themselves?   I say yes.
> 
> And who will decide which people are not mentally capable of being responsible with a weapon?   Clearly, there are sociopaths and psychopaths who are dangerous no matter what.   Other people might have other mental illnesses, like a fear of heights or flying.   Should they be denied the right to protect themselves?
> 
> ...



How is any proposal stopping a law abiding citizen from purchasing a gun? If we had good laws, the world wouldn't be such a dangerous place.


----------



## S.J. (Feb 10, 2013)

sfcalifornia said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...


Wrong.  Owning a car is a privilege, owning a firearm is a right.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 10, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> There is no gun show loophole.
> 
> If one purchases a firearm from a licensed dealer at gun show, a background check is completed, just as if the firearm was purchased at the dealers shop.
> 
> ...



There certainly is a  gun show loophole, because it was written into the 'law' that you reference. The 'loophole' was a concession to gun lobbyists to pass the legislation. It is a textbook example of the corrosive influence of special interests whose agenda is not the well being and safety of We, the People. Their agenda is selling guns. PERIOD. The more guns the better, irregardless of WHO the buyer is. That is not in the best interest of the citizens of our nation.

If you can't discern this fact, you need to do some research or search your conscience.

It is not what a lawyer tells me I may do; but what humanity, reason, and justice tell me I ought to do.
Edmund Burke


----------



## sfcalifornia (Feb 10, 2013)

S.J. said:


> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


That doesn't mean proper precautions shouldn't be taken.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Feb 10, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> It is a textbook example of the corrosive influence of special interests whose agenda is not the well being and safety of We, the People.



My being is most well and I am safest when I can defend my family.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 10, 2013)

sfcalifornia said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > sfcalifornia said:
> ...



Yep they have said that in the past


----------



## Oddball (Feb 10, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


Exactly...Your idiotic, ineffective and fascistic way or "why have any laws at all?...ANARCHY!"

Somebody is wrong here and ain't me, dumb fuck.

P.S....Your idiotic and completely ineffective background checks are still idiotic and completely ineffective, so, yes, they should be ended altogether.


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > I want to ask a question here of the people pushing the "Gun Show Loophole" stuff.
> ...



Why didn't you answer the question I asked?

Just how many of these "Private Sellers" do you think show up at gun shows?  What's the ratio to Licensed Dealers?



And to answer your question.. Unless the person had a CCW/CCP, they would be waiting the full three business days before they were able to get the gun, which would be Thursday.

And yes, if he was buying the gun to resell it, that would be considered a "Straw Purchase" which is illegal.

Are you trying to say that your gun laws you want pushed don't work?

Hell, we've been saying that for years.


----------



## DiamondDave (Feb 10, 2013)

Gotta love how this myth is still being portrayed by the leftist trolls


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Typical Left Wing Response..   You are all too willing to discuss restricting rights you don't like, but don't even mention restricting rights that you do.


----------



## Liability (Feb 10, 2013)

Gun Show Loophole? What Gun Show Loophole? | The Truth About Guns


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



But what will you do when the "unnecessary homicides" are by Knife, Club, Rope, or Fist?


----------



## Oddball (Feb 10, 2013)

DiamondDave said:


> Gotta love how this myth is still being portrayed by the leftist trolls


Not only that, but you'll straighten them out on the facts one day and the same goobers will be back two days later, spouting the same lies.

They're not mistaken or ignorant...They're bold-faced, unabashed, inveterate  liars.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 10, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



or still by gun, because criminals do not obey the law?


----------



## Ringel05 (Feb 10, 2013)

Do You Support The "Gun Show Loophole?"

Not sure.  How heavy is it?  Can't be too heavy if it has a hole in it.


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 10, 2013)

martybegan said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



While that is a given, I was allowing him his wet dream that there would be no more guns in the hands of the private citizen.

What so many of the gun grabbers don't understand, which is why I got caught in a parody site the other day, is that if they got their dream and no one had guns, that wouldn't end deadly violence.

The same day as the Newton shootings, there was a knife attack in China.  Nearly the same number children lost their ears and fingers in that attack.  That guy could have very easily slit the throats of those kids instead of cutting off their ears.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 10, 2013)

sfcalifornia said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...



What government agency do you have to register a house sale with? 

You do not need homeowners insurance if you buy cash its a requirement for a mortgage, which is a private contractural requirement. For car insurance its only to use public roads. 

Also home ownership and car ownership are not rights.


----------



## UKRider (Feb 10, 2013)

It doesn't matter. The hole is to be closed and with additional legislation.



> Bipartisan committee vote advances legislation
> 
> Updated: Saturday, 09 Feb 2013, 6:11 PM MST
> Published : Saturday, 09 Feb 2013, 4:58 PM MST
> ...



Bill ending 'gun show loophole' gets OK


----------



## sfcalifornia (Feb 10, 2013)

martybegan said:


> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



You need to register the deed with the local government when you buy a house regardless whether you pay cash or take out a mortgage.  There are also state and local fees required on closing.

Most states require proof of car insurance simply to register the car.  You can be fined for not having a car registered even if it sitting unused on your own property.  I know this because a tenant of mine received such a fine in PA.

Home ownership and car ownership are not rights but the Constitution guarantees my right to drink alcohol and that is regulated and carries limitations.  My right to vote is guaranteed at age 18 but I still need to register with the local government in order to do so.  If Republicans had their way, my right to vote would be even more regulated.  Amendments are not untouchable.  Rights may be guaranteed but stipulations can and will be imposed.


----------



## asaratis (Feb 10, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> .........
> 
> Assault weapons like these?
> 
> ...




LOL!  I must spread some rep before giving to you again.  So says the machine!

Anyway...it is true that many people are deathly afraid of being cut by scissors (not stabbed, but sliced by the scissor action) because it can make a wound that just will not stop bleeding...sort of like a long slash with a razor blade.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 10, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



So...felons wear signs now?  I work with a felon.  If I asked 10,000 people to pick out the felon I work with, I would bet than not more than two would be correct.  Most would probably pick the dude with arms covered with tattoos (he's actually former US Army Airborne, retired after 22 years) or the guy that looks like he spent the last 10 years pumping iron (because he DID spend the last 10 years pumping iron, and was a gym manager and personal trainer until the economy went south & the place closed).  No, other than riding a motorcycle (a little Yamaha), the felon I work with looks like a normal guy.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 10, 2013)

sfcalifornia said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > sfcalifornia said:
> ...



The registration is for tax purposes, not to determine if you own one or not. Also the "registrstration" is not limited in any way. Anyone can own a house. If you were to treat gun ownership like house ownership in some states only the police and government officals would be able to own houses without a waiting period or onerous requirements. 

For the cars, if you have enough property you dont need to register a car. The cases you talk about are probably when parked in a driveway with ACESSS ONLY to public roads. There is a difference.


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 10, 2013)

UKRider said:


> It doesn't matter. The hole is to be closed and with additional legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




ROFLMAO




> The amended bill, however, does not require background checks for private sales as its sponsor originally proposed.   [/quote}
> 
> That IS the Gun Show Loophole


----------



## UKRider (Feb 10, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> UKRider said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't matter. The hole is to be closed and with additional legislation.
> ...


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 10, 2013)

UKRider said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > UKRider said:
> ...


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 10, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > There is no gun show loophole.
> ...



he is not ignorant.  Ignorance can be corrected.  He is STUPID.


----------



## UKRider (Feb 10, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> UKRider said:
> 
> 
> > OriginalShroom said:
> ...


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 10, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Selling a firearm to a felon is already illegal, even if you are NOT a federal firearms dealer.
> 
> and what is the difference between a craiglist ad and some guy arranging a street buy for you?
> 
> More restrictions on legal gunowners, and no effect on the illegal gun trade.




Without a gun registration process, there is no way to know who sold what weapon to whom.


Without mandatory background checks, private gun sellers can always claim ignorance of the fact that a person is a felon.


And Republicans have effectively hamstrung enforcement of existing gun laws.

If we could track where the criminal were getting their guns, and actually hold them responsible, then said illegal gun sales would decrease exponentially, as private gun sellers would actually pay attention to who they were selling their guns to, or face jail time.

I continuously hear people talking about how gun control would be ineffective because criminals will get weapons anyway...

And they're right.  I agree that stopping the sale of guns is not the answer.

But where do you think the criminals are getting them from?


----------



## Oddball (Feb 10, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Selling a firearm to a felon is already illegal, even if you are NOT a federal firearms dealer.
> ...


How do background checks of law abiding people impede thieves and black marketers?


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 10, 2013)

sfcalifornia said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...



I can sell a car to anyone I choose to.  I do not need to file any paperwork (aside from the bill of sale, a contract between buyer & seller).  I do not need any licence of any sort to own a car.  You fail.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 10, 2013)

Oddball said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Gotta love how this myth is still being portrayed by the leftist trolls
> ...



Be fair...some of them might actually be THAT stupid!


----------



## sfcalifornia (Feb 10, 2013)

martybegan said:


> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


The purpose of registration is irrelevant.  The fact is, you must register houses, cars and guns with the government in some fashion for different reasons.  Since they are different objects used for different purposes, it stands to reason the purpose for registration would be different as well.

Who buys a car to drive around ONLY on all their acreage?  A tractor maybe or a 4-wheel drive to wrangle cattle or something but regardless of all that, you still have to take a written test and a driving test to obtain a license to operate a vehicle whether you drive on your property or on the roads.  And don't tell me that tractor or cattle-wrangling 4-wheel isn't going to drive down a public road at some point.

No comment on alcohol or voting requirements even though they are guaranteed by the Constitution?  That's the real argument here.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 10, 2013)

martybegan said:


> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Registry/registrar of deeds, usually.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 10, 2013)

Oddball said:


> How do background checks of law abiding people impede thieves and black marketers?



It does not.

However, it will make people stop making legal sales of guns to people they have no information on, which happens in private sales all the time.

The perfect example of this are guns sold through the infamous "Gun Show Loophole", which is the following:



> U.S. federal law requires persons engaged in interstate firearm commerce, or those who are "engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, to hold a Federal Firearms License and perform background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System maintained by the FBI prior to transferring a firearm.
> 
> Under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, however, individuals "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence,* are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale* (although even private sellers are forbidden under federal law from selling firearms to persons they have reason to believe are felons or otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms).



Gun shows in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which means that private sellers can resell legally bought weapons to whomever is willing to pay them for said weapons, without fear of recrimination.


----------



## sfcalifornia (Feb 10, 2013)

Jarlaxle said:


> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


When you buy a car, you need to notify the DMV about the transfer of title and I don't know where you get the idea that you don't need a drivers license to operate a vehicle but if you've been driving without one then you are an idiot.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 10, 2013)

And, for the record, I am against things like assault weapon bans, etc.

I don't think that will help the situation at all.

However, I do believe that the ability to track all sales of weapons to their point of origin, and then providing laws to require that sellers take some responsibility for their actions, when weapons are sold to criminals, would do a hell of a lot to get the guns that criminals use off the street.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 10, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> And, for the record, I am against things like assault weapon bans, etc.
> 
> I don't think that will help the situation at all.
> 
> However, I do believe that the ability to track all sales of weapons to their point of origin, and then providing laws to require that sellers take some responsibility for their actions, when weapons are sold to criminals, would do a hell of a lot to get the guns that criminals use off the street.



Which came first gun registration or gun confiscation?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 10, 2013)

For the 1001th time there is no gun show loophole.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 10, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OriginalShroom said:
> ...



You claim to have recently went to a gun show and now you act like you know it all. Here are some of the things you have said that are dishonest. You claim there is a waiting period, so be specific about your state, it's laws and whether other states have waiting periods! Be specific whether it involves all guns or certain types of guns! Let's start with just a few specific points and not hide behind the generalities. Is there a federal law about gun shows and what they can and can't do, or are those you mention state laws that vary greatly from place to place?

You can have a major city near many different states and many different laws. For the situation to change in that major city, it has to change in those nearby areas.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 10, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



The 2nd Amendment only means the populace can't be disarmed and making rules about guns are not restricting your rights, fool!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Restricting firearms that would some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, would be unconstitutional.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 10, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...



Why do you need a back ground check from the government when you already know the person your selling the firearm too?



> Also I'd love to see the link proving that most sales are between friends, otherwise I'd hate to think you are a lying sack of shit



I would love to see a link to support the claim 40% of gun sales are done without a back ground check?


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



You had not better be calling me a liar.

I go to the gunshow every time it comes to town which is about every 90 days.

I will not tell you where the gun show was, as that may give you some information as to where I live and I will not have another Left Wing Loon stalking me in RL.

If you don't believe the facts as I have presented them, that is your problem, not mine.

I will say that this State has a 3 business day waiting period for handguns that are sold to people who do not have a CWP/CCP.   Business days.  So if you buy on a Friday, Saturday, or Sunday, the 3 days does not start until Monday and it is not until the 4th day, Thursday, that you can actually pick up your gun.

And Yes, I do know the gun laws of this State fairly well.   I better.   I have a CWP/CCP.

And btw, the gun show is continuing today, but since I had to be at work early, I didn't make it today, even though I normally go both days.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



I have never negged anyone for their opinion. I also do not neg simply because I am negged. I only neg extremely annoying people who are so stupid they should be sterilized to protect the gene pool.

You, on the other hand, are an arrogant pussy who thinks he knows everything, loves to ignore facts, and refuses to ever learn from his mistakes.

The data you have about gun sales is based on a 20 year old survey with 231 respondents. That leads anyone who is honest to be a tad skeptical about the numbers.

The poll, as I have already pointed out, also has massive majorities that oppose the very policies you propose, yet you use it to claim you are in the majority. That makes you a lying sack of shit, and one of the people that deserve neg rep. This is further proven by you being so stupid you can't wait 48 hours to neg someone. 

On top of that you whine about the fact you cannot tell time. If they take pity on your stupidity and turn your rep back on I will neg you until your negs add to people's rep.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



That was funny. You think that retired SEALs are going to let a bunch of pussies take their weapons away because they have PTSD? You think the active duty military is going to enforce laws that will end up disarming them when they retire? Do you actually expect me to believe you are this fucking stupid?


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 10, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



It should be simple to understand. But that is a reach for you Jethro.

As citizens, we can't stop a criminal from buying an illegal firearm from the trunk of another criminal in some dark alley. But we CAN stop criminals from buying weapons in the light of day in the safe, secure setting of a public gun show.

In some dark alley IS WHERE a criminal should be forced to buy a gun. In a totally illegal setting, with all the inherent dangers that come with it. BUT, our current laws sanction criminals being able to walk into a gun show, receive expert advice, discounts, then buy whatever weapon(s) they desire without a background check or having to pay black market prices or risk the dangers of buying a weapon from another criminal in a dark alley.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



That was exactly my fucking point, aswswipe.

Guns were made by hand, it is impossible to get thousands, or even hundreds, of guns that are all the same caliber when every single gun is made by hand, even if the same guy makes every single one of them. 

As I already pointed out, at the time we are speaking of manufacture meant that it was hand crafted by an artisan, not put together by a bunch of unskilled workers along an assembly line. Feel free to keep agreeing with me every time you post, it amuses me to watch you pretend to understand etymology because you read that infringe did not mean encroach upon 2000 years before the 2nd Amendment was written.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



This is going to be fun.

I do not own a gun, and happen to be a really lousy shot. I am not a gun nut, I am a freedom nut, and I understand that my freedom requires other people to be just as free as I am.

Since you can't even get what I am correct, why should I believe that you understand something as complicated as law?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



I know society can ban anything it wants, which is why I oppose society in all its forms. Society is anti freedom, and no one who puts freedom above everything ever agrees with society. That is why, in the end, society always loses to the gun nuts.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 10, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



And those 20 first graders and 6 teachers from Connecticut are 'free'...you moron.

"The care of human life and happiness, *and not their destruction*, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."
Thomas Jefferson to  the Republican Citizens of Washington County, Maryland" (March 31, 1809).


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



So now for a second time I am going to ask why you won't answer the question I asked you....

Just how many people, private sellers, do you think show up to sell guns at a gun show versus the number of Licensed Dealers?

Do you think the ratio is 1:1?  10:1? 1:10? 1:20? Something different?   You are throwing all kinds of numbers out there, making all kinds of proclaimations..  Demanding answers to your questions..   So how about answering one for a change?

This is the third time that I have asked the question.  Are you going to ignore it again?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



The most extensive dictionary of the English language at that time was compiled by Noah Webster in 1806. There were dictionaries before that time, but they were no where near as complete as his. Care to inform me which dictionary you allegedly read that makes you right and all the etymologists, who actually make their living doing this kind of thing, wrong? Or did you expect me to sputter in defeat because I am as ignorant as you are about dictionaries?

By the way, I won an unabridged desktop version of the Oxford English Dictionary, the one that comes with a magnifying glass because the type is impossible for most people to read without it. It defines encroach as intrude on (a person's territory, rights, personal life. etc.) and dates that usage to late Middle English.

That, in case you want to sputter about it being something else, began in the time of Chaucer, which was the latter part of the 15th century. The earliest English dictionary I know of was written 200 years after that point in time, so any dictionary you ever read, if it included encroach, would have used that definition.

I would still like a link to the thread so I can properly mock you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Controlling the guns on city streets worked so well in Chicago and Washington DC. I am absolutely amazed that anyone can look at those two examples and argue against gun control.

As for ballistics, I know you have already challenged me to prove that it is junk science, and ignored me after I did so, so I won't bother to prove it again.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

Clementine said:


> A felon can be someone who committed a non-violent crime.   Once they pay their debt to society, do they still have a right to defend themselves?   I say yes.
> 
> And who will decide which people are not mentally capable of being responsible with a weapon?   Clearly, there are sociopaths and psychopaths who are dangerous no matter what.   Other people might have other mental illnesses, like a fear of heights or flying.   Should they be denied the right to protect themselves?
> 
> ...



The neat thing is that federal law leaves the discretion about gun rights up to the individual states. That means that federal law doesn't actually prevent felons from owning guns, it just extends the provisions of whatever state a person was convicted under nationwide, which prevents a felon from moving to another state and owning a gun.

For example, Texas allows anyone with a non violent conviction to own a gun as soon as they finish their sentence, and allows violent felons to own a gun 5 years after they serve their sentence. Thus federal law does not prohibit anyone convicted in Texas from owning a gun because the state restores their rights.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Let me see if you can understand something here. 

You say background checks are effective, he says they are not. You accuse him of the logical fallacy of a false dichotomy because he disagrees with you. 

Here comes the part that you might have trouble with, in order for their to be a false dichotomy their actually has to be more than two possible options. Care to explain what other alternatives apply here? We have background checks work, or they are ineffective, or...

This is your chance to show how smart you are.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



It is none of your business.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

sfcalifornia said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...



Sure I can.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> > A felon can be someone who committed a non-violent crime.   Once they pay their debt to society, do they still have a right to defend themselves?   I say yes.
> ...



That was funny, thanks for the laugh.

Now to the serious part, laws do not make the world safe. In fact, laws are so bad at making the world safe that any law that attempts to is, by definition, a bad law.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > There is no gun show &#8216;loophole.&#8217;
> ...



If it was actually written into the law you should have no problem proving that. The simple fact is that the law, as originally written, prohibited dealers from selling guns anywhere except at the address listed on their FFL. Since the law never applied to private sellers, because it couldn't have and been constitutional, they fact that private sellers made gun sales was ignored by the federal government. When the technology improved, and it was actually possible to run instant background checks, the law was rewritten to allow dealers to sell anywhere they were, including gun shows, as long as they ran a background check.

Care to point out how that made a loophole for gun shows when it only applies to FFL holders?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

sfcalifornia said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > sfcalifornia said:
> ...



The government cannot fine you for not registering a car if you use it on your property, even in PA. To prove you are wrong all I need to point out is your tenant had the car on your property, not his.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

Jarlaxle said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Try standing in court and blithering about how felons don't look any different if you ever get charged with doing something like that, then come back and rell me what the judge says.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> UKRider said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't matter. The hole is to be closed and with additional legislation.
> ...



They wrote a bill to close a loophole that doesn't exist, and then didn't even apply it to something that everyone insists is the loophole.

Amazing.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 10, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> For the 1001th time there is no gun show loophole.



There is in fact a "Gun Show Loophole".

However, it applies to any situation where a private, unlicensed owner, is selling a small number of weapons to another person.

Private sales via people who are not licensed dealers do not require a background check, whether said sale happens at a Gun Show or not.  

They are simply more common at Gun Shows, and are thus referred to as the "Gun Show Loophole".

In other words, If I went and purchased 3 guns from a dealer, and then went home and sold them to some random guy up the road, there would be no paperwork necessary for the sale of said weapons.

Which is why straw buyers were able to go and purchase a bunch of weapons at gun shops and then turn around and hand them to the Mexican Mafia.

All you people that screamed and moaned about "Fast and Furious" should already know that.

And I am very sure that you were one of those people Gadawg.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Selling a firearm to a felon is already illegal, even if you are NOT a federal firearms dealer.
> ...



What makes you think the government doesn't know?


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 10, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> It should be simple to understand. But that is a reach for you Jethro.
> 
> As citizens, we can't stop a criminal from buying an illegal firearm from the trunk of another criminal in some dark alley. But we CAN stop criminals from buying weapons in the light of day in the safe, secure setting of a public gun show.
> 
> In some dark alley IS WHERE a criminal should be forced to buy a gun. In a totally illegal setting, with all the inherent dangers that come with it. BUT, our current laws sanction criminals being able to walk into a gun show, receive expert advice, discounts, then buy whatever weapon(s) they desire without a background check or having to pay black market prices or risk the dangers of buying a weapon from another criminal in a dark alley.



And, in addition, if said weapon were resold from the trunk of a car in said alley, the original buyer of the weapon could be held responsible for selling the gun to a criminal in the first place.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 10, 2013)

sfcalifornia said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > sfcalifornia said:
> ...



Owning a car does not require a licence.  Owning a car requires no "transfer of title".  You fail.  Again.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

sfcalifornia said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > sfcalifornia said:
> ...



Not true.

As long as the property taxes are paid the government does not care who actually owns the house. This can easily be proven by the fact that the government quite often has no idea where to send the bill when the taxes are unpaid.

As for cars, if I never use them on public roads, the government has no reason to tax it, or care who actually owns them. this si why, if you buy a car from a junkyard, it is often still registered to the original owner rather than the junkyard.

Since your false equivalence doesn't even work for your examples, i have no need to point out how absurd it is to apply it to guns.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 10, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



I think he truly might be THAT stupid!


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 10, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> What makes you think the government doesn't know?



All the more reason to make effective legislation to prevent it from happening.

That way, if members of the government break the law, they can be held accountable by the law.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

sfcalifornia said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > sfcalifornia said:
> ...



Even in California you don not need a license to drive a car unless you drive it on public roads. That is why it is legal for farmers children to operate farm machinery even though they are not old enough to get a license.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Ask for one that is based on a sample larger than 231 respondents and is less than 20 years old.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 10, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Irrelevant and a false equivalency. The only way to know how effective background checks are, is to totally eliminate them. You can't measure the criminals who went elsewhere because they would be required to TAKE a background check. But that doesn't negate the need to close the gun show loophole and require every gun sold at a gun show to include a background check. The ATF could set up a booth to handle background checks for private sellers.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Misusing a quote does not prove anything other than your inability to comprehend English.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > For the 1001th time there is no gun show loophole.
> ...


You made a fairly decent point, then you blew it by arguing that Fast and Furious happened because the dealers allowed straw purchases. What actually happened is the dealers reported the attempted purchases, and was told by the government to allow them even though they were illegal.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > What makes you think the government doesn't know?
> ...



The government goes out of its way to allow it, how will writing more laws stop it?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Wrong.

All I need to do to prove that background checks do not stop criminals from getting guns is to point to a single criminal, maybe an ex LAPD officer, who got his guns even though he went through background checks.

Do I need to prove they don't work?


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 10, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



I wasn't saying that was why Fast and Furious happened.

I was saying that fact was an integral point where Fast and Furious was concerned.

Thus if you know the details of Fast and Furious, than you know the loophole exists.

And the purchases weren't actually illegal, unless the dealers had reason to believe the people buying the weapons were buying them for criminal purposes.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 10, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> The government goes out of its way to allow it, how will writing more laws stop it?



Because the government is not in fact a single entity.  

When a member of the government commits a crime, there are usually many other people that would love to hold them to account and see them arrested, especially their political opponents.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



I agree, if the dealers had not reported the attempted illegal purchases the ATF would never have told them to allow them. Maybe we should rewrite the laws to report straw purchases to the ATF so they can't force people to break the law.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > The government goes out of its way to allow it, how will writing more laws stop it?
> ...



That explains why Holder prosecuted the agents responsible for Fast and Furious.

Wait...


----------



## Dubya (Feb 10, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OriginalShroom said:
> ...



You don't know, so what's the difference. Gun shows aren't all the same. The real point is people who oppose universal or gun show background checks aren't interested in solving the problems of our open gun market. 

The potential exists to resell a weapon at a gun show to someone who can't pass a background check and just because it's illegal doesn't mean there is a way of catching someone doing it or that a gun show doesn't promote doing it. 

Sensible gun control laws would require registration of all firearms from the time of manufacturing and sales involving transfer of registration, which would always require a background check. Let me explain it in simple terms! Every gun from the time of manufacture is registered with an ID. The registration can be transferred to an organization or individual, but the organization has to be something like the military or law enforcement. Every gun is registered and checked each year to determine the same person owns it. The rifled firearms are periodically ballistics tested with the bullets being sent to FBI for scanning and the data is put in a data base. The FBI can work out a quick scan process. People would think twice before using a gun in a crime and the reason to possess a gun on the streets of our cities would fade away. 

It's the nature of criminals to draw heat, so possessing an illegal firearm should be dealt with severely, when they've drawn heat. Let's say the cops find a firearm in the residence of someone suspected for a crime. I doubt a criminal wipes down his weapon everytime he touches it, so fingerprints can be lifted connecting a person to the weapon. A weapon could be associated with any type of crime the police would get a search warrant for and listed on the warrant. 

I haven't been advocating these piecemeal, feelgood changes in the law, but have advocated a comprehensive approach that reduces gun violence and discourages illegal ownership of guns. Closing the gun show loophole is just a small part of what should be done.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 10, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Misusing? Thomas Jefferson couldn't be any more clear. He made similar statements.

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482 

"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29 

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

"The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 10, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Jefferson tree of liberty is my favorite of Jefferson's quote, why don't you use it


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



I'm not the one claiming that so many guns are sold at gunshows without background checks by private citizens.

You are.

You should have the data to back up your claim for without any supporting data that either shows that you are:

1 -  merely repeating what others have said without verifing it for yourself,

2 - trying to blow smoke up everyone's ass,

3 - making things up,

4 - lying,

5 - and / or just being a typical left wing gun grabber who dances around with the blood of dead children on your hands, happy that you finally have something to use to advance your Un-Constituitonal agenda.


Personally, I think it is a combination of all 5, not because I know you, but because I have known people just like you since the mid-80 to late 80's when I first started discussing politics on-line.

Of course, if you post back that you are not a comibination of all 5, but are just one of them, I will give you the benefit of the doubt as I have not caught you in a lie about yourself yet.   Spreading false information, yes, You have been doing a lot of that... But if you honestly believe it, than all I can say is that you are wrong and present you with the evidence to support my position, but I won't say you are a liar.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 10, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> I'm not the one claiming that so many guns are sold at gunshows without background checks by private citizens.
> 
> You are.
> 
> ...



Here's a study from UC Davis:

http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/vprp/pdf/IGS/IGScoverprefweb.pdf

I imagine there'd be more studies out there if Congress hadn't forbidden the federal government from conducting such studies in order to help out the Gun Industry lobbyists.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 10, 2013)

And, here is a point that I'd like to know the answer to:

_Why are private sellers exempt from the same sort of rules that licensed gun sellers must follow in the first place?_

*The only reason I can see for this loophole to exist is to put guns in the hands of people that shouldn't have guns.*


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 10, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> And, here is a point that I'd like to know the answer to:
> 
> _Why are private sellers exempt from the same sort of rules that licensed gun sellers must follow in the first place?_
> 
> *The only reason I can see for this loophole to exist is to put guns in the hands of people that shouldn't have guns.*



Private sellers still need to ask for an ID and if they are not sure if the person can legally buy a gun they still aren't supposed to sale them one.
However most private sales are conducted between friends and you already know the back ground of your friend.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> You don't know, so what's the difference. Gun shows aren't all the same. The real point is people who oppose universal or gun show background checks aren't interested in solving the problems of our open gun market.



There are no problems in the gun market, the problems you blame on the legal gun market actually exist outside the gun market you want to regulate. It makes just as much sense to regulate the Internet to control guns as what you are proposing, ie none at all.



Dubya said:


> The potential exists to resell a weapon at a gun show to someone who can't pass a background check and just because it's illegal doesn't mean there is a way of catching someone doing it or that a gun show doesn't promote doing it.



The potential exist to drive into a gun show in a tank and steal all the guns too. Guess what, I am no more worried about that happening than I am anything else you quake in fear before you go to sleep.



Dubya said:


> Sensible gun control laws would require registration of all firearms from the time of manufacturing and sales involving transfer of registration, which would always require a background check. Let me explain it in simple terms! Every gun from the time of manufacture is registered with an ID. The registration can be transferred to an organization or individual, but the organization has to be something like the military or law enforcement. Every gun is registered and checked each year to determine the same person owns it. The rifled firearms are periodically ballistics tested with the bullets being sent to FBI for scanning and the data is put in a data base. The FBI can work out a quick scan process. People would think twice before using a gun in a crime and the reason to possess a gun on the streets of our cities would fade away.



Why is that sensible? How does your fear make it sensible for me to be afraid?

By the way, ballistics only works to identify the type of weapon used, it cannot differentiate between two different weapons with 100% certainty. 



Dubya said:


> It's the nature of criminals to draw heat, so possessing an illegal firearm should be dealt with severely, when they've drawn heat. Let's say the cops find a firearm in the residence of someone suspected for a crime. I doubt a criminal wipes down his weapon everytime he touches it, so fingerprints can be lifted connecting a person to the weapon. A weapon could be associated with any type of crime the police would get a search warrant for and listed on the warrant.



The logical contradictions in that paragraph boggle my mind.

fugitives, by nature, draw less heat than the average citizen. They are more likely to obey traffic laws, and avoid confrontations as much as possible. Maybe you should stop posting based on your infinite knowledge acquired by reading Batman comic books.

That said, let us assume that you are right, and criminals somehow draw heat just by being criminals. Does that somehow give the police a license to search their homes? Are they leaving the guns laying around and then inviting police into their houses? Why didn't they have a search warrant before they searched the home for the gun?



Dubya said:


> I haven't been advocating these piecemeal, feelgood changes in the law, but have advocated a comprehensive approach that reduces gun violence and discourages illegal ownership of guns. Closing the gun show loophole is just a small part of what should be done.



You have definitely advocated an approach, but you have absolutely no evidence it reduces violence. Since I can actually point to statistical evidence from the FI that indicates that more gun control results in more violence, you are going to be hard pressed to actually make me believe that everything I know is wrong simply by saying it is. 

And that, ultimately, is the root of your problem. You have all of the answers, and none of the evidence. Only idiots think life works that way.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Misusing, as in using it in an attempt to argue one thing when it is about the opposite. For example, in the quote you used above Jefferson was saying that government should not exist if it destroys life. 

Yet, somehow, you think it should exist even if it does as long as you can pretend it protects somebody.

Fuck off.

Let me continue your education, even though you will not learn a god damned thing as a result.



Bfgrn said:


> "The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482



How is you imposing your interpretation of my rights on me by force in any way an accurate representation of the argument that the only legitimate function of government to ensure the equal rights of all people?



Bfgrn said:


> "I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29



How is Jefferson pointing out that the youth of his old age has as much right to rebel against the government as he did when he signed the Declaration of Independence is an argument in favor of government power? 



Bfgrn said:


> "What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393



I bet you think this means the whole outweighs the individual.

What it actually means is that without the individual being free, society cannot be free.



Bfgrn said:


> "To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258



Yet you think your fear of guns somehow outweighs another persons right to defend themselves, and you want me to believe Jefferson would agree with you because you don't know how to read English.



Bfgrn said:


> "The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465



Once again, this does not give you more rights than it gives me.

Education complete, I hope you learned, even though my guess is you are currently sputtering in indignation because I did not fall into the collective mindset simply because you have a bunch of quotes available to misuse.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...




I think it is because he wants to pretend Jefferson never advocated open rebellion against the US government if it got to uppity.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 10, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



You can't use a Jefferson quote and not use that one also.
How does it go again?
The tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of tyrant and patriots from time too time?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not the one claiming that so many guns are sold at gunshows without background checks by private citizens.
> ...



That study says that gun shows account for less than 10% of all gun sales. It then estimates that 66% of sales at gun shows are made by licensed dealers.

That would mean that 3.4% of guns sold in this country do not go through background checks. That is slightly less than the 40% figure you are attempting to defend.

It then goes on to reference the same 20 year old numbers from the ATF that you insist prove your point.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> And, here is a point that I'd like to know the answer to:
> 
> _Why are private sellers exempt from the same sort of rules that licensed gun sellers must follow in the first place?_
> 
> *The only reason I can see for this loophole to exist is to put guns in the hands of people that shouldn't have guns.*



Why are ordinary citizens...
exempt from the rules that apply to the police?
not forced to go to barber college to shave themselves?
not forced to go to cosmetology school before they apply makeup?
not required to get a contractor's license before they paint their house?​I can go on forever, but if you don't get the point it won't matter how long I go on.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 10, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> That study says that gun shows account for less than 10% of all gun sales. It then estimates that 66% of sales at gun shows are made by licensed dealers.
> 
> That would mean that 3.4% of guns sold in this country do not go through background checks. That is slightly less than the 40% figure you are attempting to defend.
> 
> It then goes on to reference the same 20 year old numbers from the ATF that you insist prove your point.



It also states that 85% of guns used in crimes were resold through private sales at least once.

That's 85%.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 10, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Private sellers still need to ask for an ID and if they are not sure if the person can legally buy a gun they still aren't supposed to sale them one.
> However most private sales are conducted between friends and you already know the back ground of your friend.



Do you have any proof to back up your claim that "most private sales are conducted between friends"?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 10, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Private sellers still need to ask for an ID and if they are not sure if the person can legally buy a gun they still aren't supposed to sale them one.
> ...



You asked a question I answered your question. Now you want some kind of proof? You really didn't want an answer did you?


----------



## Coyote (Feb 10, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > And, here is a point that I'd like to know the answer to:
> ...



I don't think so.

I see firearms offered up for sale in the advertising section of some of our weekly sales bulletins.  ID means nothing really.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 10, 2013)

Coyote said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



How do you know the seller didn't require some form of ID before they sold the firearm?
Their is no way of verifying any number because their are no records kept of any transactions. But since I and my family and friends have always been in the gun world  no one I know of sales a firearm to someone they don't know.

Oh and I did say most I did not say all.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > That study says that gun shows account for less than 10% of all gun sales. It then estimates that 66% of sales at gun shows are made by licensed dealers.
> ...



Sigh.

The report starts with the claim that gun shows are an important avenue in gun trafficking, and then reports that only 2% of felons actually in prison had a gun that was in any way tied to a gun show.

That is 2%.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 10, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



They might have - but what does the id tell them about someone's background?  Nada.  I doubt the average person would recognize a fake id for that matter.



> Their is no way of verifying any number because their are no records kept of any transactions.



Precisely - that is why you can't substantiate your claim.



> But since I and my family and friends have always been in the gun world  no one I know of sales a firearm to someone they don't know.



My husband has long been involved in firearms and privately bought and sold them.  There are plenty of people who sell firearms to people they don't know - even if it's a friend of a friend of a friend - there's no guarantee that person is fit and responsible or not former felon.  I also know former felons who HAVE been able to purchase guns this way.



> Oh and I did say most I did not say all.



I don't think you have the data to support even the claim of "most".  At best you have the equivelent of personal testemonials (that applies to my claim also).


----------



## Coyote (Feb 10, 2013)

Why bother at all, to have a background check if you leave such enormous loopholes such as sales at gunshows?  It makes no sense.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Why bother at all, to have a background check if you leave such enormous loopholes such as sales at gunshows?  It makes no sense.



An enormous loophole that makes up about 3.4% of gun sales according to the PDF posted by someone on your side of the debate.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 10, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Shouldn't the stats be about felons with gun related crimes and not just felons?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 10, 2013)

Coyote said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



How involved are you in the gun world?
Do you have any information to back up your opinion about those newspaper sales?

If you don't know your friends why are you selling to them? I call bull shit on this claim of yours.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 10, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Why bother at all, to have a background check if you leave such enormous loopholes such as sales at gunshows?  It makes no sense.
> ...



It's enormous enough when you consider the ramifications of it:



> From 2004 to 2006, ATF conducted surveillance and undercover investigations at 195 gun shows (approximately 2% of all shows). Specific targeting of suspected individuals (77%) resulted in 121 individual arrests and 5,345 firearms seizures. Seventy nine of the 121 ATF operation plans were known suspects previously under investigation.[1]
> 
> Additionally, ATF Field Offices report that:
> 
> ...



Point being, it seems requiring a background check wouldn't be that difficult.  If small time sellers can get apps to allow their smart phones to take credit cards - they can surely also access the necessary contact to do a background check.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 10, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Do you have information to back up your claim that most such sales are between "friends"?



> If you don't know your friends why are you selling to them? I call bull shit on this claim of yours.



I'm not selling.  I'm just talking about people I know.  And yes, you can call bullshit on it, as I can on your claims - thus far, in both our cases, they are all unsupported personal testemonials and unproveable. Which is what I said in the first place.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 10, 2013)

sfcalifornia said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > sfcalifornia said:
> ...



A liscense is only required for public roads, just like a CCW permit can be required for public use of a firearm. 

And I have never heard of "registration" for a house. All you need to do is give the address and your name so the property tax can be paid. 

Alcohol is NOT guaranteed by the consitution. It leaves regulation of alchol specifically to the states and localities. Read the amendment. Voting rights are also left to the states, with floor limits set that say you cannot deny voting rights based on race sex, or age after the age of 18. 


Arms are left to the PEOPLE.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 10, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OriginalShroom said:
> ...



Bullshit! You can't even state what my claim is. Tell us what the claim is and post a quote of me making the claim!

From the first time I've seen you post, you claimed to have just got back from a gun show and claim you have knowledge about gun shows. I pointed out the laws are different in many states, because you were claiming a 3 day waiting period without counting weekends applies. You were asked if it applies to all states and you didn't answer. My post from the beginning was pointing out that this thread isn't even about universal background checks and I asked why would someone oppose universal checks at gun shows. I've said all along I wanted much more than universal background checks and I don't care how much of a problem gun shows contribute to criminals having firearms. 

Why don't you prove you were at this gun show and didn't just make it up? You should be able to give us a link about it and we'll check to see if what you said about the gun show is true.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



And criminals will obey all of that.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 10, 2013)

Coyote said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Again their is no data for friend too friend private sales, because it's private.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 10, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Why bother at all, to have a background check if you leave such enormous loopholes such as sales at gunshows?  It makes no sense.
> ...



Ever get the feeling you are trying to debate a spambot?


----------



## Oddball (Feb 10, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > That study says that gun shows account for less than 10% of all gun sales. It then estimates that 66% of sales at gun shows are made by licensed dealers.
> ...


Talk about a meaningless stat...A weapon coud've been bought and sold numerous times by dealers, but it's the one time that it's sold privately that gives you that ridiculously, ergo meaninglessly, high number.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 10, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> And, here is a point that I'd like to know the answer to:
> 
> _Why are private sellers exempt from the same sort of rules that licensed gun sellers must follow in the first place?_


Better question: Why are dealers and law abiding citizens put through the whole background check Kabuki dance, when it's demonstrably ineffective at keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals?



Vast LWC said:


> The only reason I can see for this loophole to exist is to put guns in the hands of people that shouldn't have guns.



Then I would suggest that you have a severe, quite possibly debilitating, case of myopia.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 10, 2013)

I can sell any article of personal possession without the buyer going through some kind of criminal check.  Why should guns be any different?
And does anyone think that a law mandating universal background checks will cut crime even one iota?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 10, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OriginalShroom said:
> ...



Criminals aren't given much choice when using the gun allows it to be traced to them. When possessing an unregistered gun has it's own punishment, it isn't worth having around.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Criminals aren't given much choice when using the gun allows it to be traced to them. When possessing an unregistered gun has it's own punishment, it isn't worth having around.


Guns built from scratch have no serial numbers to register, nitwit.

The more this thread goes on, the more it becomes evident who knows about guns and who probably wouldn't know which end of a weapon to point where.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



So some guy about to commit armed robbery is going to worry about the gun he has being UNREGISTERED????? 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


[ame=http://youtu.be/FopyRHHlt3M]Laugh harder - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## martybegan (Feb 10, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Criminals aren't given much choice when using the gun allows it to be traced to them. When possessing an unregistered gun has it's own punishment, it isn't worth having around.
> ...



Oh wait! you can know it from the ballistics because dubya would require a testfire to record the rifling...

Of course anyone with a nail file could change that... but its the thought that counts!!!!


----------



## Dubya (Feb 10, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > And, here is a point that I'd like to know the answer to:
> ...



How can you claim it is ineffective? How can you know what the gun crime rate would be without any background checks?


----------



## Oddball (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...


I know that the cities with the tightest gun control laws have the highest murder rates.

I also know that that _*none*_ of the perps of the mass shootings that has a bug up the asses of all of you bedwetting lolberals went through a background check to get their weapons.

Background checks are _*completely *_ineffective....Period.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 10, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Criminals aren't given much choice when using the gun allows it to be traced to them. When possessing an unregistered gun has it's own punishment, it isn't worth having around.
> ...



How many gun crimes are the result of guns built from scratch? Show me in the stats!

FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 8


----------



## Oddball (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...


Doesn't matter...Guns made form scratch would easily avoid the registration process.

BTW, dumbass, it's illegal to transfer any gun made from scratch...Therefore, the person selling or giving away said weapon would be on the hook for a felony.

Just admit that you haven't the first bloody idea of what you're blabbering about....It's readily evident to those of us who do know.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Figure out your mythical way of universal background checks stopping them from buying them, and they will go that route. Cartels already know how to make drugs which is pretty advanced chemistry. Do your really think a little machining and metallurgy is beyond them?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 10, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



How could you know that since it isn't true? Post how you have learned such a thing!

NYC has tough gun control laws and a very low gun crime rate. Even Chicago's rate, with all those areas to purchase guns near it, isn't in the top ten. From what I recall of the data I've seen New Orleans stands out and it is forbidden to have tougher gun control laws than the state. Louisiana has the highest gun crime rate in the country.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 10, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



My background is Chemistry and meth isn't "advanced chemistry" as you claim. It's rather simple. 

You know you have been told how to stop criminals from getting gun, so it involves more than universal background checks or stopping the gun show loophole. It's foolish to think criminals are going to make their own guns to replace a lost supply.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



No cartels will make it an supply it, like in prohibition of alcohol.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



NYC's gun laws are oppressive. And we have tons of illegal guns on the streets as well as more shootings per capita than places with more guns and less people. 

People also have bars on thier windows and multiple locks on thier doors to keep out the criminals.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



If it was so simple, why dont the methheads make it themselves. 

It takes a lab and the ability to make it without blowing yourself up. Gun and bullet making are childs play by comparision.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...


How did any of that stop the shooters and Columbine, Paducah, Jonesboro, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Vista Ridge Mall, or any one of the other tens of thousands of gangland shootings that happen across the country every year?

C'mon...Dazzle us.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



What criminal is going to use a gun that can be traced to him?  Since he is prohibited to begin with, he isn't going through any legal channels to obtain it.  He'll get a gun thast has been stolen from someone else in exchange for a bag of pot or whatnot.  The way they always do.
Libs just aren't very good at thinking this through, are they?


----------



## Oddball (Feb 10, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...


So, you're admitting that background checks do nothing to deter criminals....I'll take the victory where I can get it.

Oh, and there's nothing at all stopping people with ill intent from going to gun shows and getting expert advice and instructions....And criminals don't give a shit about discounts.

Another nitwit who doesn't know the fist damned thing about guns or gun shows.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Illinois is ranked 31 in gun crime.  CA is ranked 30.  D.C is ranked #1 and Vermont, which has no gun laws beyond Federal is at 34.
Ergo there is no correlation between stricter gun laws and deaths by firearms.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 10, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Smart ones will, dumb ones won't care, and if they are on the lam and living off the cash they are stealing, knowing who they are isnt much of a help. Not refuting you Rabbi, just saying dubya's arguement doesnt work either way you look at it.


----------



## whitehall (Feb 10, 2013)

I'm a "right winger" and I have been to a few dozen gun shows and I can't seem to figure out what the "loophole" issue is all about. The last couple of gun shows had a State Trooper on duty and the gun show sellers were busy requiring two types of ID and a criminal name check. Maybe the left wing sissies should actually visit a gun show before they post their ignorant crap. Gun shows seem to require more verification than the democrats required for their presidential candidate.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 10, 2013)

whitehall said:


> I'm a "right winger" and I have been to a few dozen gun shows and I can't seem to figure out what the "loophole" issue is all about. The last couple of gun shows had a State Trooper on duty and the gun show sellers were busy requiring two types of ID and a criminal name check. Maybe the left wing sissies should actually visit a gun show before they post their ignorant crap. Gun shows seem to require more verification than the democrats required for their presidential candidate.


They're idiots who haven't been within 500 yards of a gun show -probably never even so much as had a weapon in their hands in their entire lives- and it shows in this thread.


----------



## Erand7899 (Feb 10, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...



No check mate, you were intellectually fried.  Private sales between citizens has never been a problem requiring correction, and has absolutely no real bearing on the illegal gun market.  

What most of you mental midgets fail to understand is that guns are not the problem.  People are the problem, and that is where the answer lies.  Few, if any, of the mass killers that have made the news lately, would have had any difficulty passing a background check.


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 10, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not the one claiming that so many guns are sold at gunshows without background checks by private citizens.
> ...



From your linked report, page 2.



> But less than 2% of felons incarcerated for crimes involving guns acquired those guns themselves at gun shows.



Page 4 and 5



> From 2004 to 2006, gun show operations accounted for 3.2% of all trafficking investigations initiated by ATF and affected 3.3% of the gun shows estimated to have
> occurred during those years.



WOW  Less than 3.5% involved Gun Shows.  That mean 96.5% of trafficking *didn't* involve gun shows.


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 10, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> And, here is a point that I'd like to know the answer to:
> 
> _Why are private sellers exempt from the same sort of rules that licensed gun sellers must follow in the first place?_
> 
> *The only reason I can see for this loophole to exist is to put guns in the hands of people that shouldn't have guns.*



Then you are not looking very hard.   Does the Government require the private seller of an automobile to copy the drivers license and proof of insurance when selling a car as Dealers are required to do?

Does the Government require private dealers to offer a limited warranty on a car as they do Dealers?


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 10, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > That study says that gun shows account for less than 10% of all gun sales. It then estimates that 66% of sales at gun shows are made by licensed dealers.
> ...



Privates sales don't all happen at the Gun Show.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



Really deep sigh.

That was the stat for felonies involving guns.

You should read the paper. You are the one that pretends you are smarter than everyone else on the board, but you won't take the time to read the only informative thing anyone from your side of the argument presented.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



The point actually is that the ATF already knew these people were breaking the law.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Laws accomplish magic now? How the fuck do you expect any law to trace a gun back to the person who used it? Even if we ignore the fact that ballistics only works in the movies, the best if can do is trace a bullet back to the gun that fired it. There is no way it will tell you who was holding the gun.

Before you start sputtering about fingerprints, it is actually pretty hard to pull prints off of gun that is properly cared for because fingerprints depend on leaving iol depositis on a clean surface, and guns, if they are properly cared for, are pretty oily.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



I can claim it is ineffective because it did not stop Dorner.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > OriginalShroom said:
> ...



I already pointed that out, and was ignored. One guy did try to throw another stat at me that I easily disproved, but they don't care about the truth.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 10, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Is that what you right wing scum thought of when you heard about the brutal murder of those twenty 6 and 7 year old  beautiful children?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Those children are what you think of every single time you try to argue about the 2nd Amendment. Is that because your intellectual capacity won't let you admit you are wrong about everything?

Have you thought about the fact that Jefferson actually thought people should conduct an armed rebellion once every few years was a good idea, or do you only like the quotes that are easy for you to misinterpret?


----------



## Oddball (Feb 10, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


Yet you don't seem to give a flying fuck about the same number of beautiful children being killed in places like DC, Chicago and LA every month.

Nope...Opportunist dickweeds like you are all about the big easily exploitable massacres, rather than the places where your fascistic gun control laws are towering failures.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 10, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Eventually all there will be is registered firearms. All of this has been explained, but you are one of those people who tries to take each sentence and windbag it. I've even explained details of how to change laws that discourage someone stealing a gun. I've explained that murders are seldom planned assassinations. Mayor Bloomberg tasked the cops of New York City to get the guns off the streets and they would approach a suspect in safe numbers and search them if they suspected them of having a gun. When people are caught with guns on the streets and thrown in jail, it sends a message to not have guns on the street. As the homicide rate declines, more police resources can be allocated to a homicide and that increases the chances of catching the criminal. The areas with more homicides can be focused on to remove the guns from those streets. When a bunch of street gangs are packing guns, there are a lot of killings and when they aren't the killings drop. The gangs may still fight in less lethal ways, but fewer people are killed. When people are shooting it up in the streets there are a lot of accidental shootings.

I think you could lift a fingerprint off the average gun of a criminal. Gun that are properly cared for are oiled and put up. Guns that are carried around tend to lose their oil.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 10, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Did Dorner kill everybody killed with a gun last year?


----------



## Oddball (Feb 10, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...


You really think that criminals give a shit about using their weapons for more than a few (if that many) criminal acts?

Dude, button it...It has become completely obvious that you are completely over your head and have NFI what you're yammering about.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 10, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



This isn't just about massacres. America has a gun violence epidemic. Turd brains like you must believe we still live in the wagon train days. How hard is it to leave a municipality or state with strict gun laws to buy a gun in a state with lax ones? THAT is why we need federal legislation pea brain. 

You have never uttered one word that would give anyone even the the impression that you care about anyone but yourself.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



That's bullshit because the evidence points to Sandy Hook being connected to a gun nut mother who home schooled her son who already had problems socializing. We don't have a lot of evidence, but why did the mother have those guns around a son with a history of mental problems? It's reported she had around 12 guns. Lanza is reported to have had a Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle, a 10mm Glock handgun and a 9mm SIG Sauer P226 handgun in the school. The victims are all reported to have been shot by the Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle, a variant of an AR-15. 






So let's look back at some of the history of our wingnut gun nuts on this site talking bullshit! I remember gun nuts arguing that Lanza killed his mother and took her weapons and specifically they claimed he didn't shoot her, but the mother was shot 4 times in her pajamas and was found in her bed. The mother is reported to have been living off of alimony from a divorce from a corporate executive and well off. She took her children to the firing range. Contrary to what our gun nuts have said, Lanza did kill the children and adults with an assault rifle, an AR-15 variant and killed himself with a pistol. There were many tales about no assault weapon was involved and the AR-15 was in the car. Lanza also had many oversized magazines in an olive green utility vest and in some cases he left up to 15 rounds in a 30 round magazine. Outside in his car, Lanza had a Izhmash Saiga-12 combat shotgun and a large quantity of unused ammunition was recovered inside the school. All the victims were shoot multiple times up to 11 times on one case that was reported. 

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lanza also destroyed the harddrive on his computer, but it's possible data could still be recovered. 

Lanza shot his mother and rushed to the school being there in 5 minutes or such with the school being 5 miles away. He would have had to plan on going to the school and prepare himself ahead of shooting his mother. There is speculation about an altercation between Lanza and school officials just prior to the incident. 

Now, what were you gun nuts saying?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



You don't know how much damage you have done and will continue to do for people who own guns, because you NRA gun nuts are totally unreasonable. I hope shut your ass down, big time.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 11, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



It was horrible, but before those babies were even taken out of that school you left wing bastards were circling like buzzards to try to advance your gun grabbing agenda. Your pathetic human excrement of the worse order with absolutely no fucking shame. I sincerely hope that answers your question.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Weren't you one of those idiots making all those bogus claims about what happened?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Did Dorner pass a background check? 

Yes.

Did Dorner use guns he bought legally after passing a background check to kill people?

Yes.

This proves that background checks do not stop people who are going to kill others from buying guns.

By the way, it is absolutely impossible for almost anyone to legally buy a gun in the UK, and every legally owned weapon in that country is registered with the government so they can easily confiscate the weapons. In other words, they have exactly the system you claim will fix everything.

Yet, despite having your perfect system in place, gun crimes increased.



> The Government's latest crime figures were condemned as "truly terrible" by the Tories today as it emerged that gun crime in England and Wales soared by 35% last year.
> Criminals used handguns in 46% more offences, Home Office statistics revealed.
> Firearms were used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the 12 months to last April, up from 7,362.
> It was the fourth consecutive year to see a rise and there were more than 2,200 more gun crimes last year than the previous peak in 1993.
> Figures showed the number of crimes involving handguns had more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871.


Gun crime soars by 35% | Mail Online


That means that, once again, I do not have to prove something that you insist I have to prove in order to prove your ideas are dumber than letting a dog shit on your supper.


They simply do not work.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Is being a turd brain that believes we still live in wagon train days worse than being a person that ignores all the facts that prove them wrong?


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Actually it would be the MSM that couldn't seem to get the story right. But I'm sure since they share your communist leanings you will be very happy to forgive their inability to verify information before they disseminated it. Your being the little boy that you are, will only blame the people that relied on their reporting. How's it feel to be the perfect little commie storm trooper? BTW you didn't get it right in your little rant either.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



I warned you gun nuts not to take leaks seriously in an investigation and that every major crime has had misinformation given to the press. Now you are lying as if only the MSM reported what was leaked. The truth never shines around you people, does it?

Were you one of the clowns claiming the mother wasn't shot?

or

Were you one of the clowns asking why an assault weapons ban is needed, because no assault weapon was used.

or both?


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



GMA reported that only 4 hand guns were used at one time, and as far as I know the mother was reported as being shot from day one. And since CT has a ban on assault weapons and the weapon used was state compliant, there was no assault weapon used. See how facts work, they are what they are neither you or I can change that.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



Assault weapons bans usually involve dates and are bans on sales. The weapon used is an obvious assault weapon and there was no AR-15 left in the vehicle. It was a military style shotgun and may have even been like this one, hence the confusion:


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



There ya go again, you're not listening, CT has an assault weapons ban, and the gun used was a state compliant semi automatic rifle, not an assault weapon. It met all post ban criteria. Any questions?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



I question why you didn't prove it.



> Any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user or any of the following specified semiautomatic firearms:  Algimec Agmi; Armalite AR-180; Australian Automatic Arms SAP Pistol; Auto-Ordnance Thompson type; Avtomat Kalashnikov AK-47 type; Barrett Light-Fifty model 82A1; Beretta AR-70; *Bushmaster Auto Rifle and Auto Pistol; Calico models M-900, M-950 and 100-P;* Chartered Industries of Singapore SR-88; Colt AR-15 and Sporter; Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max-1 and Max-2; Encom MK-IV, MP-9 and MP-45; Fabrique Nationale FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FN/FNC; FAMAS MAS 223; Feather AT-9 and Mini-AT; Federal XC-900 and XC-450; Franchi SPAS-12 and LAW-12; Galil AR and ARM; Goncz High-Tech Carbine and High-Tech Long Pistol; Heckler & Koch HK-91, HK-93, HK-94 and SP-89; Holmes MP-83; MAC-10, MAC-11 Carbien type; Intratec TEC-9 and Scorpion; Iver Johnson Enforcer model 3000; Ruger Mini-14/5F folding stock model only; Scarab Skorpion; SIG 57 AMT and 500 Series; Spectre Auto Carbine and Auto Pistol; Springfield Armory BM59, SAR-48 and G-3; Sterling MK-6 and MK-7; Steyr AUG; Street Sweeper and Striker 12 revolving cylinder shotguns; USAS-12; USI Carbine, Mini-Carbine and Pistol; Weaver Arms Nighthawk; Wilkinson "Linda" Pistol.



Source: http://www.jud.ct.gov/ji/criminal/glossary/assaultweapon.htm


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Sure I'll be happy to, just as soon as you prove the one in the photo you provided is exactly the same model, with the same accessories used in CT. No hurry, I'll wait. But it was reported the wapon was state compliant. Never mind here's a link:  http://articles.courant.com/2012-12...20121217_1_assault-weapon-lethal-weapon-rifle


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



What has been proven is removing a weapon from a vehicle causes rumors to get to the media who report the rumors. From a distance a person may not be able to tell if that is an AR-15, so that's what gets reported and passed around, until the police report. Then you have all these clowns who always think there is some kind of conspiracy involved, because the story has changed or people like you just making up bullshit. The story is actually always the same and "it was reported" gets changed to "it was a fact" in people's minds.

Connecticut banned the AR-15, but had such a weak assault weapons laws that variants weren't considered in the law. Bushmaster was also involved in the DC Sniper Shootings and is just a company making a variant to bypass the law. Connecticut has what's considered a partial assault weapons ban which spells out certain weapons, but asshole corporations adapt to get around the intent of the law. It's just like making a designer drug and little wonder Bushmaster was sold by Cerberus Capital Management, because they don't want another lawsuit like what happened with the DC Sniper Shootings. 

The way I look at it is like this and I have discussed it with the guy from New York, Martybegan, or whatever the hell his name is. I don't want an assault weapons ban, but since there are so many gun nuts who can't even read the Constitution and are making threats, I'll now support an assault weapons ban just to spite them. You people behave like assholes and think the public will support you? Well, it doesn't work that way with people. I can see the people wanting gun control may be going too far in some cases, but they aren't legally going too far. I think we could have had a system that allows someone to have an assault weapon and have fun shooting it, but it's obvious you gun nuts will not cooperate, so fuck you, lose it all! Let's see if you are man enough to defy the law like you claim you will! If some of you have to die in the process, that's just too bad. You had your chance and you blew it.

Tell it to the Judge!


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Just can't admit that the rifle used was not considered an assault weapon under CT law, can ya? You can't push technicalities and not accept them when presented to you. That would make you a hypocrite, wouldn't it? Time for bed.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



I said it was an assault weapon and never mentioned their law. You brought that up. I never said it was banned. You brought that up. 

Figure it out, clown and ..... 

Tell it to the Judge!

Keep your shit up and we'll put you back in the single shot days!


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 11, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



And I predict that is the last response Dumya will give to that thread, an objection he raised himself.
Yes, gun laws don't work. We have a 100 year history of them not working.  And as in real life, Dumya's suggestions for improvement go ever more towards restriction and control.  First background checks.  When pointed out those wont work,, then gun registration.  When that won't work, keeping them locked up.  When that wont work, keeping them disassembled.  When that won't work, confiscating them.  When that won't work outlawing knives.  When that wont work constant video surveillance inside everyone's home by the gov't.  Hello, Big Brother.
He is a big gov dunce of epic proportions and a total fail so bad he's turned off his rep.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 11, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



In your dreams you can.
But you can not catch the criminals.
They use fake identification. 
WTF is a "totally legal setting"? 
Where is that utopia?
Do they have free beer and pussy?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 11, 2013)

The AR 15 used up there WAS NOT an assault weapon, it was a semi automatic weapon.

*DUMB ASSES*


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



What was there like 35 to 50 homicides by gun that year in the UK and 11,000 here?


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 11, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Where do you come up with 'Jefferson actually thought people should conduct an armed rebellion once every few years was a good idea'? You are a total moron with a brain smaller than a pea. And are you saying what happened to those children was 'a good idea'?

SCUM...


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> The AR 15 used up there WAS NOT an assault weapon, it was a semi automatic weapon.
> 
> *DUMB ASSES*



All AR-15 are semi automatic weapons. The fact is Bushmaster made variants of the AR-15 which was banned in Connecticut. The Colt AR-15 is banned and it looked like the M-16, when I bought one, not long after I turned in my M-16. The Bushmaster even looks more like an assault weapon, but Connecticut fucked up and listed weapons instead of describing what an assault weapon was. Because of that mistake, the Connecticut assault weapons ban is considered a partial ban. 

Now the gun nuts have played their games and it's the states chance to get even. Blame yourselves! Keep it up and Congress will be next!


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



A clown like you deserves a pea shooter without the friggin' peas!


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 11, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




Have you ever heard of the 10th Amendment?

 " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 11, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Liberals don't have a 'gun grabbing agenda', no matter how much you butt hurt adolescent minded pea brains scream the sky is falling. The assault type weapons themselves have created an agenda to get them out of our communities. NOTHING the President proposes is a 'gun grabbing agenda'. It is common sense legislation.

NO ONE outside of a war zone needs a weapon that can fire off 100 rounds at a fire rate of a round per second. And if you FEEL you need that kind of firepower you belong in a padded cell. You have a deep mental illness of phobia and paranoia. You are unfit to own a pea shooter. Plus you might load your own pea brain in the straw and blow.


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



This is what happens when the gungrabbers get to control the language on the issue.

There isn't a single of those weapons on that list that is a fully automatic weapon.  Everyone of those is an Ugly and Scary looking, Semi-Automatic.

Hell, I saw a shotgun on Saturday that nearly made me wet my pants.  Scary wasn't the word for how this damn thing looked.   

It terrified me.

But it was still a Semi-Automatic.  In all reality it was no different than other semi-automatic shot gun, it was cosmetically ugly, mechanically normal.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Yes yo do, and you have all sorts of anger issues. Plus, having to accuse those who disagree with you of mental issues shows the very weakness of your own argument.

Want strict gun control? work to repeal the 2nd amendment. Other than that go pound sand. 

Negged for being a namecaller.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



How's your guns doing up there in New York state, marty? 

Bwhaa, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



And how many in Mexico, which has stricter gun laws than the U.S?

As usual you deflect to irrelevance when caught in a web of lies and deceit.


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 11, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Speaking for myself, my first thoughts was that I hoped there is special place in hell for people like him.

My second thoughts were for the families and friends of those killed, and their futures.

That was all that I was concerned about.

Then Feinstein and the other Gun Grabbers started opening their mouths and when I heard that Feinstein had spent over a year working on that bill she presented within days I had to wonder why she spent a year writing a bill that she knew wouldn't pass even in the Democratic Controlled Senate.

Then I saw that look on her face, my first reaction that she must have popped the cork on several bottles of Champagne and danced on her desktop when she heard of the shooting.  She was going to get a chance to use that bill that she spent over a year working on.

For over 20 years she has wanted to make every gun illegal for the private citizen to own and here was her chance to get a good start on it again.

Another thought that I had was perhaps she was in on the Fast And Furious plans and had that bill ready to go for when they were able to break the story the way they wanted.  Too bad for them..  That didn't happen so she had to sit on it even longer.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Just waiting on the eventual lawsuits. It will be overturned.

Also started the process of getting whatever type of handgun is allowed to me. Hopefully they will deny me a semi auto, at which point I will get a revolver, and offer myself as a plantiff for any lawsuit the NRA or similar organization desires.

The most I have on my record is 1 speeding ticket from 10 years ago.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 11, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Liberals don't have a 'gun grabbing agenda', no matter how much you butt hurt adolescent minded pea brains scream the sky is falling. The assault type weapons themselves have created an agenda to get them out of our communities. NOTHING the President proposes is a 'gun grabbing agenda'. It is common sense legislation.
> 
> NO ONE outside of a war zone needs a weapon that can fire off 100 rounds at a fire rate of a round per second. And if you FEEL you need that kind of firepower you belong in a padded cell. You have a deep mental illness of phobia and paranoia. You are unfit to own a pea shooter. Plus you might load your own pea brain in the straw and blow.


It's the Bil of_* RIGHTS*_, not the Bill of Needs or the Bill of Feelings, cement head.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 11, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



We gotta whole lotta that going on in this thread.

The intellectual dishonesty, rank ignorance and plain old garden variety lying is so thick you can cut it with a chain saw.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Sure it will, just like all those other bans in states (sarc)!


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 11, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



It has nothing to do with how they 'look'. It has to do with the vast amount of human carnage they inflict in a very, very short time span.

Here is how a Police Chief explains the true purpose of a semiautomatic AR-15 rifle before Congress:

"We use that weapon in police because of its technical capability, it's ability to cool down and handle round after round after round ... It's rugged...it's meant for a combat or environment that one would be placed in facing adversaries, human beings, people. That weapon can be retrofitted with other devices to enhance your offensive capability. The weapon itself has features to adjust it -- optics sights, for example -- that can cost hundreds of dollars, and I've shot this weapon many times -- that would enhance our capability in various tactical maneuvers, whether [you're firing] from the shoulder or the hip or whether you choose to spray fire that weapon or individually shoot from the shoulder. The optic sights are amazing, the technology advances that weapon has.

That weapon is the weapon of our time. Its the place that we find ourselves in today. And, certainly, I believe its meant for the battlefield and in a public safety environment only."


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



That's why they come here to buy their guns, see?


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



So guns for him and his, and not for us.  He can go to hell. 

Any guns not allowed to the citizens of the US should not be allowed to its police forces. If we only want the military to have them, only the military should have them. Police are peace officers, and still civillans.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...


Right...Mexican crooks are just flooding into America to get all the dirt cheap and readily available guns, to then smuggle them back into Mexico!

Just when I thought the stupid on this tread couldn't get stupider!


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



You understand that's illegal, right?

As usual you deflect to irrelevance when caught in a web of lies and deceit.


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 11, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Strange according to Diane Feinstein, the leader of the Gun Grabbers in the Senate, it's all about appearances...

The following would be make a gun illegal.  Not a single one makes the gun more deadly.

A pistol grip.
A forward grip.
A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.
A barrel shroud.
A threaded barrel.
A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed 8 magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10
9 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:
 A threaded barrel.
 A second pistol grip.
 A barrel shroud.



I could go on, but that there should be enough to show that it is about appearances and *not* about ability to shoot more than one bullet on a single pull of the trigger.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > The AR 15 used up there WAS NOT an assault weapon, it was a semi automatic weapon.
> ...



That is a lie, CT described in their law exactly what was considered an assault weapon. The rifle used did not qualify under CT law as one. Rememeber what I told ya about these pesky little facts, they are what they are.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 11, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



No dummie, having that kind of firepower, normally prevents the need for it. When you need the firepower and don't have it is when your screwed.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Feb 11, 2013)

The gun show loophole exists, because violent feolons are people too, and they have human rights!


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 11, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> A spin off of the other thread where I have asked numerous times and not a single right winger has answered, is if you support the gun show loophole.
> 
> For those that may not know, under current federal law if you wish to purchases a firearm, you have to be run in a background check to make sure you are not a felon, been convicted of a violent crime, been in a mental institution, etc,..before they give the go ahead to sell that person a weapon. However under the "gun show loophole", there are not background checks at all.
> 
> That's right, absoutly nothing. A violent thug fresh out of the penitentiary, a terrorist, or a nutcases ready to commit the next sandy hook could go down to their local gun show, or find a classified ad selling a firearm and they could purchase deadly weapons, _with no questions asked._



what gun show loophole?


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> The gun show loophole exists, because violent feolons are people too, and they have human rights!



Liberals say that all the time. What they lose are certain consitutional rights, such as the right to bear arms, and the right to vote (depending on the state).

Its progressives that usually try to prevent us from executing the bastards based on "human rights"


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 11, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > OriginalShroom said:
> ...



Yep, if the police need them to deal with criminals, citizens need them for the same reason. Damn simple concept.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 11, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > Do you have any proof to back up your claim that "most private sales are conducted between friends"?
> ...



You answered my question with an unsubstantiated statement, which is not an answer.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 11, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Sigh.
> 
> The report starts with the claim that gun shows are an important avenue in gun trafficking, and then reports that only 2% of felons actually in prison had a gun that was in any way tied to a gun show.
> 
> That is 2%.



I wasn't referencing the opinions of the study's authors, which are suspect. 

I was referencing their data, which is not.

As I stated previously, the "Gun Show Loophole" is a misnomer, as private sales occur everywhere without documentation or background checks, not just at Gun Shows.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 11, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> And criminals will obey all of that.



It's not important whether criminals will obey anything.

What's important is that the people selling guns to said criminals realize that there will be severe consequences if they continue to do so, thus stopping the majority of criminals from getting the guns in the first place.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 11, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



It's not meaningless at all, since the point where it's sold through a private sale is the point in the chain of sales where the new owner becomes unknown.

Do you feel a criminal or a potential criminal would want a gun that can immediately be traced to him, or not?

Since your side often brings up the point that much of gun violence is performed by "Gang Bangers", where do you think they get their guns?  Licensed Dealers?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 11, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Gasoline and a match would make a lot of "carnage".
THE LAW is what determines what is legal and what isn't and under the law it is a semi automatic rifle.
What amazes me is the allure to the naive and gullible of decreasing the magazine capacity.
Uh, HELLO, then they carry 8 more mags which take 2 seconds to unload after the 10 round mag is empty.
Amazing the ignorance of those that believe more gun laws, not prosecution of the criminals we now have that get off easy when they violate CURRENT gun laws, mysteriously solves everything.
Any and all prohibitions on any gun that is owned by a law abiding citizen does NOTHING to stop gun deaths.
All it does is make it easier for criminals to commit crimes against citizens that have their rights taken away.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 11, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Better question: Why are dealers and law abiding citizens put through the whole background check Kabuki dance, when it's demonstrably ineffective at keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals?



The only reason it's "it's demonstrably ineffective at keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals"* is because of the very loopholes we're referring to*, and because Congress has made specific legislation that makes it almost impossible to enforce existing regulation.




Oddball said:


> Then I would suggest that you have a severe, quite possibly debilitating, case of myopia.



Perhaps in your Bizarro-world universe.  But here in the real world, that's the only reason I can see.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 11, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



How is your idea working with the tracking of EVERY vehicle in America?
Car thefts are at an all time high. 
HELLO


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 11, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Guns built from scratch have no serial numbers to register, nitwit.
> 
> The more this thread goes on, the more it becomes evident who knows about guns and who probably wouldn't know which end of a weapon to point where.



Well there's a massive red herring.

Tell me, what percentage of the guns out there do you feel were "Built from scratch"?

.001%?


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 11, 2013)

Oddball said:


> I know that the cities with the tightest gun control laws have the highest murder rates.
> 
> I also know that that _*none*_ of the perps of the mass shootings that has a bug up the asses of all of you bedwetting lolberals went through a background check to get their weapons.
> 
> Background checks are _*completely *_ineffective....Period.



Well that is just altogether false.

New York City is one of the safest large cities to live in in the nation, and it has very strict gun control laws.

Missouri doesn't have a particularly strict set of Gun Laws, as far as I know, and is is the most dangerous city in the nation.

Virginia has basically no gun laws, and Richmond is regularly in the top 10 most dangerous cities.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 11, 2013)

S.J. said:


> How stupid can the gun control advocates get?  This is comical.


Taking a look at the OP's prior work - this is just the tip of the stupud iceberg.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 11, 2013)

ban guns, criminals will just make their own.  it's easy


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 11, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > I know that the cities with the tightest gun control laws have the highest murder rates.
> ...



so NY's  like 450 gun homicides don't count for anything?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Feb 11, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > The gun show loophole exists, because violent feolons are people too, and they have human rights!
> ...




But, of course, if law enforcement actually is given a tool (such as required registration) to enforce the law forbidding gun sales without background checks that would prevent violent criminals from walking into the civic center gun show and walking out with an AR-15, the NRA and others begin wringing their hands and screaming, "They are going to come in the middle of the night and take our guns away!"


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 11, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > And criminals will obey all of that.
> ...



The people selling guns to criminals are themselves criminals.  Or did you miss that?


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 11, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Better question: Why are dealers and law abiding citizens put through the whole background check Kabuki dance, when it's demonstrably ineffective at keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals?
> ...



No, actually it's because there are 300M +/- guns already in circulation and no way to keep tabs on them.
But thanks for trying.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 11, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > I know that the cities with the tightest gun control laws have the highest murder rates.
> ...



Actually DC is the most dangerous, with the strictest gun laws pretty much in the country.  Chicago ranks up there.
But we dont need to play this game.  Look at two cities with identical gun laws and disparate records on gun crime: Memphis TN and Knoxville TN.  Memphis has a crime rate about 80% higher than Knoxville, even with the same laws.  Why?  Because laws are no deterrent to crime. Culture is.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

martybegan said:


> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Sort of.

Because it's a constitutional right, regulating that right is tricky especially when you try to make comparisons to gunlaws in other countries.  I don't think any other country guarantees it as a right.

However - no constitutional right is unlimited - not a single one.  I don't think firearms should be any different than any other right.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 11, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


Good to see that you're willing to admit that UBC requires universal registration, and that universal registration was the intent all along.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/277079-universal-background-checks.html


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > sfcalifornia said:
> ...


I agree - the standards for judging the constitutionality of the limitations on the right to arms should be no different than those for judging limitations on the right to free speech.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OriginalShroom said:
> ...




Criminals in general do not obey laws.  So, should there then be no laws?


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 11, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Registration is the inevitable consequence of background checks because otherwise it makes enforcement impossible.
Of course registration is impossible as well because there are 300M guns in circulation and people wont register them.  That was the experience in Canada, which doesnt have much history of civil disobedience.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



there should be laws. but not being able to enforce them doesn't mean you should add further restrictions to them that only impact the law abiding


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Like I said - your claim is based on personal testemonial.  "Don't ask me for proof, there isn't any - just trust me, I'm right" - am I correct?

I can give you examples of firearms sold through public advertising bulletins - one example is this one: Your Bulletin Board Online 

You have to be a subscriber to see it in detail (I tend to pick up the newsprint copy) but it has a section for firearms in it.  Those aren't sold friend to friend.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 11, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


It is imposible to show that the restriction of a right is necessary to achieve a compelling state interst when that restriction is ineffective in achiving that interest.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



I agree to some extent.  Laws need to be enforceable and there needs to be the public will to enforce them.

However in this case I think the laws being proposed are modest and moderate: universal background check for example.  Yet anytime something is proposed, you have one side jumping up and down claiming that the government is now going to confiscate your weapons and guns will be banned.  That is highly unlikely given public opinion and the constitution (with the right to bare arms strongly affirmed in a recent Supreme Court case).

So why not consider reasonable gun control measures if it might keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people, potential suicides (3 day waiting period), and possibly make it more difficult for at least some criminals to get them?


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



argumentum ad absurdum. Most criminal law is based on an ACT, be it murder, robbery, rape, etc. When you propose bans on merely owning something without the required act, a much stricter sense of scrutiny as to WHY you have to ban such item is needed. Added to this is the fact that owning firearms is a guaranteed consitutional RIGHT, thus setting the bar much much higher. 

There is an overwhelming concencus that people do not need to own tanks, howitzers or tactical nuclear warheads. Add this to the fact that these are not truly "arms" as I see an arm in the 2nd amendment, then you have a compelling case to ban them. One could say the same about drug possession (I disagree), as you do not have a consitutional right to the wacky tobacky. 

Semi automatic rifles however, are a preferred form of arm for many people in this country. Since this is the case, and there is the right to bear arms, the burden of percieved public safety improvements (of which I doubt) does not meet the threshold for banning them.

Remove the 2nd amendment, and all games are off. Until then, they are constitutionally protected mo matter what progressive gun control addicts think.


----------



## kwc57 (Feb 11, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> The Professor said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Obviously you have never stepped foot inside a gun show or you'd know that isn't true.  One need not own a store to be a licensed gun dealer.  The gentleman who taught my recent NRA Basic Rifle Instruction certification class is a registered nurse who sells guns at gun shows.  He does not own a store, but he is licensed to deal in guns and purchase directly from manufacturers for resell.  He on occasion has someone walk up at a gun show and ask if they can purchase "off paper" to which the answer is absolutely NOT.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Compromise is a 2-way street.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/277676-so-you-want-the-nra-pro-gun-side-to-compromise.html


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Up to a point.

Free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to assemble, right to bare arms - you can't treat them exactly the same because they are not the same.

But, for example - you can't incite riots, you can't lead a mob to vigilante justice, you can't commit slander or libel, your freedom of religion does not allow child abuse, animal abuse, the right to burn down other places of worship, sacrificing people and a host of other things.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > sfcalifornia said:
> ...



Neither is this one. However this is the only one people seem to allow any form of prior restraint. We already have laws banning felons from guns. We have a background check system. States and cities have permit and registration (which I find unconstitutional) requirements. Even the most "liberal" gun states ask you to have a CCW for concealed carry. 

Semi auto bans, or mag bans, or waiting lists though are forms of infringement. It would be like gagging people who talk fast before they go into the movie theatre "just in case" they may yell FIRE!!!


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



I'm not against a background check altogether.  But what is it going to be? who can do it? and what records are kept by who?    And really, what do we believe it will accomplish?  Lanza failed a background check and was denied the ability to purchase a gun.  did it stop him?  The fort hood shooter had multiple background checks as did the CA cop.  but it didn't stop them.   

are we really ready to create a recorded list of people who we say are mentally incapacitated?  think of the trials of nuremberg. that was the crux of the case for the prosecution. and if we have such a list, how will it effect these peoples lives beyond limiting them from obtaining a firearm? If we deem they are a threat to society and might kill if they have a gun, might they not also kill without a gun?  do we now limit them in other ways to prevent that? if not and they do kill, isn't the government now liable because they knew?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


So, you didn't -really- mean that "firearms should be any different than any other right" ?


> But, for example - you can't incite riots, you can't lead a mob to vigilante justice, you can't commit slander or libel, your freedom of religion does not allow child abuse, animal abuse, the right to burn down other places of worship, sacrificing people and a host of other things.


All of which are restrcited because they harm others, or place them in a condtition of clear, present and immediate danger.

Simple ownershp/posession of a firearm does neither.  If we're treating the right to arms no differently than any other, on what basis, established by limitations allowable on other rights, can simple ownership/posession be limited?


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



Is this about "compromise" or seeing that something might be mutually beneficial?

I don't see any need to "compromise" with the NRA any more than any political action group.  We don't "compromise" with the alcohal industries on laws regarding drunk driving do we?   

I think they make good points - for example I fully support their educational efforts and think those should be more widespread because are culture has moved far away from the original idea that a gun is a tool that should be used responsibly and with respect for what it can do.  Most people today have never grown up with guns.

On the other hand - I see no reason not have a universal background check.  I also see no reason why we should allow unrestricted access to fully automatic weapons, armor piercing ammunition, or high capacity magazines who's sole purpose is to kill cops or kill lots of people very quickly.  To me, it falls in the same category as restricting pocket nukes or rocket launchers.  Beyond that, I see no reason to restrict anything else.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



and you can't kill someone with a gun.  you can't bring a gun into a federal building.  there are laws, there are sensible liitations that do not restrict rights or limit ownership.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Simple possession of the ability to gather masses and inspire them does no harm - that's oratory skill and charisma.  But when the speaker chooses to turn the crowd towards violence - then it does harm.  Despite that, we restrict certain types of free speech.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Yes...and...?
Apply that to the right to arms.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



So for you then, the question is about where do you draw the line?

Do you draw it at:

fully automatic weapons
certains types of ammo
high capacity mags
rocket launchers
grenades
nukes
large scale bombs
cannons
napalm

?


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Certain types of speech are restricted.

Certain types of arms can be restricted.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



Precisely.  I don't see that a national register is likely.  But I disagree that a universal background check will have to lead to a registry.  Enforcement is not based upon weapons owned but upon factors the background check is supposed to find - whether you were a felon for example.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Because they harm others or places them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.


> Certain types of arms can be restricted.


Simple posession of what sort of firearm causes harm to others or places them in a condtition of clear, present and immediate danger?
How does the simple posession of these firearms do this?


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 11, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> How is your idea working with the tracking of EVERY vehicle in America?
> Car thefts are at an all time high.
> HELLO



That's a false comparison for many, many reasons.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



i don't draw a line. and again, there are laws that say you can't own rocket launchers, grenades, large scale bombs, but who owns them now? terrorists.  automatic weapons are banned, but who owns them?  gangs and criminals. 

So when you really take a look at the current live examples of what is being proposed, it doesn't work.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 11, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



In a population of *9 MILLION people*?  No, pretty much not.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



its actually how you use the speech that is restricted.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 11, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> The people selling guns to criminals are themselves criminals.  Or did you miss that?



No, they are not.

Because in private sales, the only rule is that a seller should not sell to a person* they have reason to believe is a criminal*.

Which can be easily circumvented through pleading ignorance.

It is almost impossible to prove that a person knew that the buyer was a criminal at the time.


----------



## tjvh (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



I would take the phrase *bear arms* to mean any *gun* that I can physically carry. Magazines are specific to the guns they are designed for, thus I consider *magazines part of that gun*. Let me know when the issue of private citizens obtaining nukes, napalm, hand grenades, etc.  become a *rational* argument in the case for gun control.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 11, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



excellent, so don't let me hear you complain about 26 deaths in connecticut


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 11, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Actually DC is the most dangerous, with the strictest gun laws pretty much in the country.



However, DC is for all intensive purposes, part of Virginia (and Maryland), and therefore, anyone who lives in a DC suburb to the south of the city can purchase guns under Virginia law.



The Rabbi said:


> Chicago ranks up there.



Not anywhere near the top, in fact.



The Rabbi said:


> But we dont need to play this game.  Look at two cities with identical gun laws and disparate records on gun crime: Memphis TN and Knoxville TN.  Memphis has a crime rate about 80% higher than Knoxville, even with the same laws.  Why?  Because laws are no deterrent to crime. Culture is.



You're right, we don't need to play this game.  

And I wasn't saying that guns made a city more dangerous.

I was responding to a post where it was claimed that guns make a city LESS dangerous.

Which is simply untrue.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

tjvh said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



I would say that banning fully automatic weapons, certain types of ammo, and large capacity mags to be *rational*.

Is the line you are drawing then arbritrary?


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



That's always going to be the case.  So do you think nothing should be banned then?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



I understand you NRA gun nutters send the Mexican Drug Cartels invitations.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Magazine size bans are cosmetic and silly. considering the newtown shooter had 10-20 minutes by himself, he could have used 10 round mags just as easy. 

Fully automatic weapons have been used in how many crimes recently? Explosive ammuntion has been used in how many crimes recently?

And before you go all nutty on "hollow points" remember these are actually the preferred type of round in an urban setting, as FMJ tends to go through drywall rather easily.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...


We understand that all your scaremongering lolberal memes and outright lies have been blown to shit, so all that's left for you is to demagogue and try to change the subject.

Happens a lot around here.


----------



## DiamondDave (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



And how is limiting capacity rational?? Are you limiting the defensive capability of the law abiding while the criminal ignores the law and gains the upper hand??

As for automatic weapons "illegal"?? No.. but heavily regulated to those with specific need for their profession, sport, etc and to those with special training.. IMHO I do not thing ex military should be banned from owning an automatic weapon...

Is it rational to keep the public away from depleted uranium rounds?? yeah, probably.. away from hollowpoints or other specialty common technology ammunition?? No


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Sorry, but other than age laws and few areas with Sunday blue Laws., I don't know of any laws that prevent a person from buying alcohol.  Even a woman who is obviously pregnant can buy and consume if she wants.

Even the town drunk with 14 DUIs can still buy alcohol.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 11, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Waiting for a response.

Simple posession of what sort of firearm causes harm to others or places them in a condtition of clear, present and immediate danger?
How does the simple posession of these firearms do this?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


"You" want the NRA/Pro-gun side to compromise and agree to give up someting trleated to the right to arms.
By defintion, there can be no compromise unless the other side - the anti-gun/pro-gun control side - gives something in return.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 11, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Registration is the inevitable consequence of background checks because otherwise it makes enforcement impossible.
> Of course registration is impossible as well because there are 300M guns in circulation and people wont register them.  That was the experience in Canada, which doesnt have much history of civil disobedience.



And if people are caught with said unregistered weapons, they will be prosecuted.  Encouraging everyone to register their weapons.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 11, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> "You" want the NRA/Pro-gun side to compromise and agree to give up someting trleated to the right to arms.
> By defintion, there can be no compromise unless the other side - the anti-gun/pro-gun control side - gives something in return.



Oh, I'm afraid you misunderstand the situation here.

Since the majority of the population currently supports stricter gun legislation, the political power in this situation currently belongs to the Gun Control Supporters.

Since they want both assault weapon bans _and_ registration/background checks, while the pro-gun folks want nothing, just having registration/background checks is in fact a compromise.


----------



## GHook93 (Feb 11, 2013)

Wow BL I actually agree with you on something. I don't agree with gun shows. Guns sales need to be managed better.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 11, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > "You" want the NRA/Pro-gun side to compromise and agree to give up someting trleated to the right to arms.
> ...


You clearly do not understand the meaning of compromise.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



You missed the point - they can't keep driving.  Legally.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Wait until you start seeing the gun laws popping up in states and you gun nutters going down for crossing the state line. You can expect it on a national level once we clean out the scum in Congress.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



And the felon can't own a gun, legally.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > tjvh said:
> ...



There have been other shootings besides Newtown where, perhaps that might have made a small difference or - reloading could have allowed someone a chance to get at the shooter.



> Fully automatic weapons have been used in how many crimes recently? Explosive ammuntion has been used in how many crimes recently?



I don't have stats on that but, again they are something that could add a margin of safety without drastically impacting legitimate gun owners.



> And before you go all nutty on "hollow points" remember these are actually the preferred type of round in an urban setting, as FMJ tends to go through drywall rather easily.



I wasn't going to go all "nutty" on hollow points, but thanks for the info


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > OriginalShroom said:
> ...



And without background checks, how are you going to prevent that?


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



The majority of the scum I see in congress are progressive democrats, so good if you want to get rid of them!

I just love how you applaud the march of unconstitutional law across the more gullible parts of our nation. 

Now dance my little tutu wearing ballerina.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



WITH background checks, how are you going to prevent that?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



You have been told, background checks are just a beginning.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



I seriously doubt you'll see anything significant in terms of gun control for several reasons: one, the public doesn't support strict gun control and two, the Supreme Court rendered a landmark decision over the 2nd Amendment that brought down a host of gun control measures.

The public does, however, support certain modest measures - universal background check being one of them and the NRA and it's supporters comes off looking pretty extreme for balking at that.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



*Nothing is 100%.*  Drunk drivers still manage to drive, but fewer of them.

Same with guns in the hands of felons.

Now are you going to keep answering a question with a question?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Getting someone to register their gun is not a strict gun control measure. You will find many states requiring it and eventually it will be done nationally.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 11, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> You clearly do not understand the meaning of compromise.



One side wants 2 things.

The other side wants none.

Having one of those things would, by definition, be compromise.

Of course, for me, it's perfect, as I personally am a supporter of background checks and a registry, but I am NOT a supporter of assault weapon bans.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



I'll admit I haven't explored both sides of the gun registration issue yet.  The arguments I've heard against a national registry of firearms is it could/would lead to the Federal Government keeping tabs on who owns what weaponry and possible abuse of that information.  Also, it would be very incomplete given the vast numbers of firerarms that are passed on privately anyway.

I'm not sure about that issue.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



I doubt fewer felons will get guns if they want them if you strengthen background check laws. They already go underground for thier guns, where are they gonna go underground-ier?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 11, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



An AR 15 that is bought and sold now is not an assault weapon.
I agree that we need to give law enforcement "more weapons" to fight illegal guns.
This would be a start:
1. Over 50% of all guns used in crimes are tracked now to 1% of the licensed dealers and straw man purchases are the problem. Corrupt dealers now have a large amount of "missing" guns as there are not enough ATF agents to keep track of them. More on that later. 
2. We now keep crime gun trace information secret. Amazing but liberals pushed this for privacy reasons of convicted felons. But even with those laws on the books ATF routinely released aggregate gun crime trace reports, spotty as they were, to local law enforcement jurisdictions and public safety professionals. Then the gun lobby twisted it and forced the Tiahart Amendments barring the government from releasing most of that data, restricting it and cutting off public access to it altogether. Public safety and law enforcement agencies nationwide oppose the Tiafart amendment believing them to be a threat to public safety.
3. ATF is THE SOLE government agency charged with enforcing gun laws. They have NO LEADERSHIP as they have not had a director since the Bush administration. ATF has 1700 agents to monitor 77,000 gun dealers. Even if the ATF had the men to do the job they are handcuffed to only 1 unannounced visit to any dealer per yer BY LAW. Bad law. Current law makes it almost impossible to take the license away from crooked gun dealers.
4. Record keeping of dealers is terrible and unenforceable. See above. Federal law bars any accounting of retail sales of firearms. Absurd. Background checks used to be kept for 6 months and are now destroyed within 24 hours of approval or denial per John Ashcroft of the Bush administration under pressure from the gun lobby. 

I support the 2nd Amendment but the issues listed above need to be addressed immediately and do not restrict my rights to own the weapons I need to hunt, self defend myself OR JUST DAMN LOOK AT MY GUNS.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...




and the states would (and are) violating the consitution, just like you violate rational thought and non-pink tutu wearing when you wake up in the morning.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



They get them at gun shows - publicly.  It would at least close that loophole.  Those that go underground will, others just won't bother to get a gun because it's too much trouble.

The argument you make though, pretty much rationalizes the idea that no law is worth it because criminals are going to bypass it anyway - with it is guns, alcohal, drugs, speeding, fraud, etc.  Is that what you believe?


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 11, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> A spin off of the other thread where I have asked numerous times and not a single right winger has answered, is if you support the gun show loophole.
> 
> For those that may not know, under current federal law if you wish to purchases a firearm, you have to be run in a background check to make sure you are not a felon, been convicted of a violent crime, been in a mental institution, etc,..before they give the go ahead to sell that person a weapon. However under the "gun show loophole", there are not background checks at all.
> 
> That's right, absoutly nothing. A violent thug fresh out of the penitentiary, a terrorist, or a nutcases ready to commit the next sandy hook could go down to their local gun show, or find a classified ad selling a firearm and they could purchase deadly weapons, _with no questions asked._



I believe EVERY sale of a firearm should require a background check.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



...well crap....I could've sworn it was pink.  Maybe kinda scruffy but, it used to be pink....

see, that's the problem with laws....we criminals are going to violate them anyway


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



It's only unconstitutional in your screwed up gun nutter mind.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 11, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > You clearly do not understand the meaning of compromise.
> ...


Incorrect. 
Compromise necessitates that both sides give the other something they want.
In your scenario, one side gives up two things and keeps something it already has.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



It wouldn't be incomplete when a gun owner is required to register firearms they have already purchased.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...


Waiting for a response.

Simple ownership/posession of what sort of firearm causes harm to others or places them in a condtition of clear, present and immediate danger?
How does the simple ownership/posession of these firearms do this?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Tell it to the Judge and tell your gay tutu fantasies to your Shrink!


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



The tutu stuff is only for Dubya, the "special" child of this forum's gun debate.

You've been cool. Wrong, but cool.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



I am calling you out as an sissy boy, which has nothing to do with sexuality. 

Its always the "progressives" that go to the homophobia in thier responses.

You Mad bro?


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



you can change a magazine in two seconds. I don't think anyone who is unarmed and under fire is going to be able to react that quickly.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



i'll go back to my previous point, adam lanza failed a background check. did it stop him?  the ft hood shooter and the CA cop both passed background checks.  did it stop them from killing?


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



A "small difference" is not worth reducing my rights from a risk analysis persepctive. 

In fact in Colorado the idiot had to stop using his semi auto BECAUSE the monster mag he had jammed, and he had all his ammo in it. In that case shouldnt logic dictate we FORCE mass murderers to use large mags because of the jam potential?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



You're just trolling for cock 24/7 hoping to get a PM from the real gay. Talking about gay is your bait.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 11, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


But there's no proof whatsoever that background checks are completely ineffective!....Nope, none at all.


----------



## kwc57 (Feb 11, 2013)

dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > dubya said:
> ...


----------



## Vandalshandle (Feb 11, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



I have no inside knowledge whether or not, "universal registration was the intent all along.". However, I certainly have no problem with it. In fact, it would be useless to require background checks unless the sale of a firearm was required to be registered. This is the catch-22 that the NRA loves:

_Don't pass new gun laws, because we are not enforcing existing gun laws, because we need new gun laws in order to enforce existing gun laws, so we don't need new gun laws._


----------



## Oddball (Feb 11, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > You clearly do not understand the meaning of compromise.
> ...


Your side wants to point at failure as evidence that they need more power.

In that case, "none" is the correct answer....Compromising with doubling down on failure would be stupid.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Yeah, he mad. 

A winner is me, I got teh dubya all bunched in the undies.

Tsk Tsk, all these disparaging remarks about homosexuals. You have anger issues bro.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Now you want to play like Yoda, how old are you?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 11, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


Gun registration is a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same, and thus, an infringement - that alone is enough to oppose it.

The governemt knowing who has guns and who does not will not reduce gun-related crime as nothing prevents someone from using a gun regustered to them to commit a crime; it is therefore nearly impossible to show how gun registration is an effective means to affect a compelling state interest.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 11, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


Since the existing gun laws are demonstrable failures -the best evidence of this being that lolberal bedwetters want even more of them- the only thing that makes any sense is to junk them altogether.

Well, that is it makes sense to anyone except to the committed authoritarian nanny.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Old enough to remember how to play with trolls, be it over a cable modem, or at 9600 bps. 

I can switch from affable debater to troll kryptonite in a single thread tutu boy.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Some can change a magazine in two seconds - that's an ideal for a pro. It gives someone an opening that could divert a shooters attention long enough to make a difference.

Why does anyone need to have a high capacity magazine - any more than say a rocket launcher?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



If that's the oldest modem you remember, you can't be that old. You're going troll because you are losing the debate.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


False equivalence.

You'd need a high capacity magazine because: 

1) You probably will miss.

2) Criminals don't play nice.

3) Criminals may come in groups.

4) The situation chooses you, you don't choose the situation.

And those are just off the top of my head.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



not even a close comparison. and considering NY is calling anything over 7 rounds "high capacity" I am loathe to entertain any restrcition on this. 

Plus, even if we ban them, all a magazine is really is a metal stamping with springs in it. Of all the machining required to make your own gun, this is the easiest. So some thug makes his own, and now outguns anyone following the law.

Also, if the authorities think it so helpful and we dont really NEED high cap mags, I'm sure the police will be willing to follow the same restrictions.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...


You're the one who started trolling fuckface...And you got your ass whipped in this debate two days ago.

Go play out on the freeway.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Feb 11, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Additionally, it doesn't even do as much as you say. The government wouldn't know who has guns and who doesn't, they would only know who LAWFULLY has guns and who does not LAWFULLY have guns. The criminals will continue being criminals and not participate in this goat screw.

Also, there are tons of false positives in the background check system. The fact is that almost nobody that submits to a background check is actually prohibited from buying a gun. In fact the false positive rate is 94.2% according to folks that have looked at it. See here: False Positives in the firearms background check program


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Does simple ownership/posession of an AR-15 and 10x 30-rd magazines harm anyone?
Does simple ownership/posession of an AR-15 and 10x 30-rd magazines place anyone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

If not, and if we're treating the right to arms no differently than any other, as you said, there's no constitionally acceptable reason to restrict their ownership/posession.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



No I has a 1200 when I was 9, I just fondly remember my 9600 as I bought it myself. Also you started the whole thread as a troll, continue the thread as a troll, and will end it as a troll.

But its all good, because Ive been bringing in teh rep and the thanks with all my posts in here, and yet  there you sit with a greyed out rep counter, out of the game, and out of ideas. 

Keep upping my post count and rep count and thank count tutu boy, Its win win for me, and loser loser for you.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



What you're doing is pointing out the flaws in the system - but no system and no law is perfect.  If you are going to base a decision on whether or not a law catches 100% of the offenders, then we need have no laws what so ever, becuase none of them are 100%.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



You think a troll is someone who doesn't agree with you and a troll is actually people like you who will change the subject to an ad hom attack. The issue or the person's point of view on it has nothing to do with being a troll. It's a political forum, so figure it out!


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



But there is not a glut of people running out there to commit murder on a daily basis, nor rape, nor robbery. Laws that a vast majority of the population support are never a problem. Also again, most of these laws are AFTER the fact of committing some act, not just the mere ownership of some item. 

An overwhelming number of people dont want others owning nukes, or cannons, or PU-36 explosive space  modulators, and thus those laws are easy for people to agree on.

What gun control people are trying now to do is make the very ownership of certain commonly owned firearms illegeal. And don't go with the whole "we are only banning new people from owning them."  Its a ban that flies in the face of equal protection, as the only condition is owning it before the law was passed. I can have the same clean record and would be banned only because I did not excercise my right prior to a given date. Thats like saying I no longer have a right to trial by jury because I wasn't arrested before "Date X"


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



I am having a rather nice coversation with Coyote in this very thread, and they do not hold the same position as me. YOU are the one who keeps adding FOOL at the end of your posts, and keeps egging people on with your gleeful threats of arrest for non registration. 

Your style is what shows you as a troll, not your position (which is wrong anyway).

Before your rep was turned off, you were on your way down, not up, and it wasn't just me negging you. yet plenty of progressive posters on here have plenty of rep. Why is that?


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 11, 2013)

ok, when you look at where most of the gun violence occurs it is among the criminal element.  inner city disputes, gang retaliation, drug related violence.  the sandy hooks, the colorado theaters are really the minority.  and what is the majority is not going to obey any law you pass. regardless.  and you can take every gun from every law abiding citizen and that illegal element will still have their weapons and large capacity clips and still commit their murders.  

And what will you do in the process?  Destroy a legitimate $36 billion dollar industry and replace it with an even larger black market. just like drugs today.  just like alcohol years ago. the black market is already out there, but it will mushroom. and yes even law abiding citizens will turn to a black market.  just like they do with drugs today.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Some can change a magazine in less time than that. The standard for Infantry soldiers is that you must be able to clear a misfire in you weapon (which requires many more steps than changing magazines) in under 5 seconds. So, how many of those could there possibly be in the country. Hmmm....lessee. We graduate about maybe 50 or 60 thousand a year. They probably live to more than 70, but let's just say 60 years old. So about 50,000 times 40. So that's roughly a couple million people. And, that's just the former Infantry out of one branch and not giving anyone else any credit.

Why do I need a need a "high capacity" magazine. I don't. I consider a "High Capacity" magazine something that is larger than the manufacturer recommended for that weapon. I don't need anything larger than a 20 or 30 round magazine. 

Why do I need a normal sized magazine for my rifle? For the same reason the military does. We all have a second amendment responsibility that goes along with the right. We have a responsibility to overthrow a tyrannical government should one arise. A military weapon would be nice to have for that. But, since we can't have that, we have to make due with semi-autos. That's bad enough, but limiting the capacity of the magazine is unconscionable. The rocket launcher would no doubt go past it's due date before I ever used it. They have a shelf life.....did you know?


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



I see the point here but at this time, a growing majority of people are supporting a universal background check - that would seem to be something we could all agree upon.



> What gun control people are trying now to do is make the very ownership of certain commonly owned firearms illegeal.



Are they that commonly owned? This lists the most popular guns: HowStuffWorks "Top 5 Most Popular Guns -- and Why"

And...again, like with rocket launchers - ownership of certain weapons is already illegal.



> And don't go with the whole "we are only banning new people from owning them."  Its a ban that flies in the face of equal protection, as the only condition is owning it before the law was passed. I can have the same clean record and would be banned only because I did not excercise my right prior to a given date. Thats like saying I no longer have a right to trial by jury because I wasn't arrested before "Date X"



A lot of stuff gets grandfathered in - for example, when they change emissions standards for new cars they grandfather in the old ones.  I don't see how this would be any different.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



I don't know who all these people are that are agreeing with UBC. It certainly isn't me and I'll bet if people were informed when asked the polling question that this is backdoor universal registration they damned sure wouldn't agree with it.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



and i'll ask why limit a magazine capacity.  I have dozens of high capacity mags.  I've shot over a hundred thousand rounds through them.  not one has killed anyone.   and this is multiplied my millions of  legitimate shooters.    the magazine is not the issue.     

Why have a car that goes over 65 if that is the limit?  why have alcohol with a percentage grater then beer? you can get drunk on beer if that is your objective.  

If you go to a range do you want to birn one or two large capacity mags and spend the time you paid for shooting instead of having to own dozens of smaller ones or spent the time you paid for reloading rather than shooting? 

a relative beginner can swap out a clip before someone under duress of fire would even think to react.  how do you know when the shooter is out?  he isn't, you charge and you're dead.  one of the biggest ploys in WWII that got more Germans killed  was the distinctive plink the M1 garand made when it ejected a clip.  a shooter would flick and empty clip with his thumb, the german would think the shooter was out of ammo and charge, but end up dead.  you don't know how fast that shooter can swap out. and it doesn't divert their attention. you push a button the old mag drops. you're slipping in a new one at the same time. your eye never comes off the target.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



I didn't start the bullshit ad hom attacks that you trolls start, so don't come crying to me when you get it in return. You're the one who can't form an opinion based on case law and the Constitution, so you have to troll to show off. 

Consider this: Guns and firearms are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution and neither is the right to vote. There is a prohibition against disarming the populace and a prohibition against denying a citizen their rights based on race and gender, but the Constitution has never said a woman or a Black person has the right to vote. 

Since we all believe we have the right to vote, why are we required to register to vote? Why shouldn't that right be the way you view gun rights where you believe registration is taking away a right? The Constitution didn't say I could only vote once or that I needed to register to vote, did it? 

Can you see how ridiculous an argument against gun registration can become for people who have very little understanding of what the Constitution truly says?

Do you see how to make a point and not troll people? Try it sometime, but don't expect the people you have trolled to immediately start discussing everything with the likes of you!


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

Tech_Esq said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



Had no idea of rocket launcher shelf life (haven't gone shopping for one yet)

Interesting information though, and thanks.  I think one of the fundamental differences in thought we probably have is the view that _"we have a responsibility to overthrow a tyrannical government should one arise_" and that should drive our choices as to what firearms we can own.

Personally - I tend to be less paranoid of government and trust in the ability of our political system, as slow and half-assed crazy as it is - to prevent the rise of a tyrannical government.  That could change, but that is my view at this point.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



so what does this background check get me? again, the majority of the gun violence occurs with the criminal element. how many of them get a gun through the system?  they don't. it's black market


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



our country has that point of view. just take a look at iraq, egypy, libya, syria.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Interesting points....


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Tech_Esq said:
> ...


Not sure what you mean here because there is zero cultural or political similarity with any of those countries.

Edited to add: I see what you mean in terms of our country's views - they are very ingrained in our culture and in the founding of our country - more so than any other country.  I don't think any other country as a specifically stated right to bare arms.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



In the case of cars it is to protect the owner of a car with an older technology from having to buy something NEWER and BETTER.  In the case of this, it is to prevent ME from excercising a right someone else is still able to exercise through no detrimental or illegal action on my part. Owning a car is also not a right enshrined in the consitution, and thus does not have the hurdle that right attaches. 

A rocket launcher and ANY firearm are two entirely different things. All a rocket launcher is really is a propulsion device for a grenade, which is an explosive device, not a projectile as in a firearm. You notice you dont see people clammoring for grenades, but some of us do get pissed off when you go after semi automatic rifles.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 11, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Your side wants to point at failure as evidence that they need more power.
> 
> In that case, "none" is the correct answer....Compromising with doubling down on failure would be stupid.



What failure?

Failure to block legislation from NRA-bribed congressmen that made it impossible to enforce existing laws?

That is failure I guess.

However, background checks and a gun registry would certainly help the current situation.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



so when do we start doing background checks on people registering to vote and force them to have some form of government ID?  Now i recall when conservatives made this type of recommendation you cried it was a violation of their constitutional rights and unfairly inconvenieced the poor.   why do you have a sudden change of heart all of a sudden?  why the double standard?


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



Again - no law is perfect or catches 100% of the offenders.  Criminals always find a way around it if they want to badly enough.  You're position is basically stating there is no need for any criminal laws because they'll find a way around it.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 11, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Guns built from scratch have no serial numbers to register, nitwit.
> ...



Really, many weapons produced prior to 1968 had no serial numbers, any idea how many that could be?


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 11, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > I know that the cities with the tightest gun control laws have the highest murder rates.
> ...



Missouri a dangerous city, REALLY? Do you think anyone should take your seriously after that. I think you need to get out more.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Exactly - and grandfathering in certain weapons means that a gunowner doesn't have to get rid of what he currently has and buy something new because it's now illegal.  There is no essential difference there.

Agree - owning a car is not a right.  However, owning a specific type of gun is also not a right.



> A rocket launcher and ANY firearm are two entirely different things. All a rocket launcher is really is a propulsion device for a grenade, which is an explosive device, not a projectile as in a firearm. You notice you dont see people clammoring for grenades, but some of us do get pissed off when you go after semi automatic rifles.



They aren't two completely different types of things - they are different mostly in terms of degree of damage they can do and that is often the difference between many categories of fire arms.  People aren't clamoring for them because they've been illegal for a long long time.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 11, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Gun registration is a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same, and thus, an infringement - that alone is enough to oppose it.



That is only true if a person is charged for gun registration.  If they are not, then it is not a precondition, but simply an official record keeping, kept for public safety purposes.

Background checks are in fact a precondition, but preconditions based on the public good, where criminals and the insane are concerned, certainly have plenty of precedent, and have been ruled constitutional time and time again.



M14 Shooter said:


> The governemt knowing who has guns and who does not will not reduce gun-related crime as nothing prevents someone from using a gun regustered to them to commit a crime; it is therefore nearly impossible to show how gun registration is an effective means to affect a compelling state interest.



Keeping tabs on who has guns is not only *not* a violation of the Second Amendment, but is in perfect keeping with organizing "a well-regulated militia", which is the entire purpose of the Second Amendment in the first place.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



So let me ask this question again.  No one supporting background checks seem to want to answer it.  We do this background check and we some how determine this person is not fit to own a gun becasue we feel they are at risk of killing someone with it.   So do we just not allow them to have a gun and move on? or do we take it a step further and intrude in their lives additionally and make sure they don't commit murder by some other method?   because you know once you start labeling someone as a potential risk, you know they are.  So when they do snap in some other form you are going to have a lawsuit, because you had prior knowledge they were a risk.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



The 2nd amendment says the word "arms." That means firearms. 

Clause 1 of Article 1 of the consitution states how each state deterimines how representatives are selected, and who can vote for them:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

So the states determine voting requirements, and to vote in a federal election you must meet the requirements of the largest part of the state legislature. The states, I am sure have 1 person 1 vote provisions, and thus this passes on to federal elections. This is modifed by the restrictions on disqualifying voting for race, sex and age after age 18 VIA AMENDMENT (which you are free to attempt with the 2nd)

Registering to vote is required because you actually have to interact with the government to cast your vote, Also to assure each person only casts one vote. You also need the # of voters to determine legislative breakdown by state. 

 A person keeping thier guns in thier house does not interact with the government, nor do thier guns impact how many votes they have, or the outcome of elections.   

You make points yes, but they are wrong and based on a flawed intepretation of the constitution.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



have you read the california proposals and the recently passed NY laws. That isn't what they are talking about.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Enforce them, before passing new ones that won't be enforced either, and will just add expense to the law abiding. Sound like a plan?


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> ok, when you look at where most of the gun violence occurs it is among the criminal element.  inner city disputes, gang retaliation, drug related violence.  the sandy hooks, the colorado theaters are really the minority.  and what is the majority is not going to obey any law you pass. regardless.  and you can take every gun from every law abiding citizen and that illegal element will still have their weapons and large capacity clips and still commit their murders.
> 
> And what will you do in the process? * Destroy a legitimate $36 billion dollar industry and replace it with an even larger black market. just like drugs today. * just like alcohol years ago. the black market is already out there, but it will mushroom. and yes even law abiding citizens will turn to a black market.  just like they do with drugs today.



No one is talking about "destroying" an industry with proposed regulation- that's quite an exageration.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Well, it's not paranoid craziness that drives my decision of weapon choice. I have one dual purpose weapon. It's an M1A 7.62x51mm similar looking to the M-14. I can shoot deer or larger game with it. If ever called upon, it would serve just fine in providing me the fire power I need to participate in the overthrow of a tyrannical government. When did I buy it? I bought it after I got out of the Army in 1988. So, it's not like it got it in reaction to anything that's going on that I saw as harmful or dangerous. But, I do take the responsibility seriously. One has to be at least somewhat prepared to fulfill their civic duties. I don't have a big stockpile of anything, much less ammo, but I have enough to get me started. I have other firearms too, but that's the only "go to war" weapon I have. I feel like that's enough for me. I'd say people should have one weapon that they can reasonably expect to be sufficient to participate in their 2nd amendment responsibility.

Yes, I believe in the other parts of doing your civic duty too and we all hope it never comes to that. And, yes, that's my point of view too. But, it doesn't take much. In 1929, almost no German would have allowed as how Hitler could possibly rule Germany. Yet, 3 years later, there he was.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



That still makes me a 2nd class citizen, unable to own something someone else of equal qualification does. The person who bought a car after the grandfathering is getting something better.

 I am getting something worse. Add to the fact that this would place me at a disadvantage against someone with no respect for the law, then whats the point?

I disagree on your last point. people are not clammoring for rocket launchers because in reality they are piss poor weapons of self defense. A semi automatic rifle is a very good weapon of self defense. 

In the end the burden is on someone wanting to take away my right, not on me to prove I need some item. If people don't like it they can repeal the 2nd amendment.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Try one point at a time! The Constitution saying arms did not mean firearms, which are only one type of arms.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 11, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> so when do we start doing background checks on people registering to vote and force them to have some form of government ID?  Now i recall when conservatives made this type of recommendation you cried it was a violation of their constitutional rights and unfairly inconvenieced the poor.   why do you have a sudden change of heart all of a sudden?  why the double standard?



And yet, Republicans did it anyway.

So, it would seem that when it suits their political ends, Republicans are happy to infringe the most basic rights of citizens...

But god forbid someone try to keep a list of who has deadly weapons, because obviously, that is the same thing as being Hitler.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 11, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Really, many weapons produced prior to 1968 had no serial numbers, any idea how many that could be?



What is your point here?  That said weapons couldn't be given serial numbers?

Because I'm thinking it would be rather easy to do so...


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > ok, when you look at where most of the gun violence occurs it is among the criminal element.  inner city disputes, gang retaliation, drug related violence.  the sandy hooks, the colorado theaters are really the minority.  and what is the majority is not going to obey any law you pass. regardless.  and you can take every gun from every law abiding citizen and that illegal element will still have their weapons and large capacity clips and still commit their murders.
> ...



well no it isn't really.  because comapnies that make the proposed banned products are out of business. in states like NY, the black market is already moving in to cover what they can no longer legally sell.  the problem is, legit companies have to obey the laws.  the black market doesn't.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 11, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > so when do we start doing background checks on people registering to vote and force them to have some form of government ID?  Now i recall when conservatives made this type of recommendation you cried it was a violation of their constitutional rights and unfairly inconvenieced the poor.   why do you have a sudden change of heart all of a sudden?  why the double standard?
> ...



show me where a background check is required to vote.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 11, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



_"And is is the most dangerous city in the nation"_ should of course read _"and St Louis is the most dangerous city in the nation"_.  

But thanks for your opinion, typo Nazi.  Of course typos should disqualify one from debate.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 11, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



Ya got one part wrong, Lanza did not fail the background check, he didn't make the purchase because he didn't want to wait for their waiting period to elapse. Had he waited he could have gotten the gun.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Feb 11, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



I'll add that the number of murders from all causes in Richmond in 2010 was 41. The crime rate in Richmond has been steadily declining since 2004. Richmond crime stats


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 11, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



You said:



> *Now i recall when conservatives made this type of recommendation* you cried it was a violation of their constitutional rights and unfairly inconvenieced the poor.   why do you have a sudden change of heart all of a sudden?  why the double standard?



To which I responded:



> And yet, Republicans did it anyway.



I was replying to your statement on what Republicans had or had not done, which I assumed was a general statement about requiring ID's, so, you tell me.


----------



## kwc57 (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > ok, when you look at where most of the gun violence occurs it is among the criminal element.  inner city disputes, gang retaliation, drug related violence.  the sandy hooks, the colorado theaters are really the minority.  and what is the majority is not going to obey any law you pass. regardless.  and you can take every gun from every law abiding citizen and that illegal element will still have their weapons and large capacity clips and still commit their murders.
> ...



Every journey begins with the first step.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



The Constitution doesn't give you the right to vote and only prohibits denying people's rights as citizens. How can you claim the person voting has to register, but a gun owner can't be required to register? The fact is the state requires a person to register to vote and the state can require a registration to own a firearm. The Constitution only prohibits disarming the populace and that is a right involvng the general public and not an individual's right in the sense of applying it to themselves. A person can be disarmed without it violating the Constitution. A person has the right to not have the populace disarmed.


----------



## kwc57 (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Are you seriously this stupid?  If so, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.


----------



## tjvh (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



A person can be disarmed without it violating the Constitution...Yes. If that person *violates the Law* they can, everyone else is protected by that pesky little line that says *"shall not be infringed".*


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 11, 2013)

Tech_Esq said:


> I'll add that the number of murders from all causes in Richmond in 2010 was 41. The crime rate in Richmond has been steadily declining since 2004. Richmond crime stats



That's good for Richmond, I'll give you that.  It's still way up there in terms of dangerous cities though.

But again, my point is that local gun laws have little to no bearing on violent crime rates within a city.

Mainly because we have this thing called a "national highway system" on which people can "drive" from place to place.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 11, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Registration is the inevitable consequence of background checks because otherwise it makes enforcement impossible.
> ...



You can't require a criminal to register a weapon and you can't prosecute them for possessing an unregistered weapon. So why do you only want to restrict the law abiding.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 11, 2013)

tjvh said:


> A person can be disarmed without it violating the Constitution...Yes. If that person *violates the Law* they can, everyone else is protected by that pesky little line that says *"shall not be infringed".*



So, if a raving lunatic is outside a Denny's waving an AR-15 in people's faces, and yelling about snakes crawling all over his body, then local law enforcement cannot take his weapon?


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 11, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> You can't require a criminal to register a weapon and you can't prosecute them for possessing an unregistered weapon. So why do you only want to restrict the law abiding.



If you make a law requiring that all weapons must be registered, then you certainly can prosecute them for possessing an unregistered weapon.

How would it work?   Here's an example:  a criminal with the intent of using a weapon would probably carry it from time to time on their person or in their car, and would be thus vulnerable to search by law enforcement.

And you wouldn't be restricting the law abiding at all.  How would making a list of who owns a gun be "creating a restriction"?


----------



## Tech_Esq (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



I'd say "disarmed" is not the standard. The populace has the right to have an effective deterrent, via arms, to a tyrannical government. That is the point. That's why the amendment is there. Anything that degrades that effectiveness must be subject to the highest of scrutiny. The government must show a compelling state interest and that there is no less restrictive alternatives than the one that they have chosen and that it is both neutral and effective in its operation.

Effective deterrence, it seems to me, would have a couple of components. First, access to arms that are effective enough, when widely held, to achieve their purpose. Think about it, potentially, these people would have to go up against jets, drones, bombs, helicopters disciplined troops. It would be a nightmare. We've restricted military level arms from civilian ownership already for the most part. We don't let anyone own mortars, let alone artillery. We can't have anti-aircraft missiles or armor for the most part, just old disarmed stuff. It would be quite a feat. And, the current proposals would make it even more of an uphill battle. And for what? Any hope of effectiveness? No. Just a, "well, maybe we could get a bad guy when he reloads." What a crock. Nobody that knows anything about guns believes that for an instant. This last guy didn't even finish any magazines. He reloaded a bunch when he didn't even run out so he wouldn't run out in the middle of a room. There goes the reload theory.

And effective deterrence means something that is not easily thwarted by the government itself. If it knows where to go to pick up the guns, then it can do it. It did it in New Orleans and it can do it anywhere else. 

Interestingly, this is where only the lawful gun owner needs to worry. It's unlikely the criminal would join in a patriotic regime change effort. So, only the lawful gun owners are serious threats to the government. Kinda paradoxical isn't it?


----------



## jtpr312 (Feb 11, 2013)

Dumbasses.  There's no such thing as a gun show loophole.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Feb 11, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > You can't require a criminal to register a weapon and you can't prosecute them for possessing an unregistered weapon. So why do you only want to restrict the law abiding.
> ...



I'm a lawful gun owner. If you pass a law saying I now have to register my guns. I would not comply. Now I'm a criminal. You've just made a criminal out of a law abiding citizen. This is how you know you are passing bad laws.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 11, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > A spin off of the other thread where I have asked numerous times and not a single right winger has answered, is if you support the gun show loophole.
> ...



If you wanted to sell a gun, how would you do a background check?


----------



## Tech_Esq (Feb 11, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> > A person can be disarmed without it violating the Constitution...Yes. If that person *violates the Law* they can, everyone else is protected by that pesky little line that says *"shall not be infringed".*
> ...



You can't yell fire in a crowded theater and you can't yell snakes at Denny's. Public safety exception.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Feb 11, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...



Right now, you and the person you are selling it to go to a FFL and you pay a transfer fee and they do the check.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Never been wild bore hunting in S. TX have you?


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 11, 2013)

jtpr312 said:


> Dumbasses.  There's no such thing as a gun show loophole.



Wow, this is quite a talking point today, isn't it?

Did FoxNews hand this down over the weekend?


----------



## Liability (Feb 11, 2013)

jtpr312 said:


> Dumbasses.  There's no such thing as a gun show loophole.




but  but but



Sorry.  Just channeling the dopey Crack_Fable.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 11, 2013)

Tech_Esq said:


> I'm a lawful gun owner. If you pass a law saying I now have to register my guns. I would not comply. Now I'm a criminal. You've just made a criminal out of a law abiding citizen. This is how you know you are passing bad laws.



No, YOU have made a criminal out of a law-abiding citizen.

There is nothing stopping you from registering your weapon, you are choosing not to do so, thus breaking the law.

By definition, if you are breaking the law, then you are not in fact a "law-abiding citizen".


----------



## Tech_Esq (Feb 11, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > I'll add that the number of murders from all causes in Richmond in 2010 was 41. The crime rate in Richmond has been steadily declining since 2004. Richmond crime stats
> ...



Ummm.....beats Baltimore....lol. And look at the gun laws there or DC. 

I'd say local gun laws have a great deal to do with gun crime. Most murder is committed by someone the victim knew. Almost no crime is committed by roving people going up and down I-95 and when it is, the press talks about it because it is unusual. And, that's just not murder, that's any crime. We had a guy that was committing burglary over a wide area over a couple of states and it was all over the news. There was another guy that was committing stabbings around here and in Ohio I think. We heard about him too. It's fairly rare.

But, the word is on the street around here, if you are going to commit a crime in the DC Metro area, you make sure you aren't in VA. Because you are going to do hard time. We have the outgrowth of Project Exile and truth in sentencing. Exile involves mandatory minimums for gun possession in the commission of a felony, gun use and actually hitting someone with higher sentences for each. Truth in sentencing means you do at least 85% of whatever time you are sentenced to. Your state should try it, it works.


----------



## tjvh (Feb 11, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> > A person can be disarmed without it violating the Constitution...Yes. If that person *violates the Law* they can, everyone else is protected by that pesky little line that says *"shall not be infringed".*
> ...



The Law *already* says nuts and felons cannot have weapons, so yes -Law enforcement  may take the gun. Of course you would have known that *if only* you were thinking about the issue *rationally* instead of *emotionally. *


----------



## Tech_Esq (Feb 11, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a lawful gun owner. If you pass a law saying I now have to register my guns. I would not comply. Now I'm a criminal. You've just made a criminal out of a law abiding citizen. This is how you know you are passing bad laws.
> ...



You know exactly what I mean. Don't get cute.

Yes, I am choosing to break the law. The law should not have been enacted. It is a bad law and I believe it violates the oath I took to uphold the Constitution. I believe it will be overturned and it's a bad idea to let the government know I have whatever guns in the meantime or depend on records destruction later.

I will not be fingerprinted, I will not have my picture taken, I will not register any weapons I will not comply.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

Tech_Esq said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



That's your point of view, but the fact is the Founders believed the government could be changed at the polls and their concern was the military taking control and making a tyrannical government. The Founders created a government that couldn't be tyrannical and it's people talking about changing the government by force who are the tyrants. Logic should dictate, we have not followed the warning of the Founders and created a standing army and then some. Only a moron would think they can change our government by force. Try taking over the government around people like me and you're going to get a trial by a firing squad! Tell Ted Nugent and all the rest of the NRA nutters that! You better take your rebellion to a country that will put up with it and a country where you have a chance of surviving!

Think about this! I don't give a fuck what you people believe the 2nd Amendment was made for and if you cross the line, you die if you're around me. The day you fools try to take over our government is your last day on Earth, unless the military gets to you first and arrests you for treason. I'm not taking prisoners.

Keep stirring the pot until it all boils over at once and see what you get!


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 11, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Gun registration is a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same, and thus, an infringement - that alone is enough to oppose it.
> ...


No, its true, period - payment or not, its is something you have to do before you can exercise your right -- a precondition to the exercise.  
Nothing about the right to arms inherently requires that the govenment know you have a gun, and so the precondition is not inherent to said exercise.  
Thus, infringement.



> Background checks are in fact a precondition....


...one also not inherent to the exercise, and thus, an infringement.   
They are also a form of prior restraint, in and of itsel,f an infringement.

It is impossible to argue that these things are not infringements; the only question is they are an effective means to affect a compelling state interest and are the least restrictive means to that end - the burden of proof of which is on the state.   Feel free to show this to be the case.



> ...and have been ruled constitutional time and time again.


Please cite just one SCotUS decision that upholds the constitutionality of a background check for the purchase of a firearm.



> Keeping tabs on who has guns is not only *not* a violation of the Second Amendment, but is in perfect keeping with organizing "a well-regulated militia", which is the entire purpose of the Second Amendment in the first place.


Except, of course, that the 2nd protects the right of an individual regardless of his relationship to any militia - and ns such, the idea that the state needs to know who does and does not have weapons because of some need to regulate the militia does not hold water.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Think about this! I don't give a fuck what you people believe the 2nd Amendment was made for and if you cross the line, you die if you're around me. The day you fools try to take over our government is your last day on Earth, unless the military gets to you first and arrests you for treason. I'm not taking prisoners.
> 
> Keep stirring the pot until it all boils over at once and see what you get!



So you will muster in to attack Texas and Texans should she vow dissolution ?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

jtpr312 said:


> Dumbasses.  There's no such thing as a gun show loophole.



Then there should be no problem for you gun nutters when we close it!

It never happened, right?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 11, 2013)

OODA_Loop said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Think about this! I don't give a fuck what you people believe the 2nd Amendment was made for and if you cross the line, you die if you're around me. The day you fools try to take over our government is your last day on Earth, unless the military gets to you first and arrests you for treason. I'm not taking prisoners.
> ...


Why does anyone respond to Dubya?   He's clearly little more than a pre-pubescent lunatic.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



If you give up the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government wouldn't that be the same as inviting one? History has proven time and time again that governments don't generally have the ability to police themselves. There are 100"s of millions dead to attest to that fact. Even if we don't need the ability now, can you say with absolute certainty that Americans 50 or 100 years from now won't, we have an obligation to them to preserve their rights.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 11, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Education? Seriously?? Do you make this shit up in your little mind as you go along??? Jefferson and our founding fathers did not have a paranoid fear of the government they created. When Jefferson said: "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government" he was talking about what government's role is. In that same letter he talks about the 'public good'.

If you want to educate yourself, read the Federalist Papers where Hamilton and Madison talk about a well regulated militia. The Federalist Papers were arguments FOR the creation of a federal government. And they come close to outright mocking the anti-Federalist who spewed the same 'slippery slope' paranoia you right wing turds keep spewing.


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



How can I miss a point you didn't make?  What does the Alcohol industries, or even the automanufacturing industry have to do with laws against drunk drives?

We don't hold either one responsible when someone gets drunk on their product and drives in their product and kills or injuries someone.  We hold that individual responsible and the first step is taking away their license to drive.

We never take away their right to consume alcohol once they have completed whatever punishment the courts have given them.

And we definately don't punish the public at large by requiring background checks and 3 day  waiting periods and limiting their ability to purchase what ever type alcohol or car with what ever accessories they want simply because someone once drank a certain type of alcohol or drove a certain type of vehicle and killed a bunch of people.


----------



## tjvh (Feb 11, 2013)

In my State you must transfer guns through a dealer with a FFL -gun show or not. Generally these transfers cost individuals $25.00 per gun. The fact that it costs *anything* is an infringement upon my Constitutional Rights. Tell me gun grabbing Liberals, how can you be OK with *charging people* to transfer guns, yet when people bring up license/ ID fees as being *Unconstitutional* in regards to ID requirements to vote -you back them one hundred percent and scream that the fees would disenfranchise voters. Now I'd argue Registration fees further disenfranchise the poor from having a gun to protect their homes. Curiously, liberals don't have any problems trampling gun owners Rights. It's very *hypocritical* to defend *some* Rights, and dump on others that disagree with your twisted ideology using *the exact same arguments.*


----------



## Tech_Esq (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Oh please internet tough guy. You aren't doing anything to anybody. And if something did happen you be too busy wetting your pants to do anything useful one way or the other.

I'm certain that every revolution against every tyrannical government was an impossible uphill battle, but the ones that succeeded actually did. Therefore, you're wrong.

The founders did their best, but they were under no illusions about what man could do to their words and meaning over time. I would say their caution was justified. Of course, we all prefer to use peaceful means to ensure that tyranny never encroaches, but we are talking about the 2nd amendment which exist only for extreme situation. So, that discussion must, of necessity, be about why it was created and what it means now. In those days the musket that people held privately was sometimes better than the best musket issued to fighting troops. I don't think people had cannons though. Now, the best light weapon that someone can get is only a fraction as good as that which the average soldier would be equipped with, not to mention all the planes and additional equipment that gives them an edge. 

But, don't fret Dubby, the way these things go, some of the military defects to the rebels and brings their equipment with them. Then the lightly armed army of millions gets the job done. Just ask the Chinese what a lightly armed army of millions can do.


----------



## tjvh (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> > Dumbasses.  There's no such thing as a gun show loophole.
> ...



*We?* So your ideology trumps *my* Constitution? I highly doubt that. Sorry, but not everyone believes in your utopian dream, and we wont give up *our* Constitution even if you Liberal loons already have.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 11, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Really, many weapons produced prior to 1968 had no serial numbers, any idea how many that could be?
> ...



You going to pay for that or borrow more money from China to?


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 11, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



You don't bother to read a post to make sure it makes sense before you hit the submit button and you call me names. Too freaking funny.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Feb 11, 2013)

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
         ---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.





Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...





> No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
> ---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.





> A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
> --- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.





> [W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to *disarm the people*; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; *but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually*...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor...
> ---George Mason





> [O]ne loves to possess arms, tho they hope never to have occasion for them.
> --- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796.



And finally, a last word from George Washington himself:



> "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence  from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable  the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference  they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
> George Washington
> First President of the United States



And that about sums it up!


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> > Dumbasses.  There's no such thing as a gun show loophole.
> ...



If there is no such thing, what are you going to close?


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 11, 2013)

tjvh said:


> In my State you must transfer guns through a dealer with a FFL -gun show or not. Generally these transfers cost individuals $25.00 per gun. The fact that it costs *anything* is an infringement upon my Constitutional Rights. Tell me gun grabbing Liberals, how can you be OK with *charging people* to transfer guns, yet when people bring up license/ ID fees as being *Unconstitutional* in regards to ID requirements to vote -you back them one hundred percent and scream that the fees would disenfranchise voters. Now I'd argue Registration fees further disenfranchise the poor from having a gun to protect their homes. Curiously, liberals don't have any problems trampling gun owners Rights. It's very *hypocritical* to defend *some* Rights, and dump on others that disagree with your twisted ideology using *the exact same arguments.*



You msut live in CO or something.
So criminals exchanging guns for dope show up at gun dealers' shops to undergo background checks because it's the law, right?


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 11, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > You can't require a criminal to register a weapon and you can't prosecute them for possessing an unregistered weapon. So why do you only want to restrict the law abiding.
> ...



First requiring a criminal to register a weapon would be a violation of his 5th Amendment rights, and since he can't legally register a weapon you can't prosecute him for not doing something he can't legally do. So what's the point of registering any weapns if you can register them all.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 11, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > You can't require a criminal to register a weapon and you can't prosecute them for possessing an unregistered weapon. So why do you only want to restrict the law abiding.
> ...


How do you get someone who builds a weapon from parts -by extension it has no serial number- to register their weapon?

BTW, making the law abiding go through all sorts of bullshit to exercise their rights _*IS*_ restricting them.


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 11, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > so when do we start doing background checks on people registering to vote and force them to have some form of government ID?  Now i recall when conservatives made this type of recommendation you cried it was a violation of their constitutional rights and unfairly inconvenieced the poor.   why do you have a sudden change of heart all of a sudden?  why the double standard?
> ...



By God, I think you finally got it.

The Courts have ruled against the Government making that list several times.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Think about this! I don't give a fuck what you people believe the 2nd Amendment was made for and if you cross the line, you die if you're around me. *The day you fools try to take over our government* is your last day on Earth, unless the military gets to you first and arrests you for treason. I'm not taking prisoners.
> 
> Keep stirring the pot until it all boils over at once and see what you get!


"_*OUR*_" gubmint?

The commie claws finally come out!


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 11, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > You can't require a criminal to register a weapon and you can't prosecute them for possessing an unregistered weapon. So why do you only want to restrict the law abiding.
> ...



In Haynes v. U.S. (1968), a Miles Edward Haynes appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of an unregistered short-barreled shotgun.

His argument was ingenious: since he was a convicted felon at the time he was arrested on the shotgun charge, he could not legally possess a firearm. Haynes further argued that for a convicted felon to register a gun, especially a short-barreled shotgun, was effectively an announcement to the government that he was breaking the law. If he did register it, as 26 U.S.C. sec.5841 required, he was incriminating himself; but if he did not register it, the government would punish him for possessing an unregistered firearm &#8212; a violation of 26 U.S.C. sec.5851. Consequently, his Fifth Amendment protection against self- incrimination (&#8220;No person&#8230; shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself&#8221 was being violated &#8212; he would be punished if he registered it, and punished if he did not register it. While the Court acknowledged that there were circumstances where a person might register such a weapon without having violated the prohibition on illegal possession or transfer, both the prosecution and the Court acknowledged such circumstances were &#8220;uncommon.&#8221;

The Court concluded:

We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under sec.5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec.5851.

This was a 8 - 1 decision (with only Chief Justice Earl Warren dissenting).

You Cannot Force Criminals to Register Their Guns ? Only Law Abiding Citizens | Daily Pundit


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 11, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> The Court concluded:
> 
> We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full
> defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under sec.5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec.5851.
> ...


Moral of the story:
If there is ever universal gun registration, become a felon, as the government canot prosecute you for having an unregistered weapon.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Except that is not the gun he used, is it? Why are you accusing others of being dishonest when you are dishonest yourself?

This is what a Bushmaster looks like when it is compliant with the assault weapons ban in CT, which was the strictest law in the nation at the time.

No flash suppressor, no forward grip, no barrel shroud, no tactical mount for a flashlight, and, most importantly of all, not a shotgun.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Homicides by gun are increasing. Uou claim they will end if we ban guns and track all weapons.

You are wrong, end of discussion.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 11, 2013)

Tech_Esq said:


> No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
> ---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.
> 
> 
> ...



It doesn't sum anything up. You folks are so fucked in the head it is scary.

Background writings of the Framers regarding the Second Amendment.

If you read and understand what our founder's intent was regarding the second amendment, you would understand that our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.

Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress debate on arms and militia, youll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.

The James Madison resolution on the issue clearly stated that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed since a well-regulated militia is the best security of a free country.

Virginias support of a right to bear arms was based on the same rationale: A well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State

Ultimately, as we know the agreed upon 2nd Amendment reads: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That reads like a conditional statement. If we as a fledgling new nation are committed to our own security, then its best we have a regulated militia. And to maintain this defensive militia, we must allow Americans to keep and bear arms.

The other defensive option would have been a standing army.  

But at the time, our Founding Fathers believed a militia was the one best defense for the nation since a standing army was, to quote Jefferson, an engine of oppression.

Our Founding Fathers were scared senseless of standing armies. It was well-accepted among the Members of Congress during that first gun debate that standing armies in a time of peace are dangerous to liberty. Those were the exact words used in the state of New Yorks amendment to the gun debate.

Later, in an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies: The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.

Had the early framers of the Constitution embraced a standing army during times of peace, then there would be no need for a regulated militia, and thus no need for the 2nd Amendment.

more


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 11, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > The Court concluded:
> ...



But they can prosecute you for have a weapon, just not the unregistered charge.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 11, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > And, here is a point that I'd like to know the answer to:
> ...



Dealers are not required to copy licence & insurance info to sell a car.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Because I can actually read and comprehend English. Even if we ignore the quote about the tree of liberty needing to be refreshed we have other quotes that more than prove my point. 

Emphasis in the original.

Before you try to obfuscate the issue, Monticello.org is the official site of the Monticello museum.



> "Societies exist under three forms sufficiently distinguishable. 1.  Without government, as among our Indians. 2. Under governments wherein  the will of every one has a just influence, as is the case in England in  a slight degree, and in our states in a great one. 3. Under governments  of force: as is the case in all other monarchies and in most of the  other republics. To have an idea of the curse of existence under these  last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a  problem, not clear in my mind, that the 1st. condition is not the best.  But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of  population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of  mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness.  It has its evils too: the principal of which is the turbulence to which  it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and  it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.  Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of  government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. *I  hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as  necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.*[1]Unsuccesful  rebellions indeed generally establish the incroachments on the rights  of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth  should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of  rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medecine  necessary for the sound health of government." - Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Paris, January 30, 1787[2]



A little rebellion...(Quotation) « Thomas Jefferson?s Monticello

Look at that, rebellion is as important as rain.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 11, 2013)

Jarlaxle said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...


No, but they are required to collect a lot of other personal info, per USAPATRIOT Act, that is just plain creepy.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Have you ever heard of the 14th Amendment?

*All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to  the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the  State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which  shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United  States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or  property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its  jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. *


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



They were the type of arms a citizen brought to the party, pikes and maces being outdated at the time.

And yes firearms are a type of arms, and your right to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed. So you just made your argument against yourself.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



The Brady Campaign to Ban Handguns does not have a gun grabbing agenda? Seriously?


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



That is the biggest pile of circular drivel you have posted so far. Voting requires registration simply because they have to know how many people are voting, and who votes where. Owning a gun you keep in your home requires none of that. States may require a CCW that shows you are capable of concealed carry, and that is mostly for your own protection so a police officer knows you are allowed to carry. 

IF you didnt have voter rolls, you couldnt know who could vote, where the vote came from, and how many representatives a given area gets. Guns require no such information to own.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



You know why it cools down so fast? Because it is a fucking weak ass gun that barely penetrates human skin, which also explains why the US military now uses a higher caliber weapon despite the advantages of not loading down the troops with the heavier ammo.

As for all the sights, you can do that with any rifle made.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 11, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
> ...



Exactly, A FREE STATE, now show me anywhere the founders used the term "State" and the term "Government or Federal Government", synonymously. Hint, not once.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Sigh.
> ...



Fucking sigh.

What I am pointing out is  *NOT A FUCKING *opinion, it is a fact which blows everything you have to say about the subject out of the water. The data you are trying to use is not theirs, it belongs to other people, and is 20 years old.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > And criminals will obey all of that.
> ...



Severe consequences like prison, fines, and losing their FFL?


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 11, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > I know that the cities with the tightest gun control laws have the highest murder rates.
> ...



Chicago and Washington DC have very strict gun laws...and are essentially war zones.  You fail.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 11, 2013)

Jarlaxle said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



Actually in most states they are, because they are needed to process the registration.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



How do you immediately trace a gun to anyone. Let us imagine that a gun is found at a crime scene, and it belongs to you. Does that make you guilty of the crime, or does it mean that your gun was there? What if the crime scene is the result of someone driving a car through your house with someone strapped to the bumper, should the police be able to confiscate your guns simply because they were found at the scene? Are the guns guilty even though they had nothing to do with what happened?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Better question: Why are dealers and law abiding citizens put through the whole background check Kabuki dance, when it's demonstrably ineffective at keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals?
> ...



There are no loopholes, you guys are imagining things, and refuse to argue from the basis of reality. If this was based on reality you would admit that the problem is that people are going to kill other people, and we can't stop that because Pre-Crime doesn't even work in the movies.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > I know that the cities with the tightest gun control laws have the highest murder rates.
> ...



You don't think that is because they have enough police on the fucking streets of New York that they do stop and frisk searches of of hundreds of thousands of people every year?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



This is what I said, Windbag:



> It was a military style shotgun and may have even been like this one, hence the confusion:



Now, how do you know specifically what the weapon looked like? The weapon you posted appears to have a flash suppressor, but even it could be adapted to look like the other one, couldn't it? 






Izhmash Saiga-12 combat shotgun - Bing Images

There are many weapons and conversion kits to produce them that come from the same core weapon. How do you know what the police found?


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 11, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I agree with what Jefferson is saying here. He is calling for benign retaliation by government. It is in no, way, shape, or form sanction for spilling blood.

Thanks for supporting my argument.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...




The reason not to have a 3 day waiting period is pretty simple, what if someone needs a gun because they are being targeted by a criminal? Should they be forced to wait before they can defend themselves?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Post where I said anything about banning guns! You make up shit, Windbag, so you can't even deal with the simple reality of what someone has said. When you aren't correct about what someone has said, you can't be correct evaluating what was said. That was just another insane impulse where mind keeps telling you they will ban guns, whether they said it or not. 

Either post a quote of what wasn't said or just admit you're a lying ass loser! We know which choice that will be.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 11, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Tech_Esq said:
> ...



Our founding fathers chose forming state militias TO defend our government, not protect FROM government. They were concerned that a standing army was a threat to the nation.


The Federalist No. 29​
Concerning the Militia
Wednesday, January 9, 1788
[Alexander Hamilton]​
To the People of the State of New York:

THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. *This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States*, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress."

Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



You just can't stop talking about me, can you? 

I simply said firearms weren't the only type of arm in those days. Swords were also arms of that day and so were knives. Even a cannon was an type of arm of that day.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



A cannon was not a tyoe of arm.
Another blooper by the Blooper in Chief of USMB.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 11, 2013)

Jarlaxle said:


> Chicago and Washington DC have very strict gun laws...and are essentially war zones.  You fail.



Please.

For every city that has strict gun laws that has issues, I can point you to another city that has very loose gun laws that is a hell on earth.

Local gun laws make next to no difference in a nation where criminals can take a drive over the state line and grab all the guns they want.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Rabbi dealt with the cannon thing. 

And the only benefit of responding to your posts is the postive rep I get for sucessfully dealing with your drivel.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 11, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> How do you immediately trace a gun to anyone. Let us imagine that a gun is found at a crime scene, and it belongs to you. Does that make you guilty of the crime, or does it mean that your gun was there? What if the crime scene is the result of someone driving a car through your house with someone strapped to the bumper, should the police be able to confiscate your guns simply because they were found at the scene? Are the guns guilty even though they had nothing to do with what happened?



The gun would be traced to the person who sold the gun to the person who committed the crime.

This would have two effects:

1.  The gun seller would be a good source of information on who committed the crime in question.

2.  The gun seller could be held liable for selling the gun to a criminal, illegally, if the proper procedures were not followed.

The first effect is a direct good result, the second effect would be an indirect good result, in that it would discourage gun owners from selling weapons to criminals in the first place.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 11, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Yep, hence the reference to the militias in the Constitution, the bill of rights were in response to the concerns of the States to preserve the peoples freedoms and insure the federal government could never make them irrelevant. Hence "the security of a free State" The federalist papers were written before the ratification of the Constitution and made no reference to the bill of rights.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



The founders could have never considered such all encompassing government as we are currently dealing with. Or they did, and gave us the 2nd as a method of getting rid of it should it get too frisky.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



The Constitution didn't give you the right to vote. It prohibited denying the rights of a citizen, because of race and later gender. The right to vote comes from the states giving those voting rights to it's citizens. The right to vote had conditions which infringed the right of certain citizens until the Constitution changed that. 

Voter registration rolls have nothing to do with how many representatives a given area gets and that is done by the census.

The Constitution only prohibits the disarming of the populace and the states and federal government do have a right to deny certain types of weapons, as long as it isn't the whole category, such as pistols. That decision is only based on case law. An assault weapons ban is constitutional and so are bans on magazine sizes.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> The Constitution only prohibits the disarming of the populace and the states and federal government do have a right to deny certain types of weapons, as long as it isn't the whole category, such as pistols. That decision is only based on case law. An assault weapons ban is constitutional and so are bans on magazine sizes.



Lets say your assertion is correct, which it is not (common use) a semi-auto which accepts a detachable magazine is a category of weapon.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Nope, they are not. or at least they should not be except for courts that make law instead of interpret it. 

Congratulations, you actually made your first point about the census. 

Yes, but the state consitutions gave voting rights, and the consitution said that if you could vote for the states lower house, you could vote for the house. senators were by state legislature, and president was by electors, and you could vote for electors if you could vote for the lower house. 


And if you want to INFRINGE on gun owner rights, amend the consitution. If it SOOOO popular, you should have no problem getting the required votes in the chambers, and the 3/4 states.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 11, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



He understands, but doesn't CARE./  His idea of compromise is, "Shut up and do what I tell you."


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Continually repeating a stupid statement doesn't make it an intelligent statement, kid.  It just makes you look even dumber than you already look.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



No, *that is a LIE!*


----------



## Oddball (Feb 11, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > How do you immediately trace a gun to anyone. Let us imagine that a gun is found at a crime scene, and it belongs to you. Does that make you guilty of the crime, or does it mean that your gun was there? What if the crime scene is the result of someone driving a car through your house with someone strapped to the bumper, should the police be able to confiscate your guns simply because they were found at the scene? Are the guns guilty even though they had nothing to do with what happened?
> ...


The everyday citizen_* is not *_a federal agent, nor should they be put into the position of acting as one.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



The Supreme Court has already ruled that unconstitutional.  You fail as usual.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 11, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > Chicago and Washington DC have very strict gun laws...and are essentially war zones.  You fail.
> ...



So, start listing them.

Bring it.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > OriginalShroom said:
> ...



You are full of shit, Windbag, and the fact that the military uses it shows how full of shit you are. It'll penetrate more than skin and is liable to go right through you if it misses bone. The M-16 was considered an inhumane weapon in Vietnam, because of the way the bullet would start to tumble and travel to places all over the body. That happens with a very high speed bullet.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Nuclear arms aren't arms, right?

Arms just means weapon, so try a dictionary!


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Two seconds is very slow...I can do a mag swap in a pistol in just under ONE second, and I'm not all that quick.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



The only way you can infringe the 2nd Amendment is to disarm the populace. As far as the other things go, you aren't going to get a court decision in your favor, so get used to it. Places like New York will get laws requiring registration of firearms. It's just a matter of time.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

Jarlaxle said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



I answered and didn't repeat, fool! Learn how to read!


----------



## Oddball (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


Once again, you show that you don't know your ass from a hot rock.

Military 556mm and civilian .223 are different rounds, ignoramus.


> The 5.56×45mm NATO (official NATO nomenclature 5.56 NATO) is a rifle cartridge developed in the United States and originally chambered in the M16 rifle. Under STANAG 4172, it is a standard cartridge for NATO forces as well as many non-NATO countries.[2] *It is derived from, but not identical to, the .223 Remington cartridge.* When the bullet impacts at high velocity and yaws[3] in tissue, fragmentation creates a rapid transfer of energy which can result in dramatic wounding effects



5.56×45mm NATO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're dumber than dirt on the subject of firearms...You really should go post about something you know about...Like masturbation.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

Jarlaxle said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



You don't know how to read that too.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



No shit, but what does that have to do with the rounds cops use?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...


FOR THE 100,000 TIME
In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and the kind in common use at the time.
Miller vs. U.S.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 11, 2013)

Another gutless pussy who opted out of the rep system because he was getting the shit kicked out of him.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Then its time to remove or replace the government, via elections, or if they really force it, something else.

You can be a sheep your whole life. I will not be.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 11, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > OriginalShroom said:
> ...



If you think REALLY HARD, you will realize why what you posted does not contradict what I posted in any way.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Nope artillery.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Anytime you gun nutters feel froggy, jump! We would be glad to get rid of you.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 11, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > OriginalShroom said:
> ...



Explain, in detail, EXACTLY what information a dealer is required to collect before selling a car.  Be specific.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Let me know when you write the dictionary or determine the meaning of anything!



> *A weapon*, especially a firearm:



Source: arms - definition of arms by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 11, 2013)

Jarlaxle said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Jarlaxle said:
> ...


Your Slave Surveillance Number, for one...Which is none of their goddamn business.


----------



## Flopper (Feb 11, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...


The only answer, which would never make it through the courts, is a federal law requiring the registration and tracking of all firearms, similar to what's done with motor vehicles. Guns would be  registered when they are initially sold.  Like a car, when the gun is sold, the buyer and the seller must  report the sale.  If a gun is stolen and not reported, the owner faces a penalty if the gun is used in the commission of a crime.  In effect, we would be saying that tracking the ownership of guns is as important as tracking the ownership of cars.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



God and goddess, this is like debating a mental patient.  The .223 round will not exit a person...a lead-core round tends to fragment upon impact (as do many rifle rounds).  It is a high-velocity round, but a small one...it gets its kinetic energy from velocity, not mass.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 11, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



False.  Bought two cars at dealers.  Neither one got my SSN.  Try again!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Lesson II.-Manual of Arms.
PART SECOND SECOND.
1
[ame=http://youtu.be/UCcbftRTZKI]20090725 - SFC (Ret) George Hayden US Army - Stack Arms - YouTube[/ame]

2
[ame=http://youtu.be/ROvF53D24p8]stack arms 2 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Never happen. Go back to your Government 101 class and have the progressive de jour professor fill your head with more junk.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 11, 2013)

Jarlaxle said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Jarlaxle said:
> ...



Well let me think, you said dealers are not required to copy license and insurance info to sell a car. I said they are required to do so, last I looked they would be contradictory statements. A dealer can't allow you to drive away in a car without making sure you have a license and insurance, and he can't process the registration without those included in most states.  Every car I've bought from a dealer, they took copies of both. There, does that help?


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



Ok, I missed the first time you asked it.



> No one supporting background checks seem to want to answer it.  We do this background check and we some how determine this person is not fit to own a gun becasue we feel they are at risk of killing someone with it.   So do we just not allow them to have a gun and move on? or do we take it a step further and intrude in their lives additionally and make sure they don't commit murder by some other method?



No.

They have broken no laws.

And, the purpose of a background check is not simply because they might commit murder - one of largest (and often ignored) categories of gun violence - especially with impulse busy - is suicide.  In addition, convicted felons are barred from having guns and that would be picked up on a background check.



> because you know once you start labeling someone as a potential risk, you know they are.  So when they do snap in some other form you are going to have a lawsuit, because you had prior knowledge they were a risk.



Potential is only that - potential.

A background check is NOT an in depth psychiatric evaluation and no court would presume it was - it is simply stating that for some reason - that person should not have a gun.  In terms of mental fitness the only thing, at this point, that a background check will show is whether or not that person was ever admitted into an institution or has a court record of mental illness problems.  It's limited in that way, but it's better than nothing.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Funny, that's what Stalin and Mao said, good job baby boy, you're right up there with your heroes.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 11, 2013)

Jarlaxle said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Jarlaxle said:
> ...


Just bought one...They _*HAD *_to have it or I couldn't take the car, per USAPATRIOT Act.

_*You*_ try again.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...




Guns are not banned in the UK. It is perfectly legal to won them, as long as you accept the government registration program. That is exactly what you want to do here, and you are trying to deflect this into a debate about something else rather than admit you are wrong.

If only I was stupid enough to cooperate.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

Jarlaxle said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



With military ammo, you could shoot somebody in the chest and have it exit their leg. You are full of shit.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



A universal background check will help enforcement - a partial background check is next to useless.  Sound like a plan?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > How do you immediately trace a gun to anyone. Let us imagine that a gun is found at a crime scene, and it belongs to you. Does that make you guilty of the crime, or does it mean that your gun was there? What if the crime scene is the result of someone driving a car through your house with someone strapped to the bumper, should the police be able to confiscate your guns simply because they were found at the scene? Are the guns guilty even though they had nothing to do with what happened?
> ...



Once again, the mere presence of a gun at a crime scene is not proof that the owner of that gun did anything illegal. What if the person that stole the gun is the one that was killed, and they were killed by a different gun?


----------



## Oddball (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


No, it wouldn't.

How do you enforce anything against someone who steals their guns,  buys them on the black market or builds them from parts?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Didn't you say this:



> or if they really force it, something else.



You better hope the cops or military find your kind before I do. I already told you, I'm not taking prisoners, so rebel whenever you want to. 

Poly sci majors were a joke in my day. It's amazing how you always have to be wrong about everything. I had to take some electives, but I wouldn't waste my time on bullshit courses like that. You should have learned that stuff in high school. I took European History, but I had no history or civics requirements to get my degree in college. What kind of fool would need a course in government?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



You turkeys keep bringing up the revolution, so get it on, bitch!


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



I've asked this before, now I'll do it again, how do you* verifiably* get universal background checks? Tell me, how would it work, and how do you verify compliance?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



The military has one reason to use them, the average soldier has to carry 75 pounds of gear into combat if they use the lightweight weapons that scare the shit out of you. Why do you think special forces carry heavier weapons?

By the way, the reason an M-16 tumbled when it hit in Vietnam is that the tip of the bullet was heavier than the rear of the bullet. This has nothing to do with muzzle velocity, something any competent armorer would tell you. In fact, higher velocity bullets tend to make cleaner holes than lower velocity ones.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...




These are the people that insist there is a gun show loophole, facts don't matter.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



I laugh, only because I know you would never have the balls to say that to my face.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...





Most gun companies make a variety of guns - I don't think many are invested in only one variety of weapon, so calling it destroying an industry is false.  We previously had an assault weapons ban that was allowed to expire.  I don't recall an entire industry "destroyed".  It is only one small category of weapons that is being talked about - thats why I call this hyperbole and even fear mongering. The fact that a black market exists (just like the fact that criminals can still get guns) doesn't mean there should be no laws regulating them.

Consider this.  Look at say, opium for example.  It harms no one but the user.  It was, at one time a HUGE industry in the US and UK, and unregulated.  Regulation was fought because huge amounts of money were involved.  Eventually, regulation did destroy a large portion of that industry.  Should it not have been done since it "destroyed an industry"?  We're not even talking about something comparable with guns - but that is the way your argument is working.

And, really - to go back to the initial topic, which is what I more strongly support than banning specific categories of weapons - how does this argument support not having universal background checks?  Or, is this more fear mongering?


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 11, 2013)

tjvh said:


> The Law *already* says nuts and felons cannot have weapons, so yes -Law enforcement  may take the gun. Of course you would have known that *if only* you were thinking about the issue *rationally* instead of *emotionally. *



Really? 

Was there a psychiatrist on the scene to make a diagnosis of insanity, thereby making the person officially a "Nut"?

If that is not the case, does Law Enforcement have the right to take away this person's weapon?

According to you, they do not, up until the moment he actually shoots someone.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> And, really - to go back to the initial topic, which is what I more strongly support than banning specific categories of weapons - how does this argument support not having universal background checks?  Or, is this more fear mongering?


Back on topic...The current background checks have proven completely ineffective, as evidenced by the headline grabbing mass murders and the one-by-one killings in the streets of DC, NY, Chicago, Detroit, LA, etcetera.

How will doubling down on ineffectiveness be of any benefit to anyone, but the politicians ans the bureaucrats?

What verifiable proof do you have that background checks stop anything that matters?


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



All laws apply to the law abiding.  Criminals will ignore them.  So why have any laws?


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 11, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> > The Law *already* says nuts and felons cannot have weapons, so yes -Law enforcement  may take the gun. Of course you would have known that *if only* you were thinking about the issue *rationally* instead of *emotionally. *
> ...



Actually they do for public safety, if the officer determines the individual could be a threat, but that would be temporary, only a judge can rule the person incompetent and make it permanent.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



There are already laws to punish criminals, adding more restrictions on the law abiding will not change that and will not improve public safety. Even criminals are protected by the 4th Amendment yet you want to intrude on those rights of non-criminals. How does that make sense?


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 11, 2013)

Jarlaxle said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



It will certainly exit a person in some circumstances.
But so what?


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > And, really - to go back to the initial topic, which is what I more strongly support than banning specific categories of weapons - how does this argument support not having universal background checks?  Or, is this more fear mongering?
> ...



What evidence do you that they are "completely" ineffective? The stats for gun violence shows otherwise (though I suspect the reduction is do to multiple factors, not any one thing): Gun Violence | National Institute of Justice





Dealth by blunt objects, alas, remains relatively unchanged.  I suspect current headlines have more to do with what the media chooses to highlight than it does with actual trends in violence.

The current background checks cover only a portion of gun sales and completely exclude private transactions and gun shows.  I think it is reasonable to suppose that broadening background checks might help.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



If you can't post where I said anything about banning guns, then you are a liar and admitting it by not posting it.

I want renewable registration with background checks and periodic ballistics tests. With that, I don't really care if they ban a type of gun or not, but they could place some as Title II and not ban them. That's up to the people living in that area to make the laws that benefit them. My system is better than the present Title II weapons system. All I want is to discourage people shooting others with guns and making sure the guns are in the control of the owner. I don't give a fuck if you have 20 guns under those circumstances, as long as they are registered and watched to keep them out of the wrong hands. If the weapon is reported stolen and shows up in the future, I want it returned to the owner. 

There was a guy here a couple days ago who has 22 guns and many are passed down from generations, like a couple Winchester Model 1873 rifles. He was telling me about his .300 Winchester Magnum and hunting elk from a helicopter. My brother probably has that many and nearly all are assault weapons. The point is as long as someone isn't purchasing and giving those weapons to criminals, it isn't important if they like to shoot them. 

What's going to happen to those people when you gun nutters continue to be unreasonable and the states stick it up your ass? Your stupidity is going to hurt those law abiding citizens who don't mind being responsible and want the guns taken out of the hands of criminals and gangs. There are benefits to gun owners for registration of firearms. If the weapon is stolen, there is a system to return it. It's a benefit to not have guns in the hands of criminals and to discourage someone stealing weapons by shutting down the market for stolen weapons. When a person won't tranfer the registration, you know the gun is stolen. When having an unregistered weapon is a serious offense, people aren't going to want to buy them. 

You gun nutters are just like a bunch of kids who screw it up for everybody.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



Truthfully, I don't know.  But then again - I don't know the ins and outs of how a lot of laws work in terms of verifying compliance.  Do you?

What is obvious to me is a background check is better than no background check.
A universal background check - even if incomplete in terms of compliance - is better than a partial background check.

What's so darn difficult in doing that?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I've shot a lot of military rounds and they will penetrate straight until they hit something. The claim was the tip would quiver as it went through the air. Unless it penetrated something uniform, it would start to tumble.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Why renewable registration and periodic ballistics tests?  Who would pay for them?  Because...if the gun owner has to pay, then I would object to that for the same reason I would object to a voter having to pay to get an "acceptable" id or documents to prove his right to vote.  It begins to put unreasonable obstacles to the persons right to excersize his right.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



The Stoner SR-25 doesn't have to say it to your face. When you start a war the talking is over.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



You couldnt fight your way out of a paper bag. All air no wind.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...


You still here?...Isn't your ass red enough?


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Right now the only gun sales that don't require a check is private sales, you could make the NICS system available to the public, but just as in the case of crooked dealers there's no way to insure people would use it and there still could be a problem with straw pruchasers. No matter what, you will never be able to insure 100% compliance without creating such a cumbersom system the courts would never uphold it.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Correlation does not equal causation.

Current background checks cover all sales by licensed dealers, whether at their store fronts, their garages or at gun shows...Private sales/transfers are but a minority of the total.

Paducah, Jonesboro, Columbine, Sandy Hook, Fort Hood, Aurora, the  Clackamas mall shooting al happened despite background checks.....There is no palpable evidence to support your claim that more background checks will help anyone at all but the criminals.

None.

PS...That peak on your chart happened during a time of background checks.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



That's his point, to make it so expensive no one could afford to have a gun. He's a communist, he thinks government can handle everything.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Still laughing.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I figure you could get participating gun shops to fire the weapon for ballistics tests and send the bullets to the FBI to be quick scanned and put in a data base. The only thing the gun store owner would have to do is check the serial number and renew the registration, so a minor fee would cover the whole procedure, even with many firearms. The bullets could be boxed individually with the necessary information and sent periodically. The system to renew would be staggered throughout the year to prevent a rush. 

The renewable registration proves the weapon is still in the hands of the owner so the firearm can't go elsewhere unless stolen. The registration is transferred when sold, starting from the time of manufacture, meaning all guns are registered, the guns in the gun store, the guns in a police force and the military. The periodic ballistics tests discourage someone ever wanting to use the gun in a crime. The penalties of possessing an unregistered weapon are severe, so the market for buying a stolen weapon dries up and burglars aren't going to want to fool with them. Someone repeatedly buying weapons and not renewing them without good reason would signal a straw purchase. 

As far as the fee, consider it insurance and the added safety that you won't need that weapon to protect you from home invasion with criminals having weapons. Under the system if your weapons are stolen, a data base exists for them to be returned to you. Even a very minimal fee is enough to encourage a gunshop to get involved in ballistics testing and renewing the registration. How long does it take to fire a gun and package the bullet? How long does it take to check a serial number against a registration? There would also be a market for confiscated unregistered firearms away from cities, so gun shops and the public could profit from that. Gun shows could set up waiting periods by shipping their sold merchantise to these local participating gun stores to be picked up after the waiting (cooling off) period.

Once the remaining unregistered weapons are removed, criminals would be fearful to use a weapon that can be traced back to them. Consider a case involving a homicide from a stolen weapon and the police trace the gun in the crime to a burglary of firearms! Maybe the cops have a variety of possible suspects and show the pictures to the person who was burglarized and he says, "sure, I know that guy and he's been here seeing my guns.? Case closed! There are many ways even a stolen weapons can lead to an arrest.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Then they would start making them, as I said before.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



So, as to the first sentence, it sounds as if you are saying laws to punish criminals (as opposed to prevent criminals) are sufficient.  How does that make sense?

Claiming that it only adds restrictions to the law abiding is false - it doesn't.  In any regulation or law - it is always going to be the law abiding that bears the brunt of it but in the process a certain number of criminals will be stopped.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



I was trained for war, were you? It isn't me running my mouth about taking on the government and it's only me telling you that you have more to worry about than those black helicopters. As long as I'm alive, you right-wing scum are not taking over this country and I'm old enough to not have much to lose. I'd shoot you down like dogs, if you ever stood up against America. 

Go to the polls like a loser should and leave the rest to us! Don't ever delude yourself into thinking people who swore an oath of allegience will support you.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Considering I dont feel like murdering anyone, I dont "bear the brunt" of murder laws. Same goes with robbery, DWI, rape, etc.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



I don't think the goal is 100% compliance - that is seldom possible in any endeavor given human nature.  But even 75% is better than 0.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



Are you getting any PMs with your gay bait?


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Again with all the unconfirmable facts. Getting angry now eh? Keep blowing in the wind. The only reason I have to take on the government is if it gets to the point where it tries to take on me. 

So now voting is for losers, eh?

I AM IN YOUR MIND, I AM PERFORMING BRAIN CONTROL ON YOU RIGHT NOW!  YOU ARE IN MY POWER!

and I release you!


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



I don't see those froggy types jumping do you? Nugent only has around 2 months left, so he better get it on soon. 

You people are laughable to think you can take on anything with your small arms.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



If you had a brain you would know criminals aren't going to make their own guns and gang bang. The penalty for having a homemade gun are much worse than having a real one and the cops will profile people to remove guns from their streets. The cops will use stats and focus on that area, searching people every day.

Most homicides aren't planned in advance.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Funny, that chart does not show stats for gun violence, all it shows is the different ways of killing people. How can you argue that it proves that background checks reduce gun violence when it doesn't track gun violence or background checks? Is the real problem here that you are a complete fucking idiot that doesn't understand what he is talking about?


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



It will become a booming industry. Where there is something restricted that people want, there is a black market for it.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



I agree - that is why I stated: t_hough I suspect the reduction is do to multiple factors, not any one thing_ - it is hard to prove direct correlation on anything as complex as this.



> Current background checks cover all sales by licensed dealers, whether at their store fronts, their garages or at gun shows...Private sales/transfers are but a minority of the total.
> 
> Paducah, Jonesboro, Columbine, Sandy Hook, Fort Hood, Aurora, the  Clackamas mall shooting al happened despite background checks.....There is no palpable evidence to support your claim that more background checks will help anyone at all but the criminals.
> 
> None.



They did happen despite background checks but again, two points:  nothing is perfect and the argument that because it doesn't prevent any instance means it's a failure is fallacious.  How many criminals might not bother getting a gun if they have to submit to a background check?  Some might go underground, some might be disuaded.

What palpable evidence is there that background checks helps criminals?  That's quite a claim.



> PS...That peak on your chart happened during a time of background checks.



It did?  My understanding is that background checks, with the FBI's NICS, began in 1998.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Sure it is, all that laughing at your ass is only anger. 

Everything you do is for losers. My weapons weren't affected by your New York state laws.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Your anger maybe. I'm like a cat playing with a piece of string. 

A lying cowardly piece of string. 

I've got more win in my left pinkie toe then you have in your entire body.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



What are they going to want, a five year felony conviction for being stupid? Once guys are restricted in cities, it's smarter to just avoid the hassle of having them and they can be removed faster than returned. A member of a gang is not going to want to be on the streets with a gun. They'll work out other ways to cope with the new reality.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...


People are willing to risk that for selling cocaine and heroin, you dope...What the fuck makes you think guns would be any different?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Did I not already point out that I am not stupid enough to cooperate with your attempt to change the subject? Do you think adding more words to your attempt to obfuscate the issue will confuse me?

You are the one that wants to ban assault weapons, which, if I am not mistaken, are guns. You also want to track every gun in existence in this country in the deluded belief that it will prevent gun violence. When I point out a real world example of the a country that actually bans assault weapons, and restricts the transfer of other weapons, and also has a complete registry of every gun that is legally owned, and show that the result is an increase in gun violence, you pretend I am accusing you of posting something else. 

Stick to the actual topic here, which is the evidence that your, in your words, plan to sensibly restrict guns to reduce gun violence does not work.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Yup.  It shows homicide.

However, the link with it includes information on all gun related violence.



> How can you argue* that it proves* that background checks reduce gun violence when it doesn't track gun violence or background checks?



I'm not claiming it "proves" anything because most likely gun related violence statistics are influenced by multiple factors (which I said in my post) - however, since background checks are one of the factors involved it's fair to say that they might have a hand in lowering some of the rates.  Can you prove they have no effect?



> Is the real problem here that you are a complete fucking idiot that doesn't understand what he is talking about?



Nah, I think the real problem is your lack of reading comprehension


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



How's your magazines or are you still crying about them? You've already lost the gun control battle and it's only going to get worse for you. I'm not the one saying I wish I could move. 

Keep telling yourself what a winner you are, so I can laugh pointing out the detail of your great victory! I guess that vet up in New York thought he was a winner too, telling that cop he was there to sell 5 illegal magazines with for military use only written on them.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Let me see if I understand your position.

You have no idea how effective background checks are, yet it is still obvious that it works. Is that because you believe in magic, or just that you prefer to live in a fantasy world where good intentions matter more than actual data?

What about that makes it hard to understand? How about the fact that I don't think something is true simply because I want to believe it is, and it makes absolutely no sense that anyone would live their life in a way that does not demand evidence for everything.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Brady bill passed in 1993....Regardless, correlation still doesn't equal causation....Never has, never will.

P.S...The Brady bill encompassed *ALL* firearms, not just handguns.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



No.  I have no idea how you would verify compliance (as stated in the original post).

Do you have any actual data?  There's no point in discussion of magic and fantasy words and anyone's intentions when you haven't brought forth anything remotely resembling actual data.



> What about that makes it hard to understand?



Don't blame me for your lack of reading comprehension.



> How about the fact that I don't think something is true simply because I want to believe it is,



Cool.  Then please, present your data proving that background checks have no effect on gun violence.



> and it makes absolutely no sense that anyone would live their life in a way that does not demand evidence for everything.



You do...so what's your problem?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Cops in cities target areas and people to remove guns from the streets and that is a battle that has proven it can be won. If they search enough people, they're going to find a gun and with the supply halting, the guns that were on the streets will dry up.

Your mindless, NRA gun nutter, "keep the status quo" objections are never going to convince rational people that nothing can be done and guess what, you're ran out of fools to buy that bullshit!


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Umm, what? Can you tell me how they can penetrate without hitting something? The claim was that the tip would quiver? Who made that claim? Did the same guy also send you after a left handed monkey wrench?

What actually happens is that, because the tip is denser than the end, the tip will decelerate then it strikes something and the rear will continue forward. This results in deformation of the round, which causes the round to tumble. This happens as soon as it hits anything.

Modern military rounds are not made this way, and civilian rounds have never been made this way. The only reason we are discussing this at all is you insist on declaring yourself an expert on everything, yet you are being schooled by a guy who joined the Navy so he wouldn't have to shoot a weapon because he know he can't hit the broad side of a barn.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...


Cops in cities have been targeting dope dealers for decades and still I could still lay my mitts on an ounce of coke or heroin, a bottle full of 'scrip pain killers and/or a pound of weed with no more than a few phone calls.....A few "clean" firearms wouldn't be no thang.

You are truly one stupid mothafuckah.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...




Ever hear of the 5th Amendment?


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Punishing acts and not possibilities is the foundation our legal system is built on, crime prevention is for the sociologist, punishment of crime is for our legal system. When you start guarding against possibilities where does it end, do you really want the whole country to have the nanny government of NYC where they dictate behavior down to salt intake and soda size. That's not a country I want to live in. What it all boils down to, there is a price to be paid for freedom and it's been paid since our founding in blood and treasure, we can try to minimize the cost, but it will always be there. Bad people are always going to be out there and they will get their occasional victories and sometimes the only thing we can do is respond appropriately when that time comes, we will never be able to stop them all. But we have to examine what price we are willing to pay to try to avoid the inevitable.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Correct me if I'm wrong but, while the Brady Bill may have required background checks - an effective system was not in place until NICS right?

Sometimes correlation does equal causation.   El Nino cycles can cause corresponding cycles of aridity or increased rainfall in other parts of the world. Rush hour traffic can cause a longer drive. Spending an inordinate amount of time on the computer can make me to forget I have the tea kettle on and cause a meltdown.  Which just happened...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Can you point out what laws prevent crimes? Until you do nothing you said makes sense.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



The NY law will be overturned at least in part by the courts. Or even better when every anti gun nut upstate is voted out of office. 

Remember I dont even own a gun yet. I just dont feel the need to eliminate the right of others to own one, up to and including a semi automatic rifle with whatever fucking mag they want, and to not have to have it registered with a nanny state grabbing government. 

Keep posting, keep upping my thanks count and rep count, and keep that grey box by your post #.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



You point out a country that has 35 homicides by gun when we have over 11,000 that year. You use a vague description of what a gun crime is in the UK and compare it to a country with more than that many homicides by guns. What about the people who were shot in America and didn't die? 

Your day is done, so deal with it! We don't buy your crap.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



You were trained for war?

Why do I doubt that? No one that trains anyone for war would ever say that the tip of a bullet quivers.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



How is a background check punishing "possibilities"?  For example - it is illegal for felons to have guns along with certain other groups of people. Such a person attempting to purchase a gun is commiting an act not a possiblity. How can a seller know this without a background check?


----------



## Oddball (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


How effective was the NCIS system at Fort Hood, Aurora, Sandy Hook and/or Clackamas Town Center Mall?..How effective is it in the gangland zones in NYC, LA, Chicago, Detroit, Memphis, etcetera?

I mean besides not at all.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I've shot things with military rounds and the bullet didn't deform. I told you the quivering was what they told us about the bullets back then and it was generally accepted information.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



I have a feeling the only military experience you have is as Master Chief when playing Halo.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Why is the penalty for a homemade gun higher than having a non homemade gun?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Cut off the dope dealers supply at the source and see how fast the dope is off the streets. 

Can't you idiots figure out America will not listen to you anymore? Your day is done, so deal with it! Don't come crying to me, so bend over like the man you are and take it! Think of it as just overtime in your bathhouse job.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2013)

coyote said:


> oddball said:
> 
> 
> > coyote said:
> ...



The Brady law was passed in 1993. They had background checks before that point, just not nationwide.

By the way, nationwide background checks mandated by the federal government were ruled unconstitutional.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Tell that to the cop!


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



So how are you going to restrict the supply of steel, lead and brass ingots?


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



For example, curfew laws are designed to prevent crimes.  Another example would be laws regarding food handling and disease, which would prevent incidents like Typhoid Mary.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...


The point being that it can't be cut off if people are willing to buy it, you towering ignoramus!

Can't you central controller commie idiots figure out that the laws of economics will never listen to you?


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> coyote said:
> 
> 
> > oddball said:
> ...



But were they as effective and extensive as NICS?



> By the way, nationwide background checks mandated by the federal government were ruled unconstitutional.



I was aware of that, in fact, wouldn't that also prevent the keeping of a national registry?


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...




It goes back to the same old thing - is anything 100% effective?  If that is a requirement why have ANY laws...........at all?  Why outlaw anything?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Magazines?

Did you know somebody printed a 30 round magazine and fired over 300 rounds for it?

New 3-D Printed Rifle Magazine Lets You Fire Hundreds of Rounds | Danger Room | Wired.com


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



You are the one that claims you believe something without evidence, how does that in any way show I lack comprehension of written English? Did you conveniently forget you said something incredibly stupid?

By the way, why would I need evidence to prove something when I am simply mocking your stupidity?


----------



## Oddball (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Straw man argument, along with false dichotomy....Perfection cannot  ever be an option.

Q: How did background checks do anything to stop, or even impede, the most heinous murder sprees that bedwetting lolberals shriek about?

A: They didn't...Not in any way, shape or manner.

Conclusion: Background checks are ineffective.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



isn't that what they do right now to get rid of drugs? How has that worked out again?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



I thought you told me how the law affected your weapons and magazines. 

I don't care if you get thanks and rep on a site dominated by lunatics. The grey box thing, I'm not sure of.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



False logic.

How can you prove how many potential crime sprees were averted due to a background check?  You can't because they didn't happen.  The only thing you can do is look at correlating crime rates.

Despite your claim - you ARE demanding perfection for this one issue by the very fact that you are pointing instances where it didn't prevent a crime - specific instances, not overall trends.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> I thought you told me how the law affected your weapons and magazines.
> 
> *I don't care if you get thanks and rep on a site dominated by lunatics.* The grey box thing, I'm not sure of.


Then turn your rep back on, you fucking coward.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



One more time.

Gun violence increased even though they had exactly the system you described. The mere fact that the UK has less gun violence than the US is irrelevant. It had less gun violence than the US before they passed the laws you are so fond of.

Stop trying to deflect. Or, f you think you actually have a point, learn that you don't.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



That's what they claimed and my guess would be a sonic quiver.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



My kids are too old for that game, but I have plenty of grandchildren too. Now you are showing your age.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Bullshit.

You don't prove positive results with negative evidence.




Coyote said:


> Despite your claim - you ARE demanding perfection for this one issue by the very fact that you are pointing instances where it didn't prevent a crime - specific instances, not overall trends.


Trends schmends...Background checks haven't stopped the high profile massacres any more than they've slowed down the drip, drip, drip of inner city gangland shootings...Criminals don't give a shit...Never have, never will.

Wake the hell up...The law will not protect you from the actions of criminals.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



You must be a recent graduate of some public school. no one else can possibly be this dense.

The law assumes people are guilty, and requires them to prove they have no intent to break the law by requiring them to prove they are not.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



They have different intents. I image a homemade rifle wouldn't get heat, but it would be rather dangerous to shoot.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 11, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Try making a gun and see how your hand feels after shooting it!


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Did you read my post? I explained quite clearly that the Vietnam ere rounds were designed to deform, and that modern rounds are not. 

Whoever told you that bullets quiver was either dumber than dog shit, or pulling your leg because you are dumber than dog shit.

Notice how, no matter which explanation applies, you are dumber than dog shit?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



They have quivering bullets in Halo?


----------



## Coyote (Feb 11, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



You also can't prove a negative and that is what you are demanding.




Coyote said:


> Despite your claim - you ARE demanding perfection for this one issue by the very fact that you are pointing instances where it didn't prevent a crime - specific instances, not overall trends.


Trends schmends...Background checks haven't stopped the high profile massacres any more than they've slowed down the drip, drip, drip of inner city gangland shootings...Criminals don't give a shit...Never have, never will.

Wake the hell up...The law will not protect you from the actions of criminals.[/QUOTE]

Ah, what ever.  It's beyond midnight for me and I have to be up at 6am.  Night all


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



That was funny what the fuck do you think the war on drugs has been doing for the last 50 years?


----------



## Oddball (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> I've shot things with military rounds and the bullet didn't deform. I told you the quivering was what they told us about the bullets back then and it was generally accepted information.


You've never shot anything but your big mouth, dickless.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



I don't have to.

The Supreme Court has ruled that a registration of legal weapons cannot be used to convict criminals because it violates their right to remain silent. 

I mentioned that earlier, but you ignored it, so I thought I would throw it out again to see if it sinks in.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Curfew laws make it illegal to be on the streets. That makes a new crime, it is not preventing anything. The proof of this is that crimes still happen when there are curfews.

As for the second example, I am pretty sure no one has ever gone to prison for violating the health code, even though food poisoning happens every day of the week. In fact, hospitals are notorious for creating super germs that are resistant to penicillin. Why didn't those laws prevent that?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > coyote said:
> ...




Are you talking about NCIC? That started in 1967.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 11, 2013)

Coyote said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



It is just another bureaucratic layer piled on the individuals that will try to abide by it, while others will ignore the check system with no consequences. There is no way to insure compliance. All you would be doing is making gun owners jump through useless hoops, which is just fine with people like Dubya, sorry I gave you credit for having more sense. Get back to me when you come up with a system you think will work and exactly how you would implement it, then I'll take the time to poke holes in it. I'm not going to play in you maze any more.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Bullets do not quiver, sonic or otherwise.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...


You further expose your rank ignorance and stupidity.

Most home made weapons are made with off-the-rack precision machined components.

You are truly one stupid muthafuckah!


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



What different intents? I thought all guns were desinged to kill people.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Are you trying to tell me I can buy everything I need to make a gun by buying spare parts to repair one?


----------



## Oddball (Feb 11, 2013)

Please, Dubya, keep yammering!

You are providing a glittering example of how truly ignorant and stupid that the anti-gun moonbats are.

Keep bringing it, dumb fuck!


----------



## Oddball (Feb 11, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...


Um....yes.

But you already knew that.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



That I did.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 11, 2013)

Please, Dubya, keep posting!

This is fucking turkey shoot!


----------



## Vandalshandle (Feb 11, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



The point is to keep the garden variety nut from obtaining a gun in the first place.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 12, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


Committed murderers aren't garden variety nuts.
_*
DUUUUUH!*_


----------



## Dubya (Feb 12, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Listen Dummy! If we wanted to stop crack in this country, all we would have to do is go to places like Bolivia where it is grown on plantations and stop it. It takes about two years to grow a coca plant to produce coca leaf. They could napalm the fields after warning the people to leave and the supply of crack would dry up. You can spot the major growing areas by satellite. You might even be able to hire the people to cut it down. The point is it can be done, but it has to be done at the source. You can't remove it by small amounts on the streets.

The same applies to guns. You have to stop the source of guns feeding the illegal market and then the guns will decline as they are removed. You can't remove things that arrive as fast as they are removed. If they removed the guns and drugs, those street problems would go away. They could legalize pot, keep it cheap and solve that problem too. They could then focus on meth labs with all those extra resources. When it comes to heroin, an international effort to remove it is required and an international effort would be good for coca, but even a nation could do it. Poppies would probably require spraying to kill them or the population to remove them. 

If you want to kill hornets, you get a large container with a lid, put a little gasoline in it, go out in the cool of the morning and cut the nest loose from the tree, then put the lid on quickly. The nest comes in contact with the gasoline at the entrance and is absorbed by the paper to destroy the whole colony. If you try to swat hornets one by one as you discover them, you will never kill them off. They will breed faster than you can kill them off. The same destructive analogy applies to other things. When you war against something, it should be total war and you should figure out how to quickly destroy your enemy and get it over with. 

Now, consider what has been done using reason instead of the typical dogmatic agenda trying to use events contrary to their intent! Let's say a group is sending drugs to a market and 10% of the volume is busted. The group decides to increase production to make up for the loses. Eventually the group is selling all the market can bear, so yes it costs more to lose a shipment, but whether they lose drugs or people they both can be replaced. Let's say law enforcement discovers a shipment, but they wise up and want to track the distribution. The rationale is busting the shipment isn't going to solve the problem, but tracking it can give them intelligence of who the key players on the other side are and possibly track it back to the distribution source. I think using some creativity in such situations is a good thing whether it's with drugs or firearms. To make a dent, even if it's only temporary, you sometimes have to stop going after the minnows and small fish and try to get the big fish. 

The reality of the day is often a balance between two opposing forces and if you think that reality is bad that doesn't mean it can't be worse by doing nothing.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 12, 2013)

Text wall fail.

You're a completely ignorant fool.

Period.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 12, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Have you considered the alternative of doing nothing and I'm not taking about the figments of a screwed up mind, but the realities that not doing what is done can truly produce? Your mind likes to play this game that nothing matters and the fact is it does. Why have laws because the people aren't all going to follow them is what a lot of your bullshit boils down to. It isn't rational.

If you bullshit experiment of legalizing drugs was ever applied, it wouldn't stop the drug cartels bringing drugs to the American market. You would just be allowing a bad situation to continue and get worse. America is not going to grow coca to supply itself.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 12, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > I thought you told me how the law affected your weapons and magazines.
> ...



I see your showing your genius again!


----------



## Dubya (Feb 12, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Those incidents were not gun violence, so read it again!


----------



## Dubya (Feb 12, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Have you read my posts? I've used hugh amounts of those rounds that didn't deform.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...


You haven't left the thread yet?

How much of a stupid masochist are you?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 12, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Sure they were!



> By 1985, Morales was elected general secretary in a union of coca farmers and by 1988 was elected executive secretary of the Tropics Federation.[30] He retains this position to this day, even while serving as president of Bolivia. Around this time the Bolivian government, encouraged by the US, began a program to eradicate most coca production. By 1996 Morales was made president of the Coordinating Committee of the Six Federations of the Tropics of Cochabamba.[30] Morales was among those opposing the government's position on coca and lobbied for a different policy. This opposition often resulted in him being jailed and in an incident in 1989, beaten near to death by UMOPAR forces (who, assuming he had been slain, dumped his unconscious body in the bushes where it was discovered by his colleagues).[30]
> 
> *First presidential term: 20062009*



Source: Evo Morales - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Dubya (Feb 12, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > I've shot things with military rounds and the bullet didn't deform. I told you the quivering was what they told us about the bullets back then and it was generally accepted information.
> ...



Just remember that when you start your revolution, bitch!


----------



## Dubya (Feb 12, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



You don't know how to read a Supreme Court decision.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...








Yep....yep...um -hmmmmmmm....yep......


----------



## Dubya (Feb 12, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



...and jets don't either, right? 



> Flutter due to the formation of shock waves on curved surfaces was another major problem,



Source: Sound barrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Dubya (Feb 12, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



You don't ballistics test and sell people barrels, fool!


----------



## Dubya (Feb 12, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Try a dictionary and look up the law definition on intent! Try educating yourself, too!


----------



## Oddball (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...


You don't know your elbow from your asshole, boy.

Best you shut the fuck up now.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 12, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Please, Dubya, keep yammering!
> 
> You are providing a glittering example of how truly ignorant and stupid that the anti-gun moonbats are.
> 
> Keep bringing it, dumb fuck!



I'm sure you think you are smart and that's probably one of your biggest problems.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 12, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Tell us again how smart you are and why you can't figure out it would be stupid to ballistics test weapons and continue to sell barrels to the public!


----------



## Oddball (Feb 12, 2013)

I know you're an ignorant dumb fuck....That's all I need to know.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 12, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Please, Dubya, keep posting!
> 
> This is fucking turkey shoot!



It's more like the fish in a barrel. Get it? Barrel! Bwha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha


----------



## Oddball (Feb 12, 2013)




----------



## Dubya (Feb 12, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Text wall fail.
> 
> You're a completely ignorant fool.
> 
> Period.



Oddball, you just can't seem to post anything of substance worth a person's time to read. I see no reason to communicate with a person too dumb to know how dumb he is and who can't discuss a subject without constantly wasting posts with the ad hom comments of a child. You need to grow up and act like an adult for a change.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Text wall fail.
> ...


Did I hear someone say "Freudian projection"?


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Text wall fail.
> ...



Yes, it is pitiful.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 12, 2013)

Coyote said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



A plan? There is no such thing as a partial background check.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Text wall fail.
> ...



The irony of this post


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 12, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Yep what they call assault weapons are protected by the second amendment because they are suitable for militia use.
Why is an assault weapon ban up for debate when it's unconstitutional?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 12, 2013)

Coyote said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



If a law is just it will work if it is unjust it will make a non criminal a criminal.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 12, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



That jump on your chart was during Clinton assault weapon ban. did it work?


----------



## tjvh (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Try a dictionary and look up the law definition on *infringe!* Try educating yourself, too!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Which came first
Gun confiscation 
or Gun Registration
or Genocide


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



What does this


> Poly sci majors were a joke in my day. It's amazing how you always have to be wrong about everything. I had to take some electives, but I wouldn't waste my time on bullshit courses like that. You should have learned that stuff in high school. I took European History, but I had no history or civics requirements to get my degree in college. What kind of fool would need a course in government?



Have anything to do with combat fighting and your ability to take someone out?


> You better hope the cops or military find your kind before I do. I already told you, I'm not taking prisoners, so rebel whenever you want to.



I've been trained in shoot don't shoot scenarios.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 12, 2013)

tjvh said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I have in modern dictionaries like this:



> in·fringe (n-frnj)
> v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es
> v.tr.
> 1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
> 2.* Obsolete To defeat; invalidate*.



Source: infringe - definition of infringe by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

....and since I can read and know the word had an obsolete definition I looked it up in a dictionary of that time. There was no contemporary American dicitionary for some years later, but there were plenty of English dictionaries in the UK. Infringe comes from Latin and means:



> [Latin nfringere, to destroy



....and I had Latin, just like those Founders did.

*Thanks for playing, Semper Stupidus*


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...





> A member of a gang is not going to want to be on the streets with a gun.



Care to explain why cities with the most restrictive gun control laws has the most shootings and gang related murders? Or are you going to keep saying stupid shit?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Gun crime may be down but violent crimes are on a rise in your paradise called the UK.
You have more a chance to become a victim there than you are here.


----------



## tjvh (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Ok, I'll bite... The 2A says very clearly that "the Right to keep and bear arms *shall not be* infringed"... By your partisan interpretation of the dictionary meaning: *Obsolete To defeat; invalidate*, The 2A clearly states *THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE DEFEATED OR INVALIDATED.* Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 12, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Clackamas Town Center Mall was the place where a shooter was stopped by an armed citizen.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...


How many years have we had the war on drugs?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 12, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



or 3D printers
How 3D Printing Is Inflaming The Gun Control Debate ? ReadWrite

and those 30 round magazines
3D-printed 30-round AR magazine brings us ever closer to a fully 3D-printed gun | ExtremeTech


----------



## Dubya (Feb 12, 2013)

tjvh said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > tjvh said:
> ...



You either have or don't have rights. It's black or white, yes or no. Rights can't be infringed like you think, because it's totally destroyed, if you don't have rights. 

You have a right for the populace to not be disarmed and that is it when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. Taking away your high capacity magazines is not taking away your rights.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...





> You either have or don't have rights. It's black or white, yes or no. Rights can't be infringed like you think, because it's totally destroyed, if you don't have rights.



Do you have any idea what you are saying and what you are responding too?
Stupid what you were told was the second amendment right to keep and bear arms cannot be taken away no right can be taken away without DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW.


----------



## tjvh (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



*Bold ^* That is where we disagree. A gun designed with a magazine is nearly useless without that magazine, magazines are *specific to each gun* which makes them a part of that guns functionality, and thus *a part of that gun.* Nowhere in the Constitution is there a limit to the amount of rounds a person can use to protect themselves. The State I am in is trying to make *previously legal* magazines *illegal*, without any mention of compensation for those previously legal magazines. And that is a violation of several of my Constitutional Rights. If the State wants to make my *personal property* illegal, when previously it *wasn't*, I have a Right to some form of compensation for my property, and so far -no mention of compensation has been made, and the legislation *IS* going to court. If the State wants to give me $400.00 for each magazine I have, then I have no problem with selling them some of my magazines, but as for any that I feel I want for home protection and will keep, the State is welcome to try to violate my Civil Rights and get them from my home, and to that I say... Good luck.


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 12, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > tjvh said:
> ...



Hey bigrebnc- You know that nothing you will try to say to Dub will ever get through. Do you know why? He has lived in a nanny country his whole life and doesn't understand the concept of *FREEDOM* when it comes to our Second Amendment rights.
Part of me thinks he's also verrry jealous!


----------



## S.J. (Feb 12, 2013)

MeBelle60 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...


He was laughed off qna for being a snitch (reported everybody's posts).  He came back, posing as his daughter and was laughed off again.  Don't take him seriously, he's a weenie.


----------



## jtpr312 (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> > Dumbasses.  There's no such thing as a gun show loophole.
> ...




Exactly how do you close something that doesn't exist.  There is no such thing as a gun show loop hole.  Dealers at gun shows MUST perform the same exact background checks at a gun show as they do at their shops.  Some private sales between individuals are not covered by the same laws as sales by licensed dealers, but that has absolutely nothing to do with gun shows, that applies to sales between individuals anywhere at any time so it's not any gun show "loophole", it's state laws.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 12, 2013)

tjvh said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > tjvh said:
> ...



New York has had a ten round limit for nearly 20 years and they managed to figure it out so there's hope for you, too. Recently, the New York state law has been changed it to 7 rounds, so they will figure that out, too. The New York state law even applies to cops and hasn't went into effect yet.

Do you have a link proving a law that hasn't been written *is* going to court, like you claim?

If cops can get by on 7 rounds, maybe you should learn how to shoot. It's nonsense to claim the capacity of a magazine can't be reduced, but I would have to see the law to determine if that is legal according to the law. Most laws I've read set dates and only apply to things manufactured after a certain date, for example, the old law in New York allowed magazines manufactured prior to 1994 to remain legal. The new law may mean 7 rounds and only 7 rounds, but I would imagine they would allow the magazine to be restricted to only hold 7 rounds. That can be done in many ways, for example, a magazine could have the sides punched to prevent more rounds being loaded and the hole filled in. The space within the spring could be filled accomplishing the same purpose. The law may require the magazine to changed so it can't be easily changed back into a high capacity magazine. 

Let me explain something about these state laws! If we had reasonable people in this country, instead of people like you, many of these state laws would be different. You NRA gun nutter types don't want anything changed when it's obvious there are big problems in this country and most of the people want it changed. You oppose everything whether it only involves changes in the law, like having mental health reported or background checks done. If someone writes out such changes, you may agree, but if Obama signs an executive order with those exact words, you're going to complain without even knowing what you are complaining about. My point is it's not a good strategy to keep opposing every change and think the people of America will just cave in to what you want. It's human nature to be punitive to a minority group that is being totally uncooperative and be more severe in making law than it would be necessary with cooperation and input.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> It's human nature to be punitive to a minority group that is being totally uncooperative and be more severe in making law than it would be necessary with cooperation and input.



Link to legislative precedent ?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...





> If cops can get by on 7 rounds, maybe you should learn how to shoot.



Just shut the fuck up you don't have a fucking clue what in the hell you are talking about.
What is firearm is the standard issue for police departments?


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



New York will exempt cops on the new law, as they do already.
As for challenging it, here ya go
» First challenge to NY gun law filed » News -- GOPUSA

You're such a dweeb.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 12, 2013)

jtpr312 said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > jtpr312 said:
> ...



In other words, children like to play games claiming something doesn't exist, if they ignore the obvious description of something that does exist. 

One third of the guns sold at a gun show are from people called occasional sellers who are not licensed gun dealers running background checks. Signs at gun shows advertise no background checks, no forms, no waiting periods and no ID required. The NRA gun nutters want that to continue and 92% of Americans don't. Those Americans want universal background checks, which means background checks on private purchases or anyone calling themselves an occasional seller at a gun show. 



> Seventeen states regulate at least some sales by private parties.
> 
> More than 85% of recovered crime guns have gone through at least one private party transaction following their initial sale by a licensed retailer.
> 
> ...



Source: http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/vprp/pdf/IGS/IGScoverprefweb.pdf

Now 92% of the American people in a recent poll want universal background checks and the increase is because of the recent public awareness about gun violence. You see it doesn't make a difference what you want to call something at a gun show and what you want doesn't make a difference to the American people. You've had your chance to go on the internet and claim things like Sandy Hook didn't involve an assault weapon, but what you don't realize is that song only sounds good to you Ted Nugent, NRA gun nutter types, who don't need convincing. People like you and Ted are just going to have to put up or shut up, because the people of America don't give a shit about your threats and again, they don't give a shit what you want.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 12, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



We are a nation of laws. The insurrection and 'slippery slope' arguments are childish, dogmatic, ignorant, paranoid, and the domain of fear infested pea brains.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Feb 12, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> We are a nation of laws. The insurrection and 'slippery slope' arguments are childish, dogmatic, ignorant, paranoid, and the domain of fear infested pea brains.



We are foremost a nation of Constitutional protections.
_
Slippery slope_ argument has merit on things Constitutional.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



From a previous post, Someone said you are not even an american citizen? Where the hell are you from nanny state boy?

It affects the weapons and magazines of my fellow New Yorkers, and I dont begrudge others owning what they want as provided by the constitution just because I dont own them.

A right is a right, even if I CHOOSE not to exercise it at this time.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 12, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > tjvh said:
> ...



Please don't sick that all powerful GOP on us before we have had our chance to grow our numbers for the next election! We saw how the GOP fought so hard in New York to pass that recent New York gun control law. Such cooperation is truly terrifying. 

New York cops were exempt in the old law and New York changed that law to reduce even cop magazine size to 7 without exemptions. Why would they go back and change the recent law again to exempt cops? It's possible they may change it in the future, but to state it as a fact now prove you are such a dweeb.

Don't you think the old law was challenged and every change will be challenged in some court? Challenging the law in court doesn't mean the law will be changed.

Don't get us wrong though! We know how you have spent tons money to arm yourself so you could be the mighty patriot that you are and keep our government from becoming a tyranny. We know it wasn't an easy task keeping the millions in our military in check, but you did it didn't you, our hero. We Oldtimers have seen this happen before, so look what they did to this heros weapons:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uV-7D4io1Rs]Branded theme - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Dubya (Feb 12, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Well if someone was advanced enough to write something on the internet, it has to be true, doesn't it? It's always been impossible for right-wing people to lie, right?

It so happens it was your fellow New Yorkers who changed the law and if you don't think so, then you should avoid republics and Republicans. If you do think so just avoid the Republicans and play it safe. 

You can get a whole 10 round magazine now or that big 7 rounder later. It's always good to have a gun with them, unless you're standing in front of the White House.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



The law will be overturned, and those who voted for it upstate will likely be out of office soon. NY's state government setup is one of the most crooked in the nation. 3 men control the state.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 12, 2013)

OODA_Loop said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > We are a nation of laws. The insurrection and 'slippery slope' arguments are childish, dogmatic, ignorant, paranoid, and the domain of fear infested pea brains.
> ...



Only for pea brains...


----------



## Dubya (Feb 12, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Right and Obama's going to lose the election, I've heard the shit before!


----------



## martybegan (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



If the current gun grabber hysteria happened before the election he probably would have.  Ask Al Gore.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 12, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Do you believe right-wing gun nutters put Obama in office? Didn't Romney get Ted Nugent to try to get NRA support for him? 

Why you see polls with 92% of Americans wanting universal background checks, which would mean the gun show loop hole issue can't exist and even private sales would require a background check and you compare it to what gun nutters want, can't you see the disconnect? Why would our present gun control issues help Obama more than they would help Romney? Why wouldn't more of those 92% be more inclined to go to the polls and vote for Obama than the 8% be motivated to vote for Romney. I say you overestimate your strength and it's delusional the way it's done.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 12, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Certain types of free speech can be restricted.
Certain types of arms can be restricted.

We all possess the right to express ourselves (free speech) - the possession of expression.

We all possess the right to own arms - the possession of a physical tool.

Right?

However, in both cases those rights are restricted in terms of public safety.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Gun control lost Gore his own state in 2000. I propose that alot of the people who were OK with the "dont mention gun control" Obama are not OK with him now. 

If 92% of americans really really wanted it why are there not millions of people rallying for it?

Polls for questions like that are worthless.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 12, 2013)

Coyote said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



But the burden on restricting either one is supposed to be overwhelming in favor of retaining the rights. You are not getting a fight on howitzers, you ARE getting a fight on semi automatic rifles, and that burden is on the side of banning to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the weapons need to be banned. The only other was is to modify the 2nd amendment.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 12, 2013)

Coyote said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


You did not address the questions I asked.

You argue that the right to arms should be treated no differently than any other.
Certain kinds of speech may be restricted because they harm others or places them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.   

So, I ask again:
Simple ownership/posession of what sort of firearm causes harm to others or places them in a condtition of clear, present and immediate danger?
How does the ownership/simple posession of these firearms do this?


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 12, 2013)

Coyote said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



speech is not restricted. how you use the speech is restricted. you can't use speech to harm someone.   just like there are laws that state you can't use a gun to harm someone.  the difference it, with guns the limit what you can have as well as how you use them.  there is a difference.  a very significant difference.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 12, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



I don't find it very good political analysis to consider Tennessee and gun control costed Al Gore the election. It also isn't smart for a politician to call universal background checks gun control. A politician can only get away with that in a strongly red state and better not ever try to run for national office. Even the Republicans strongly favor UBC.


----------



## Liability (Feb 12, 2013)

There is still no such thing as the fictional "gun show loophole."


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 12, 2013)

Liability said:


> There is still no such thing as the fictional "gun show loophole."



It exists along with cop killer bullets, assault rifles, and saturday night specials.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



throw in the fact that the republicans also took both the house and senate for the first time in decades following that decision


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 12, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Gun control lost Gore his own state in 2000. I propose that alot of the people who were OK with the "dont mention gun control" Obama are not OK with him now.
> 
> If 92% of americans really really wanted it why are there not millions of people rallying for it?
> 
> Polls for questions like that are worthless.



I would suggest looking at the poll at the top of the thread.

Even among the heavily right-leaning population of the USMC board, a strong majority of posters support closing the "Gun Show Loophole".


----------



## Liability (Feb 12, 2013)

USMB member known as "dubya" has phony image of W holding phone wrong way.






Dubya deserves every bit of credibility he has here.  None.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Then what cost him Tennesee? Even Bill Clintion admits the AWB and subsequent attempts at gun control screwed the Democrats over for a decade.

He. Lost. His. Own. State. He shares that with Romney, and Romney lost as well.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 12, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> speech is not restricted. how you use the speech is restricted. you can't use speech to harm someone.   just like there are laws that state you can't use a gun to harm someone.  the difference it, with guns the limit what you can have as well as how you use them.  there is a difference.  a very significant difference.



And by closing the "Gun Show Loophole", you wouldn't be restricting guns, you'd be changing how they're resold.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 12, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Gun control lost Gore his own state in 2000. I propose that alot of the people who were OK with the "dont mention gun control" Obama are not OK with him now.
> ...



Since there is no gun show loophole what would you like to close?
the fact that a majority of people are ignorant is not proof of anything, except stupidity.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 12, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> throw in the fact that the republicans also took both the house and senate for the first time in decades following that decision



Following what decision?

The senate changed to Democratic control from Republican control in 2000, it only changed over to Republican hands in 2002, when the Republicans used war fever to sway public opinion.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 12, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Gun control lost Gore his own state in 2000. I propose that alot of the people who were OK with the "dont mention gun control" Obama are not OK with him now.
> ...



what's it look like when you factor out the ignorant who actually believe their is a gun show loophole what's it look like?


----------



## UKRider (Feb 12, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > There is still no such thing as the fictional "gun show loophole."
> ...



I see no gun show loophole since you need an a Federal Firearms License (FFL) to sell at gunshows. You also must have some form of firearm carry permit (which to get you need a background check) to buy from any gun seller with such a license.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 12, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > throw in the fact that the republicans also took both the house and senate for the first time in decades following that decision
> ...



so what you are saying is americans have no faith in democrats when it comes to international tensions and foriegn policy.  I can agree with that


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 12, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Since there is no gun show loophole what would you like to close?
> the fact that a majority of people are ignorant is not proof of anything, except stupidity.



Blah, blah, talking point, talking point.

So, it is your considered opinion that private sellers are required to put their buyers through background checks, just like licensed dealers?

Because, *that's the "Gun Show Loophole"*, genius.

Just because it doesn't only happen at gun shows doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Thanks for playing though.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 12, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...




Are you saying the granting or restricting of rights should be based primarily on popular opinion?


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 12, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> so what you are saying is americans have no faith in democrats when it comes to international tensions and foriegn policy.  I can agree with that



Yeah... no.

What I'm saying is, is that whoever starts the "war fever" generally gains the benefit of it, until people grow tired of it.

And the more the party in power fucks things up, the faster the people will grow tired of it, which is why Republicans completely lost control of Congress after they proved to everyone that they had no idea how to successfully fight a war.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 12, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Since there is no gun show loophole what would you like to close?
> ...



private sellers can't sell through gun shows, so why the gun show loophole?   and do you really want a private seller, who by the way could be a criminal looking of information to be used in identity theft doing a background check on you?  I sure don't.  but then I don't want reactionary liberals making unthought through legislation for me either


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 12, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Since there is no gun show loophole what would you like to close?
> ...


The federal law that requires a background check applies everywhere,  and so to call it a "gun show loophole" is, at best, dishonest.

I will admit that it -does- serve for a good talking point to rally support from the useful idiots.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 12, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > so what you are saying is americans have no faith in democrats when it comes to international tensions and foriegn policy.  I can agree with that
> ...



so you are saying that after 2 years of the obama administration inwhich they had total control they fucked up because they lost the control they had gained


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 12, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> what's it look like when you factor out the ignorant who actually believe their is a gun show loophole what's it look like?



Again, so it's your belief that private sellers have to require background checks from people who buy from them?

Because, if so, I'd suggest you read up on gun Law.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 12, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



I answered your question by drawing the parallels with free speech, another right - I'm not sure how you want me to answer it differently.

Simple ownership of a firearm - like the simple ability to speak - causes no harm. But we restrict what you can say in certain instances in the name of free speech much like the way we restrict certain types of arms.  Thus, you can't have a suitcase nuke.

Does that answer the question?


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 12, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> The federal law that requires a background check applies everywhere,  and so to call it a "gun show loophole" is, at best, dishonest.
> 
> I will admit that ut -does- serve for a good talking point to rally support from the useful idiots.



It is a misnomer.  With that I will agree.

But it does exist, and we all know what it refers to.

So, to make a comment like "The gun show loophole doesn't exist" is utterly dishonest.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 12, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> so you are saying that after 2 years of the obama administration inwhich they had total control they fucked up because they lost the control they had gained



I was unaware that: 

1.  The Democrats lost both houses of Congress

and

2.  The losses they did suffer in the House had to do with botched foreign policy.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 12, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Speech is and can be restricted along with "how" - that is what libel and slander laws are for.  Profanity and blasphemy laws still exist in this country.    You can't cuss a teacher out without repercussions.  If your choice of WORDS is viewed as threatening in certain instances - that two can have restrictions.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 12, 2013)

UKRider said:


> I see no gun show loophole since you need an a Federal Firearms License (FFL) to sell at gunshows. You also must have some form of firearm carry permit (which to get you need a background check) to buy from any gun seller with such a license.



So, you're saying that private sellers cannot sell weapons at Gun Shows without requiring a background check?

That would be an odd statement, since my cousin bought a rifle at a Gun Show just last month without a background check.

Of course, he's not a felon, but the seller had no way of knowing that.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 12, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > so you are saying that after 2 years of the obama administration inwhich they had total control they fucked up because they lost the control they had gained
> ...



the losses they incurred had to do with the fact they failed.  after 8 years of the evil bush/cheney administration the democrats couldn't even hold on for 2 years.   man, that is failure.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 12, 2013)

Liability said:


> There is still no such thing as the fictional "gun show loophole."



Then gunshows do have to do background checks?

Damn.  What a waste of an entire thread.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 12, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> UKRider said:
> 
> 
> > I see no gun show loophole since you need an a Federal Firearms License (FFL) to sell at gunshows. You also must have some form of firearm carry permit (which to get you need a background check) to buy from any gun seller with such a license.
> ...



that would be a lie.


----------



## UKRider (Feb 12, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> UKRider said:
> 
> 
> > I see no gun show loophole since you need an a Federal Firearms License (FFL) to sell at gunshows. You also must have some form of firearm carry permit (which to get you need a background check) to buy from any gun seller with such a license.
> ...



I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I speaking to requirements by law.

Like the requirements of new laws also don't have to be followed by those who break them.


----------



## CMike (Feb 12, 2013)

I think a problem in this is that private sellers don't have access to the system.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 12, 2013)

CMike said:


> I think a problem in this is that private sellers don't have access to the system.



would you want them to?


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 12, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> the losses they incurred had to do with the fact they failed.  after 8 years of the evil bush/cheney administration the democrats couldn't even hold on for 2 years.   man, that is failure.



Obama seems to have been re-elected, the Senate has remained under Democratic control the entire time, and Democrats made some gains in the house in the last election.

Also, the Republicans lost the entire Congress in 2006, so I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 12, 2013)

Coyote said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Sorta.   We used freedom of speech and the reasons for its allowable restrictions as the standard, since the right to arms should be treated no differently than any other right.



> Simple ownership of a firearm - like the simple ability to speak - causes no harm.


Given the standard set by the fredom of speech, how then can we restrict simple ownership/posession of any kind of firearm?


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 12, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Since there is no gun show loophole what would you like to close?
> ...


OK, so it has nothing to do with gunshows.  And it's not a loophole.  It's the plain law: anyone can sell his property to another person without gov't interference.

So now that we've established there is no gunshow loophole, what you want is to restrict commerce among private citizens.
The FedGov lacks teh power to do this.  Case closed.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 12, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



According to this site, there is a gunshow loophole primarily because they are regulated state by state: Gun Shows - The Purported Gun Show Loophole and State-by-State Regulation of Gun SHows



> Gun Show Background
> 
> The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has estimated that 5,000 gun shows are held annually in the United States, attracting tens of thousands of attendees and resulting in the transfer of thousands of firearms.
> 
> ...




Now, after reading this, I can see some issues with attempting to close this loophole and that is to drive all business to licensed dealers and drive out the individual traders and sellers who used to make up the backbone of these gunshows.

Not sure I like that.  But - there IS a loophole.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 12, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > There is still no such thing as the fictional "gun show loophole."
> ...



Your'e getting it.
Gunshows do not have to do background checks.

Licenced dealers have to do background checks.
Private sellers cannot do background checks.
The gun show has nothing to do with it.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 12, 2013)

Coyote said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



It's not a loophole.  It's the plain law.  And an "individual trader" if he is engaged in buying and selling for profit is an unlicensed dealer and breaking the law.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 12, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> that would be a lie.



You can think whatever you want there "Spoonman".  

My cousin went to a gun show, in Virginia, and bought a gun from a private seller, without a background check.

Virginia, like 33 other states in the nation, have no rules restricting sales by private individuals to other private individuals, at gun shows.

Perhaps your state is one of the other states that have local rules about background checks.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 12, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Because rights - speech, assembly, religion, bare arms are not *exactly *the same. You are free to own firearms but not all firearms (a standard long set).  You are free to express yourself, but not in every instance. You are free to practice your form of worship but not if it involves dismembering small live mammels.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 12, 2013)

Coyote said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


You argue that the right to arms should be treated no differently than any other.
Your words.

Given the standard set by the freedom of speech - the same standard we use for the freedom of religion and the freedom of assembly, BTW -  how then can we restrict simple ownership/posession of any kind of firearm?


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 12, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> It's not a loophole.  It's the plain law.  And an "individual trader" if he is engaged in buying and selling for profit is an unlicensed dealer and breaking the law.



That is incorrect.

A person can sell guns without a license, as long as they don't do it enough to make a living off of it.

If they engage in the practice to the point where it becomes a regular income, they must be licensed.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 12, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



because it's how you use it. libel and slander are using speech to hurt someone.  just like shooting a person is used to harm someone.  If you say, I don't want that person to be elected governor because they are a communist, and they aren't, they cn sue you because it is potentially damaging. but if they are a member of the communist party and you say it, it's ok to say.   you can swear, that is perfectly legal.  but if you cuss out a teacher it's wrong because of how you use if.  it's not the word, it's how its used.  with a gun, its the gun as well as how its used. there is a difference


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 12, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > that would be a lie.
> ...



Of course he didnt have to go to a gun show to do that.  He could have met the guy in the parking lot at Dairy Queen or something.

Why would anyone want to restrict that?  Why would anyone think restricting that would accomplish anything?


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 12, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > It's not a loophole.  It's the plain law.  And an "individual trader" if he is engaged in buying and selling for profit is an unlicensed dealer and breaking the law.
> ...



so if they sell a hundred guns but don't make a profit off of any of them its ok?  where do you jokers dig this crap up anyway?


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 12, 2013)

CMike said:


> I think a problem in this is that private sellers don't have access to the system.



Which is a good point.  

The system should be expanded to be used by the general public, at minimal cost to the individual.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 12, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > It's not a loophole.  It's the plain law.  And an "individual trader" if he is engaged in buying and selling for profit is an unlicensed dealer and breaking the law.
> ...


That is not correct. Potentially even if someone buys one gun with the intent to sell it for a profit he might be an unlicensed dealer.
Being a licensed dealer myself I tend to know something about this.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 12, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> > I think a problem in this is that private sellers don't have access to the system.
> ...



Do you want people running background checks on your criminal history and other things without your knowledge?  Because that's what will happen.
It is a felony to do so, btw.  So you would be increasing crime, rather than decreasing it.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 12, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > that would be a lie.
> ...



yea some states have some very lenient laws. I wonder what the results of that are.  must be really bad right?


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 12, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> so if they sell a hundred guns but don't make a profit off of any of them its ok?  where do you jokers dig this crap up anyway?



The Firearms Owners&#8217; Protection Act of 1986.



> The Gun Control Act of 1968 provides that persons &#8220;engaged in the business&#8221; of dealing in firearms must be licensed.  Although Congress did not originally define the term &#8220;engaged in the business,&#8221; it did so in 1986 as part of the McClure-Volkmer Act (also known as the &#8220;Firearms Owners&#8217; Protection Act&#8221.
> 
> That Act defined the term &#8220;engaged in the business,&#8221; as applied to a firearms dealer, as &#8220;*a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms*.&#8221;



Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence ? Gun Law Information Experts


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 12, 2013)

Right.  If he intends to make a profit then he is a dealer.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 12, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> > I think a problem in this is that private sellers don't have access to the system.
> ...



so i'm a gangbanger and i have a ton of guns.  see i can get them because i don't follow the laws.  So i'm going to sell joe average citizen a gun.  Now i'll do a background check on him.  and what do you know, i now have all kinds of personal information about him.  and I just stole his identity.  but at least i know he was ok to sell a gun to.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 12, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> yea some states have some very lenient laws. I wonder what the results of that are.  must be really bad right?



I'm afraid you're mistaking me for someone who believes in strong gun control laws other than national registries and mandatory background checks.

Personally, I think anyone who is not a criminal or a lunatic should be allowed to carry their AR-15 wherever the hell they want, as long as the property owner agrees.

With the possible exceptions of some schools and most bars.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 12, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > so if they sell a hundred guns but don't make a profit off of any of them its ok?  where do you jokers dig this crap up anyway?
> ...



so as long as i am not showing a profit i can sell all the guns i want without being a dealer


----------



## Coyote (Feb 12, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



I see the distinction you are making but I am not sure if I agree with your conclusions.  I do agree that ownership of a gun in and of itself is nothing.  However, that reasoning would mean nothing should be restricted and in terms of public safety I do not agree - the right to bare arms is not a clearly defined right - it has been interpreted many different ways for many different agendas and it was made at a time when most of the arms we have today did not exist.

Logically you should be able to own anything and only be punished for what you do with it.  However - the problem with that kind of reactive policy is that a lot of innocent people can be hurt or killed in the process before there is a need to react.  For example (this is a grossly exagerated example but it's to make the point) - the right includes any arms, I have a right to a suitcase nuke, I'm pissed at the world and decide to go to my office and let my boss know what I think of his latest motivational policy and annilate the entire building in the course of making my point.  Of course, at that point, the police would get invloved and yada yada yada....and, it would be twinkie defense all the way with a lot of dead bodies.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 12, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> so i'm a gangbanger and i have a ton of guns.  see i can get them because i don't follow the laws.  So i'm going to sell joe average citizen a gun.  Now i'll do a background check on him.  and what do you know, i now have all kinds of personal information about him.  and I just stole his identity.  but at least i know he was ok to sell a gun to.



And if you're worried about that, you buy from a licensed dealer.

Problem solved.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 12, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> so as long as i am not showing a profit i can sell all the guns i want without being a dealer



According to the law, yes.  And that's a large part of the issue.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 12, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > CMike said:
> ...



I think it could be done - if I understand the way it works, you don't get any information back on the background - only an answer on whether or not you can purchase a firearm.  You can be required to sign a release.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 12, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > yea some states have some very lenient laws. I wonder what the results of that are.  must be really bad right?
> ...



then we probably aren't that far off. I firmly believe there should be no restrictions to what can be owned.  But I also feel there need to be restrictions to who can own what.  If we can ever define what constitutes a threat.  What are the restrictions that would prevent someone from being able to own a gun? its a very tough thing to define.  do we rely on an existing record?  and what are the crimes that constitute no gun ownership.  These are the critical questions i feel are not being addressed.  And the legislation that is currently on the table doesn't even go there. its a sweeping limitation. That's what I am very opposed to.  and I have no problems that i can't bring my guns into a school or a federal building.  I have no need to. but these outright bans they are talking about effect everywhere and everything


----------



## Dubya (Feb 12, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



It was one of those Illinois needed to be three times as big things.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Still, what cost him Tennesee?


----------



## Polk (Feb 12, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > A spin off of the other thread where I have asked numerous times and not a single right winger has answered, is if you support the gun show loophole.
> ...



I'd have to check the statute, but I highly doubt it's a strict liability offense. Meaning selling to a felon is fine as long as you don't know they're a felon.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 12, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



but I can load a truck with a few bags of fertilizer or a few drums of gas and get the same result.  

lots of people are hurt an killed everyday by reactive policy.  i hate to use the same example over and over but drunk driving, driving while texting or on the phone.   heck, even careless or aggressive driving.  do you ban booze, do you ban phones, do you ban cars?  they are doing more damage and taking more lives than the assault style weapons we are talking about banning. all of our laws are reactive when you think about it.  even laws restricting speech.  none of these laws prevent what they are intended to do from occuring.  so what makes us think with guns it will be any different?   illegal or not, banned or not, if someone want to get it and kill their boss, they will get it.  so the end result is the boss is dead and millions of law abiding citizens enjoying their constitutional right are the ones impacted.   

I think the 2nd amendment is very clear.  and if you want clarification on what it was intended to mean look to James Madison who proposed it to congress and his views on gun ownership

"Americans need never fear their government
because of the advantage of being armed,
which the Americans possess over the people
of almost every other nation."


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 12, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Logically you should be able to own anything and only be punished for what you do with it.  However - the problem with that kind of reactive policy is that a lot of innocent people can be hurt or killed in the process before there is a need to react.


We don't restrict the exercise of a right - any right -because someone -might- do something illegal.
The right to arms should be treated the same as any other right.
So...  there's no basis for restricting simple ownership/posession of any firearm.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 12, 2013)

Polk said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...



It's only illegal to knowingly sell to someone who shouldn't have a gun. That's why these occasional sellers at gun shows advertise: No paperwork, no ID required, no waiting period, no background check, and no questions asked.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 12, 2013)

Polk said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...



Wouldnt have an issue making it strict liability, only mitigated by the felon presenting viable false identification.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 12, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Logically you should be able to own anything and only be punished for what you do with it.  However - the problem with that kind of reactive policy is that a lot of innocent people can be hurt or killed in the process before there is a need to react.
> ...



Then nothing should be restricted right?  Nothing.

What if one's religious practice required ownership of some part of an endangered species of animal that was not legal to kill? (there is one that does)?


----------



## kwc57 (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



uh-huh......except that gun show operators tend to keep the riff-raff out.  But you'll never hear the MSM or Dems admit it.

Claude Hall's GUN SHOW RULES & REGULATIONS


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 12, 2013)

Coyote said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Try not to go all non-sequitur on me.

Only that which causes harm or places others in a condtition of clear, present and immediate danger.  As you said, simple posession/ownership of a firearm does neither, and so there's no basis for restriction.

One of three things is going to happen here:
- You're going to admit that there's no basis for restricting simple posession/ownership of a firearm
- You're going to change your argument and say that firearms -should- be treated differenrly than other rights (and be forced to provide a sound argument for same)
- You're going to move away from reasoned, civil discourse.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 12, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Can't you see the whole South went for a southern governor named Dubya? I've lived down there, it isn't New York.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 12, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Maybe none of the above.

Given your first statement, there is no reason to restrict personal nuclear bombs, rocket launchers, or even biological weapons is there?


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 12, 2013)

kwc57 said:


> uh-huh......except that gun show operators tend to keep the riff-raff out.  But you'll never hear the MSM or Dems admit it.
> 
> Claude Hall's GUN SHOW RULES & REGULATIONS



There is no rule in that list restricting private undocumented sales on premises.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 12, 2013)

Coyote said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


- You're going to move away from reasoned, civil discourse.

We're duiscussing the right to own/posess firearms in a topic about gun control - I have very clearly stated "firearms" through this entire discussion.   Further, current jurisprudence makes it quite clear that the posession/ownership of the weapons you mention lays outside the protection of the 2nd, and so their inclusion into the discussion is a simple red herring, likely born of frustration on your part.

So, back on topic...

As you said, simple posession/ownership of a firearm does not cause harm or places others in a condtition of clear, present and immediate danger, and so, to remain consistent in your statements and positions, you must admit there's no basis for the restriction of that simple ownership/posession.

if I am wrong, tell me how - remembering, of course, that the right to arms should be treated no differently than any other right.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 12, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Let's see how it works! It wasn't the Nazis and Communists, it was the people. It wasn't the brain tumor, it was the person. By Reagan, I think I've got it!


----------



## Coyote (Feb 12, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



What????* I am being civil* and serious.  You have made an argument that essentially invalidates many restrictions on weaponry.



> We're duiscussing the right to own/posess firearms in a topic about gun control - I have very clearly stated "firearms" through this entire discussion.



The right in question is to bare "arms" and it is in relation to a well regulated militia that is commonly interpreted to mean all citizens capable of bearing arms.

The definition from the dictionary for arms is: _Weapons and ammunition; armaments: "they were subjugated by force of arms"._



> Further, current jurisprudence makes it quite clear that the posession/ownership of the weapons you mention lays outside the protection of the 2nd, and so their inclusion into the discussion is a simple red herring, likely born of frustration on your part.



Nope.  Not a red herring. We haven't discussed what the current jurisprudence has done or said - only whether or not the mere possession of any firearms should be illegal.

Currently laws restricting fully automatic weapons exist and have apparently stood the test of the courts.

They meet your definition of arms yet remain restricted.  I see only a few degrees of difference between those and semi-automatic.



> So, back on topic...
> 
> As you said, simple posession/ownership of a firearm does not cause harm or places others in a condtition of clear, present and immediate danger, and so, to remain consistent in your statements and positions, you must admit there's no basis for the restriction of that simple ownership/posession.
> 
> if I am wrong, tell me how - remembering, of course, that the right to arms should be treated no differently than any other right.



Again - your argument doesn't work well when you consider that fully automatic weapons are banned and if those are considered outside the 2nd amendment protection why can't others be?  If the reason is arbritrary - which it seems - then why not nukes?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 12, 2013)

Coyote said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Firearms.   The issue is firearms.  I've used the term in every post, and so it is quite clear that -I- am talking about firearms. 



> Nope.  Not a red herring. We haven't discussed what the current jurisprudence has done or said - only whether or not the mere possession of any firearms should be illegal.


Yep.  Firearms.  

The inclusion of any other sort of weapons into the discussion on no way changes the soundness of the argument regarding restrictions on the simple posession/ownership of firearms; the fact that certain firearms are currently restricted has no bearing on the discussion as the discussion itelf centers around the legitimacy of those restrictions, when the right to arms is treated no differently than any other right.

As you said, simple posession/ownership of a firearm does not cause harm or place others in a condtition of clear, present and immediate danger, and so, to remain consistent in your statements and your position that the right to arms should be treated no differenrly than any other right, you must admit there's no basis for the restriction of that simple ownership/posession.

If I am wrong, tell me how - remembering, of course, that the right to arms should be treated no differently than any other right.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 12, 2013)

Though, Justice Alito recently made statements indicating it's his belief that the intent of the founding fathers left space for banning some types of weapons based on how much fear they engender...

I am not in agreement with him on said statement, but he did say it, and he's the biggest second amendment guy on the Court.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 12, 2013)

kwc57 said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



Just how can you determine who is riff-raff based on appearance? I think those Neo-Nazi and KKK types are riff-raff and they can be selling their products at gun shows. 

The only way universal background checks won't become law is if the Republicans block a vote or poison bill the legislation with other things to justify voting against it. If someone writes a bill that only includes background checks and it's voted on, it would be political suicide in many areas to vote against UBC. Even the Republican base supports it. With UBC, the gun show loophole stops. Many states require waiting periods, so how that is dealt with is another matter. That UC Davis report said 19 states have some additional restrictions on gun show sales, such as waiting periods

When 85% of the weapons seized in criminal activity were sold in private sales since originally purchased from a dealer, then private sales without background checks have to be contributing to gun crime.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



all this alleged support you keep on touting is based on something that hasn't even been defined yet.  based on what is proposed so far by the anti gun crowd I think you are going to see that support drop drastically with the final draft.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 12, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



Universal background checks have been defined and it means a background check on all purchases of firearms, including private sales.


----------



## kwc57 (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Tissue Nancy?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 12, 2013)

kwc57 said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



I just looked at a Canadian poll that said 76% of Americans favor registration of firearms. You're going to need the tissue, boy.


----------



## CMike (Feb 12, 2013)

Coyote said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


They are not firearms.

Try again.


----------



## UKRider (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> I just looked at a Canadian poll that said 76% of Americans favor registration of firearms. You're going to need the tissue, boy.



A Canadian poll?  

Link?


----------



## Liability (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



LOL.

Dumbya has figured out that criminals break the law.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 12, 2013)

Liability said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...


Probably not.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 12, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



The real point is that the garden variety nuts are not the one's shooting people.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Are you aware that the government already goes to Bolivia and burns them? Maybe we should just carpet bomb any place that grows drugs, that would solve the problem.

Not.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



I have no problem with doing something that might work, and stopping it if it doesn't so we can try something else. You, on the other hand, insist that we need to do something, even if that something is proven not to work.

Want to explain how that makes me stupid?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...




I did, before I posted the link. Since you, quite obviously, skipped right over my link, I will post it again.



> The Government's latest crime figures were condemned as "truly terrible" by the Tories today as it emerged that gun crime in England and Wales soared by 35% last year.
> Criminals used handguns in 46% more offences, Home Office statistics revealed.
> Firearms were used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the 12 months to last April, up from 7,362.
> It was the fourth consecutive year to see a rise and there were more than 2,200 more gun crimes last year than the previous peak in 1993.



Gun crime soars by 35% | Mail Online

Please, tell me again how requiring everyone to register guns will magically make us safe, even though it failed every place it has been tried.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Yet you sill insist that a Vietnam era M-16 round quivers, thus making you dumber than dog shit.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...




So?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Which decision did I read, and how did I get it wrong?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Which, quite obviously, they solved. I don't even need the article you cited to tell me that, but since you posted it, let's find out what else it says.



> Flutter due to the formation of shock waves on curved surfaces was another major problem, which led most famously to the breakup of de Havilland Swallow and death of its pilot, Geoffrey de Havilland, Jr. in 1946. A similar problem is thought to be the cause of the 1943 crash of the BI-1 rocket aircraft in the Soviet Union. All of these effects, although unrelated in most ways, led to the  concept of a "barrier" that makes it difficult for an aircraft to break  the speed of sound.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_barrier#cite_note-8



Look at that, people used to believe it was impossible to fly faster than the speed of sound. I wonder, did we ever break the sound barrier?

Do you want to give me another opportunity to prove you are dumber than dog shit by arguing that the "quivering" caused by objects approaching the sound barrier still prevents us from going faster than Mach 1?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



You are the one claiming they have a different intent, I am asking you to defend your position. If you can't, feel free to retract it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 12, 2013)

Polk said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...




No, selling to a felon is OK as long as you have no reason to believe he is a felon.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Provide an actual example. not a story about someone who knows someone who saw it once.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 12, 2013)

Coyote said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



SCOTUS already said that the Endangered Species Act cannot be used to prevent Native Americans from trapping eagles for their feathers as part of their religious practices.

Next question.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 12, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > It's only illegal to knowingly sell to someone who shouldn't have a gun. That's why these occasional sellers at gun shows advertise: No paperwork, no ID required, no waiting period, no background check, and no questions asked.
> ...



Yeah, Dubya, gonna have to go with QW on this one.  The other parts may be true, but surely there is always an ID required.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 12, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Some people keep saying assault weapons  ban are constitutional, but they never address this, but keep saying AWB are constitutional

If you can't defend your position you should stop saying AWB's are constitutional


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 12, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



No.  It's good practice and many people I know will only sell to someone with a carry permit.  But Dumya scored here: no paperwork or ID required for a sale between two private individuals.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 12, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> No.  It's good practice and many people I know will only sell to someone with a carry permit.  But Dumya scored here: no paperwork or ID required for a sale between two private individuals.



Wow, really, not even ID?  

I stand corrected.

Apologies to Dubya.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



of all the gun shows I have been too I have never seen anyone with those kind of signs.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 12, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...




That is not what he said though, he is claiming that people go to gun shows and advertise openly that they don't require ID, and that no questions are asked.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 12, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



No they don't advertise that


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 12, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



If there are people with those signs they are probably cops trying to trap people.


----------



## jtpr312 (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Lol.  Not ONE number or percentage you listed is accurate or truthful.  Take your leftist/communist propoganda and place it in your vertical file right beside your head.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 12, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



I took one of my rifles to a gun show a few years ago  this guy walked up too me and asked how much I wanted for it. I told him it wasn't for sale. He said I'll give you a thousand for it, I told him again it wasn't for sale. He gave one last offer of 1200.00. I told him no that it wasn't for sale plus I didn't know who he was,  even if I thought about selling it I wouldn't sale it too him


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 12, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


You're arguing with a pre-pubescent lunatic.
Why?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 12, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



It takes more than making shit up to cover up the abuse. That UC Davis study went to many gun shows and reported on the ATF who weren't much involved with gun shows.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 12, 2013)

jtpr312 said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > jtpr312 said:
> ...


If 92% of the American people wanted to murder all the black people in the US, he'd support that as well - it is, after all, what the people want.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 12, 2013)

jtpr312 said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > jtpr312 said:
> ...



To you the figures can't be accurate, because the world is suppose to be the way you want to say it is, but to the people who went to the gun shows and used the official stats, that's the numbers they came up with to reflect reality. 

Your NRA gun nutter, Ted Nugent pant's shitting, moronic position is doomed by it's success of making America an open market for guns. Since gun and ammo sales have increased then the chances of another Aurora or Sandy Hook have also increased. I would say your chances of getting to the next mid-term election without another disaster are null. What's to stop it, you heros aren't out there preventing all that crime whether highly armed or not?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Words of a admitted fraud.^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



The same study that you dismissed because it pointed out that only 2% of people who are incarcerated for gun violence used guns that went through a gun show at some point in the past?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Did you ever get back to me about the gun violence increase in England after they imposed universal gun registration?

Didn't think so.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 12, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > jtpr312 said:
> ...



Yes, I pointed out what is called a violation of the gun law isn't violence. There were only around 35 homicides by gun, so there couldn't be the amount of gun violence you claimed. Why don't you do some research on what you post and stop hiding behind generalities and confusion to deceive?

You don't ever have to say didn't think so, because we know you don't think.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 12, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Your problem Windbag is you are inherently dishonest, which is a nice way of calling you a pathological liar.

The UC Davis study says: 



> But less than 2% of felons incarcerated for crimes involving guns acquired those guns themselves at gun shows.



Source: http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/vprp/pdf/IGS/IGScoverprefweb.pdf

....and you change it to:



> *Quote: Originally Posted by Quantum Windbag*
> ....it pointed out that only 2% of people who are incarcerated for gun violence used guns that went through a gun show at some point in the past?



....so you change: 

....less than 2% of felons incarcerated for crimes to 2% of people who are incarcerated for gun violence 

....and:

....acquired those guns themselves at gun shows to used guns that went through a gun show at some point in the past

Now, why do you make those types of changes and why were you so stupid that you thought you could get away with it?

Did you notice I just quote the words of the study and allow others to read them? I don't change it and you do.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 12, 2013)

So you're saying that most guns used by felons were not acquired at gun shows.  So why are we worrying about this to begin with??


----------



## Dubya (Feb 12, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> So you're saying that most guns used by felons were not acquired at gun shows.  So why are we worrying about this to begin with??



Do you have reading problems too?

The study talked about incarcerated felons for crimes involving guns *personally* obtaining the guns at gun shows. The study also mentioned gun shows amount to from 5% to 9% of gun sales. The data only says what it says. It could mean the felon told the authorities where he purchased the gun, or there were records because he could pass a background check, among other possible scenarios of how cops could trace it there. 

It doesn't say a person couldn't pass a background check, buy a gun at a gun show even from a licensed dealer and later be incarcerated as a felon for a crime involving guns. A person acquiring a gun at a gun show either personally or otherwise could acquire it from an occasional seller and never leave a record. For that matter, someone could say they purchased a gun at a gun show from an occasional seller when they actually didn't. 

The number is sort of meaningless, because it could easily reflect that they only know a small percentage of how someone who is now serving a sentence as a convicted felon for a crime involving guns obtained their gun or guns. What if they only know the source of the guns in 35% of such cases, does that mean gun shows aren't good places to obtain a gun and commit a felony with it and living up to their percentage of the market or more?

You have to analyze a report for what it's saying and get beyond the figures saying more than they say.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 12, 2013)

Dubya said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > So you're saying that most guns used by felons were not acquired at gun shows.  So why are we worrying about this to begin with??
> ...



lying sack of shit.

 0.7% of criminals purchased a gun at a gun show

Read more: Where criminals get their guns | The Daily Caller


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 13, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



You declared that the numbers you didn't look at were wrong, and then made up different numbers about something else to prove you are right? Do you really think that is going to work?

Tell me something, how is someone using a gun to commit a robbery not gun violence? Does it only count if someone dies?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 13, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...




Let me see if you can handle something you have never done yourself.

I fucked up by relying on memory instead of going back and reading the study again. 

None the less, you are still wrong when you claim that criminals buy guns at gun shows.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 13, 2013)

Dubya said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > So you're saying that most guns used by felons were not acquired at gun shows.  So why are we worrying about this to begin with??
> ...



Yet you dismissed the study earlier when I used it to destroy your position that 40% of gun sales occur without background checks.

Interesting.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 13, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



I am willing to bet that over 90% of the people who end up breaking the law after buying a gun at a gun show passed a background check when they bought those guns.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 13, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



They had around 35 homicides by gun and we had over 11,000 that year. You made your typical lying claims and it's obvious there weren't 11,000 violent incidences involving guns in the UK. 

Post a report from the UK with definitions and don't say you did!

What difference does your bullshit make? You've already lost and the more you go on making these wild claims, the more you will lose.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 13, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



What is to prevent a criminal, even a felon, from buying a gun at a gun show, when one third of the sales are private sales by occasional sellers and don't require paperwork, ID, background checks, waiting periods or even a conversation? You can't spot a felon by looking at them. Are all felons just too dumb to go there?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 13, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



I didn't see it, didn't dismiss it.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 13, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



It's very doubtful it could be 90%, because only about two-thirds of the guns purchased at gun shows are from licensed dealers requiring background checks. 



> More than 85% of recovered crime guns have gone through at least one private party transaction following their initial sale by a licensed retailer.



Source: http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/vprp/pdf/IGS/IGScoverprefweb.pdf

I don't think they have good stats on where a criminal purchased their gun, even when the gun is newly purchased. I think the stats are only based on the gun origins they know about and they don't try to trace the history of every gun involved in a crime.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 13, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



What I think dip shit is doing is, insinuating that those who can't buy a gun else where go to a gun show and buy one.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 13, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



AMERICAS GUN SHOWS: OPEN MARKETS FOR CRIMINALS

An estimated 5,000 gun shows are conducted in the United States every year. Federal law mandates that licensed dealers at these events perform background checks on purchasers before completing a sale.

There is an exemption in federal law, however, for private sales by individuals who are not engaged in the business of selling firearms, or who only make occasional sales. The Gun Show Loophole allows these unlicensed vendors to sell firearms at gun shows without conducting background checks on purchasers. To date, only 17 states have acted on their own initiative to close the Gun Show Loophole.

Unregulated private sales at gun shows are a popular point-of-purchase for individuals prohibited under federal law from buying firearmsincluding convicted felons, domestic abusers, drug addicts, fugitives from justice, individuals adjudicated as mentally ill, illegal immigrants, and others who would be flagged and stopped by criminal background checks. Additionally, gun shows are a common venue for straw purchases through licensed dealers. In a straw purchase, a prohibited purchaser recruits an individual(s) with a clean criminal record to pass a background check and purchase firearms for him/her. A straw purchase is a federal felony offense for both the straw purchaser and the ultimate possessor of the firearms.

Recent research has confirmed that gun shows remain the setting for significant criminal activity. At the same time, it has become apparent that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has no formal plan for investigating the nations gun shows.

A Major Source of Criminal Activity

The ATF reports that 25% to 50% of firearm vendors at gun shows are unlicensed. A multi-state study of gun shows by Dr. Garen J. Wintemute of the University of California-Davis found that this figure might be a low estimate. Direct observational methods employed in the study revealed that as many as 70% of gun sellers could not be identified as licensed dealers. Unlicensed firearm vendors provide easy opportunities for prohibited purchasers to avoid background checks.


The Columbine killers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, obtained guns used in the shootings from unlicensed dealers at Colorado gun shows. On two separate occasions, they recruited friends to straw purchase guns for them at the shows. One of them, Robyn Anderson, testified that she would not have bought a gun for Eric and Dylan if I had had to give any personal information or submit [to] any kind of check at all.


In 2005, undercover ATF personnel learned that an unlicensed firearms dealer, Ghassan Haddad, was supplying neo-Nazi gang leader Keith Gilbert and others with illegal machine guns at Seattle-area gun shows. Gilbert had once threatened to blow up Martin Luther King, Jr. with explosives and served time in prison for threatening black children. Haddad was charged with dealing in firearms without a license, manufacture of an unregistered firearm, and possession of an unregistered firearm, all federal felonies.


The Department of Justice recently reported that after reviewing hundreds of trace reports associated with crime guns recovered in the [New Orleans] areaATF Special Agents identified area gun shows as a source used by local gang members and other criminals to obtain guns. The subjects obtained the weapons either through a third party engaged in straw purchasing or by dealing directly with private sellers...

The ATF has identified gun shows as a major trafficking channel for firearms, second only to corrupt federally licensed dealers. In an analysis of 1,530 firearms trafficking investigations during the period July 1996 through December 1998, gun shows were associated with the diversion of approximately 26,000 illegal firearms. From 2004 to 2006, ATF conducted operations at just 195 gun shows nationwide, but these operations resulted in 121 individual arrests and 5,345 firearms seizures. Some examples of such operations are as follows:


Operation Flea Collar, a two-year investigation into illegal sales at gun shows and flea markets in Alabama, culminated in the arrest of 11 individuals and the seizure of more firearms over the last several decades. Those charged had previously sold 267 guns that were linked to homicides, assaults, robberies, drug and sex crimes, and other illegal activities. One of these guns was used in the attempted murder of a Chicago police officer.


When ATFs San Francisco Field Division cracked down on illegal guns being smuggled into California from gun shows in Nevada, the operation resulted in the confiscation of over 1,000 firearms as well as explosives.


Between 2002 and 2005, more than 400 guns purchased at gun shows in Richmond, Virginia, were later recovered at crime scenes.

Background Checks Work
Background checks run by licensed dealers have proven both fast and effective. 72% of background checks are completed in just a few minutes, and 95% of background checks are completed within two hours. B*etween 1994 and 2005, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) prevented approximately 1.4 million prohibited purchasers, including convicted felons, from buying firearms.*

more


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 13, 2013)

One thing the people who are claiming that there are no unlimited rights and that Gun Owners need to be realistic and "compromise" and give up the right to own some kinds of guns for the public good need to remember.

We already did that.

In 1934.

We gave up the right to own an entire class of gun based upon it's ability, not looks.

Fully Automatic Weapons.

In order to own of those guns, it takes a special "Class 3" License, issued only by the Federal Government.

You have to first get a packet, usually about $50, from your local Sheriff fill it out and then get the Sheriff to sign off on it, giving you their permission to own an automatic weapon.   Then you send the Application, along with your photo and fingerprints and $200 (Non-Refundable) to the BATF.

Three to Nine months later you will get you license from the BATF.  Then you can go the Dealer, who has been holding your weapon for you, charging anywhere from $20 - $50 per month to hold it for you, and pick it up.

This is not a general license.  This is a license to own one specific weapon, one that you have identified by Serial Number.   If you want to own a second, you have to start all over and get the local Sheriff's permission, send another $200, photo, fingerprints, etc to the BATF.

This license is only good for 3 years, then you have to do it all over again for each weapon.

If you do not file in a "Timely Manner" for the subsequent years, and do not get the renewal back before your current license expires,  you are illegally in possession of the weapon.


I would say that the gun owners of America have "compromised" a great deal when it comes to their rights to own firearms already.   Any further "compromise" could only be considered an "infringement" of that right.


----------



## kwc57 (Feb 13, 2013)

Dubya said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



I just looked at an American poll that said 98% think you're a moron.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 13, 2013)

> Background Checks Work
> Background checks run by licensed dealers have proven both fast and effective. 72% of background checks are completed in just a few minutes, and 95% of background checks are completed within two hours. Between 1994 and 2005, *the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) prevented approximately 1.4 million prohibited purchasers, including convicted felons, from buying firearms.*



Total lie.....False positives account for a huge percentage of that 1.4 million number.

Though the   TSA prevented Ted Kennedy from boarding an airliner, nobody would be stupid  enough (well nobody  that is except for Jethro Bfgrn)  to say that a terrorist was prevented from getting on an airliner.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 13, 2013)

Oddball said:


> > Background Checks Work
> > Background checks run by licensed dealers have proven both fast and effective. 72% of background checks are completed in just a few minutes, and 95% of background checks are completed within two hours. Between 1994 and 2005, *the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) prevented approximately 1.4 million prohibited purchasers, including convicted felons, from buying firearms.*
> 
> 
> ...



Do you have a link to how you FEEL Jethro? Unless you can prove 100% are so called 'false positives', Background Checks Work.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 13, 2013)

No they dont.
First offf, about 80% are overturned.  Second, criminals know they are prohibited so dont go through background checks to begin with.  They simply buy them out of the trunk of someone's car.
It's nonsense.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 13, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> AMERICA&#8217;S GUN SHOWS: OPEN MARKETS FOR CRIMINALS
> 
> An estimated 5,000 gun shows are conducted in the United States every year. Federal law mandates that licensed dealers at these events perform background checks on purchasers before completing a sale.
> 
> There is an exemption in federal law, however, for private sales by individuals who are &#8220;not engaged in the business&#8221; of selling firearms, or who only make &#8220;occasional&#8221; sales. The Gun Show Loophole allows these unlicensed vendors to sell firearms at gun shows without conducting background checks on purchasers. To date, only 17 states have acted on their own initiative to close the Gun Show Loophole.


This is not a gun show loophole, as this provision of the law applies everywhere, not just at gun shows.
The term is misleading and dishonest, typical of most arguments used to try to justify increased restrictions on the law abiding.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 13, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> No they dont.
> First offf, about 80% are overturned.  Second, criminals know they are prohibited so dont go through background checks to begin with.  They simply buy them out of the trunk of someone's car.
> It's nonsense.



Are you knowledge averse? In many states, a criminal can walk into a gun show and buy any weapon he chooses from a 'so called' private seller. One of these private sellers that was caught on camera by investigators acknowledged selling 348 guns in less than a year.

PLUS, investigators told the private sellers that they "probably couldn't pass a background check" -- and at that point, the seller should have sent them away. Because even private sellers are prohibited by federal law from selling to those who they have reason to suspect could not pass a background check.

Instead, 19 out of 30 private sellers made the sale.

You right wing turds always find the worst in humankind, UNLESS they are making a lot of money. Then you want to lick their asshole.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Feb 13, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Are you knowledge averse? In many states, a criminal can walk into a gun show and buy any weapon he chooses from a 'so called' private seller. One of these private sellers that was caught on camera by investigators acknowledged selling 348 guns in less than a year.



Both are already illegal and felonies.


----------



## KissMy (Feb 13, 2013)

I Support The "Gun Show Loophole?" Background checks do not prevent any murders.

We need a publicized list of bad people who should not own a gun just like the registered sex offenders list so people know to keep guns away from them.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 13, 2013)

KissMy said:


> I Support The "Gun Show Loophole?" Background checks do not prevent any murders.
> 
> We need a publicized list of bad people who should not own a gun just like the registered sex offenders list so people know to keep guns away from them.



And HOW do we determine that Einstein? By how they LOOK??


----------



## OODA_Loop (Feb 13, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > I Support The "Gun Show Loophole?" Background checks do not prevent any murders.
> ...



NICS.

Fast track anyone taking a drug that has sucidal or homicidal ideation as a known FDA side effect.


----------



## Liability (Feb 13, 2013)

A person is bent on violating a pretty primal law:  the one that makes it illegal to snuff out the life of another human being without legal or just cause.

But such a person is going to be deterred on the basis that it is also illegal to obtain a gun without going through a background check?


----------



## OODA_Loop (Feb 13, 2013)

Liability said:


> A person is bent on violating a pretty primal law:  the one that makes it illegal to snuff out the life of another human being without legal or just cause.
> 
> But such a person is going to be deterred on the basis that it is also illegal to obtain a gun without going through a background check?



We lack accountabilty.

When everything became someone else's fault.

We have what we have here today.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 13, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > No they dont.
> ...



Right. Background checks don't work.  What is hard to understand about that, turdbrain?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 13, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > I Support The "Gun Show Loophole?" Background checks do not prevent any murders.
> ...


You apparently missed this:

*We need a publicized list of bad people who should not own a gun *

The news media should publish a monthy report of felons and other peoples unable to legally buy/own a gun - apparently, the media has some interest in the subject as it publishes lists of people with permits to own guns.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Feb 13, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



Make NICS search-able and public domain online.

Municipalities and counties have criminal and arrest databases online.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 13, 2013)

OODA_Loop said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Are you knowledge averse? In many states, a criminal can walk into a gun show and buy any weapon he chooses from a 'so called' private seller. One of these private sellers that was caught on camera by investigators acknowledged selling 348 guns in less than a year.
> ...



Both are not illegal. There is no definition of how many guns a 'private seller' can sell. According to federal law, they cannot be "engaged in the business" of selling firearms. But clearly some 'private sellers' ARE "engaged in the business" of selling firearms.

The only violation here occurred after the buyer (who was really an investigator with a hidden camera) told the seller they "probably couldn't pass a background check".

WHAT criminal would tell the seller they "probably couldn't pass a background check"?


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 13, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



Now tell me Einstein, HOW will gun dealers and private sellers KNOW who the people unable to legally buy/own a gun ARE? Do they have to scour the newspapers, internet and other 'media' sources? Private sellers don't have to see any identification.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 13, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


1:  Make the list available
2:  Require that they do.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 13, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...


You mean like the do not fly list?

It's a turkey of an idea and probably illegal.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 13, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


Can't be any more illegal than publising lists of CCW permit holders and registered gun owners.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 13, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



SO Einstein, you have no problem with big government draconian mandates forcing dealers and sellers to scour the newspapers, internet and other 'media' in search of bad guys they can't sell to.

You are a MORON.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 13, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



The CCW list is a public record.  I'm not sure what law is being violated by publishing it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 13, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


You are clearly not worth any more of my time.
There's the recess bell - head back inside now.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 13, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Yea, you better hurry, you might miss cookies and milk and nap time.


----------



## KissMy (Feb 13, 2013)

In 1994 the federal statute called the Jacob Wetterling Act required all states to pass legislation requiring sex offenders to register with state sex offender registries. From the chart it looks like sexual assaults were already falling from 1991 due to the aids scare from Magic Johnson's announcement. So even that registered sex offender list may have failed us.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 13, 2013)

kwc57 said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



Either post something of substance or I'll put your troll ass on ignore.


----------



## logical4u (Feb 13, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> A spin off of the other thread where I have asked numerous times and not a single right winger has answered, is if you support the gun show loophole.
> 
> For those that may not know, under current federal law if you wish to purchases a firearm, you have to be run in a background check to make sure you are not a felon, been convicted of a violent crime, been in a mental institution, etc,..before they give the go ahead to sell that person a weapon. However under the "gun show loophole", there are not background checks at all.
> 
> That's right, absoutly nothing. A violent thug fresh out of the penitentiary, a terrorist, or a nutcases ready to commit the next sandy hook could go down to their local gun show, or find a classified ad selling a firearm and they could purchase deadly weapons, _with no questions asked._



I do not support unenforceable laws.

If this is made into laws, it will not be enforced (unless it is to take out someone politically).

We have a tone of gun laws.
We have laws against stealing guns.
We have laws against shooting people for reasons other than self defense.

Enforce those laws and then, let us talk again.


----------



## KissMy (Feb 13, 2013)

If the "Gun Show Loophole" is closed it means that Grandpa's gun he left me would have to go through a FFL dealer background check before I can get the gun. How is that going to be enforced.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 13, 2013)

KissMy said:


> If the "Gun Show Loophole" is closed it means that Grandpa's gun he left me would have to go through a FFL dealer background check before I can get the gun. How is that going to be enforced.



The gun show loophole involves background checks for purchases, so if UBC becomes law, the gun show loophole disappears and background checks are needed for all purchases. It's unclear yet if the law will require background checks for tranfer of weapons, but it's a good idea to include it and not create another loophole in the law. It's also a good idea to make laws requiring registration of firearms, but that's further down the line, except I expect some states to do it. 

I have no idea why you would think the gun show loophole or UBC has anything to do with your Grandpa's gun.


----------



## PredFan (Feb 13, 2013)

There is no such thing as a gun show loophole. How fucking dense can you people be?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 13, 2013)

KissMy said:


> In 1994 the federal statute called the Jacob Wetterling Act required all states to pass legislation requiring sex offenders to register with state sex offender registries.


Really?
Talk about a violation of the 10th amendment.
Must be more to it than that.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 13, 2013)

KissMy said:


> In 1994 the federal statute called the Jacob Wetterling Act required all states to pass legislation requiring sex offenders to register with state sex offender registries. From the chart it looks like sexual assaults were already falling from 1991 due to the aids scare from Magic Johnson's announcement. So even that registered sex offender list may have failed us.



I see the right-wing is going after the sex offender vote. You must be getting desperate.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 13, 2013)

PredFan said:


> There is no such thing as a gun show loophole. How fucking dense can you people be?



You know what I like in a conversation?

When someone joins in, after not having paid attention to any of the prior debate, and tells everyone they are stupid, because they don't agree with a talking point that was proved false days before-hand.

It's one thing to not read the thread, and make a point that was previously debated, that's to be expected sometimes.  

It's another to insinuate that everyone lacks intelligence because you didn't bother to read.

For the 4th time in this thread, PredFan, the "Gun Show Loophole" does in fact exist.

It refers to the fact that private sellers can sell guns without any form of documentation at all.

As per the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.

The fact that "Gun Show" is in its title is misleading, as most of these sales do not necessarily occur at gun shows, but they do in fact occur at gun shows.


----------



## PredFan (Feb 13, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > There is no such thing as a gun show loophole. *How fucking dense can you people be?[/*quote]
> ...


----------



## PredFan (Feb 13, 2013)

Look, it is legal to sell guns privately. That is not a loophole, it IS the law. It doesn't matter where the sale occurs, that still doesn't make it a loophole. I can't believe that you people are still claiming it is? How dense can you be?


----------



## kwc57 (Feb 13, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > I Support The "Gun Show Loophole?" Background checks do not prevent any murders.
> ...



Good lord liberals are stoopid!


----------



## KissMy (Feb 13, 2013)

Dubya said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > In 1994 the federal statute called the Jacob Wetterling Act required all states to pass legislation requiring sex offenders to register with state sex offender registries. From the chart it looks like sexual assaults were already falling from 1991 due to the aids scare from Magic Johnson's announcement. So even that registered sex offender list may have failed us.
> ...





How will registering guns, good guys with guns or bad guys who should not own them work if registering sex offenders does not work????????????????????


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 13, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Look, it is legal to sell guns privately. That is not a loophole, it IS the law. It doesn't matter where the sale occurs, that still doesn't make it a loophole. I can't believe that you people are still claiming it is? How dense can you be?



There is a law in place meant to provide protections against criminals getting guns.

Due to the language of the law, there is a portion of gun sellers that are immune from the restrictions stated in the law.

That is pretty much the definition of a "loophole".

Personally I don't give a shit if you call it a "Fire Hydrant".  It still exists.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 13, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



You keep repeating that like it proves something.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 13, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



First off, there is no data to support the claim that one third of sales at guns shows are through private sellers.

Second, even private sellers at gun shows take steps to not sell to felons, mostly because, despite the blithering idiocy of the UC report, there are police and ATF agents at the gun shows, and no one wants to get caught selling to the wrong person.

Third, even if your number is accurate, I already did the math and it shows that this massive problem you are worried about amounts to less than 4% of total gun sales.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 13, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



You dismissed it because it didn't support your view. It wasn't until I pointed out that one of the drooling idiots that agrees with you posted it that you even looked at it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 13, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



And, as I pointed out earlier, even if we assume those numbers are correct, that amounts to about 3.4% of total gun sales. That means that 96.7% of gun sales do not go through this process, which makes my 90% estimate conservative.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 13, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> You keep repeating that like it proves something.



Yep.

England may have done away with gun violence, but their violent crime rate is actually now much higher than in the US.

However, their total homicide rate is lower.

So, it's a trade off.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 13, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > There is no such thing as a gun show loophole. How fucking dense can you people be?
> ...



So it doesn't really involve gun shows.
And it's not a loophole.
But other than not existing it really does exist.  Trust me.

What bugs me is the utter stupidity of people who cannot adhere to logic and keep repeating the same misinformation over and over.
If you want to limit people's ability to sell their personal goods privately, say that's what you want.  Then we can discuss just how good an idea it is and how effective it will be in deterring crime.


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 13, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > There is no such thing as a gun show loophole. How fucking dense can you people be?
> ...



In other words, it exists because you claim it exists..

Regardless of the fact that it really doesn't exist and never has existed.  The Government has never required the private sale of firearms to be recorded.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 13, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> So it doesn't really involve gun shows.
> And it's not a loophole.
> But other than not existing it really does exist.  Trust me.
> 
> ...



*loop·hole  *
/&#712;lo&#862;op&#716;(h)&#333;l/
Noun
An ambiguity or *inadequacy* in the law or a set of rules.

Google Dictionary

Fits the definition of the word to a tee, as far as I can see.

And though it doesn't happen exclusively at Gun Shows, it does in fact happen regularly at Gun Shows, so it only a partial misnomer.

Certainly, however, the situation referred to by the term "Gun Show Loophole" does, in fact, exist, despite Right-Wing attempts to obfuscate the facts of the matter.

Would you be happier if from this point onward I referred to it as "The Private Sale Loophole"?  

Certainly that would be a more accurate term, but we would of course have to explain to every newcomer to the conversation what the hell we meant by it.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 13, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> In other words, it exists because you claim it exists..
> 
> Regardless of the fact that it really doesn't exist and never has existed.  The Government has never required the private sale of firearms to be recorded.



And why would that have anything to do with the term "Loophole"?

It isn't called the "Gun Show Reversal".


----------



## Dubya (Feb 13, 2013)

KissMy said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



Why would you believe knowing who the sex offenders are in an area hasn't worked?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 13, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > So it doesn't really involve gun shows.
> ...



Of course it does, because you insist it exists simply because you insist it exists.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 13, 2013)

Dubya said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Why would you believe it has?


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 13, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Of course it does, because you insist it exists simply because you insist it exists.



It exists because it is printed in a law passed in 1986.

You can in fact, go a read said act, or read the laws that were codified from it here:

18 USC § 921 - Definitions | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

Perhaps, in the Bizarro world of right-wing disinformation, you may feel that even that is not enough proof to make a dent in your bubble.

But for the rest of the population, it's definitive proof.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 13, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Of course it does, because you insist it exists simply because you insist it exists.
> ...



The problem with that argument is two fold.

First, nowhere in that link do I see the words "Gun show loophole."

Second, the legislation currently pending to close the "gun show loophole" specifically states it does not apply to private transactions.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 13, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> The problem with that argument is two fold.
> 
> First, nowhere in that link do I see the words "Gun show loophole."
> 
> Second, the legislation currently pending to close the "gun show loophole" specifically states it does not apply to private transactions.



First, that is a ridiculous statement, as a Loophole is:



> An ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.



Second, that is due to the fact that the legislators are not in fact closing the Gun Show loophole in said pending legislation.  Congress is attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of the populace once again.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 13, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > So it doesn't really involve gun shows.
> ...



Ok, you prove there is no loophole.
Is the fact that anyone can sell his private possessions without gov't interference ambiguous?  No, it is quite clear.  Anyone can do that.  Is it inadequate? The question is, inadequate for what?  Obviously not inadequate to prevent crime. Perhaps inadequate to facilitate further gov't control over our lives?  Yes, perhaps.
So there is no loophole.  It is the plain law.  Any more than it is a loophole that allows people to hold yard sales.  Maybe we need to close the "yardsale loophole"?


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 13, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Ok, you prove there is no loophole.
> Is the fact that anyone can sell his private possessions without gov't interference ambiguous?  No, it is quite clear.  Anyone can do that.  Is it inadequate? The question is, inadequate for what?  Obviously not inadequate to prevent crime. Perhaps inadequate to facilitate further gov't control over our lives?  Yes, perhaps.
> So there is no loophole.  It is the plain law.  Any more than it is a loophole that allows people to hold yard sales.  Maybe we need to close the "yardsale loophole"?



It is inadequate because it allows private sellers to sell weapons to criminals and the insane without fear of recrimination.

Since it is illegal to knowingly sell weapons to these groups, then that is quite definitely an inadequacy, and thus a loophole.

And if someone were to sell a deadly weapon to an insane murderer at a yard sale, then that would indeed be dangerous behavior.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 13, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, you prove there is no loophole.
> ...



It does not allow tht at all.  Criminals and the insane are strictly forbidden from buying guns from anyone.  They are forbidden to own guns.  They are forbidden to handle guns.
If someone sells to such a person he is violating the law.  
Thus there is no loophole at all, even on your definition.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 13, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with that argument is two fold.
> ...



I think a universal background check (UBC) bill would pass and it would do away with the gun show loophole. It would require background checks on all purchases of firearms, even private sales. Without firearm registration though, the law would be nearly impossible to enforce, but it would prevent the open sale of firearms without background checks, like in gun shows and flea markets to a lesser extent, because they are less watched by law enforcement.

If a gun was involved in a crime and it could be proven the gun was purchased and resold without a background check after the law went into effect, that would result in a person being charged for a crime. That makes it risky to avoid selling a newly purchased gun, but if someone sold older firearms, how could it be proven when they were sold. That's why registration is needed as well, amongst the many other reasons why registration is needed.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 13, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Wow, are you dense.
How would you prove any firearm was transferred after a law took effect when there are no records required of that now?
Never mind a law like that is unconstitutional.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 13, 2013)

There is no gun show loophole in the context of some lawless venue where criminals can acquire firearms without fear of punitive regulatory policies. 

State and Federal laws apply to gun shows as anywhere else, including background checks for a criminal record.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 13, 2013)

Somebody gets it.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 13, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> There is no &#8216;gun show loophole&#8217; in the context of some lawless venue where criminals can acquire firearms without fear of punitive regulatory policies.
> 
> State and Federal laws apply to gun shows as anywhere else, including background checks for a criminal record.



Said state and federal laws only apply to licensed dealers who sell guns for a living, as per the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.

Therefore, while the laws do in fact apply, they are specifically written to allow private sellers to sell without background checks.  Thus the loophole.

Repeatedly stating that something doesn't exist, doesn't make it so, no matter how many times it's repeated.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 13, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > There is no gun show loophole in the context of some lawless venue where criminals can acquire firearms without fear of punitive regulatory policies.
> ...


I think you might be retarded or delusional.  Numerous posters have shown you there is no gunshow loophole. A nd yet you insist it's real.  Like an imaginery friend.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 13, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with that argument is two fold.
> ...



Keep telling yourself I am ridiculous while you insist that something that is neither ambiguous nor inadequate is a loophole.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 13, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, you prove there is no loophole.
> ...



It does not allow people to do that because the law we are talking about is aimed at holders of a federal firearms license, not people who just want to get rid of grandfather's WWII memento. 

By the way, other laws exist which specifically address a person selling a weapon to someone they know is a criminal. I doubt they cover insanity, but most insane people are actually harmless, so I see no real reason to force private sellers to give people MMPIs.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 13, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



You also think that most Americans support Obama's attempt to ban normal magazines.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 13, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> There is no gun show loophole in the context of some lawless venue where criminals can acquire firearms without fear of punitive regulatory policies.
> 
> State and Federal laws apply to gun shows as anywhere else, including background checks for a criminal record.



There is a loophole. Criminals can and have acquired firearms at gun shows from 'so called' private sellers, who are not required to run a background check unless the seller believes the buyer is questionable. The loophole was written into the Brady Bill. Chuck Schumer explained that it was a concession to the gun lobby to pas the bill.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 13, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > There is no gun show loophole in the context of some lawless venue where criminals can acquire firearms without fear of punitive regulatory policies.
> ...



Do you want to hold a person who sells a car responsible if the person that buys it kills someone? 

How about if I sell my knife and the person that buys it uses it to kill someone, should I have made sure that they were not going to kill someone first? Should I be held liable?

It is not a loophole because no law anywhere makes a private individual responsible for the actions of a person he has no control over. Calling it a loophole just makes you look incredibly stupid, something you usually manage to avoid.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 13, 2013)

LOL.  You people are just silly.

Seriously.

Rabbi seems to think that the fact that numerous posters repeated the mantra about the loophole not existing, and I'm not even sure what tangent Quantum is going on now.

Quantum, if something is inadequate in the existing law in my view, then I have every right to call it a loophole.

You can call it something else, like I said earlier, that's fine and dandy.

That does not however mean that the situation I am referring to doesn't exist.  It does.

So, go ahead, call it the "Gun provider's freedom, rights, liberty, constitutional provision to save American jobs".

Feel free.

Your Orwellian double-speak still doesn't change the fact that the situation exists, as described, and can accurately be described, by someone who feels the law is inadequate, as a "Loophole".


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 13, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > There is no gun show loophole in the context of some lawless venue where criminals can acquire firearms without fear of punitive regulatory policies.
> ...



Criminals have also acquired guns by buying them from licensed dealers that conduct background checks, what's your point?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 13, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> LOL.  You people are just silly.
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> ...



I don't recall saying you can't call it whatever you want, I am just pointing out that calling it a loophole makes you look just as stupid as those people that call a dog a cat.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 13, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> It does not allow people to do that because the law we are talking about is aimed at holders of a federal firearms license, not people who just want to get rid of grandfather's WWII memento.



And that's the entire point.  Private sellers should have been included in the law.  That's why it's a loophole.



Quantum Windbag said:


> By the way, other laws exist which specifically address a person selling a weapon to someone they know is a criminal. I doubt they cover insanity, but most insane people are actually harmless, so I see no real reason to force private sellers to give people MMPIs.



They do cover insanity, but only if they know the person is either, and without a background check, in most cases, a seller wouldn't be able to determine that, now would they?

And, you see no reason?  What if you sold a gun to a guy who lived down the street, who turned out to be a murderer, and they killed your whole family?  Would that be a reason?


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 13, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Then they are either not _criminal enough_ to be disqualified, or they lied on the application, thus committing a crime.

We are on page 77 of this thread. The gun show loophole is so simple to understand, a small child could comprehend what it is and how it is abused. Yet you bunch of right wing pea brains either can't digest it, or are so dogmatic and parrots of the gun lobby that you are willing to aid and abet murderers to protect your doctrinaire. You are UN-American scum.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 13, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > It does not allow people to do that because the law we are talking about is aimed at holders of a federal firearms license, not people who just want to get rid of grandfather's WWII memento.
> ...



Let me get this straight.

If there is a law that prevents criminals from buying guns, but it does not prevent non criminals from buying guns, it is a loophole.

By the way, thanks for admitting that laws already prohibit private sellers from doing exactly what you claim they can do.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 13, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



You are right about one thing, the gun show loophole is easy to understand.

There Is No Gun Show Loophole.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 13, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Thank you for proving my point. So now all we need to determine is if you are obtuse or a lying sack of shit. I vote for BOTH.

If a felon can walk into a gun show, choose a private seller and buy weapons without being required to submit to a background check...WHAT WOULD YOU CALL IT???


----------



## ABikerSailor (Feb 13, 2013)

Interestingly enough, LaPierre was FOR background checks back in the 90's.

Now?  He's firmly against them.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 13, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



I would call that an invitation to get arrested. Go to a gun show and see how many cops are there in plain sight, then tell me that there aren't undercover cops all over the place. I bet they even set up stings to try to trap criminals into buying from them.

The last place any crook will ever buy a gun is at a gun show.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 13, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> You also think that most Americans support Obama's attempt to ban normal magazines.



That I do not support.  Nor assault weapon bans.

Both things are just not going to help the situation much.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 13, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> Interestingly enough, LaPierre was FOR background checks back in the 90's.
> 
> Now?  He's firmly against them.



Interesting enough, I see that as a point of maturity. It makes more sense to change your mind when presented with data that proves you wrong than to insist that making more laws will fix everything.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 13, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Do you want to hold a person who sells a car responsible if the person that buys it kills someone?
> 
> How about if I sell my knife and the person that buys it uses it to kill someone, should I have made sure that they were not going to kill someone first? Should I be held liable?
> 
> It is not a loophole because no law anywhere makes a private individual responsible for the actions of a person he has no control over. Calling it a loophole just makes you look incredibly stupid, something you usually manage to avoid.




Cars and knives, in most cases, are necessary to survival.  One must drive to work, and cut their bread with something.

Unless your only source of food is to hunt your own game, guns are not necessary to survival.

And just because Frank Luntz has handed down word that the word "Loophole" should now be changed to a nicer, more gun-friendly term, doesn't mean I have to use it.

Both of us can speak truthfully, and say different things, it is simply a matter of perspective.

My "Loophole" is your "Gawd-Given Right".  Your "Freedom Fry" is my "French Fry".


----------



## MikeK (Feb 13, 2013)

Who here is so naive and/or pointedly ignorant as to believe restrictive laws are capable of preventing acquisition of anything one wants (e.g., recreational drugs) and has the cash to pay for?  The only things these political crusades manage to achieve are creation of black markets and suppression of enjoyable recreation by law-abiding adults.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 13, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > There is no gun show loophole in the context of some lawless venue where criminals can acquire firearms without fear of punitive regulatory policies.
> ...



That's hard to say because 19 states have additional restrictions on gun shows.


----------



## KissMy (Feb 13, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> Interestingly enough, LaPierre was FOR background checks back in the 90's.
> 
> Now?  He's firmly against them.



Thats because the results are in proving they don't work! You faith based ideologues can't accept the facts.


----------



## KissMy (Feb 13, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



He has no proof. He is just a reactionary douche-bag who denies reality facts to keep the faith with his retarded baseless ideology.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 13, 2013)

Gun Homicides Increased 25 Percent After Missouri Repealed Background Check Law


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 13, 2013)

GOP Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) Peddles Debunked Misinformation On Gun Violence


----------



## KissMy (Feb 13, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> Gun Homicides Increased 25 Percent After Missouri Repealed Background Check Law



That increase in homicides is because Missouri ranks atop U.S. in meth labs.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 13, 2013)

Its not a loophole because there is no way for a background check to be conducted in the context of a private, intrastate sale between residents of the same state, regardless the venue, hence the wording of the law. 

A loophole exists either unintentionally, due to the poor drafting of a law, or intentionally, were a remedy is at hand but rejected, creating the loophole to benefit a special interest.  

Since there was no way for the authors of the legislation to contrive the mechanics necessary for background checks for private sales, there was no remedy available, and consequently no loophole. 

Again, and at the very least, its inappropriate to attempt to vilify gun shows and their attendees as some sort of nefarious conspiracy intended to allow criminals access to firearms.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 13, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



A crime? You understand he is already committing a crime merely by handling the weapon, right?
And he doesnt need to go to a gunshow to do it.  He can meet a guy in the parking lot at Denny's.

So I think you are both obtuse and stupid as this has been explained many times before and you persist with your fallacy.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 13, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> Interestingly enough, LaPierre was FOR background checks back in the 90's.
> 
> Now?  He's firmly against them.


This is a lie.
LaP and the NRA supports the NICS today, just as it did in 1993 when it was written into the Brady Act.
The NRA is the reason the NICS exists.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 13, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> Gun Homicides Increased 25 Percent After Missouri Repealed Background Check Law


As Federal law requires background checks, this is proof that background checks do not work.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 13, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Do you want to hold a person who sells a car responsible if the person that buys it kills someone?
> ...



Have you ever been in the wilderness? I own multiple knives, and consider myself a knife nut. I know lats more about knife laws that attempt to restrict my right to own a knife than I do about gun laws, and don't have any fucking idea who Frank Luntz is. Despite all of that, if I had my druthers, I would take a gun into a survival situation any day of the week, especially in an urban situation.

By the way, I have never even seen a freedom fry.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 13, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Its not a loophole because there is no way for a background check to be conducted in the context of a private, intrastate sale between residents of the same state, regardless the venue, hence the wording of the law.
> 
> A loophole exists either unintentionally, due to the poor drafting of a law, or intentionally, were a remedy is at hand but rejected, creating the loophole to benefit a special interest.
> 
> ...



This is how bad this thread is, I just pos repped a guy that has said that SCOTUS writes the Constitution.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 14, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Its not a loophole because there is no way for a background check to be conducted in the context of a private, intrastate sale between residents of the same state, regardless the venue, hence the wording of the law.
> 
> A loophole exists either unintentionally, due to the poor drafting of a law, or intentionally, were a remedy is at hand but rejected, creating the loophole to benefit a special interest.
> 
> ...



Provide the 'wording' of the law? 

Explain how states like California are able to require and execute background checks on all gun show sales including 'private' sellers?

I respect you, but you are wrong on this topic.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 14, 2013)

"I want better background checks too. ON PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES!!!"


----------



## ABikerSailor (Feb 14, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> "I want better background checks too. ON PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES!!!"



So...................would you feel the same way about McCain and Palin?

They didn't have background checks.

What about Mittens and his severe refusal for the same checks?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 14, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > "I want better background checks too. ON PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES!!!"
> ...



Lack of comprehension?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Feb 14, 2013)

BTW..........................the same thing for that asshole who was denounced by his own religion known as Paul Ryan?

Even the Catholics thought he was an evil man.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 14, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> This is a lie.
> LaP and the NRA supports the NICS today, just as it did in 1993 when it was written into the Brady Act.
> The NRA is the reason the NICS exists.



Yeah...  Not so much.

Here's a video of him admitting it before Congress.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-oqfPojhec]Wayne LaPierre Speaks in Favor of Universal Background Checks - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Tech_Esq (Feb 14, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > This is a lie.
> ...



Virginia considered closing the loophole and instead decided to retain private alienation of property without government interference. We'll still let Wayne live here though.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 14, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > This is a lie.
> ...


Reality says otherwise.



> Private Sales Restrictions and Gun Registration
> The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which became operational in 1998, verifies that a person seeking to buy a firearm from a gun dealer is not prohibited from doing so by federal or state law. The National Rifle Association supported its establishment.  Gun control supporters opposed NICS, preferring to require a gun purchaser to wait several days after stating the desire to buy a gun, before receiving it from a firearm dealer.


NRA-ILA | Private Sales Restrictions and Gun Registration



> Senate Passes NICS Improvement Act, House Concurs
> (Note: On Jan. 8, 2008, President Bush signed H.R. 2640 into law.)
> After months of careful negotiation, pro-gun legislation was passed through Congress on Wednesday, December 19, 2007. The National Rifle Association (NRA) worked closely with Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to address his concerns regarding H.R. 2640, the National Instant Check System (NICS) Improvement Act. These changes make a good bill even better. The end product is a win for American gun owners.


NRA-ILA | HR 2640



> The National Rifle Association has always supported including the records of individuals adjudicated mentally defective into the National Instant Background Check System. We believe that the NICS should serve the intent of Congress, which is to prohibit the sale of firearms to criminals and other prohibited persons, such as adjudicated mental defectives. However, we must not forget that the NICS also serves the purpose of clearing firearm purchases by law-abiding Americans. Too often, the system has been abused and has not delivered on the promise of a fair and instant check.
> In order for NICS to be effective and efficient, it should not be bogged down with unnecessary information or duplicative records. It should not be used to charge transaction fees on background checks; as a permanent repository of gun purchase information; or to unnecessarily delay the ability of law-abiding Americans to purchase firearms.
> The NRA has achieved many improvements to the NICS over the years, including the destruction of approved transaction records within 24 hours, and prohibiting the FBI on an annual basis from charging a user fee on background checks.
> We continue to support legislative efforts that:
> ...


.
NRA-ILA | NICS Legislative Efforts



> After the Brady Act was originally proposed in 1987, the National Rifle Association (NRA) mobilized to defeat the legislation, spending millions of dollars in the process. While the bill eventually did pass in both chambers of the United States Congress, *the NRA was able to win an important concession: the final version of the legislation provided that, in 1998, the five-day waiting period for handgun sales would be replaced by an instant computerized background check that involved no waiting periods.*


Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 14, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



What part of what you just wrote contradicts the statement you called a "lie", which was:



> Interestingly enough, LaPierre was FOR background checks back in the 90's.
> 
> Now? He's firmly against them.



?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 14, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...


He, and the NRA, are for background checks now as they were in the 90s.
You state that they "now" oppose background checks.  This is the lie; the position of the NRA has not changed.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 14, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> He, and the NRA, are for background checks now as they were in the 90s.
> You state that they "now" oppose background checks.  This is the lie; the position of the NRA has not changed.



The NRA supports closing the Gun Show Loophole?

Then why are we having this conversation?

Also, you'll notice that in my above video, *Wayne LaPierre calls the background check thing a "Loophole".*


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 14, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Its not a loophole because there is no way for a background check to be conducted in the context of a private, intrastate sale between residents of the same state, regardless the venue, hence the wording of the law.
> ...



California has a higher than average rate of gun crime despite the allegedly universal background checks the have.

I think that makes you wrong.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 14, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > He, and the NRA, are for background checks now as they were in the 90s.
> ...



Because you insist that everyone conform to your version of reality even though it has been repeatedly pointed out that there is no gun show loophole?


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 14, 2013)

NRA logic...


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 14, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



What part of Wayne LaPierre calling it a gun show loophole did you not get?

Or do you feel that good ol' Wayne shares my liberal version of reality?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 14, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > He, and the NRA, are for background checks now as they were in the 90s.
> ...


You are being intentionally dishonest.
Please contrast the NRA position regarding background checks in 1998 and its position today - show how they differ, especially in terms of universal background checks.
That is, show how their position "now" is different than back then.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Feb 14, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> NRA logic...



You agree to speed controls as a drivers licensee.

Liberal logic.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 14, 2013)

OODA_Loop said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > NRA logic...
> ...


Never nind that driving a car on public streets puts eveyone on or near that street in a condition of clear, present and imminent danger, whereas simple ownership/posession of any sort of firearm does not.

Its amazing how stupid these people make themselves out to be, when they try to be clever.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 14, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Do they support closing it now, or not?

You all keep changing your position.

If they do support it, then there's no argument here.

Unless you guys are even more extreme than the NRA on this issue...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 14, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...


The NRA has NEVER supported UBC, and so say that they do not support it "now", implying that they once did and changed their position, is a lie.

No two ways around it - you are lying.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 14, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> The NRA has NEVER supported UBC, and so say that they do not support it "now", implying that they once did and changed their position, is a lie.
> 
> No two ways around it - you are lying.



I didn't make a statement, I asked a question.

How could I be lying?

Apparently you believe Wayne LaPierre is lying in the video clip I posted.

Did you even bother to watch it?  It's not very long.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 14, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > The NRA has NEVER supported UBC, and so say that they do not support it "now", implying that they once did and changed their position, is a lie.
> ...


You said:


> LaPierre was FOR background checks back in the 90's.  Now? He's firmly against them.


The NRA has NEVER supported UBC, and so say that they do not support it "now", implying that they once did and changed their position, is a lie.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 14, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> You said:
> 
> 
> > LaPierre was FOR background checks back in the 90's.  Now? He's firmly against them.



I did not.  That was an entirely different poster.



M14 Shooter said:


> The NRA has NEVER supported UBC, and so say that they do not support it "now", implying that they once did and changed their position, is a lie.



So, again, was Wayne LaPierre lying in the video I posted, or was he not speaking for the NRA?


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 14, 2013)

Universal background checks may not be gun-control utopia - but they would be a good speed-bump.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 14, 2013)

The gun show loophole is an example of the complex question fallacy: 



> Two otherwise unrelated points are conjoined and treated as a single proposition. The reader is expected to accept or reject both together, when in reality one is acceptable while the other is not. A complex question is an illegitimate use of the "and" operator.
> 
> The Logical Fallacies: Complex Question



In this case the fallacy is conjoining gun shows and background checks, where Federal law not requiring background checks for private sales has nothing to do with gun shows. 

Consequently there is no gun show 'loophole.'


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 14, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The gun show &#8216;loophole&#8217; is an example of the complex question fallacy:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Call it what you want - but that doesn't change the fact that private sellers aren't required to perform background checks - even at gun shows.  A licensed dealer could sell umpteen guns to an unlicensed private person (contingent upon passing background check) - and that person could then sell those guns to other unlicensed private persons without being legally required to perform background checks.  Personally - I call that a "loophole"... a big "loophole"...

If you mean it's not a "loophole" in the legal sense because the law was never designed to fill that void - I agree.

I consider you one of the smartest posters on this board, so please correct me if my general facts are wrong.


----------



## S.J. (Feb 14, 2013)

Hasn't this dead horse been beaten enough?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 14, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > The gun show loophole is an example of the complex question fallacy:
> ...



They claim universal background checks will lower gun deaths because criminals use straw men now to obtain their guns at gun shows.
So when we have universal background checks who will force the criminals to obey that and not go to buying all of their guns on the black market?
They claim it is a "good first step" and other nonsense with nothing whatsoever to back it up with.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 14, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



Let me rephrase this, it doesn't matter who you get to call it a loophole, it is not going to be a loophole, and I refuse to bend to the delusion that it is.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 14, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Speed limits are also a "good first step" - backed up by radar, law enforcement, courts and jails.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 14, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > The gun show loophole is an example of the complex question fallacy:
> ...



You want to know another reason it is not a loophole? Because it would violate the Constitution for the federal government to require background checks on all gun sales. Since we are talking about federal law here, not state law, there is no gun show loophole unless you think the constitution is a loophole.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 14, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



How does law enforcement use radar to clock a speeding gun that is locked in my closet unloaded supposedly doing 55 in a 35 and what is the jail time for it?


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 14, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Think of analogy and metaphor...


----------



## Dubya (Feb 14, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The gun show &#8216;loophole&#8217; is an example of the complex question fallacy:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's been defined, so why do you want to change what someone is saying to meet you challenge of understanding?

The gun shop loophole has been closed in states, so they knew what it meant. We should have national laws prohibiting private sales without background checks and universal registration to enforce it. Since when should rational people allow "shit your pants" and "frequent nervous breakdowns" to influence what is best for Americans, when it comes to gun control? Americans fight for their country and don't avoid the service with a boil on their ass. They don't fly combat missions over the United States and tell others to fight for their country, when they didn't have the guts to do it personally. If you ain't got the balls to fight for your own country, you don't deserve having an opinion worth shit in that country, when it comes to fighting a war. This has been fucked up since a long time ago, or a maggot like Cheney would have never been Secretary of Defense. Look at the first person who held that job!

The cannon that pushed the British out of Boston came from Fort Ticonderoga where Ethan Allen and Benedict Arnold capture that fort. Our first Secretary of War was Henry Knox and he suggested taking the cannon from Fort Ticonderoga to Boston and did so during the winter carrying 60 tons of cannon and various armaments across 300 miles, over mountains, lakes whatever, to get them to Boston. That's what a man does for a country that doesn't even exist yet, so why aren't these present day people wanting to hold that office even worth a shadow of what men were like before them? Can't we as voters figure out the doers from the takers? Do we always have to imitate the UK in it's old beliefs that the elite know what is best for the people? At least the Brits would put their aristocracy on the battlefield, until even the coward had his day proving himself as such.


----------



## arKangel (Feb 14, 2013)

Basically a poll arguing freedom Vs. "those who claim to be better than you"
Did you vote for freedom, or that there is a class of people who are better than you?

Are you a free person or a slave?


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 14, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Are you C_Clayton_Jones? THAT is not even the question, but I am not surprised you don't understand.

But you are wrong about California...

Want a Better Gun Policy? Look at California 

Griffin Dix, Ph.D.

After the recent mass shootings came mass confusion over how to prevent gun deaths. Calls for action ran to extremes. In despair some said murderers will always get weapons that are incredibly lethal; we are helpless against the gun lobby. Others called for banning all firearms. But there is a better way. Californias gun lawswhile far from perfectprovide a model that works.

Since the peak firearm mortality rate in 1993 California has cut its firearm mortality rate by 53%  to a new low of 8.1 per 100,000 (according to the CDCs latest 2009 data). That compares to a decline of only 30% in the rest of the nation, where the firearm mortality rate is 10.2  far higher than Californias.

Before 1997 Californias firearm mortality rate was consistently higher than that of the rest of the nation. But as Californias gun laws took effect the states gun death rate dropped lower. Of course many factors besides gun laws affect firearm mortality rates. But gun laws help and California has passed more than forty of them since the 1989 assault weapon mass shooting in a Stockton schoolyard that led to the states assault weapons ban and a ten round limit on ammunition magazine capacity.

Other important California laws curb illegal gun trafficking by requiring background checks on all gun sales or transfers (including at gun shows) and limiting handgun purchases to one per month, prohibit gun purchases by persons guilty of certain violent misdemeanors, and facilitate crime gun tracing and recovery of illegally owned weapons.

Additional laws require licensing of gun dealers. In California handgun buyers must pass a written safety test and hands-on demonstration. Laws that encourage safe gun storage help reduce gun suicide, a major component of firearm mortality. New handgun models sold in California must meet state safety standards.

Americans overwhelmingly support measures like these, which do not interfere with the rights of law-abiding citizens. Gun violence is a complex, multi-faceted problem with no easy fix. No wonder many are confused about how we can cut our gun death rate and protect our families. Californias gun laws are a model the rest of the country should look to in this hour of sorrow, confusion and much-needed discussion.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 14, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The gun show &#8216;loophole&#8217; is an example of the complex question fallacy:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am really disappointed. You have turned logic into an enemy and truth a menace. The reality is what we need to deal with, and how it affects We, the People. Instead, you choose to be a detached and pompous bystander.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 14, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The gun show loophole is an example of the complex question fallacy:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How many times do you have to be told the term gun show loophole is defined? How can you deny a definition that you didn't create? It's as simple as this, this is what they are talking about, so why play ignorant and pretend what they are talking about doesn't exist? What they are talking about is defined by them and not by some ignorant motherfucker playing games.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 15, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



I live in San Francisco, idiot, you can't tell me anything about California. There were three different shootings in this area today, one a double homicide that occurred during the news. Pretending that murder is the only possible gun crime in order to insist that gun laws work just helps me win the argument.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 15, 2013)

Dubya said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > The gun show loophole is an example of the complex question fallacy:
> ...



In your world the definitive test is if something can be defined, do I have that right?

Must be nice to live in a world where there are dragons and unicorns.

Dragon - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Unicorn - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Bigfoot - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 15, 2013)

Crime remains one of Oakland's most serious challenges, and Oakland continues to have a reputation among its own citizens, its understaffed police force, and residents of other Bay Area cities as a dangerous place, with one of the top five highest rates of violent crime in the U.S. According to Oakland Police Chief Anthony Batts, *during 2011 Oakland has averaged three street shootings per day,* some of which cause injury or death to innocent bystanders.
Crime in Oakland, California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More fun reading:

California Department of Justice - Criminal Justice Statistics Center - Office of the Attorney General

Interactive search:

StateMaster - Crime Statistics


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 15, 2013)

*Is this possible?*

An unlicensed private buyer attends a large gun show - and buys every gun at the show (after passing background check) - and then turns around and sells those same guns to private unlicensed buyers (criminals and/or mentally unstable) who couldn't pass background checks - for twice or more than he paid for them.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 15, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Ignorant, Motherfucker, and yes you need the cap and maybe all caps. When someone defines something you can't be that motherfucking ignorant to say they can't express what they mean. 

"Oh, I hear what you say, but I can't hear you, because I don't want to." 

How ignorant is that and how childish do people have to become to behave like that? 

The answer is Republicans.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 15, 2013)

Dubya said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > The gun show loophole is an example of the complex question fallacy:
> ...



If I sell a gun on my own too a friend but isn't at a gun show is that a gun show loophole?


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 15, 2013)

*"Gun show loophole"* is simply a "term" used to describe the private sales of guns sold at gun shows, through classified newspaper ads, the Internet, and between individuals virtually anywhere.  It ain't rocket science...

Gun Show Loophole - Coalition to Stop Gun Violence


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 15, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> *"Gun show loophole"* is simply a "term" used to describe the private sales of guns sold at gun shows, through classified newspaper ads, the Internet, and between individuals virtually anywhere.  It ain't rocket science...
> 
> Gun Show Loophole - Coalition to Stop Gun Violence



In other words it's a made up liberal term?
A false claim of something that doesn't happen at gun shows.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 15, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > *"Gun show loophole"* is simply a "term" used to describe the private sales of guns sold at gun shows, through classified newspaper ads, the Internet, and between individuals virtually anywhere.  It ain't rocket science...
> ...



That's right.  I confess.  I made it up...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 15, 2013)

lakhota said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > lakhota said:
> ...



you lie you aren't that smart.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 15, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> *Is this possible?*
> 
> An unlicensed private buyer attends a large gun show - and buys every gun at the show (after passing background check) - and then turns around and sells those same guns to private unlicensed buyers (criminals and/or mentally unstable) who couldn't pass background checks - for twice or more than he paid for them.



Give an example of when this happen, and not an assumption that it happen.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 15, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > *Is this possible?*
> ...



I said: *Is this possible?*

_Answer:_ Of course it's possible - and happening to varying degrees!  That's why UBC is necessary.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 15, 2013)

What the U.S. can learn from Brazil's epidemic of gun violence


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 15, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



There are no possibles in your world stop acting as if you were asking a serious question. In your world this happens 24/7.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 15, 2013)

VIDEO: After Tragedies, Coloradans Unite Around Universal Background Checks

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=aEd4pvjr4mo]After Tragedies, Coloradans Unite Around Universal Background Checks - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Dubya (Feb 15, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> VIDEO: After Tragedies, Coloradans Unite Around Universal Background Checks
> 
> After Tragedies, Coloradans Unite Around Universal Background Checks - YouTube



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoDY8ce_3zk]USA for Africa - We Are The World ( Original Music Video 1985 ) HD / HQ - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Politico (Feb 15, 2013)

I didn't. But after 82 pages of Leftytoon nonsense you have converted me. I do now.


----------



## Bigfoot (Feb 15, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVMoOLh92S4&feature=player_detailpage]Range Time with Cory & Erika - Erika shooting Serbu BFG-50A .50 BMG - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Bigfoot (Feb 15, 2013)

> Ted Nugent's Comment About MTV Rappers: "Big Uneducated Greasy Black Mongrels"



Ted pretty much nailed it. A bunch of drugged out gangster wannabes.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 15, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



You are getting throttled on this thread, and now you emote utter nonsense. Totally false. Requiring background checks does not violate the Constitution.

Your right wing robes, Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito ruled in:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit

No. 07290.&#8195;Argued March 18, 2008Decided June 26, 2008


2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. *The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.* Millers holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 15, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



I think he's talking about the restraint of trade aspect there, Bfgrn, forcing a private citizen to perform some action to engage in trade with another private citizen. Of course, you folks don't give a fuck about the Constitution anyway, so why would you care, right?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 15, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



We believe the Founders weren't stupid people and wrote the 2nd Amendment to prohibit disarming the populace and not prohibit disarming the village idiot, like you people. Of course, the village thought he had his constitutional rights, too and that's why we say: Tell it to the Judge!"


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 15, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I just did...

Can you tell me what California Governor had one of the strictest gun-control regimes in the nation? And said this to reporters?

This California Governor told reporters that he saw no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons. He called guns a ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will. In a later press conference, this California Governor said he didn't know of any sportsman who leaves his home with a gun to go out into the field to hunt or for target shooting who carries that gun loaded. The Mulford Act, he said, would work no hardship on the honest citizen.

Can you tell me what California Governor signed the Mulford Act, prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street...???


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 15, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Hey Einstein, if 'The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill', HOW do we know WHO is a felon or mentally ill? By looks? Smell??


----------



## OODA_Loop (Feb 15, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> This California Governor told reporters that he saw no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons. He called guns a ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will. In a later press conference, this California Governor said he didn't know of any sportsman who leaves his home with a gun to go out into the field to hunt or for target shooting who carries that gun loaded. The Mulford Act, he said, would work no hardship on the honest citizen.
> 
> Can you tell me what California Governor signed the Mulford Act, prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street...???



Concealed prohibition is Constitutionally lawful.

Ridiculous way to solve problems unless that problem is someone trying to kill you.

I think most hunters unload their hunting rifles for transportation is pretty accurate.

Mulford Act is a ban on carry outside home = lawful

Fuck Reagan.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Feb 15, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Hey Einstein, if 'The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill', HOW do we know WHO is a felon or mentally ill? By looks? Smell??



Fast track the mentally ill into NICS.

Why do none of Obama's 25 Executive Orders or decrees do this ?

Answer:  _Need more Sandy Hooks to drive the disarmament agenda_.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 15, 2013)

OODA_Loop said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Einstein, if 'The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill', HOW do we know WHO is a felon or mentally ill? By looks? Smell??
> ...



You people are such FUCKING ASSHOLES. I have no problem with law abiding citizens owning firearms. But you pieces of right wing scum want to shield felons and the mentally ill from background checks so they too can own guns. WHAT THE FUCK is wrong with your brain? I can understand why the gun manufacturers who make MILLIONS of $$$$ when guns are sold to anyone would block common sense laws. WHAT is your piece of the action you turd brained moron?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 15, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> VIDEO: After Tragedies, Coloradans Unite Around Universal Background Checks
> 
> After Tragedies, Coloradans Unite Around Universal Background Checks - YouTube



Gun Sales Are Up Sharply In Colorado Since Theater Shootings : The Two-Way : NPR


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 15, 2013)

In the last 12 years, though, there has been a rapid rise in support for gun rights. After the movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colo., more people support protecting rights of gun ownership than controlling it.

Read more: Gun Control Polls After Sandy Hook School Shooting - Business Insider


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 15, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Shut the fuck up liar.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 15, 2013)

OODA_Loop said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Einstein, if 'The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill', HOW do we know WHO is a felon or mentally ill? By looks? Smell??
> ...



And who determines what exactly is "mentally ill" and who is and who is not?
Friend of mine had a bad reaction to prednisone which is common. They hospitalized him and he had another reaction in the hospital. Loud outbursts of euphoria and very loud almost as if he was on speed. They held him in the mental ward for 2 days. Now his insurance has rated that as a "mental episode" and terminated that part of his health insurance when he renewed it.
They have categorized him as the "mentally ill" and what is to stop government from doing that also?
Most of the mentally ill no one knows about.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 15, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Dumb ass hunting has nothing too do with the second amendment.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 15, 2013)

I deal with NCIC weekly in my work.
I can not tell you how many times over the years I get a NCIC report in discovery from the prosecution and go collecting the certified copies of convictions all over the state and then find many more convictions and arrests that never made it to NCIC.
And I found folks with clean NCIC that have numerous arrests and no convictions. 
NCIC is GIGO or garbage in garbage out, only as good as what is entered and subject to human error.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 15, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Yep. this is what I am talking about. What happens when you have an over zealous anti gun nut dictating whether or not I can have a gun.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 15, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > OODA_Loop said:
> ...



It's crazy to defend the constitution.


----------



## Liability (Feb 15, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



It *is* a slippery slope.  Soon all kinds of people will be thinking that they shouldn't have to have their views cleared ahead of time by a government censorship board.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 15, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Then please tell us what the second amendment has to do with?


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 15, 2013)

Liability said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I have a new avatar for you...






You're welcome!!!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 15, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



It's a hard concept you god damn liberals have accepting.
But the second amendments ONLY purpose is to defend against a tyrannical over bearing does not follow the constitution creates new tyrannical laws government.
That's it only purpose.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 15, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You are an uneducated moron. Hamilton, Madison and Jay made fun of nut bags like you in the Federalist papers. In the First Congress debate on arms and militia, youll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.

The James Madison resolution on the issue clearly stated that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed since a well-regulated militia is the best security of a free country.

Our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 15, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Gun Homicides Increased 25 Percent After Missouri Repealed Background Check Law
> ...



It's proof of nothing.

The federal law requires background checks that are checked against criminal records in a database that is not very complete but better than nothing.

Missouri's law was a bit different.  For example, according to the link:
_

Residents of Missouri soon will no longer need a sheriffs permit to buy a concealable gun...

The sale or transfer of firearms between individuals also will no longer require a criminal background check.​_
Requiring a sheriff's permit was an extra step however, a sheriff may well have records they can check that are not in the federal system and a sheriff would have a better idea of local individual behavior - for example a history of violent behavior.


----------



## cutter (Feb 15, 2013)

To the left any right you have left is just a loophole to close.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 15, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Stupid is this ^^^^^^^^
And you are a lying sack of shit  truth matter is more honest than you could ever dream of being.
Nothing you said is true.



> The James Madison resolution on the issue clearly stated that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed since a well-regulated militia is the best security of a free country.



Dumb ass what the fuck is the Militia?  Here's  a clue it's has nothing to do with the army in the federal government.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 15, 2013)

So since NCIC is not perfect - just disregard it?

No law or no law enforcement is perfect - so I guess (by that logic) we should just abandon all law?????


----------



## Coyote (Feb 15, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> So since NCIC is not perfect - just disregard it?
> 
> No law or no law enforcement is perfect - so I guess (by that logic) we should just abandon all law?????



That seems to be the argument being made....


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 15, 2013)

KissMy said:


> If the "Gun Show Loophole" is closed it means that Grandpa's gun he left me would have to go through a FFL dealer background check before I can get the gun. How is that going to be enforced.



GLORIOUS PEOPLES AGENT comes to house and searches what Granpa left you, then decides what you should or should not have.

The left has a dream, which is coming true as we speak.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 15, 2013)

Dubya said:


> I see the right-wing is going after the sex offender vote. You must be getting desperate.



No need to worry, Bill Clinton is still with you...


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 15, 2013)

Coyote said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > So since NCIC is not perfect - just disregard it?
> ...



doesn't make sense


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 15, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > There is no such thing as a gun show loophole. How fucking dense can you people be?
> ...



So then, private sellers can ONLY sell guns at gun shows?

Otherwise, your claim is just a fiction formulated to promote the demagoguery of the anti-liberty left, in your war on civil rights.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 15, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > I see the right-wing is going after the sex offender vote. You must be getting desperate.
> ...



You'd be following Clinton around hoping he'd toss away a cigar butt to get lucky.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 15, 2013)

Coyote said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > So since NCIC is not perfect - just disregard it?
> ...



That would be a false dichotomy, completely devoid of any logic whatsoever.

While perfection is in fact not an option, ineffective laws are of no benefit to anyone other than the bureaucrats administering them.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 15, 2013)

I support any loophole that allows mass killers with access to the weapons of their choice.

You cannot shoot up a classroom or movie theater without appropriate firepower. Our Second Amendment ensures your right to the weapon of destruction of your choosing


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 15, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> I support any loophole that allows mass killers with access to the weapons of their choice.
> 
> You cannot shoot up a classroom or movie theater without appropriate firepower. Our Second Amendment ensures your right to the weapon of destruction of your choosing



Psst... Comrade..

James Holmes had Ricin. Had he not had firearms, he would have killed every last person in all 22 theaters by deploying the Ricin.

Look, I realize you're just a demagogue doing your part to revoke civil rights, but this is some serious dumbfuckery...


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 15, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > I support any loophole that allows mass killers with access to the weapons of their choice.
> ...



Damn skippy!

Look...if you are going to be a mass killer you got to look the part and act the part. None of this killing with a fucking pea shooter. You want to take out dozens of people you need a nasty assed looking weapon.....and thank god our NRA will make sure you have one


----------



## Dubya (Feb 15, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > I support any loophole that allows mass killers with access to the weapons of their choice.
> ...



What you don't realize is there is no rights issue involved. Being permitted to do something isn't a right. People in North Carolina were once permitted to moon others as an expressing of free speech. Making the mooning law was a rare time when politicians actually did something right for a change. It should be an Amendment to the Constitution.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 15, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Ever heard of the bill of rights?


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 15, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



So you are assuming that unless a law is perfect, then it is of no benefit?
All black or all white, huh?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 15, 2013)

Dubya said:


> What you don't realize is there is no rights issue involved. Being permitted to do something isn't a right. People in North Carolina were once permitted to moon others as an expressing of free speech. Making the mooning law was a rare time when politicians actually did something right for a change. It should be an Amendment to the Constitution.



I realize that you dream of the day when the United States Constitution is a relic of antiquity, but that day has not yet arrived. 

We the people most certainly do have the RIGHT to arm ourselves and defend ourselves. Particularly in these days when crazed leftist ex-cops are running about killing people.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 15, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ever heard of the bill of rights?



What do you think he's working so hard to revoke?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 15, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > What you don't realize is there is no rights issue involved. Being permitted to do something isn't a right. People in North Carolina were once permitted to moon others as an expressing of free speech. Making the mooning law was a rare time when politicians actually did something right for a change. It should be an Amendment to the Constitution.
> ...



You have the right to not have the populace disarmed and that doesn't give you the right to own weapons considered too dangerous for society to have.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 15, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



You have the right to own firearms protected by the second amendment.
Miller vs U.S.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 15, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Hell yea!

And if I want to shoot up a packed movie theater or classroom full of first graders I better have the weapon of my choice

Where is my Bushmaster baby?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 15, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


Weapons that are effective in and useful for service in the militia, part of the ordinary military equipment in common use at the time, and are suitable for any of the traditionally lawful uses of a firearm.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 15, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Yes indeed.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 15, 2013)

Dubya said:


> You have the right to not have the populace disarmed and that doesn't give you the right to own weapons considered too dangerous for society to have.



{Article [II.]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. }

Try again, sparky.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 15, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Fine that crime would be on you not me or any other owner of said weapon. Take your punishment and leave me and others the hell alone.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 15, 2013)

Background checks don't impact any of that.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 15, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Fuck yea!

Now we are talking

Let me get any weapon I choose.......shooting first graders by the dozen is not easy


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 15, 2013)




----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 15, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You're supposed to be an adult, you do the crime you do the time, stop dragging the rest of us into what is your fault.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 15, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Especially when you have your head up your ass.  Which you obviously do.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 15, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > You have the right to not have the populace disarmed and that doesn't give you the right to own weapons considered too dangerous for society to have.
> ...



I have to quote that before you edit it. 

You people really know your Constitution <sarc>!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 15, 2013)

Dubya said:


> I have to quote that before you edit it.
> 
> You people really know your Constitution <sarc>!



If you quoted the Constitution, wouldn't you burst into flames?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 15, 2013)




----------



## Dubya (Feb 15, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



It's only logical bigasshole1775 would reverse United States v. Miller and claim a false victory.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 15, 2013)

Dubya said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Take me off ignore you lying sack of shit.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 15, 2013)

Background checks for all gun sales, requiring gun dealers to maintain an inventory, and maitaining a database of gun sales don't have any Constitutional ramifications. Period.

So let it be written
So let it be done


----------



## Dubya (Feb 15, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > I have to quote that before you edit it.
> ...



You fucking idiots are truly delusional.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 15, 2013)

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

United States v. Miller - 307 U.S. 174 (1939) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 15, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
> Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.
> 
> United States v. Miller - 307 U.S. 174 (1939) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center



Either that or you have to join the National Guard to get a gun ......


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 15, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
> Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.
> 
> United States v. Miller - 307 U.S. 174 (1939) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center



_In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. _

And so, if there WAS evidence that that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" ---  or any other firearm --- at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, they WOULD say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument, as it WOULD be within judicial notice that these weapons are any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Doesn't get much more clear than that.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 15, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
> ...



The national guard is not the militia



> (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.



Plus if you didn't notice the ruling also said

"all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
Notice that? in the guard you don't own the firearm you carry.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 15, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> Background checks for all gun sales, requiring gun dealers to maintain an inventory, and maitaining a database of gun sales don't have any Constitutional ramifications. Period.
> 
> So let it be written
> So let it be done



Fuck off, thug.

What you scumbags have proposed so far;



        Possession of hollow point bullets and similar assault bullets a felony.
        Must register and report ammo purchases. Only purchase max 500 rounds.
        10 round magazine limit
        ALL magazines must be fixed to the gun (can not be removed without the use of a tool)
        100% prohibition of all magazines greater than 10 rounds. All previous grandfathered magazines become illegal. Felony if you keep one.
        Changing definition of shotgun revolving cylinder  Basically only single shot shotguns will remain legal.
        Bullet Buttons will become illegal  All AR and AK style rifles that are currently equipped with them will be designated Assault Weapons. Felony to possess.
        All gun owners now must be licensed like drivers.
        All gun owners must carry gun liability insurance

List of Proposed California Gun Control Measures -- 500 Round Max, No Grandfathering, No Detachable Mags, Mandatory License | The Truth About Guns

I do say fuck you.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 15, 2013)

Dubya said:


> You fucking idiots are truly delusional.



Given your hatred of the document and the work you put into dismantling it...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 15, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
> ...


The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 15, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > Background checks for all gun sales, requiring gun dealers to maintain an inventory, and maitaining a database of gun sales don't have any Constitutional ramifications. Period.
> ...



you mad bro?

I told you what I advocate

so clean out your diaper


----------



## Dubya (Feb 15, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
> ...



The atomic bomb made the day of militia obsolete. Militia was only mentioned in the 2nd to encourage the states to have them. It didn't involve a requirement.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 15, 2013)

> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.



I agree


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 15, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> you mad bro?



Yes.

You leftist want a civil war.

Try to enact this, and you get your wish.



> I told you what I advocate
> 
> so clean out your diaper



And I told you to move to North Korea, where they already have what you want.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 15, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



Get him to change Ted Nugent while he's at it!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 15, 2013)

Dubya said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You're a fucking idiot without a god damn clue.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 15, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


A pre-pubescent lunatic.   I cannot fathom why anyone responds to him.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 15, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> > The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree


Unless Miller has been over turned Miller still stands as precedence


----------



## Dubya (Feb 15, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



The 2nd Amendment involves the populace or general public and isn't an individual right in that sense.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 15, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > you mad bro?
> ...



stop foaming at the mouth long enough to show me something I advocated that is out of whack with the U.S. Constitition.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 15, 2013)

Dubya said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



Miller vs. US calls you a lying sack of shit you fucking coward.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 15, 2013)

Dubya said:


> The 2nd Amendment involves the populace or general public and isn't an individual right in that sense.



Try again, sparky.

{For many years, scholars and anti-gun proponents have argued that the Second Amendment provides a right to own guns only in connection with service in a militia, and that this right should not extend to private individuals. That argument was roundly rejected by the Supreme Court. In an opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that the right to own a gun is not connected with service in a militia; rather, it is a personal right to own a firearm for "traditionally lawful purposes" such as self-defense within the home.

The bottom line: You have a constitutional right to possess a firearm regardless of whether you are serving in a militia.}

Gun Ownership Rights Under Heller | Nolo.com


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 15, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



waiting ......


----------



## Dubya (Feb 15, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > you mad bro?
> ...



Be specific! What do we have to do to get a civil war out of you Ned Beattyite, Ted Nugent types? Let us know and we'll get our politicians right on it!


----------



## Deepbluediver (Feb 15, 2013)

Dubya said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



Since the population is made up of individuals, I'm not really sure what the difference is.

My understanding is that since a militia is a force of private citizens, as opposed to a standing army, it was expected that people would own their own weapons, and would bring them along when the militia was called upon.
The country, the population, and even weapons have all changed significantly in the 200+ years since the constitution was written.  Perhaps rather than arguing over how the original signers would have interpretted a modern situation, it would be better to focus on what is most beneficial for our country today.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 15, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > > The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
> ...


_Heller_, in addition to confirming that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, expanded the ruling in _Miller _to include weapons in common use for traditionally legal purposes.

For any honest person, this ends the debate as to what sort of firearms are protected by the 2nd.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 15, 2013)

Deepbluediver said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



There is a very big difference, because it's perfectly legal to take guns away from individuals, but not the general public.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 15, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



STILL waiting


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 15, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



You gotta be kidding me. 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ort-the-gun-show-loophole-87.html#post6826899


----------



## Deepbluediver (Feb 15, 2013)

Dubya said:


> There is a very big difference, because it's perfectly legal to take guns away from individuals, but not the general public.



How do you take guns away from individuals but not "the general public"?  Are you proposing we have some sort of shared-gun pool where you can go borrow one when you want it?

If private individuals can't own guns, then how do you arm a militia?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 15, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Be specific! What do we have to do to get a civil war out of you Ned Beattyite, Ted Nugent types? Let us know and we'll get our politicians right on it!



Just continue being the Pol Pot types you already are.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 15, 2013)

Deepbluediver said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > There is a very big difference, because it's perfectly legal to take guns away from individuals, but not the general public.
> ...


Pay him no attention - he deliberately posts things that make no sense.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 15, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



Oh please - you took that sarcasm seriously?

SERIOUSLY????

Now since you dug that one up - I'm sure you also saw my REAL positions.
Quote them.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 15, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > Background checks for all gun sales, requiring gun dealers to maintain an inventory, and maitaining a database of gun sales don't have any Constitutional ramifications. Period.
> ...



No removable magazines would turn many a firearm into a single shot weapon.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 15, 2013)

Deepbluediver said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > There is a very big difference, because it's perfectly legal to take guns away from individuals, but not the general public.
> ...



When you are arrested you are disarmed and it's legal. When you are a felon or judged mentally incompetent you lose the "right" to own a gun. The right belongs to the general public, so everyone has the right to have a general public not disarmed. That is what the 2nd Amendment means and that right applies to everyone.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 15, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Be specific! What do we have to do to get a civil war out of you Ned Beattyite, Ted Nugent types? Let us know and we'll get our politicians right on it!
> ...



I want specifics. What do we have to do to get you and your types to go Batshit Crazy, so we can get rid of you in the killing fields?


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 15, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



You want specifics?
From him/her?
Seriously?

All you are going to get is a bunch of mouth diarrhea


----------



## Deepbluediver (Feb 15, 2013)

Dubya said:


> When you are arrested you are disarmed and it's legal. When you are a felon or judged mentally incompetent you lose the "right" to own a gun. The right belongs to the general public, so everyone has the right to have a general public not disarmed. That is what the 2nd Amendment means and that right applies to everyone.



I'm think I'm still a little confused.  You could say pretty much the same thing about any of the items in the bill of rights.  A felon doesn't exactly have the right to liberty, anymore, and we don't let them vote either.

All of the rights apply to law-abiding individuals, and the phrase about forming a militia is really just an extension of the right of association: you have the right to own guns, and the right to organize, therefor you have the right to form an organization with guns.

But maybe I'm misunderstanding things.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 15, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


All dumb and dumber, huh?

I clearly said that perfection is not and cannot be an option.  I also said that if a law is ineffective (which background checks are) it serves no purpose, other than to keep bureaucrat administrators busy and buffoons like you believing that "doing something" is more important than actually being effective.

May I suggest an ESL class at your local community college?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 15, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



I'm ready to clean up the mess in America and I'm tired of being threatened by these idiots. I think it's time for some ass kicking, because they won't say this shit in public, where you can box 'em in the mouth for it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 15, 2013)

Deepbluediver said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > When you are arrested you are disarmed and it's legal. When you are a felon or judged mentally incompetent you lose the "right" to own a gun. The right belongs to the general public, so everyone has the right to have a general public not disarmed. That is what the 2nd Amendment means and that right applies to everyone.
> ...


No, you're dead on - when his voice isn't muffled from his head being fully up his ass, he's talking about due process protections of the 5th amendment.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 15, 2013)

Deepbluediver said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > When you are arrested you are disarmed and it's legal. When you are a felon or judged mentally incompetent you lose the "right" to own a gun. The right belongs to the general public, so everyone has the right to have a general public not disarmed. That is what the 2nd Amendment means and that right applies to everyone.
> ...



I don't recall ever seeing the right to liberty in the Bill of Rights. The right to vote isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. 

Militia was only mentioned in the 2nd Amendment, because the Founders opposed having a standing army. Did the Founders prohibit a standing army? No, they only prohibited disarming the populace, meaning the general public. The Founders didn't require militias, but encouraged it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 15, 2013)

Dubya said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...


You'll piss your pants.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 15, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Let me rephrase this, it doesn't matter who you get to call it a loophole, it is not going to be a loophole, and I refuse to bend to the delusion that it is.



That is because you live in a magical fantasy realm where "up" is "down" and "black" is "fire hydrant", also known as "right-wingtania".

To everyone who doesn't live in that realm, it's a loophole.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 15, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > The 2nd Amendment involves the populace or general public and isn't an individual right in that sense.
> ...



Yes, District of Columbia vs. Heller did define the right to possess a firearm for "traditionally lawful purposes" such as self-defense within the home.

But to claim the argument was roundly rejected by the Supreme Court in a 5/4 decision is bullshit. 

Held: 

1. (d) The Second Amendment s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals *three state Second Amendment proposals* that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 3032.

That is basing the decision on a small minority of the 13 states.

Plus, District of Columbia vs. Heller held things you right wing turds don't want to hear:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Millers holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 5456.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 15, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Miller vs. U.S. defined what firearms are protected under the second amendment.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 15, 2013)

Oddball said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



When you find yourself in a hole, may I suggest you stop digging ....


----------



## Dubya (Feb 15, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Let me rephrase this, it doesn't matter who you get to call it a loophole, it is not going to be a loophole, and I refuse to bend to the delusion that it is.
> ...



What the hell difference does it mean ultimately, what these fools want to call it? If Americans settle for anything short of universal background checks and registration of firearms, we are bigger fools than those fools. Fuck the dumb shit!


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 15, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


Initially defined US v Miller, and then broadened in Heller.

Under Miller, flintlocks are not protected by the 2nd.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 15, 2013)

Oddball said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



You haven't proven they are ineffective - only that they aren't perfect, they don't catch 100% of the cases.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 15, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...


When you can read for comprehension, get back to me.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 15, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



No it's what you fools want to call it, just like your wrong ass name of assault weapons.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 15, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Weapons in common use of the time


----------



## Oddball (Feb 15, 2013)

Coyote said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...


No, they are ineffective.

Thieves and black marketeers don't have to go through background checks...Only the law abiding, who certainly have zero ill intent with their weaponry, do....That makes them ineffective.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 15, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



That fool will be in China before he stops digging.


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 15, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



IMHO, the fools were those who voted for Obama and nearly any Democrat in the House and Senate.

IMHO, the fools are those who are not only willing but actively attempting to take away and limit enumerated rights, rights they don't like, because once that ball gets bouncing, it continues to bounce when they are no longer in power and it will bounce on some "right" that they hold dear.  But the precidence will have already been set and it will be too late.

You either protect all the enumerated rights, regardless of how you personally feel about them, or be willing to lose them all.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 15, 2013)

Dubya said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


I bet it's painful digging in the spot you're digging in, Your asshole.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 15, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I agree.

I just wonder how many more have to get slaughtered before we can get that?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 15, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



The H stands for humble and you don't know the meaning of the word. The Bill of Rights is protected and I don't want the populace to be disarmed without an amendment to change the 2nd Amendment and I don't think it's a good idea yet. There may come a day and there may be places where people should live without guns. It's possible a city would be better off not having firearms, like the days when cowboys had to turn in their guns to enter a town. Heller screwed up DC's effort to rid itself of gun violence, but I wonder if it's legal to use an armory and insist the people who own guns have to keep them there??? Why shouldn't a city have the right to do things in the public interest and possibly even have cops that don't carry guns, unless there is an emergency requiring it??? It sounds to me like a better world, so why can't we find a way to make a better world for our people???


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 15, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Are you willing to lose your rights because you want to take away mine?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 15, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



I understand our citizens have many concerns, but I'm way beyond my threshold. I love shooting guns, but I can find something else to do that doesn't cause the death of my fellow Americans. I'm a grown up and I don't have to behave like a two year old spoiled child.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 15, 2013)

> Are you willing to lose your rights because you want to take away mine?



You infer a "right" to buy a gun without a background check?

Priceless


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 15, 2013)

Dubya said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...


Fraud


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 15, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Deepbluediver said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



See the 5th Amendment
See Article 1 Clause 2, voters are called electors

The militia was provided for in Article 1 Section 8 in the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment was added by the States with the intent to prevent the Federal Government from disarming them. That was the reason for the first part of the amendment " A well regulated militia, *being necessary to the security of a free State,* referred to the States themselves and had nothing to do with the Federal Government.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 15, 2013)

The poll results are pretty telling about the make-up of this board.

Across the nation 91 to 92% favor background checks for ALL gun purchases. On here, that drops to 62%.

The radical right loves them some message boards (because they can act tough without ever having to back it up????)


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 15, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> > Are you willing to lose your rights because you want to take away mine?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Still refusing to answer the question..    Why am I not surprised.   

Getting a straight answer from a Liberal on this board is like pulling Hen's teeth.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 15, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > > Are you willing to lose your rights because you want to take away mine?
> ...



Funny - I got called a right wing radical the other day.
What question did you ask me?
(you didn't ask me the combat question - btw)

Liar


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 15, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...




You quoted my question...

Are you willing to give up your rights as easily are you are willing to take mine away?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 15, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OriginalShroom said:
> ...



What rights? Have you ever been to cities like DC and Baltimore? What the hell is wrong with having an armory across the city lines and getting rid of the guns? I used to have to change buses in DC to go back to Camp Lejeune, sometimes when that was the ticket. The Greyhound and Trailways bus terminals were diagonally located across the street in DC and just making a transfer resulted in me seeing someone laying in the street, because he was knived from behind. Cities can be beautiful places to live and it's a damned shame when they are turned into jungles.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 15, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> The poll results are pretty telling about the make-up of this board.
> 
> Across the nation 91 to 92% favor background checks for ALL gun purchases. On here, that drops to 62%.
> 
> The radical right loves them some message boards (because they can act tough without ever having to back it up????)



And if it were explained to Amenricans exactly what would be required to do background checks on all purchases the numbers wouldn't be a high as they are. Of course no one bothers to mention that criminals don't bother with checks at all. There are illegal guns imported into this country everyday to supply the black market. More laws on the law abiding won't change that.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 15, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Yep, it's a damned shame the people living in those shit holes won't stand up for themselves and put a stop to that shit. All they have to do is start cooperating with the police and that shit would stop. Instead of trying to educate them you want to screw over people who have nothing to do with it. But you being the good little statist your are, what can we expect?


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 15, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> No it's what you fools want to call it, just like your wrong ass name of assault weapons.



I was unaware Wayne LaPierre could be grouped with us on this issue.

You don't find it odd that pretty much everyone in the nation calls it a "loophole", except for right-wingers who are trying a classic Luntz "rebranding" strategy?

That doesn't seem even the least Orwellian to you?


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 15, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > No it's what you fools want to call it, just like your wrong ass name of assault weapons.
> ...



No, Orwellian is the term itself to begin with.  Who is "everyone in the nation"?  The talking heads on TV?
We've demonstrated many times--myself and others--that is not specific to gunshows and it is not a loophole. And yet you persist in your folly to call it that.  What would it take to demonstrate that it is not a gunshow loophole?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 15, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OriginalShroom said:
> ...



The day of you guys using your guns for sex toys has to end. Next time, consider loading them first and purchasing a hair trigger before you go at it! It sounds to me you're up to a bazooka size by now.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 15, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > No it's what you fools want to call it, just like your wrong ass name of assault weapons.
> ...



The puppets do what the string puller tells them to do. None of them have a mind to come up with anything by themselves. It's all dance, fool, dance.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 15, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Try addressing my points and stop the propagandizing.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 15, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> > Are you willing to lose your rights because you want to take away mine?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yea...why should murderers, felons, wife beaters and the mentally ill have to be inconvenienced? Why should they have to take the risk of buying a gun in a totally illegal setting, with all the inherent dangers that come with it?

Right now they can just walk into a gun show, receive expert advice, discounts, then buy whatever weapon(s) they desire without a background check or having to pay black market prices or risk the dangers of buying a weapon from another criminal in a dark alley.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 15, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You're a parrot repeating lies your handlers have told you to repeat.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 15, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Works for me..

You buy a gun, YOU are responsible for it. 

Kid gets it....YOU are Responsible 
Ends up in tne hands of a criminal.....YOU are responsible


Constitution says nothing about responsibility


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 15, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



OH so you support criminal activity?
I keep this post if I need to report it to the FBI.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 15, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



What point, it's easy to be overwhelmed in a large city? Have you ever lived in one?


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 15, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I support responsible gun ownership. You sell your gun to a criminal, YOU pay the price

Works for the party of personal responsibility doesn't it?  It should


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 15, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


No you don't, but we know that democrats support criminals


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 15, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Poor ignorant people so easily overwhelmed, if they're so freaking stupid maybe all the deserve is to be controlled by gangs. At what point do people have to take responsibility for themselves and their circumstances? BTW you skipped my answer to you on the previous page, did you do that on purpose?


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 15, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Guns are coming from somewhere

Criminal ends up with bigrebs guns....I say bigreb spends some time in jail

Can't be soft on crime


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 15, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> *Is this possible?*
> 
> An unlicensed private buyer attends a large gun show - and buys every gun at the show (after passing background check) - and then turns around and sells those same guns to private unlicensed buyers (criminals and/or mentally unstable) who couldn't pass background checks - for twice or more than he paid for them.



In a word, no.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 15, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



The answer to your idiocy is not Republicans, it is politicians. Learn the difference and you might be intelligent enough to keep up with me when I am asleep.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 15, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> *"Gun show loophole"* is simply a "term" used to describe the private sales of guns sold at gun shows, through classified newspaper ads, the Internet, and between individuals virtually anywhere.  It ain't rocket science...
> 
> Gun Show Loophole - Coalition to Stop Gun Violence



The Brady Campaign to Ban Handguns is out to ban every one from owning a weapon. You going to them to prove anything leads me to believe you want to ban everything also, and proves you a lair whenever you try to argue you like guns.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 15, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > *Is this possible?*
> ...



It cannot happen. Any dealer that sold his entire stock to one person would loose his firearms license and end up in federal prison. To get every licensed dealer at a gun show to do that at the same time would require a mass outbreak of insanity. That migh happen in the delusions of a fake Indian, but it will never happen in the real world.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 15, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> What the U.S. can learn from Brazil's epidemic of gun violence



Brazil solved its gun violence problem by sending the Army into the ghettos to kill everyone.

That might sound like a good idea to you, but I prefer to live in a country that doesn't attack its poor people.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 15, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



Let me try this again, for the idiots.

I did not say that the Supreme Court says it is impossible to restrict gun rights. I very specifically stated that the federal government cannot impose background checks on gun sales between private individuals. Arguing against something I did not say does not prove I am loosing the argument, it proves you are.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 15, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



Rules of a Gun Show


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 15, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...




Bingo


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 15, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Let's say someone steals your car get's drunk goes out and kills people using your car, you should be charged and convicted of accessory to murder


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 15, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Feel free to point out where I ever claimed to be a Republican, or even where I claimed to have voted for Reagan.

I negged the wrong post.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 15, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Doesn't matter

YOU sell your gun to a criminal....I hold YOU responsible

Aren't you a responsible gun owner?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 15, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Your solution to not being able to tell who the felons are is to punish everyone?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 15, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


So there's more chance of someone stealing your car than someone stealing my guns, and now you say it doesn't matter?
What a fucking joke.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 15, 2013)

Bipartisan deal close on expanded background checks


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 15, 2013)

OODA_Loop said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Einstein, if 'The Court&#8217;s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill', HOW do we know WHO is a felon or mentally ill? By looks? Smell??
> ...



How about because NCIS is a registry of criminals, not the mentally ill? On top of that, putting people on a list because they have a medical condition is a violation of privacy, and ignoring that would allow us to restrict abortions, which is why Democrats consistently oppose doing it.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 15, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Car owners are licensed. Those who are irresponsible lose their license

With guns.....I hold YOU responsible if you provide a gun to a criminal


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 15, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Gee, let me see, how about the right to keep, and bear, arms?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 15, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



That's bullshit and you know it. If you can't keep track of your car I HOLD YOU responsible


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 15, 2013)

lakhota said:


> bipartisan deal close on expanded background checks



doa


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 15, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I don't see anything in there that contradicts anything I said. Are you so stupid you can't read, or are you just posting SPAM?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 15, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Can I hold you responsible if you sell your car to a criminal?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 15, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



He doesn't want to be held responsible, he just wants to hold others  responsible,


----------



## martybegan (Feb 15, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



and yet in NY I always hear about some idiot who got into a crash while drunk even though his licsense has been suspended like 10 times. 

Do we punish people who have had thier care stolen?


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 15, 2013)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



And yet we have no provisions to prevent YOU from selling your gun to a known criminal

Time to hold YOU responsible


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 15, 2013)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Sure, why not. If you get car jacked by someone with a gun and you let him have your car, we can charge you with providing transportation to an armed felon. Shit let's just take this crap all the way.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Feb 15, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> And yet we have no provisions to prevent YOU from selling your gun to a known criminal
> 
> Time to hold YOU responsible



False.

It is a Federal felony to sell to felonious criminal.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 15, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Why don't you try it?
Ten years and a felony conviction says your asshole will be bigger than it was before you went into prison.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 15, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Yes, you can prove the person sold it to a felon, just like you can jail someone after you PROVE someone stole a car. 

You have no provisions to stop anyone from committing almost any crime, unless you have some Pre-cog's hiding in your basement.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Feb 15, 2013)

This is the crux of the matter;
Some people think they can prevent a crime by removing the tools of the crime when in fact the tools will simply change and the crime will continue.
Then they will want to remove that tool thinking it will finally put an end to the crime. When the tool changes again the same process continues.
This is how it happened in England - one step at a time until all guns were removed from private hands but now the tool changed again and they are going to ban long kitchen knives because that is the tool used most often by criminals now. They have also enacted laws that make it a crime to defend yourself so you are supposed to vacate your home and let the criminal take what they want.

It is not the tool used - it is the user that commits the crime. Punish the criminal for committing the crime not everyone because they own the tools.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 15, 2013)

OODA_Loop said:


> False.
> 
> It is a Federal felony to sell to felonious criminal.



That's some serious alliteration right there.

But it's only a felony if you know the criminal's background.

Therefore, without a background check, there's no way to prosecute said felony.

Thus, the loophole.

Perhaps we should call it "the Fallacy of the facilitation of firearms to felonious criminals being a federal felony".  

Nah, it's much easier to say "Gun Show Loophole".


----------



## OODA_Loop (Feb 15, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Therefore, without a background check, there's no way to prosecute said felony.



Sure there are.  *You sell a gun to Felon.  You become a felon and lose your gun(s).*

Enforce it.

The NICS background check should be online public domain.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 15, 2013)

OODA_Loop said:


> Sure there are.  *You sell a gun to Felon.  You become a felon and lose your gun(s).*
> 
> Enforce it.
> 
> The NICS background check should be online public domain.



You *can't* enforce it *if you can't prove the seller knew the buyer was a felon*.

Because if the seller doesn't know the buyer is a felon, the law says it's not a felony...

Thus the reason for universal background checks...


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 15, 2013)

I can't beleive that the Democrats are actually pushing a bill that would require a back ground verification for  the sale of private property, yet refuse to allow a requirement to verify eligability to work, IE E-Verify.

Democrats claim that there are too many chances of a false return with E-Verify, yet they are saying that the NICS background checks are accurate enough?


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 15, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > Sure there are.  *You sell a gun to Felon.  You become a felon and lose your gun(s).*
> ...



How do you implement a UBC in a verifiable manner?


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 15, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > OODA_Loop said:
> ...



Gun Background Checks Work. Let's Fund Them. - Bloomberg


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 15, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



Not one word as to how you could verify people are using the system, care to try again?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 15, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> This is the crux of the matter;
> Some people think they can prevent a crime by removing the tools of the crime when in fact the tools will simply change and the crime will continue.
> Then they will want to remove that tool thinking it will finally put an end to the crime. When the tool changes again the same process continues.
> This is how it happened in England - one step at a time until all guns were removed from private hands but now the tool changed again and they are going to ban long kitchen knives because that is the tool used most often by criminals now. They have also enacted laws that make it a crime to defend yourself so you are supposed to vacate your home and let the criminal take what they want.
> ...



In the case of guns, it is the tool. Guns kill so easily that many of the deaths are a product of that quality.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 15, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



Universal background checks may not be gun-control utopia - but it's a good speed-bump.

Gun Show Loophole Frequently Asked Questions - Coalition to Stop Gun Violence


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 15, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



From your link "How can we close the gun show loophole?

It's simple. Closing the dangerous loophole merely requires unlicensed gun sellers at gun shows to conduct the same instant background checks that licensed dealers must conduct."

So they are only proposing that only private sales conducted at a gun show would be required a check. But they didn't say how it could be verified, are they going to send monitors, conduct buy stings and what could stop people from making arrangements to deliver the gun, out side the show where checks don't apply. Now I'm playing devils advocate here because I have all the guns I think I will ever need, I'm just pointing out that the magic wand of government can't always be all encompassing or as effective as one might want, determined people will always find a "loophole"


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 15, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



Posting links that only tangentially touch on the subject is the entire extent of Lakhota's ability to debate.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 15, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > OODA_Loop said:
> ...



It's easy to verify with universal registration that requires periodic renewal.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 15, 2013)

Dubya said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> > This is the crux of the matter;
> ...



Guns kill easily? How would you know that?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 15, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



Which is not going to happen, thus ending the conversation.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 15, 2013)

Personally, I would think any logical person would want universal background checks.  Wouldn't it make more sense to suggest ways to best make the system work rather than saying it won't work?



> Unfortunately, only six states (CA, CO, IL, NY, OR, RI) require universal background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows. Three more states (CT, MD, PA) require background checks on all handgun sales made at gun shows. Seven other states (HI, IA, MA, MI, NJ, NC, NE) require purchasers to obtain a permit and undergo a background check before buying a handgun. Florida allows its counties to regulate gun shows by requiring background checks on all firearms purchases at these events. 33 states have taken no action whatsoever to close the Gun Show Loophole.



More: Gun Show Loophole - Coalition to Stop Gun Violence


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 15, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



Can you say unconstitutional? Are you ever going to address the post I provided the color keyed response on, or are you admitting defeat on that one?


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 15, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> Personally, I would think any logical person would want universal background checks.  Wouldn't it make more sense to suggest ways to best make the system work rather than saying it won't work?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually I would have no problem if they would make NICS available to the public where a seller could do a name and dob check. But if you start forcing records keeping requirements on non-dealers or other bureaucratic crap, then I would have objections.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 15, 2013)

Sorry, Mandatory Gun Registration Is Constitutional - Taking Liberties - CBS News


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 15, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> Personally, I would think any logical person would want universal background checks.  Wouldn't it make more sense to suggest ways to best make the system work rather than saying it won't work?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Personally, I think logic tells me not to want the impossible.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 15, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



Can you say read? Reading into a court decision doesn't make registration unconstitutional and some areas require it.


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 15, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I would think any logical person would want universal background checks.  Wouldn't it make more sense to suggest ways to best make the system work rather than saying it won't work?
> ...



I would have a big problem..  How long before people were running background checks on their date?  Co-Worker? Neighbor?   About ten minutes after the system was turned on.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 15, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> Sorry, Mandatory Gun Registration Is Constitutional - Taking Liberties - CBS News



Your article talks about many posibilities, now let's look at reality. Seriously, how hard would it be to get SCOTUS to strike a registration scheme for law abiding citizens when criminals can't be prosecuted for not registering theirs. I think there would be a big 14th Amendment case there. I seriously doubt congress has the balls to pass a bill like that and if my state did, which they won't, I would be the first to file that suit.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 15, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



So you are admitting defeat on that one post, I'd like you to put it on the record.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 16, 2013)

Dubya said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> > This is the crux of the matter;
> ...



I have many guns not one has went rouge and killed someone, I don't recall any guns ever busting out of a gun store and killing people.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 16, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



There aren't going to be successful court challenges against registration of firearms and you know it. Only fools think that's an issue.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 16, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



*Which came first *
Gun Confiscation
OR
Gun Registration


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 16, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I would think any logical person would want universal background checks.  Wouldn't it make more sense to suggest ways to best make the system work rather than saying it won't work?
> ...



Owning a firearm is a right, but selling firearms for profit is not. If a so called 'private seller' is burdened by too much records keeping etc, then he is NOT really Uncle Joe selling some of his collection, now is he? These so-called 'private sellers' are supposed to be making only occasional sales. According to federal law, they cannot be "engaged in the business" of selling firearms. But that's exactly what undercover investigators found. They found private sellers with large inventories doing a brisk business. In fact, one private seller acknowledged selling 348 guns in less than a year.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 16, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



I register my car......don't worry much about confiscation


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 16, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Nobody wants that piece of shit, RW.

Everybody wants the guns...


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 16, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



NRA paranoia

We just don't want nut jobs having the guns of their choice when they decide to shoot up a bunch of first graders


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 16, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



We don't, either, and to claim we do is disingenuous. Now come up with something that will stop the nutjobs without fucking over law-abiding citizens. 

So far you guys are batting 0-fer...

I have a suggestion for you, start with the mental health system actually REPORTING the nutjobs to the NICS database.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 16, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



An inconvenience is not a 'fuck over'. You self absorbed anti American right wing turds believe you are 'entitled' to special treatment. You are not. Owning a firearm is a right, but that doesn't mean that right doesn't come with responsibility to other citizens.

Put on big boy pants, grow the fuck up and stop all the whining.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 16, 2013)

Gun Murders Shot Up 25% After Missouri Repealed Universal Background Check Law

Universal background checks before gun purchases can have an enormous impact on reducing firearm-related deaths, according to testimony presented before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee this week.

While gun rights lobbyists, led by the National Rifle Association, claim criminal background checks before all purchases are impractical and unnecessary, research from the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research found that strict guidelines may actually reduce gun-related homicides.

Missouri, the site of President Barack Obamas recent gun control speech, had a firm permit-to-purchase law in place until 2007, when it was repealed. The law -- which both the Missouri Sport Shooting Association and NRA helped overturn -- required Missouri residents to obtain a sheriffs permit before purchasing a concealable weapon.

According to Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, that stipulation on individual sales may have saved lives. Testifying before the Senate on Tuesday, Webster said he conducted an analysis that found the expiration of the permit-to-purchase law was followed by a 25 percent spike in homicides over three years.

Preliminary evidence suggests that the increase in the diversion of guns to criminals linked to the laws repeal may have translated into increases in homicides committed with firearms, Webster said in his written testimony to the Senate. From 1999 through 2007, Missouris age-adjusted homicide rate was relatively stable, fluctuating around a mean of 4.66 per 100,000 population per year. In 2008, the first full year after the permit-to-purchase licensing law was repealed, the age-adjusted firearm homicide rate in Missouri increased sharply to 6.23 per 100,000 population, a 34 percent increase. For the post-repeal period of 2008-2010, the mean annual age-adjusted firearm homicide rate was 5.82, 25 percent above the pre-repeal mean.

more

Written Testimony
Submitted for the record by Daniel W. Webster, ScD, MPH Professor and Director Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research

For the hearing before the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights on:
Proposals to Reduce Gun Violence: Protecting Our Communities While Respecting the Second Amendment.
Tuesday February 12, 2013

Excerpt:

_Opponents Claim #2: Gun control laws dont work because criminals wont obey them and will always find a way to get a gun through theft or the illegal market._

Evidence in Response: First, the logic of this argument is flawed. Using this logic, laws against drunk driving are pointless because drunks will always disobey those laws. Just as drunk driving laws provide law enforcement with the tools to arrest individuals who break those laws and deter others from driving drunk, laws such as background check requirements for all gun sales will help law enforcement combat illegal gun trafficking and keep guns from prohibited individuals.

Opponents of gun control point to the frequency with which criminals obtain firearms through unregulated private transactions as proof that regulations are pointless. However, I and many of the experts convened for our conference believe that the weaknesses in current federal firearms laws are the reason that many gun traffickers, criminals, underage youth, and other prohibited individuals are able to obtain firearms in the underground market.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Feb 16, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> I have a suggestion for you, start with the mental health system actually REPORTING the nutjobs to the NICS database.



We can't hold people accountable for their actions ........just the inanimate object.

Sorry.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 16, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Gun Murders Shot Up 25% After Missouri Repealed Universal Background Check Law
> 
> Universal background checks before gun purchases can have an enormous impact on reducing firearm-related deaths, according to testimony presented before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee this week.
> 
> ...



So on the one hand you claim that regional laws are effective and on the other hand you claim that Chicago's laws are ineffective because they ARE regional.

Can you make up your mind, please?


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 16, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




The problem is that so many of your side have already said that anyone who wants to own guns are nuts.   

Your side has a record of wanting to ban all guns from private ownership. Even though the SCotUS has ruled that there is an individual Right to own guns.

The ACLU won't defend the Individual Right to own a gun because they don't believe there is one, even after SCotUS rulings.

I find your croc tears hypocritical over the death of children by guns when you have supported Planned Parenthood ending the lives of 300,000 children a year.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 16, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Gun Murders Shot Up 25% After Missouri Repealed Universal Background Check Law
> ...



Just like I said, you right wing turds believe you are entitled. Entitled to an explanation without the responsibility of READING.

OK, I will be your knowledge 'nanny' this one time...

Furthermore, in an in-depth, multi-method study of the underground gun market in Chicago only twenty percent of male arrestees who participated in an anonymous survey reported that they had owned a handgun and sixty percent of those who did own one reported that it had taken them more than a week to search for and obtain a handgun. Criminals reported wariness of purchasing firearms from sellers they did not know or trust, a dearth of trusted suppliers of guns, and considerable mark-ups in price from the legal market.

Fourth, gun sales regulations do impact the illegal gun market. My research has shown that when states enact laws to increase gun seller and purchaser accountability including universal background checks, strong regulation and oversight of licensed gun dealers, and mandatory reporting of theft of loss of firearms, far fewer guns are diverted from the legal to the illegal market. *Unfortunately, the success of these state gun laws in reducing the diversion of guns to criminals is undermined by gaps in federal laws* which facilitate interstate trafficking of firearms from states with the weakest gun control laws to those with comprehensive policies to keep firearms from dangerous people.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 16, 2013)

So 80% of Chicago criminals don't own a gun, meaning that some portion of the remaining 20% are responsible for 500+ murders a year? Either Chicago has a LOT of criminals, or certain criminals are killing a LOT of people.

Oh, and according to the 2nd fucking Amendment I AM ENTITLED!


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 16, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...


Tell you what:
Prove to me that....

...universal background checks/registration would have stopped the Newtown shooting...
...universal background checks/registration will stop another...

...and I will support both.

Failure to do so means you're simply using the blood of schoolkids, past, present and future. to push your pre-existing anti-gun agenda.

Please proceed.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 16, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> > Are you willing to lose your rights because you want to take away mine?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yup - because there's nothing regarding a background checks that is inherent to the exercise of the right to arms.  Any such requirement is a precondition to the exercise not inherent to same and therefore infringes on the right - a right that shall not be infringed.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 16, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



This ought to be interesting...


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 16, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> I can't beleive that the Democrats are actually pushing a bill that would require a back ground verification for  the sale of private property, yet refuse to allow a requirement to verify eligability to work, IE E-Verify.
> 
> Democrats claim that there are too many chances of a false return with E-Verify, yet they are saying that the NICS background checks are accurate enough?



Wait, when did that happen?

E-Verify sounds like an excellent idea to this Democrat.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 16, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Not one word as to how you could verify people are using the system, care to try again?



As soon as the gun is used in a crime, the seller becomes liable for contributing to said crime.  Thus, sellers will want to use the system, to cover their ass.

In combination with a national registry, it works.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 16, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Never mind that NO state will revoke YOUR driver's license if you car was stolen and involved in criminal activity, intentional or otherwise.

The rabid anti-gun loons really don;t understand that they do not, in any way, want to impose the restrictions we have on cars onto the right to arms.


----------



## Oddball (Feb 16, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > I can't beleive that the Democrats are actually pushing a bill that would require a back ground verification for  the sale of private property, yet refuse to allow a requirement to verify eligability to work, IE E-Verify.
> ...


Right...But most democratics -those in the ruling class anyways- don't want E-Verify for employment, to screen out illegals.

Frankly, I'm against both...America has become far too much of a snoop society.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 16, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > OODA_Loop said:
> ...


There's only one way:  Universal registration.
That's what they REALLY want.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 16, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Can you say unconstitutional? Are you ever going to address the post I provided the color keyed response on, or are you admitting defeat on that one?



The Constitution provides for federal oversight over interstate commerce.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 16, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...


If for no reason other than the federal government has no power to regulate a sale tha tales place between my brother and I in my living room.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 16, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> There's only one way:  Universal registration.
> That's what they REALLY want.



Yep.  Sounds like an excellent idea to me.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 16, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Can you say unconstitutional? Are you ever going to address the post I provided the color keyed response on, or are you admitting defeat on that one?
> ...



...but not inTRAstate...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 16, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Not one word as to how you could verify people are using the system, care to try again?
> ...


Based on... what?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 16, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > > How do you implement a UBC in a verifiable manner?
> ...


An "excellent idea" that creates a infringement on the exercise of the right to armd by laying a prcndition to the exercise of said right not inherent to same.

It is impossoible to show that universal registration is an effective means to affect a compelling state iinterest, and is the least restrictive means to that end, if for no other reason that felons and others legally unable to own a gun cannot, according to currenlt jurisprudence, be forced to register their guns.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 16, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



Based on the fact that the seller illegally provided the criminal with the means to carry out their crime.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 16, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> An "excellent idea" that creates a infringement on the exercise of the right to armd by laying a prcndition to the exercise of said right not inherent to same.
> 
> It is impossoible to show that universal registration is an effective means to affect a compelling state iinterest, and is the least restrictive means to that end, if for no other reason that felons and others legally unable to own a gun cannot, according to currenlt jurisprudence, be forced to register their guns.



Registering your weapon may be a precondition, but it's not one that infringes the right.

Simply informing the authorities that you have a weapon does not stop you from having said weapon.

However, if there was a charge for weapon registration, then that would qualify as a precondition.  So registration would have to be free to the owner to be legal.

Since the public seems to be behind registration and background checks, the cost would be covered by the taxpayers as a public service.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 16, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > An "excellent idea" that creates a infringement on the exercise of the right to armd by laying a prcndition to the exercise of said right not inherent to same.
> ...


This is only true if, as I said,  you can show that universal registration is an effective means to affect a compelling state iinterest, and is the least restrictive means to that end. 

If for no other reason that felons and others legally unable to own a gun cannot, according to currenlt jurisprudence, be forced to register their guns, it cannot be shown that runiversal registration is an "effective means".

Thus, it is not just an infringement, but one that violates the constitution.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 16, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> This is only true if, as I said,  you can show that universal registration is an effective means to affect a compelling state iinterest, and is the least restrictive means to that end.
> 
> If for no other reason that felons and others legally unable to own a gun cannot, according to currenlt jurisprudence, be forced to register their guns, it cannot be shown that runiversal registration is an "effective means".
> 
> Thus, it is not just an infringement, but one that violates the constitution.



Which is clearly why the NRA, and their pet congressmen, pushed through legislation to attempt to ban federal government studies that would provide said proof.

There are many studies that have shown conclusively that around 85% of weapons used in crimes have been sold privately, without documentation.

Which is a clear indication that private undocumented sales of said weapons is a contributing factor to them being used in criminal activity, and thus a threat to public safety.

And, of course, the only sure way to find out is to do it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 16, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > This is only true if, as I said,  you can show that universal registration is an effective means to affect a compelling state iinterest, and is the least restrictive means to that end.
> ...


If this all you have, you fail the test.  You clearly arent aware of the meaning of the term "compelling state interest".


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 16, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Say it all day, doesn't make it so. You ever going to address the other post?


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 16, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



There are a few people selling any quantities with regularity, the majority of private sales are individuals selling their own guns. Seems like the easiest fix it to change the dealer requirements to gather in the folks operating on the fringes of the law. There is no reason to take a sledge hammer to a problem that a small ball ping could fix. Would that not make more sense?


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 16, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Not one word as to how you could verify people are using the system, care to try again?
> ...



I've got guns that were originally purchased 40-50 years ago, long before you got more than a cash register receipt. Hell one I purchased when I was 11 years old, walked in the Western Auto store, bought the gun and a box of shells and walked home with them. There are tens of millions of people like me in this country, our guns have harmed no one and if you think we will bow down the the bureaucrats and pay to register those guns, without a huge fight, you might want to think again.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 16, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > This is only true if, as I said,  you can show that universal registration is an effective means to affect a compelling state iinterest, and is the least restrictive means to that end.
> ...



The CDC participated in a study of gun laws which showed them largely ineffective in curbing violent crime. Next.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 16, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



You truly are a pea brain. PLEASE tell me how to tell who a felon is without a background check. Do you look up their asshole looking for forced entry?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 16, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



There have already been successful court challenges against regulation. It is impossible for the government to use the fact that a gun is not registered as a means to convict a felon of not registering a gun because it violates the 5th Amendment protections against self incrimination. That would mean that, if we created a registration, the government could not actually force anyone to register their guns, thus making registration impossible.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 16, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



Once again you argue yourself into an untenable position. You really would be better off if you just hid under your bed instead of trying to get everyone to think you are smart and that the world does not scare the crap out of you.

Doing business is a right, this can easily be demonstrated by the fact that no government anywhere has ever figured out a way to prevent people from doing business. If they pile on to many regulations people always find a way to get what they want despite the government. Anyone who argues I do not have a right to do business thinks rights are granted by pieces of paper, and is just as wacky as the idiots that insist the Earth is less than 5000 years old.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 16, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



All that proves is you aren't paying attention.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 16, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Are you saying that if, for example, you are planning a big date with your whatever, and I show up and tag along, talk about bowel movements all night long, and puke in your dinner, it wouldn't fuck you over? Because I can guarantee that I can be so fucking inconvenient you will never see the person you were trying to impress again in your life.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 16, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



I can't keep up with it all, so tell me what you think I should know, just like all your breed tries to tell the world and pretend people who stand for individual freedom are a joke. There is an individual freedom issue for you to own assault type weapons, but there is also an individual freedom issue involving not having their young child being shot 11 times by that choice of how to apply freedom. I've had to live a warrior's life since first grade, when I went to a white school and discovered six White people in first grade and there wasn't kindergarten back then. 

I grew up in a war zone as a child in America, facing nine blocks of ****** infested streets to go and come back from school on my feet. We had six White people in the first grade and I was the only White person left when my family moved from that neighborhood. My reward is having a super-genius IQ, because I learned from my bad experience and didn't make it a crutch in my life.

I know what it's like to grow up as a minority and it isn't fun.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwpb&v=oBftzMxDtIg&NR=1]Sync - Episode 1 (Directed by Corridor Digital) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 16, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Gun Murders Shot Up 25% After Missouri Repealed Universal Background Check Law
> 
> Universal background checks before gun purchases can have an enormous impact on reducing firearm-related deaths, according to testimony presented before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee this week.
> 
> ...



According to you, correlation is not causation. That is what you keep telling me whan I point to the fact that every single time gun control laws have been loosened in high gun control areas crime has gone down.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 16, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...


Apples to watermelons


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 16, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Gun Murders Shot Up 25% After Missouri Repealed Universal Background Check Law
> ...




You want consistency from these people? I suggest you try looking for a unicorn farting rainbows, I bet you will see that first.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 16, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




Umm, do you have any idea how easy it is to go to Arkansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Kentucky, or Tennessee if you live in Missouri and decide you want a gun? Why would you argue it is easy to get a gun outside Chicago if you want one, and ignore that it is also easy to get one outside of Missouri? Do you think thay have armed border checkpoints to prevent people from crossing the state lines?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 16, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > I can't beleive that the Democrats are actually pushing a bill that would require a back ground verification for  the sale of private property, yet refuse to allow a requirement to verify eligability to work, IE E-Verify.
> ...



For some strange reason, the ACLU thinks that E-Verify violates privacy, and that if is not accurate. Despite these, legitimate, concerns about this system, and the fact that they routinely sue police dpeartments on behalf of people who get arrested because someone else with a similar name gets misidentified by NCIC checks all the time, they have no problem with using a similar system to conduct background checks for innocent people to buy a gun.

This is your chance to prove you are consistently on the side of freedom or the side of statism by taking a position solidly in favor of both, or opposing both.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 16, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Not one word as to how you could verify people are using the system, care to try again?
> ...



Unless you are willing to hold everyone who sells anything responsible for the actions of people who buy their products I suggest you crawl back into your slavery cave and stop trying to ignore the 14th Amendment.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 16, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Gun Murders Shot Up 25% After Missouri Repealed Universal Background Check Law
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwpb&v=oBftzMxDtIg&NR=1]Sync - Episode 1 (Directed by Corridor Digital) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 16, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > OriginalShroom said:
> ...



I have no problem with the government setting up E-Verify, or even a system permitting an individual to run a background check on a buyer if he wants to sell him a gun. I do, however, oppose making either mandatory.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 16, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Can you say unconstitutional? Are you ever going to address the post I provided the color keyed response on, or are you admitting defeat on that one?
> ...



The intent of that is to prevent states from imposing tariffs on products made in other states, not to make it harder for people to do business.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 16, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



Based on the fact that blacks are to uppity if they get their hands on a gun.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 16, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



Let me get this straight.

You think the people who sold Dorner a gun should be held responsible because they provided a criminal with the means to kill cops, even though he was not a criminal when he bought the gun. In fact, he was a cop, and a sailor, when he bought the guns.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 16, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > This is only true if, as I said,  you can show that universal registration is an effective means to affect a compelling state iinterest, and is the least restrictive means to that end.
> ...



Good for them,. The fact is that there are plenty of studies already in existence, many of them sponsored by pro registration groups, that admit that there is no evidence that registration would prevent crime. Why should we have the government spending money to prove something when other people already have?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 16, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Please tell me how background checks stopped Chris Dorner.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 16, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Tell me with you super genius IQ, in you best racist terms, what the hell did that video have to do with anything in this thread? While you at it tell me why you won't resopnd to post #1352?


----------



## PaulS1950 (Feb 16, 2013)

There are some major problems to requiring background checks for personal firearms sales:
It is illegal for the police to perform a background check on anyone without a federal mandate for the search. Dealers can do so because they are licensed to perform the checks. Dealers charge $60 and more to perform these checks and once the process is started the gun is taken into the dealer's inventory - the seller no longer owns the gun. In order to get his own gun back if the sale does not go through he has to fill out the same paperwork that he filled out when he first bought the gun.

So it becomes a form of confiscation prior to the sale. The dealer will make $120 on a non-sale and $60 on a sale for facilitating a background check on a "private" sale between two parties. If you believe it is worth the $60 dollars are you willing to let your tax dollars pay the fees?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 16, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



Go easy on the kid you'll give him nightmares


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 16, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



Then eliminate 'private sellers' at gun shows. If you are not a licensed dealer, no booth. No one should be allowed to buy a gun without passing a background check...NO ONE. Even though it is impossible to enforce in every circumstance, it should be the law. If you sell a gun to someone without that person passing a background check, and that gun is used in a crime, YOU are liable.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 16, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Ok, your not interested in trying to tweak the system to gather in the pseudo dealers, you want to hold everyone responsible for every possibility. So let's extend your logic on out a ways, how about we hold you responsible for selling your car to someone with a record of drunk driving if they crash it while drinking. Or how about if you decide to sell your tools and some idiot uses the hammer to kill someone, should we send you to jail for selling a tool to an unstable person? After all hammers and other blunt objects kill more people than rifles. The point is, where does it stop? When do we concentrate on the criminal and keep repeat offenders out of society, either by killing their worthless asses or locking them up forever?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 16, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



He is a troll, you can't expect him to actually post content.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 16, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...


When is it illegal to selll a firearm to someone?


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 16, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



Nice childish whine. Then just tell us how many murderers, felons, wife beaters and mentally ill people should be allowed to buy a gun without a background check? 

Unlike the items you mentioned, a gun has a sole purpose.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 16, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Tell me how many innocent people have to pay for the crimes of murderers, felons, wife beaters, and the mentally ill before you will accept that enough is enough.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 16, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



The sole purpose of a gun is to fire a projectile from point A to point B, a person determines what those points are. Just like a person decides if a hammer hits the head of a nail or a persons head. It's the person with the tool that determines if the use is legal or illegal, not the tool. Why don't you want to deal with the criminals?


----------



## CMike (Feb 16, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



You mean having fun target shooting?


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 16, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Where does the second amendment mention protection to the sellers of weapons?

Prohibited persons

The following list of prohibited persons are ineligible to own firearms under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.


Those convicted of felonies and certain misdemeanors except where state law reinstates rights, or removes disability.
 

Fugitives from justice
 

Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs
 

Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution and currently containing a dangerous mental illness.
 

Non-US citizens, unless permanently immigrating into the U.S. or in possession of a hunting license legally issued in the U.S.
 

Illegal Aliens
 

Those who have renounced U.S. citizenship
 

Minors defined as under the age of eighteen for long guns and the age of twenty-one for handguns, with the exception of Vermont, eligible at age sixteen.
 

Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (an addition)
 

Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunition


Those who already own firearms would normally be required to relinquish them upon conviction.

*Acquiring from dealers*

Provided that federal law and the laws of both the dealer's and purchaser's states and localities are complied with:


An individual 21 years of age or older may acquire a handgun from a dealer federally licensed to sell firearms in the individual's state of residence.


An individual 18 years of age or older may purchase a rifle or shotgun from a federally licensed dealer in any state. However, the applicant may not purchase a pistol gripped long gun that does not have a shoulder stock until he or she is 21 years of age.


It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer a firearm unless the federal firearms licensee receives notice of approval from a prescribed source approving the transfer.


Sale of a firearm by a federally licensed dealer must be documented by a federal form 4473, which identifies and includes other information about the purchaser, and records the make, model, and serial number of the firearm. Sales to an individual of multiple handguns within a five-day period require dealer notification to the ATF. Violations of dealer record keeping requirements are punishable by a penalty of up to $1000 and one year's imprisonment.

An individual holding a Curio and Relics License (officially a Type 03 Federal Firearms License (FFL); also called a C&R) may directly purchase firearms that are 50 or more years old from anyone AND any firearm officially recognized by the ATF as a Curio and Relic (C&R).

*Sales between individuals*

For transactions that don't involve federal firearms licensees, such as private transactions, federal law is less strict when it comes to minimum age.

In a private transaction, federal law prohibits the transfer or the sale of a handgun or ammunition, for use only in handguns, to individuals under 18 years of age. Although, there are certain exceptions in federal law, that if met, would allow an individual to transfer a handgun or ammunition, for use only in handguns, to someone under 18 years of age.

There is no federal law concerning minimum age for the transfer or sale of a firearm that is not defined as a handgun, such as rifles, semiautomatic rifles, short-barreled rifles, shotguns, short-barreled shotgun, etc., for transactions that don't involve federal firearms licensees.

An individual who does not possess a federal firearms license may not sell a modern firearm to a resident of another state without first transferring the firearm to a dealer in the purchaser's state. Firearms received by bequest or intestate succession are exempt from those sections of the law which forbid the transfer, sale, delivery or transportation of firearms into a state other than the transferor's state of residence. Likewise, antique firearms are exempt from these sections of the law in most states. (Antique firearms are defined as those manufactured pre-1899 by US federal law, or modern replicas thereof that do not use cartridges. State law definitions on antique firearms vary considerably from state to state.)


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 16, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...




Tell you what, as soon as you explain how "Shall not be infringed" means that you can make up any rule you want I will be happy to explain that private sales between individuals of anything, including guns, is not covered by the Constitution in any way, shape, or form.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 16, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



Just tell us how many murderers, felons, wife beaters and mentally ill people should be allowed to buy a gun without a background check?

It is a straight forward question that deserves a straight forward answer.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 16, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



"Shall not be infringed" is irrelevant.  State and federal courts have "infringed" several times and will many more times in the future.  The 2nd Amendment is nothing but a fossil from another time - a different time.  Even wingnut Scalia made that clear.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 16, 2013)

CMike said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



Just tell us how many murderers, felons, wife beaters and mentally ill people should be allowed to buy a gun without a background check?

It is a straight forward question that deserves a straight forward answer.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 16, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



How many times is a firearm sold to a person that the seller didn't know the back ground of the buyer whether it's a piece of paper from the government, or between friends?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Feb 16, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > CMike said:
> ...



Hence, the reason that background checks are needed on ALL gun sales.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 16, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



You didn't understand what I said.
Try again.
If I sale a gun to a friend I already know his background  I don't need government keeping track of my private property.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Feb 16, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



What if that "friend" had been arrested 5 months prior for domestic abuse and didn't tell you about it?


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 16, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



If a perfect would none, we don't live in a perfect world though, do we? Laws have failed to make it prefect and laws will continue to fail because a certain portion of the population will continue to disregard them. Then you have all the recent violence that the left has decided to focus on that have happened even though background checks were conducted and the crazies passed them. If you look at the ineligible list you posted, people have to be adjudicated mentally unfit to own a gun, someone just saying it doesn't make it so. So now answer my question, why don't you want to focus on the criminals that commit the vast majority of violent crime instead of those like me, who's guns have harmed no one?


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 16, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



All of them.  All of them should be allowed to buy guns because they are going to if they want them anyway.
Now, once they use them in a crime they should executed.  But that's another issue.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 16, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


Try again, friends don't need government paper work, I know my friends maybe you don';t have any or just stupid.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Feb 16, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > CMike said:
> ...



So, you're cool with letting people buy guns and do a Sandy Hook shooting as long as they are executed?

What about if they commit suicide before being brought to trial (like what happens in most cases)?


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 16, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



It's doubtful he would have been convicted and wouldn't show up on a background check either.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 16, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



A friend would now faster than any back ground check would reveal


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 16, 2013)

Personally, I don't want cronyism and nepotism involved in determining who is acceptable to own guns.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 16, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




The Constitution is only irrelevant if you do not live in the United States.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 16, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRTHdC7k4uY]Coming To America - Neil Diamond - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 16, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> Personally, I don't want cronyism and nepotism involved in determining who is acceptable to own guns.



I thought you said you wanted the government to control who owns guns.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 16, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


I realize you're stupid so debate is tough.  But try to understand.
I am fine with people buying guns.  I am not fine with people using guns to hurt or kill or threaten other people.  Let's punish crime, not something that really isnt a crime.
Is that clear?  Get an adult to help.


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 16, 2013)

I just found this as another poster's sign..



> The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal Principles to be applied by the courts. *One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; *they depend on the outcome of no elections. Justice Robert H. Jackson, West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette, 1943



Jackson was a Huge Democrat.  

Since when do we vote on our rights?   Jackson, a Democrat says "Never"


----------



## Dubya (Feb 16, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> I just found this as another poster's sign..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Who gives a fuck? In the future, we're going to shut you down. Think about it!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwpb&v=oBftzMxDtIg&NR=1]Sync - Episode 1 (Directed by Corridor Digital) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 16, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > I just found this as another poster's sign..
> ...


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 16, 2013)

so i went to a gun show today and there were no loopholes.  but i di but $1300 worth of ammo and reloading supplies.   also picked up a savage 24.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 16, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> so i went to a gun show today and there were no loopholes.  but i di but $1300 worth of ammo and reloading supplies.   also picked up a savage 24.


And you can blame obama for the high price of ammo.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 16, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > so i went to a gun show today and there were no loopholes.  but i di but $1300 worth of ammo and reloading supplies.   also picked up a savage 24.
> ...



tell me about it, i bought .556 in september for $295/1000.  today it was going for $775/1000

.224 projectiles were $47/500  today they were $135/500     it's insane.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 16, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



The cheapest I found was 500 for 350.00
Imagine some vendors were selling 223 a box of 20 for  20.00


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 16, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



They love Obama.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 16, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


It's not the manufactures it's the distributors that have jacked the prices up. Most gun dealers have kept what they have in stock at the same price they had before the firearm and ammo run. They will not raise their prices until something new comes in.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 16, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



yea, that is true.  most of the reloading stuff we got today was only a few percent higher.  the one major ammo guy there was up on everything.  the ammo that is starting to come back in stock online from some reputable distributors is going for a lot less.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 16, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Where you at Charlotte today?


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 16, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



no, i'm in NY, but i'll be in charlotte for business in March


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 16, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...


How are you going to handle that bitch of a new law?


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 16, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



ignore it for the most part.  i won't be registering anything, thats for sure.  Ammo I can drive across the border into PA and pick it up, or if i want to have something set mail order, my sister has a weekend hous in PA and I ship it there and pick it up.  

Beyond that, hope that cuomo gets voted out next election.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 16, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



Good luck with the election, you do realize cuomo is finically too powerful to lose.
Any reason why you can't move?


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 16, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



cuomo can have all the money in the world, it's the opinion of the voters that will matter. guns are big in NY.  already a very favorable rating he had has dropped to marginal.  and most people haven't really felt the effects of his legislation.  just wait til people start getting pistols confiscated because they forgot to renew their permits. wait til they go to order something online and get rejected.  

i wouldn't relocate for a piece of legislation. i'll stll shoot as i always have.  and there are many ways around the inconveniences he has laid on us.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 17, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Here is a real adult talking. A husband, a father, a grandfather, an uncle, a citizen, a taxpayer.

This morning, 20 first graders were marked absent. They were absent yesterday, the day before, and the day before that. They were absent last week, the week before, and the week before that. 

Get an adult to explain why to you. Then ask them when any of those 20 first graders will be back to school.

If you can be well without health, you may be happy without virtue.
Edmund Burke


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 17, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



Oh P L E A S E!!! Spare me the tears. PAY? Seriously? The currency is NOT equal.

Heaven forbid you are forced to suffer inconvenience. Instead, let murderers, felons, wife beaters and mentally ill people buy all the lethal weapons they want. 

Seems like a fair trade... just leave your address.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 17, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


Drama queen is still queen.


Please explain how mandatory background checks, universal registration or anything else would have prevented the Sandy Hook massacre and then we can talk.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 17, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



No, that is NOT actually what you said.  You said they needed the information to "process the registration".  (And they do: if you want the dealer to tag the car for you, they would need this information.)  But if the dealer DOESN'T tag the car for you, they do not need that information.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 17, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



I bought one January of 2008 and another last year.  Neither dealer got my SSN (first asked for it, second did not).  Just because you swallowed the line of BS the dealer spoon-fed you doesn't make it true!


----------



## earlycuyler (Feb 17, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> A spin off of the other thread where I have asked numerous times and not a single right winger has answered, is if you support the gun show loophole.
> 
> For those that may not know, under current federal law if you wish to purchases a firearm, you have to be run in a background check to make sure you are not a felon, been convicted of a violent crime, been in a mental institution, etc,..before they give the go ahead to sell that person a weapon. However under the "gun show loophole", there are not background checks at all.
> 
> That's right, absoutly nothing. A violent thug fresh out of the penitentiary, a terrorist, or a nutcases ready to commit the next sandy hook could go down to their local gun show, or find a classified ad selling a firearm and they could purchase deadly weapons, _with no questions asked._



There is no loophole. Every gun show I have been to I have filled out the yellow paper when I bought.  You are mixing two things here, gun shows and private purchases. It comes across as dishonest.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 17, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



You watch too much TV.  Ballistics change from wear, barrels get replaced.  The ballistics of my Model 29 today don't even resemble the ones from it when it left the factory 40 years ago.  Many rifles (and some pistols) leave no ballistics because the rounds fragment on impact.  And, of course, shotguns have no ballistics.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 17, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



He is not an ignoramus.  He is an ignorANUS.  That is: he is both stupid, AND an asshole!


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 17, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Not really.  With modern CAD-CAM machining, it might be stronger than a factory-built one.  Modern machining lets you literally scan the parts into a computer and copy them!


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 17, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Gun control lost Gore his own state in 2000. I propose that alot of the people who were OK with the "dont mention gun control" Obama are not OK with him now.
> ...



I suspect that many pro-gun people (including me) didn't vote in the OP's dishonest push poll.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 17, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Not just Tennessee: it almost certainly cost him Slick Willie's home state of Arkansas, also!


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 17, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Private sellers can and do sell at gun shows, though in minuscule numbers compared to licensed dealers.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 17, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



The problem being: Viable false ID is easy enough to get.  Heck, I can MAKE it on my laptop with stuff from Staples!  I object to that because it could basically put the seller in the position of having to prove a negative.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 17, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Thus proving that even a blind jackass finds a feedbag occasionally.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 17, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



If someone told me that, I would start making a big show of looking around, poking in potted plants, that sort of thing.  When they asked me what I was doing, I would reply, "Looking for the camera.  Come on, where'd you put it?"


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 17, 2013)

PredFan said:


> There is no such thing as a gun show loophole. How fucking dense can you people be?



They are not being dense.  They are being *DISHONEST!*


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 17, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Illegal!


----------



## logical4u (Feb 17, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > I just found this as another poster's sign..
> ...



It is very sad that the same people that want a dictator/tyrant/king to "rule", because they ARE against the Constitution that gave this country the best governing system in the history of the world, will be the first ones to be lined up and executed when their plan is put into place.  You see, if you will support the usurpation for one dictator, you will support it for another (you have no loyalty).

Your plan will result in freedom for no one, less freedom in other countries (who will stand up for them, once this country's military is destroyed), and world wide misery.  You will not examine what you are saying.  You just repeat it, zombie-like.  When some asks you to consider what you are doing, you attack the messenger, rather than use you "God" given ability to reason.  Yes, it is very sad that one sixth of our population has chosen to be "zombies" over reasonable adults.


----------



## logical4u (Feb 17, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Do the same for cars, houses, boats, RVs, etc (and the rights to own any of those are not in our Constitution).  You sir, are an idiot.  Why do you want to pass even more laws that cannot be enforced.  Why don't you insist that the laws pertaining to gun crimes and theft are actually enforced, instead of trying to hurt law abiding citizens, by taking away their rights to protect themselves?


----------



## logical4u (Feb 17, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



A hammer has a sole purpose.  A chain saw has a sole purpose.  A rope has a sole purpose.  If the "tool" is in responsible (I know, that is a bad word for liberals) hands, it can be used to do "good".  If the "tool" is in "evil" hands, it will not be used to do "good".


----------



## logical4u (Feb 17, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



When you can point them out walking down the street, I will tell you how many should be able to purchase a gun "without a background check".  How many people lie on "background checks"?  How many people can buy guns, illegally?  How many "illegal" aliens have guns and are comitting crimes, using them?
Why do you IDIOTS always want to punish people that are trying to be good citizens, and ignore the criminals?  Why will you not hold your "gov't" (the one you want to be responsible for your health care) responsible for the laws that are already in place?


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 17, 2013)

Justice Robert H. Jackson said it perfectly well.



> The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. *One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote;* they depend on the outcome of no elections.


----------



## logical4u (Feb 17, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



I guess the leftists have never seen an exuse to spend money or expand gov't as a "bad thing".


----------



## logical4u (Feb 17, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > An "excellent idea" that creates a infringement on the exercise of the right to armd by laying a prcndition to the exercise of said right not inherent to same.
> ...



So, you wouldn't have a problem with the federal gov't having a current inventory of "everything" you own, your bank accounts, your insurance, your retirement accounts, etc.  It would just be a "pre-condition" for citizenship.

"Trust the gov't" not to lose that information, or the databases where it is contained.  Oh, and if you are not "current", you can be prosecuted for a made up crime, by the gov't (enforced only when your political oponents are in office).


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 17, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> I support any loophole that allows mass killers with access to the weapons of their choice.
> 
> You cannot shoot up a classroom or movie theater without appropriate firepower. Our Second Amendment ensures your right to the weapon of destruction of your choosing



You're an idiot and a troll.  Please kill yourself immediately and put us out of your misery.


----------



## logical4u (Feb 17, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > This is only true if, as I said,  you can show that universal registration is an effective means to affect a compelling state iinterest, and is the least restrictive means to that end.
> ...



Do you mean to say that criminals that steal weapons do not, DO NOT do a background check when they sell those stolen guns??  Say it isn't so.


----------



## logical4u (Feb 17, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Not one word as to how you could verify people are using the system, care to try again?
> ...



Lets do this!  Right after we have a national registry to vote that requires identification be shown at the time you vote/request and absentee ballot.


----------



## ima (Feb 17, 2013)

We should just ban bullets. Nothing in the constitution about the right to bear bullets.


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 17, 2013)

logical4u said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



Let's also require a background check every time they cast their vote, a 3 day waiting period to cast a vote, and if they have even a misdemeanor crime on their record, they lose their right to vote forever.


----------



## logical4u (Feb 17, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



Yo, idiot, if you make gun selling even more "burdensome", people that want to "sell" a gun will simply "give" it away.  The person that wants the gun will buy a soda, or chips for whatever cost the gun is worth.  See, that is how you make a "black market" and the gov't ignores it (or takes bribes).  You are corrupting the gov't by making laws that cannot be enforced effectively.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 17, 2013)

ima said:


> We should just ban bullets. Nothing in the constitution about the right to bear bullets.



Go for it.  I make my own anyway!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 17, 2013)

ima said:


> We should just ban bullets. Nothing in the constitution about the right to bear bullets.



actually it would do harm to the preservation and/or efficiency of a well regulated militia


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 17, 2013)

Remember, Obama did say he wanted a civilian force better equipped than the military.

This is it.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 17, 2013)

ima said:


> We should just ban bullets. Nothing in the constitution about the right to bear bullets.



i make my own,  its easy enough to do, and cheaper anyway


----------



## ima (Feb 17, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > We should just ban bullets. Nothing in the constitution about the right to bear bullets.
> ...



Already have one, it's called the US army.


----------



## ima (Feb 17, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > We should just ban bullets. Nothing in the constitution about the right to bear bullets.
> ...



Ya, you need to save money to pay the rent in your trailer park.


----------



## ima (Feb 17, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> Remember, Obama did say he wanted a civilian force better equipped than the military.
> 
> This is it.



Why, you have bigger nukes than the US army? More fighter planes? Better Aircraft carriers?...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 17, 2013)

ima said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



No it is not get the facts correct before you post again.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 17, 2013)

ima said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > Remember, Obama did say he wanted a civilian force better equipped than the military.
> ...



oh Gawd here we go with the nuke argument.
Weak at best useless like the rest of the gun grabbers nutters argument.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 17, 2013)

ima said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...


You are clearly unqualified to have an honest, informed and knowedgeable discussion on this issue.


----------



## ima (Feb 17, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Also State Troopers, local cops, SWAT teams, FBI, CIA, Homeland Security Bozos, ...

Like we need a bunch of drunken trailer trash forming armed gangs.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 17, 2013)

ima said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...


Thank you for proving my point.
Please feel free to continue to do so.


----------



## ima (Feb 17, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



a bunch of drunken trailer trash...like you. 

So you're stupid enough to think that you and the rest of the heros of the trailer park need to form an armed gang to protect you from the police?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 17, 2013)

ima said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



Not one gun owner do I know uses this type of argument defending the second amendment. You out yourself when you make these type of statements.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 17, 2013)

ima said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



Let the fools form them and we'll put them out of their misery!


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 17, 2013)

ima said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...


Thank you for proving my point, that you cannot have a honest and knowledgable discussion on this subject.
Please feel free to continue to do so.


----------



## ima (Feb 17, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Instead of forming your own armed gang to protect you from the non-existant boogeyman, maybe you should try getting treated for your paranoia.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 17, 2013)

Dubya said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Lead the charge junior


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 17, 2013)

ima said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



oh yeah he's a honest to goodness gun owner that supports the second amendment and knows what the second amendment is for.


----------



## ima (Feb 17, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



The second amendment was possibly needed back in 1776, but seriously, you need to have a citizen army to protect you from the government today? You really need to get a grip on reality, or do the revenuers really keep trying to take your still?


----------



## PaulS1950 (Feb 17, 2013)

I don't support the "gun show loophole" but I do support an individual right to buy or sell personal property without government involvement.

Making mandatory background checks will effectively ban individual sales completely. The dealers won't do it for less than it costs them and they are busy enough that they will refuse to participate. The police can't do it because federal law prohibits it so you have just stopped sales by individuals completely.

I know that is what you want - at least some of you - but I have a right to sell my personal property whether it is an old dining set, a refrigerator,nick-naks, or a gun or two just like you do.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 17, 2013)

ima said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



"The second amendment is only needed when they try too take it away."
Who said that?


----------



## ima (Feb 17, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> I don't support the "gun show loophole" but I do support an individual right to buy or sell personal property without government involvement.
> 
> Making mandatory background checks will effectively ban individual sales completely. The dealers won't do it for less than it costs them and they are busy enough that they will refuse to participate. The police can't do it because federal law prohibits it so you have just stopped sales by individuals completely.
> 
> I know that is what you want - at least some of you - but I have a right to sell my personal property whether it is an old dining set, a refrigerator,nick-naks, or a gun or two just like you do.



States will sales tax are already involved in all your business. Then you file income tax forms, making the guv'ment involved in all your business. Then every time you make a deal and make money, you have to tell the revenuers and give them a cut. If they legalize moonshine, would that make you happy?


----------



## PaulS1950 (Feb 17, 2013)

Ima,
The government has already infringed on your first amendment rights, your fourth amendment rights and your fifth amendment rights. Even if we leave the second amendment out of the conversation then anyone who has their eyes open can see that the government is in the process of doing away with the rights that they are supposed to be protecting according to the constitution.

Anyone with an ounce of awareness can see that we should fear the final outcome of all this. If you have the brain of a frog you will see nothing wrong because you "feel" good right now. To boil a frog you put it in a pan of water and slowly raise the temperature. The frog adapts to the warmer water never realizing that it is cooking.


----------



## ima (Feb 17, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> Ima,
> The government has already infringed on your first amendment rights, your fourth amendment rights and your fifth amendment rights. Even if we leave the second amendment out of the conversation then anyone who has their eyes open can see that the government is in the process of doing away with the rights that they are supposed to be protecting according to the constitution.
> 
> Anyone with an ounce of awareness can see that we should fear the final outcome of all this. If you have the brain of a frog you will see nothing wrong because you "feel" good right now. To boil a frog you put it in a pan of water and slowly raise the temperature. The frog adapts to the warmer water never realizing that it is cooking.



Why are you so paranoid? You people with a gun fetish should learn to relax. The US is an open and free country, nobody's trying to turn it into North Korea. Fear the final outcome? Wtf is that? Rational coherent thought?
 Just for fun, what's the final outcome in your mind?


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 17, 2013)

ima said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't support the "gun show loophole" but I do support an individual right to buy or sell personal property without government involvement.
> ...



So your argument is that because the gov't intrudes already we need to have them do it more?
Rly?
I predict you wont last long here.


----------



## ima (Feb 17, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > PaulS1950 said:
> ...



I think the government should heavily regulate a VERY dangerous thing called a gun. 10,000 people a year die of gunshot in the US and nuts like you want to loosen the laws.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 17, 2013)

ima said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



You've convinced me you are a gun owner.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 17, 2013)

ima said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



The gov't already heavily regulates guns.  Where have you been since 1968?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 17, 2013)

ima said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...


Thank you for proving my point, that you cannot have a honest and knowledgable discussion on this subject.
Please feel free to continue to do so.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 17, 2013)

The Founding Fathers had gun laws so restrictive that todays NRA leaders would never support them

In 2008 the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment did secure the right of law-abiding, responsible adults to have handguns in their homes for protection. Yet the court went out of its way to acknowledge that most forms of gun regulation remain constitutionally permissible. Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited, Justice Antonin Scalia, explained. In a sentence the NRA and many gun-rights extremists apparently missed, Scalia wrote that the Second Amendment is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

Lets say that again: Justice Scalia, hero of the most intransigent conservatives in the country, stated unequivocally that restrictions of Second Amendment rights are constitutional.

Indeed, Scalias opinion in Heller warned that nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on a wide range of gun laws, including bars on felons and the mentally ill from possessing guns, restrictions on guns in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. These categories capture the vast majority of gun laws in America.

In short, theres plenty of room under the Second Amendment for gun control.

In recognizing the legitimacy of many gun laws, the Supreme Court did no more than adhere to the text of the Second Amendment. In the part of the amendment that gun-rights absolutists usually ignore, the Founders extolled the importance of a well regulated Militia. (For years, the NRAs headquarters displayed a sign promoting the right of the people to keep and bear arms, conveniently omitting the amendments opening clause.) Gun advocates are right that this language was not designed to limit the right to people serving in military organizations like the National Guard; the framers repeatedly said the militia was composed of we the people, ordinary citizens with our own guns. Yet its also clear that the framers thought that the people who make up the militia should be well regulatedtrained, disciplined, and properly instructed by the government to use arms effectively, safely, and properly.

The Founding Fathers had gun laws so restrictive that todays NRA leaders would never support them.

In other words, the American right to bear arms has always co-existed with gun regulation. The Founding Fathers had gun laws so restrictive that todays NRA leaders would never support them: broad bans on possession of firearms by people thought to be untrustworthy; militia laws that required people to appear at musters where the government would inspect their guns; safe-storage laws that made armed self-defense difficult; and even early forms of gun registration. The founders who wrote the Second Amendment did not think it was a libertarian license for anyone to have any gun anytime and anywhere they wanted.

more


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 17, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> The Founding Fathers had gun laws so restrictive that todays NRA leaders would never support them
> 
> In 2008 the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment did secure the right of law-abiding, responsible adults to have handguns in their homes for protection. Yet the court went out of its way to acknowledge that most forms of gun regulation remain constitutionally permissible. Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited, Justice Antonin Scalia, explained. In a sentence the NRA and many gun-rights extremists apparently missed, Scalia wrote that the Second Amendment is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
> 
> ...



They also had slavery. Arguing on the basis of laws they had then just makes it easier for me to mock you.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 17, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > The Founding Fathers had gun laws so restrictive that todays NRA leaders would never support them
> ...



Is it cruel to mock the mentally defective?


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 17, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > The Founding Fathers had gun laws so restrictive that todays NRA leaders would never support them
> ...



Ohhhhhhhhh, we can only use what our founding fathers said, not what they did...

You are making a mockery of yourself on this thread. You are among a tiny minority of citizens...radical zealots, absolutists.

You're a MORON...


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 17, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



You show yourself to a be a bigger moron with every post.  Quit while you have some shred of human dignity left.
You brought up that stupid article about hte Founders.  So what?  Irrelevant to the discussion and you are getting your azz handed to you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 17, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



What?

Aren't you the guy that tried to use a Jefferson quote to argue in favor of more government even though the quote, taken in context, was clearly an argument encouraging people to fight against his opinions about how wonderful the government is?

I don't try to justify my positions by arguing the Founders had stupid laws, nor do I find anyone ever calling me for not understanding any of their quotes. Care to explain how me pointing out your ignorance makes me a mockery?


----------



## Liability (Feb 17, 2013)

MEANWHILE, there is still no actual gun show loophole.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 17, 2013)

Jarlaxle said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Jarlaxle said:
> ...



They need the information just to transfer the title even if you do the tag yourself. I transferred my Disabled Vet tags to a new vehicle but the dealer needed the license and insurance to do the title. A dealer leaves themselves open to liability if they let you leave the dealership with an open title just like you would if you sold a car and just signed the title and allowed the person to take the car. I have never sold a car where I didn't go with the individual to the tag office and get the paper work done on the spot.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 17, 2013)

John McCain: Background Checks Will Get Broad Support In Senate


----------



## Dubya (Feb 17, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



.....and yours still has it's wheels on it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 17, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> John McCain: Background Checks Will Get Broad Support In Senate


The only difference between John McCain and harry reed are the states they live in and one has a D and the other has an R.


----------



## Steve Hanson (Feb 17, 2013)

First we need to identify are guns and gun control an issue for the states or for the federal government.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 17, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I debunked your moronic interpretation of that Jefferson quote. TJ even mentioned the 'public good' in that letter. A concept you and the rest of the self-absorbed far right wing absolutist anti-American turds have no concept of.

Our founding fathers AUTHORED the second amendment. What they DID in that regard is seminal to understanding their intent.

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."
Thomas Jefferson to  the Republican Citizens of Washington County, Maryland" (March 31, 1809).


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 17, 2013)

Steve Hanson said:


> First we need to identify are guns and gun control an issue for the states or for the federal government.



Both. There are things each can do, and things states can't do.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 17, 2013)

Steve Hanson said:


> First we need to identify are guns and gun control an issue for the states or for the federal government.



First you need to identify the four possibilities of neither, one or the other and both.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 17, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




I did not know debunk is a synonym for ignore.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 17, 2013)

Why is it the gun grabbers just quit responding when they get owned? Cowards I guess.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 17, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



You are a lying sack of shit...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6806775-post697.html


----------



## Dubya (Feb 17, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Why is it the gun grabbers just quit responding when they get owned? Cowards I guess.



How would you know?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 17, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Why is it the gun grabbers just quit responding when they get owned? Cowards I guess.
> ...


You put me on ignore when I debunked every argument you had.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 17, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



When I bought my Jeep, I gave the guy the money, he gave me the paperwork.  That's it.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 17, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Why is it the gun grabbers just quit responding when they get owned? Cowards I guess.
> ...



I've asked you to respond to post #1352 five times, so far crickets. Coward.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 17, 2013)

Jarlaxle said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Jarlaxle said:
> ...



He took a big chance by doing it, had you got in an accident before you filed the paper work he could have been sued as the lawful owner. Most dealers won't take that chance.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 17, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Why is it the gun grabbers just quit responding when they get owned? Cowards I guess.
> ...



probably because he is holding title to you


----------



## Dubya (Feb 17, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



Are you too lazy to do this?



OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Deepbluediver said:
> ...



What the hell is Article 1 Clause 2? Find it!

Founders' Constitution: Table of Contents


----------



## Dubya (Feb 17, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



You retards are great with those false victory claims.

You can't even read the Constitution.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 17, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Dude you've handed out your pink slip to more people than anyone on this board.

Now would that be the Constitution as it was written by our forefathers or the current one that you liberelas have been repeatedly stripping rights from?


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 17, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



That all you got?


Yup, you're owned. Good day!


----------



## Dubya (Feb 17, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



You can't even get the right article of the Constitution and you claim a false victory!



> Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
> 
> The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.



Source: Article 2, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3

They are talking about the Electoral College, you dumbass!

It's a fact that the right to vote isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 17, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



But the right to bear arms uninfringed is


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 17, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Actually the electorial college isn't metioned except in Article 2. Article 1, Section 2 is talking about voter qualifications to vote for members of the House of Representatives. It states those Electors (voters) are required to have the qualifications to vote for the most numerous branch of the State legislature, meaning the State House. Edit to add, those qualifications were changed by several amendments.

Care to try again?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 17, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...





> The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows



Source: Article 2, Section 1, Clause 1

So the term Electoral College came after it was described in Article 2 of the Constitution. Are you so damned stupid you can't even read what is being said? They are talking about the method of electing the President and Vice President.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 17, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



mmmmm, bad answer.  looks like the ball is still in your court.   unless you want to continue to put more of your own words into the constitution.  Why do libs always try to do that?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 17, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



Which only means you have the right to not have the general public disarmed, but you people are too damned dumb to even read that.


----------



## Liability (Feb 17, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



No.  That's not what it means, you idiot.

If you take away the individual's right to bear arms, pretty soon the "general public" can be just as readily disarmed.

You make no sense at all.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 17, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



I quoted the Constitution and the Electors mentions in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 are what is now called the Electoral College and it explicitly says they are to elect the President and Vice President. If you can't read that, you need some Adult Ed.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 17, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



You are a dumb ass


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 17, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



and there he goes again, trying to rewrite the constitution. you know in 1776 you would have been shot as a traitor


----------



## Dubya (Feb 17, 2013)

Liability said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



It makes sense to people who aren't fools.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 17, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



i see you are still working on your elementary ed.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 17, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



actually he would have been tarred and feathered for being a tory


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 17, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...


----------



## Dubya (Feb 17, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



How can I rewrite a Constitution before it was written, fool? What does this say?:



> The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows



Source: Article 2, Section 1, Clause 1



> Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
> 
> The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.



Source: Article 2, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3


----------



## Liability (Feb 17, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



No.  The imbecility you posted only makes sense to pathetic mental midgets like you.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 17, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



you can't, but that obviously doesn't stop you from trying


----------



## Dubya (Feb 17, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



I don't see that dumbass from Texas trying to continue his case.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 17, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



he already won it, why expend the extra effort


----------



## Dubya (Feb 17, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



Why don't you just admit you are too stupid to read and comprehend that Article of the Constitution? You damned well know only another fool is going to agree with you.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 17, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...


I understand it just fine.  you are the one trying to rewrite it


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 17, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Let's cut the crap and get back to your original statements.

The first was: "I don't recall ever seeing the right to liberty in the Bill of Rights." I told you to see the 5th Amendment.

The second was: "The right to vote isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution." I mistakenly said to see Article I, Clause 2, when I should have said Article 1, Section 2. Which is the FIRST place the Constitution mentions voter qualifications, which provides a right to vote if you meet the qualifications.

So drop the crap about Article 2, that comes from you imagination not my arguments. You also did not address my comments on your delusional statement about militias.


----------



## ima (Feb 18, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



I'm not, I'm a vegetarian, so I have no need for one. That 10,000 people a year die from gun proves that we can't be trusted with them and should tighten the laws to make it harder for people to get them. Assault rifles I would ban outright. It seems like only the dumbest people have them anyways, so having none would be actually safer then people in your community having them.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 18, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



You claim it's a right to liberty, because it mentions it can be deprived by due process of law. 

The right of suffrage was left up to the states to determine. Try reading towards the bottom when it was brought up from the Records of the Federal Convention!

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 1: Records of the Federal Convention


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 18, 2013)

ima said:


> I'm not, I'm a vegetarian, so I have no need for one. That 10,000 people a year die from gun proves that....


... the number of people who die of gunshots each year, compared to the 300,000,000 guns in the country, statistically approaches zero.



> Assault rifles I would ban outright. It seems like only the dumbest people have them anyways...


This is nothing but mindlessness, ignorance and bigotry.


----------



## ima (Feb 18, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not, I'm a vegetarian, so I have no need for one. That 10,000 people a year die from gun proves that....
> ...



You're part of the problem, that much is obvious. So what do ordinary folks need assault weapons for?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 18, 2013)

ima said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...


Says she who speaks from a position of minldessness, ignorance and bigotry.

Not a single assault rifle, one legally owned by a cilivian, has ever been used in a crime.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 18, 2013)

ima said:


> You're part of the problem, that much is obvious. So what do ordinary folks need assault weapons for?



Christopher Dorner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

'nuff said.


----------



## ima (Feb 18, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > You're part of the problem, that much is obvious. So what do ordinary folks need assault weapons for?
> ...



We need assault rifles to create more guys like him?


----------



## ima (Feb 18, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



If assault rifle were never sold in the first place, NO crimes would ever have been committed with any assault rifles. 
I believe that that's called "check mate". 

Now go stoke your still.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 18, 2013)

ima said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



If your grandmother had wheels she'd be a tricycle.
It is irrelevant what would have been.  We've had "assault rifles" (whatever those are) for 100 years.  Too late for "what if".
Trumps your checkmate, Sparky.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 18, 2013)

ima said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...


If no assault rifles were ever sold in the first place, what would the military use?

You are mindlessly and ignorantly trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist, because of your ignorant and bigoted stance on guns and gun owners.



> I believe that that's called "check mate".


Psst...
You're playing tiddly-winks.


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 18, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> The Founding Fathers had gun laws so restrictive that todays NRA leaders would never support them
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What a bullshit article.

I just read it and while it makes the claim, it does nothing to support it.  Just like most liberals, they expect us to believe what they say is true without supporting evidence that can be verified.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 18, 2013)

ima said:


> We need assault rifles to create more guys like him?



To protect ourselves from guys like him. Cops gone wild..

Quick; an innocent American is;

A) thousands of times more likely to be shot by a cop than by the Mexican drug cartels
B) thousands of times more likely to be shot by a cop than by the Crips
C) thousands of times more likely to be shot by a cop than by the Bloods
D) All of the above


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 18, 2013)

ima said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



If you can't be trusted with a gun, don't buy one. I, on the other hand, have never shot anyone.

I am not sure why you insist cops are the dumbest people, but feel free to tell them that the next time you see one.


----------



## ima (Feb 18, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



I'm of course talking about civilians. Cops and the military should have assault weapon of course.
But I'm still waiting to hear what civilians need assault weapons for. Anything at all?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 18, 2013)

ima said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...


No legally owneed assault rifle has -ever- been used in a crime - as such, you don't have even a rational bassis for banning them,.


> But I'm still waiting to hear what civilians need assault weapons for. Anything at all?


False premise - the exerrcise of a right is not subject to someone's subjective evaluation of "need".

You continue to mindlessly and ignorantly try to solve a problem that doesn't exist, because of your ignorant and bigoted stance on guns and gun owners.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 18, 2013)

ima said:


> I'm of course talking about civilians.



You're talking about peasants.

You demand a return to Feudalism, where the nobility alone has the right to arms. Our ruling lords will protect us, unless they don't feel like it, or would rather kill us.



> Cops and the military should have assault weapon of course.
> But I'm still waiting to hear what civilians need assault weapons for. Anything at all?



You've been told, but apparently lack the wits to grasp the concepts presented.

Why do you yearn so for enslavement? Do you honestly believe that only your neighbor will be put under the yoke? Or is your lust to crush others under the heel of a ruler so great, that you will gladly endure the same just for the pleasure of inflicting misery on others?


----------



## ima (Feb 18, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


So you can't even show a reason to have such a weapon. If you could, I might be forced to agree, but you have nada. The fact that assault weapons are used in crimes, and not corner store robberies, but major mass murders and cop killings, is reason enough not to have any. I know, it's like closing the barn after all the animals have left, but something has to be done. People like you don't want ANYTHING done. It's immoral. You have blood on your hands.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 18, 2013)

ima said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...


No.. ..  I have many reasons to have an assault rifle.
You asked for a _need_.   Your request is unsound because it proceeds from the false premise, previously described.

Fact remanins, you cannot show a rational basis for banning them, and so your desire to do so can only be laughed at by rational, reasonable people.



> Fact that assault weapons...


Ah...  moving the goalposts.   What a surprise.

You continue to mindlessly and ignorantly try to solve a problem that doesn't exist, because of your ignorant and bigoted stance on guns and gun owners.


----------



## ima (Feb 18, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



I don't get the "moving the goalposts" with that piece of quote.

But all I'm asking is for you to give me a good reason or two to want an assault rifle. And you can't seem to. If they were any good, I might buy one myself!


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 18, 2013)

ima said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...


That's because you don't understand there is a difference between assault rifles  and assault weapons.  You are, obviously, almost completely ignorant about everything on this topic, and are therefore incapable of creating a sound argument with regard to same.



> But all I'm asking is foryou to give me a good reason or two to want an assault rifle.


An assault rifle is suitable for any legal use one might have for a gun -- that is, for any legal uprpose you might have for a gun, you can, with efficacy, use an assault rifle.

You, OTOH, cannot show any rational basis to ban them.

Please feel free to continue to put your mindlessness, ignorance and bigotry on display for alll to see.


----------



## ima (Feb 18, 2013)

Buddy, all you got is to call me names? Figures. You never were able to give me ONE solid reason to need an assault weapon.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 18, 2013)

ima said:


> Buddy, all you got is to call me names? Figures. You never were able to give me ONE solid reason to need an assault weapon.


You clearly aren't paying attention.
As you are obviously incapable of adding anything of value to this board, I shall waste no further time on you.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 18, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



No, the declaration of independence established the right to liberty, the 5th Amendment establishes you can't be deprived of it without due process,  which confirms it as a right along with life and property.

You finally got something right, that's why Article 1, Section 2 used the qualification of a person being an elector for the most numerous house of the STATE legislature. That qualification was established by the State but was the requirement for voting in Federal Elections.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 18, 2013)

ima said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



Ya know the exact same thing could be said about hammers and knives.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 18, 2013)

The problem I have with an "assault weapon" ban is that the definition of what is and what is not an assault weapon has been modified over the years.

I'm a lot less interested in labels than in effective measures to curb gun violence. Whether or not you label something an assualt weapon has become something that does not directly related to the capabilities and threat posed by the weapon.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 18, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



something tells me that being picked off by a drone would kind of violate the whole due process thing.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 18, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Can you say the perils of fleeing justice. Check with Chris Dorner on the subject.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 18, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...





> a. Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied.



Source: explicitly - definition of explicitly by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 18, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Semantics, the last bastion of a loser. Good job baby boy, good job. BTW there was nothing ambiguous about Article 1, Section 2.


----------



## ima (Feb 18, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


C'mon, get a grip buddy, now you're comparing assault weapons to hammers and knives! 

But OKTex, "Semantics, the last bastion of a loser" is VERY FUNNY TOO!!!!


----------



## ima (Feb 18, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > Buddy, all you got is to call me names? Figures. You never were able to give me ONE solid reason to need an assault weapon.
> ...



Anytime you think of a good reason to need an assault weapon, just let me know... if you can even come up with one.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 18, 2013)

An assault weapons ban has noting to do with background checks for EVERY gun sale (which is what the gun show loophole is all about)

92% of Americans want to see background checks on EVERY gun sale.

If Democrats try to over-reach on this one, they will blow their chance at enacting background checks.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 18, 2013)

ima said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



You know blunt objects kill more people than rifles of all types, much less your so called assault rifles. But hey let's not let facts get in the way of a good fantasy.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 18, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied is not semantics. You believe there is a right to life, liberty, or property, explicitly stated in the 5th Amendment, when it only states the conditions of depriving the person.


----------



## ima (Feb 18, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



When was the last time mass murder in a school was done with a blunt object?


----------



## Dubya (Feb 18, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> An assault weapons ban has noting to do with background checks for EVERY gun sale (which is what the gun show loophole is all about)
> 
> 92% of Americans want to see background checks on EVERY gun sale.
> 
> If Democrats try to over-reach on this one, they will blow their chance at enacting background checks.



The legislation shouldn't be poison pilled. If a bunch of things are lumped together, it gives an excuse to vote against it. Background checks should be a no brainer, but it would be hard to enforce on private sales not in the public eye.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 18, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



yea, he likes to divert the argument away from anything but the facts.  game over


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 18, 2013)

Dubya said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > An assault weapons ban has noting to do with background checks for EVERY gun sale (which is what the gun show loophole is all about)
> ...



as long as these background checks get to determine who is qualified to vote too


----------



## Dubya (Feb 18, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



The only thing you right-wingers do is suppress the vote. Why don't you show us the requirements to register to vote in your state?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 18, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> You know blunt objects kill more people than rifles of all types, much less your so called assault rifles. But hey let's not let facts get in the way of a good fantasy.



Leftists have civil liberty to kill, facts interfer with that goal.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 18, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Why didn't you complete the sentence. It only states the conditions for depriving the person of those RIGHTS. Thus explicitly reaffirming them as such. Next


----------



## Dubya (Feb 18, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



Explicitly isn't that hard of a word to learn.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 18, 2013)

ima said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



So now only people who die in mass shootings only matter to the argument, is that what you're saying? Seems to me, tunnel vision, when considering policy for a country of 320 million people is a bit of an asinine way to approach it. You have clearly demonstrated no real knowledge of the subject yet you think you have an informed opinion just because of what you hear on the MSM. Trust me, you don't.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 18, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Yep, you used the term in relation to the right to vote, I'm sorry you lack the ability to follow your own irregular line of thought, but that's your problem, not mine. I proved Article 1, Section 2 explicitly provided for the right to vote and as usual you just went on by without any acknowledgment of that fact. Now your trying to shift the conversation when you lose. Keep trying, I ain't going there.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 18, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



You obviously can't understand the meaning of the word. I gave a link proving that the people who were at the federal convention couldn't agree on who should vote and knew the colonies had various requisites which couldn't be reconciled on the federal level. Ben Franklin is known to have made remarks about people owning a mule as owning property, which gave them the right to vote. The Founders always put issues that were controversial on the colonies or states to work out. They needed 9 colonies of the 13 to pass an article and they didn't always agree. The Bill of Rights became a gentlemen's agreement to get the Constitution passed.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 18, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



And what the hell does that have to do with the final Constitution, which established the qualifications to vote in federal elections. That was stated in Article 1, period, end of story.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 18, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



They left it up to the colonies to decide, but you call that explicitly establishing the right to vote.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 18, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



Article 1, Section 2, Clause 1

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and *the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.* 

The bold section establishes the qualifications to vote in federal elections, it doesn't get more explicit than that.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 1


----------



## Dubya (Feb 18, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



Those qualification requisites are determined by the state.


----------



## initforme (Feb 18, 2013)

dont people have something better to do that attend a gun show all day?  I'll go to a gun shop and get my gun in less than 5 minutes.   If you have to look around, I wonder about your IQ


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 18, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



And explicitly incorporated into the Constitution by that clause, what's the problem? You've lost this one baby boy, learn from it and move on.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 18, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



It says use the same method for voting that the lower house uses, whatever that might be. That's not explicit.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 18, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



*ROFLMAO* Baby boy, your grasping for straws that aren't there, I'd rep you for the belly laugh if I could.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 18, 2013)

> Gun regulation is as American as *Wyatt Earp*, the legendary frontier lawman who enforced Dodge City's ban on gun-carrying within town limits. But two years ago in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court decided for the first time that the Second Amendment grants a personal right to keep and bear arms, a decision that cast doubt on the future of gun control regulations in this country. Now, the court is considering a challenge to Chicago's ban on handgun ownership -- a regulation that has been in place for nearly 30 years. Would a repeal of the ban have a major impact on gun violence in Chicago or in other parts of the country? It's a tricky question. And disagreements on the answer come from several persistent myths about guns in America.



Five myths about gun control


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 18, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> > Gun regulation is as American as *Wyatt Earp*, the legendary frontier lawman who enforced Dodge City's ban on gun-carrying within town limits. But two years ago in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court decided for the first time that the Second Amendment grants a personal right to keep and bear arms, a decision that cast doubt on the future of gun control regulations in this country. Now, the court is considering a challenge to Chicago's ban on handgun ownership -- a regulation that has been in place for nearly 30 years. Would a repeal of the ban have a major impact on gun violence in Chicago or in other parts of the country? It's a tricky question. And disagreements on the answer come from several persistent myths about guns in America.
> 
> 
> Five myths about gun control



The guy that everyone thinks was a famous gunfighter, even though he was never in a gun fight? That Wyatt Earp?


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 18, 2013)

> So it is somewhat surprising to realize that many counties and towns in the West during the late 1800s had stiffer gun control laws then they do in the modern era.
> 
> *Ordinance No. 9*
> 
> ...



More: Gun Control in the Old West? Facts and Fiction


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 18, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> > So it is somewhat surprising to realize that many counties and towns in the West during the late 1800s had stiffer gun control laws then they do in the modern era.
> >
> > *Ordinance No. 9*
> >
> ...



Funny you would point to something that happened 31 years before they became a state.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 18, 2013)

> *Wyatt Berry Stapp Earp *(March 19, 1848  January 13, 1929) was a city policeman ("assistant city marshal") in Wichita, Kansas and Dodge City, Kansas. He also served as a deputy sheriff and deputy U.S. marshal in Tombstone, Arizona. He was also at different times a farmer, teamster, buffalo hunter, bouncer, saloon-keeper, gambler, miner, and on one occasion a boxing referee. He was never a cowboy or drover. He is best known for his part in the gunfight at the O.K. Corral during which three outlaw Cowboys were killed. The 30-second gunfight defined the rest of his life. Earp's modern-day reputation is that of the Old West's "toughest and deadliest gunman of his day."[1]



More: Wyatt Earp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Dubya (Feb 18, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



I keep telling you that word explicitly is way over your head.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 18, 2013)

Dubya said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



What ever, dismissed.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 18, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > > So it is somewhat surprising to realize that many counties and towns in the West during the late 1800s had stiffer gun control laws then they do in the modern era.
> ...



Kansas became a state in *1861*.



> *Dodge City, Kansas:* Ordinance No. 67 enacted August 14th *1882* specified that no one could carry concealed or otherwise about his or her person, any pistol, bowie knife, slung shot or other dangerous or deadly weapons, except County, City, or United Sates Officers and raised the fine from twenty-five dollars to one hundred dollars, no small amount in 1882. The Dodge City Times declared: There is a disposition to do away with the carrying of firearms, and we hope the feeling will become general. The carrying of firearms is a barbarous custom, and its time the practice was broken up.



More: Gun Control in the Old West? Facts and Fiction


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 18, 2013)

initforme said:


> dont people have something better to do that attend a gun show all day?  I'll go to a gun shop and get my gun in less than 5 minutes.   If you have to look around, I wonder about your IQ



You don't know a damn thing about guns, do you.  (That isn't a question.)


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 18, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



Yep and AZ which you quoted first didn't become a state till 1912, thus my comment.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 18, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> > So it is somewhat surprising to realize that many counties and towns in the West during the late 1800&#8217;s had stiffer gun control laws then they do in the modern era.
> >
> > *Ordinance No. 9*
> >
> ...


....except the same be carried openly in sight, and in the hand...

You could carry anything you wanted, openly.   Wow.  That's strict.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 18, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > > So it is somewhat surprising to realize that many counties and towns in the West during the late 1800&#8217;s had stiffer gun control laws then they do in the modern era.
> ...



Yeah, and that was also pre-Constitution.  HOWEVER, let's see you quote my post on *Dodge City, Kansas*...which was post-Constitution...


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 18, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



Was the Dodge City law ever challenged in court or did people just bend over and take it. I'd say the latter, not many lawyers back then willing to challenge the establishment.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 18, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



How was it pre-Constitution? Does the fact that the same guy wrote both ordinances matter to you at all?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 18, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Especially when the establishment had a reputation for shooting people.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 18, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



You're an idiot, LickScrotum, he was referencing the law in Tombstone, Arizona. 

All you had to do was READ what was there, dumbass.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 18, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



No reason to get testy, I got this.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 18, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



Sounds like one of us doesn't read very well...

Tombstone, Arizona gun ban was Ordinance No. 9 in 1881.  Arizona was not a state at that time.

Dodge City, Kansas gun ban was Ordinance No. 67 in 1882.  Kansas had already been a state for about 21 years.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Feb 18, 2013)

In 2010? the city of Seattle, WA. passed a law against carrying guns in public parks. It was rapidly overturned by the State with the state's supremacy act. It says roughly that the State's fiream laws over-ride any stricter local laws.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 19, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...





Lakhota said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



See the bolded above, idiot...


----------



## ima (Feb 19, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



No, that was an example. "Semantics, the last bastion of a loser" - OKTexas 

Question: if a right isn't based on need as you said in an earlier post, shouldn't it be ok then  for civilians to possess grenades, Stinger missiles, land mines, nukes and anything else?


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 19, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > The Founding Fathers had gun laws so restrictive that todays NRA leaders would never support them
> ...



Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

The author is a constitutional law professor. He has done extensive research on the subject for his [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Gunfight-Battle-over-Right-America/dp/0393077411"]book[/ame].  

But you are free to emote.

Where this book is most interesting and useful is in the sections in which Mr. Winkler examines the early history of gun rights and gun control in the United States. Of the founding fathers, he argues that they understood that gun rights had to be balanced with public safety needs. He writes that they supported forcible disarmament of slaves, free blacks, and people of mixed race out of fear that these groups would use guns to revolt against slave masters. He says that before the Revolution, at least one colony, Maryland, passed a law barring Catholics from possessing firearms


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 19, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



You use racism and religious bigotry to justify your unConstitutional stupidity?



*THAT figures!!*


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 19, 2013)

More than 90 percent of all US voters support background checks for all gun purchases.

Even the NRA can't get around those numbers.

I didn't think you could get a 90% mandate on anything.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 19, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> More than 90 percent of all US voters support background checks for all gun purchases.
> 
> Even the NRA can't get around those numbers.
> 
> I didn't think you could get a 90% mandate on anything.



That is in large part because they haven't defined what those background checks look like or who has access to the information and what is stored. they assume it will be a simple as look up a database that shows if a person has ever been convicted of a felony.   But most proposals on the table aren't that vanilla. I think when the final reccomendations come to light people will start getting concerned with rights being violated and what else this information will effect. 

As it is today, the only sales that do not require a background check are person to person sales. and this is an extremely small percentage.  now what happens when an individual seller starts having access to your private data?


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 19, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > More than 90 percent of all US voters support background checks for all gun purchases.
> ...



They don't have to.
All they have to do is take the basics to a gun dealer and get a thumbs up or thumbs down.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 19, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



for a cost. and what if thsi person is disabled or doesn't drive?  The argument is we can't have a voter id because it inconveniences people and violates their rights.  but that is just what we are doing here.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> The guy that everyone thinks was a famous gunfighter, even though he was never in a gun fight? That Wyatt Earp?



There was no prohibition of guns in Dodge, or Tombstone. Open Carry was prohibited, not possession.

Oh, and the gun fight between Wyatt Earp and Curly Bill Brocius at Turkey Creek is the stuff of legends. Several accounts corroborate the Josie Marcus rendition that you are no doubt questioning. Of course Brocius was referred to as the worst shot with a revolver in all history....


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 19, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



You have a Constitutional right to sell a gun?
To anyone?

A guy comes up to you screaming "I'll give you $50 for that gun in your hand. That lying wife of mine has cheated on me for the last time."

Can you legally deny him? Afterall, it is his "Constitutional" right, huh????

You have a right to vote. But that right can be denied to certain people. How do they know? You have to REGISTER to vote.

Background check every gun sale. Database every gun sale (so we can prosecute the 1% of gun sellers who account for about 95% of all the illegal gun sales), and require gun dealers to maintain inventories. In short, just put the teeth back into the laws we do have.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 19, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



you have to register to vote, there is no background check.   there is no record kept of how you vote. the right to vote is not denied to anyone. 

and yes, in a private sale you can decline form selling a gun to someone if you chose not to. just like a car.  no when you sell a car you have no way of knowing if he is a drinker, or would be inclined to road rage. 

Now what is this background check going to include?  like it does today?  just a criminal record?   Adam Lanza would have passed, same with the colorado shooter. The california cop did pass, so did the ft hood shooter. and those two went through some real intensive background screenings.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 19, 2013)

> you have to register to vote, there is no background check. there is no record kept of how you vote. the right to vote is not denied to anyone.



The United States maintains a shortsighted and punitive set of laws, some of them dating back to Reconstruction, denying the vote to people who have committed felonies. They will bar about 5.85 million people from voting in this year&#8217;s (2012) election. In the states with the most draconian policies &#8212; including Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi and Virginia &#8212; more than 7 percent of the adult population is barred from the polls, sometimes for life. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/opinion/sunday/voting-rights-former-felons.html?_r=0




> Now what is this background check going to include? like it does today? just a criminal record? Adam Lanza would have passed, same with the colorado shooter. The california cop did pass, so did the ft hood shooter. and those two went through some real intensive background screenings.



Criminal history. Perhaps some types of disqualifying mental health issues. I certainly don't believe it will wipe out all the problems, but when you couple it with a sales database and dealer inventories, law enforcement officials will have much better tools at their disposal.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 19, 2013)

ima said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



You prove yourself more idiotic with every post.
Scalia detailed what was covered by the 2A in his Heller decision. Go read it and get back to us.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 19, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



Blind lash out.
The post never said these items were legal. He was asking for a logical extension of the previously stated argument.

If you can't follow the conversation, why not butt out and keep your personal insults to yourself?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 19, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Imagine that, the expert on Constitutional law knows of a colony that passed a blatantly unconstitutional law, and he somehow thinks that supports his position that gun control is constitutional.

I dare you to pass a law that makes it illegal for Catholics to own guns and see how long it stands up in any court.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 19, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> More than 90 percent of all US voters support background checks for all gun purchases.
> 
> Even the NRA can't get around those numbers.
> 
> I didn't think you could get a 90% mandate on anything.



We already have background checks. Those poll numbers come from the insistent lie from the left that anyone who buys a gun at a gun show does not have to go through a background check.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 19, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> > you have to register to vote, there is no background check. there is no record kept of how you vote. the right to vote is not denied to anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



really, mental health issues?  ok , watch how fast that 90% number drops.  all of a sudden we are ok with labeling and documenting that someone has mental health issues.  this should be good.  you know this guy will never get a job either now. the ACLU is going to love this one


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 19, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



I do not the the governments approval to sell anything I legally own.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > More than 90 percent of all US voters support background checks for all gun purchases.
> ...



Those numbers are based on the fact that 100% of gun sales are not subject to background checks and more than 90% of US Voters think that they should be.

Try to spin out of that.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 19, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > > you have to register to vote, there is no background check. there is no record kept of how you vote. the right to vote is not denied to anyone.
> ...



Ahh...  the old slippery slope argument.

I didn't say ALL mental health issues. 
It's dishonest to pretend I did.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > More than 90 percent of all US voters support background checks for all gun purchases.
> ...



i know, this is laughable. the minute percentage of sales that do not get a background check is inconsequential.  another thing the paranoid left has blown way out of proportion


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



And 90% of Americans think you should. We will see if that results in legislation.
(and btw - you have to register the sale of your home with the registrar of deeds and the property tax assessor)


----------



## tjvh (Feb 19, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



Criminal Background checks are one thing, *registering what you buy* is something else altogether. Sadly, there are some who do not seem to understand the difference.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 19, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



so now we will be categorizing mental health issues.  this should be interesting.  there is no slippery slope. but you start to categorize mental health issues as you suggest, there will be.  so tell me, what is ok and what isn't?  this should be good


----------



## ima (Feb 19, 2013)

tjvh said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


I just bought a car and had to register it to get a plate. THOSE BASTARDS!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 19, 2013)

tjvh said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



As for me - I understand the difference and I personally favor both.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 19, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



90% of americans don't realize that criminal background checks occur in 99% of all gun sales already.  again, if they realized all of this smoke and mirrors only addressed a fraction and really doesn't change anything and that it is only more feel good legislation, they are going ot think differently


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 19, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



No real categorizing. If you are incompetent to stand trial, you are incompetent to own a gun.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 19, 2013)

ima said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



how long did it take to get your background check?


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 19, 2013)

tjvh said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



it's the old you agree to one thing so it must be ok if we do three things.


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 19, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> > you have to register to vote, there is no background check. there is no record kept of how you vote. the right to vote is not denied to anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Let me see if I understand this correctly..

You have no problem allowing a Convicted Felon vote, yet you want to take away Constituitonally protected rights from a person who committed a misdemeanor?


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 19, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Actually, the more honest estimates range from 15% to 40% are sales without background checks.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 19, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > The guy that everyone thinks was a famous gunfighter, even though he was never in a gun fight? That Wyatt Earp?
> ...



Is that the one that the only account we have of it comes from Earp? Can you explain why I should believe that? 

By the way, Earp had a reputation as a gunfighter long before that "shootout" went down, but the only records of any gunfights involving him that are corroborated by outside sources involve one time he shot someone in Dodge City and the highly exaggerated events at the OK Corral, which were not even at the corral.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 19, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



I have a right to sell my property, and nothing in the Constitution either gives me that right, or denies it to me.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 19, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > > you have to register to vote, there is no background check. there is no record kept of how you vote. the right to vote is not denied to anyone.
> ...



what made you think "I have no problem allowing a convicted felon to vote'?

Did you mistake the piece I quoted and referenced as my own opinion? It was not. It was merely offered to disprove a claim that there is no such thing as felony disenfranchisement in the U.S.

And what made you think I favor blocking gun sales on the basis of a misdemeanor?

shroom, I respect your right to your own opinion. But when you try to put words in my mouth, you discredit yourself.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 19, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



15 to 40%,   nice broad range.  those must be some real accurate numbers.


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 19, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



You mean the Bullshit gun grabber estimates.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 19, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



that number must include all the guns eric holder put out on the streets without background checks


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 19, 2013)

ima said:


> I just bought a car and had to register it to get a plate. THOSE BASTARDS!!!!!!!!!!!!



And those plates are a LICENSE to operate the car on public streets. If you want the car to use on your own farm or land, no need to register it. 

Just like I expect to have to REGISTER to carry a concealed weapon, but for my private, in-home use, do not.


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 19, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



With that range, the real number can be 15.1% and they can't be accuse of lying because the real number is in that range, meanwhile they use that 40% number to scare all the urban housewives into thinking almost half the guns out there are owned by the demented criminal who wants to rape her and kill her familiy.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 19, 2013)

If you don't have to register or do a background check, how are you gonna come up with pinpoint statistics?

If you have a good point, then why not argue that? Why digress into silliness?


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 19, 2013)

Universal background checks, maintaining a database of sales, and requiring gun dealers to maintain an inventory do not infringe upon anyone's right to own or to sell whatever they want.

Just don't use the "enforce existing laws" argument when you have made that virtually impossible.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 19, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > I just bought a car and had to register it to get a plate. THOSE BASTARDS!!!!!!!!!!!!
> ...



good points.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 19, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> Universal background checks, maintaining a database of sales, and requiring gun dealers to maintain an inventory do not infringe upon anyone's right to own or to sell whatever they want.
> 
> Just don't use the "enforce existing laws" argument when you have made that virtually impossible.



and once again, gun dealers are required to maintain an inventory and do a background check.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Is that the one that the only account we have of it comes from Earp? Can you explain why I should believe that?



Nope.

There were a half-dozen accounts of the Turkey Creek shoot out, which is why I brought it up.

The O.K. Corral story is admittedly questionable, and heavily influenced by Josie Marcus.



> By the way, Earp had a reputation as a gunfighter long before that "shootout" went down, but the only records of any gunfights involving him that are corroborated by outside sources involve one time he shot someone in Dodge City and the highly exaggerated events at the OK Corral, which were not even at the corral.



Oddly enough, even his alleged "reputation" is questionable.  Josie may have "back-filled" quite a bit on that front.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 19, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > Universal background checks, maintaining a database of sales, and requiring gun dealers to maintain an inventory do not infringe upon anyone's right to own or to sell whatever they want.
> ...



You are mistaken again. The ATF cannot require gun dealers to maintain an inventory. (See Tiahrt amendment)
I have never said that gun dealers do not conduct background checks.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 19, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> If you don't have to register or do a background check, how are you gonna come up with pinpoint statistics?
> 
> If you have a good point, then why not argue that? Why digress into silliness?



See; you hold the position that of the 15,000 people at the OC Fairgrounds last weekend, 6,000 of them bought guns from private individuals who paid booth rental?

Now that's just stupid bullshit, and I think you know it. The booths are expensive and only profitable to dealers that have a lot of stock to sell.

even 15% is a fantasy bullshit number that you gungrabbers pulled from your ass.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 19, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > If you don't have to register or do a background check, how are you gonna come up with pinpoint statistics?
> ...



I made no claims about any individual event. If you have an argument with what I am actually saying, then present that argument. If you just want to put words in my mounth, and then argue with that, knock yourself out. You don't need me to be here at all.

The NRA estimate (btw) is 10%.
So I'm fine with starting there.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 19, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



Actually you should read it. all that does is prevent the atf from requiring dealers to perform physical inventories. they can still go in at anytime they want and perform an audit.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 19, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > If you don't have to register or do a background check, how are you gonna come up with pinpoint statistics?
> ...



where you there? I was there early on saturday.  the lines were insane


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 19, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> I made no claims about any individual event.



No, but a single event clearly demonstrates just how absurd your claim is. This isn't a matter of making up numbers, but posting statistics that are wildly absurd. Claiming that "15% to 40%" of sales at gun shows are without background checks, ergo between private parties, is laughable, like one claiming they make a trillion-gazillion dollars a week, level absurd.



> If you have an argument with what I am actually saying, then present that argument.



Your numbers are crap, you pulled them from your ass.



> If you just want to put words in my mounth, and then argue with that, knock yourself out. You don't need me to be here at all.



What words did I allegedly put in your mouth?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 19, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> where you there? I was there early on saturday.  the lines were insane





I went, then turned around and went home. It was a zoo.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 19, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > where you there? I was there early on saturday.  the lines were insane
> ...



what was surprising, inside it wasn't all that bad. everyone headed for the reloading and ammunition tables.  the rest of the place was pretty empty.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 19, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> what was surprising, inside it wasn't all that bad. everyone headed for the reloading and ammunition tables.  the rest of the place was pretty empty.



I would have gone for the ammunition tables!

I had my son with me, and we looked at the crowd, then decided breakfast sounded better...


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 19, 2013)

The 15% figure is probably low.

PolitiFact | Mayor Michael Bloomberg says 40 percent of guns are sold without a background check

Bloomberg's estimate of 40% came from a 20-year-old study. And ATF says a study says 75% of gun show sales are conducted by non-licensed dealers.

So you can turn purple with disbelief all you want. The numbers lean my way, not yours.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 19, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> The 15% figure is probably low.
> 
> PolitiFact | Mayor Michael Bloomberg says 40 percent of guns are sold without a background check
> 
> ...



great source,  bloomberg has no hidden agenda


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 19, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > The 15% figure is probably low.
> ...



Once again - hit the link and you'll see the study he cited and the studies that offer different conclusions.

Or you can just keep tilting at windmills. Like you did with felony disenfranchisement and dealer inventories.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 19, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > what was surprising, inside it wasn't all that bad. everyone headed for the reloading and ammunition tables.  the rest of the place was pretty empty.
> ...



talk about overpriced, wow.  .223 going for $750/1000   they had a pretty good supply though which was encouraging.   I'm going to try a show in PA next month


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 19, 2013)

ima said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



Nope just trying to nail you down, you libs tend to wander all over the damn place and keep moving the goal post when you start losing. Personally I have no problem with people owning anything they can properly care for and safely store. You see that's all part of responsible ownership, a concept you on the left seem to have difficulty grasping.

How about we extend your "need" argument to another subject near and dear to your dear leaders heart, climate change. Do you really need that automatic dishwasher, clothes washer, dryer, computer, cell phone, air conditioner and small kitchen appliances for your survival? The answer is no, so how about we determine what you get by what you really need to survive and make you justify why it's needed. After all isn't it for the good of society that we get a handle on climate change? If you believe Al Gore, climate change is way more dangerous than any gun, wouldn't you readily agree to justifying your life style for the children? And just think, none of these excesses are guaranteed by the Constitution.

My point is big brother is coming, just because he's not coming for your shit right now, doesn't mean he won't down the road, so you can help him out, or you can join the rest of us and draw the line here and now.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 19, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> The 15% figure is probably low.
> 
> PolitiFact | Mayor Michael Bloomberg says 40 percent of guns are sold without a background check
> 
> ...



Well dayum, says here that Josef Stalin had a study that said 23 million Kulaks committed suicide....

You've never been to a gun show, and don't grasp how stupid your claim is.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 19, 2013)

> all that does is prevent the atf from requiring dealers to perform physical inventories. they can still go in at anytime they want and perform an audit.


Thank you for admitting you were wrong about dealers being required to maintain an inventory.

I'm sure the 2,500 ATF agents the United States employs will get right on those 129,817 licensed dealers.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 19, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > The 15% figure is probably low.
> ...



LOL - Been to more than I cared to count. 

Try making up something else about another thing you know nothing about.

It may improve your image even more.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 19, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



here is another interesting fact,  gary kleck also estimates that a personally owned gun is used to stop a crime or personal attack 2,500,000 times a year.  that far outpaces the 8,300 homicides last year.  but of course gun grabbers dispute that fact. but they are willing to accept his 40% fact?  make up your minds   so the study was done 20 years ago with a sampling where only 251 people reported the source of their gun.   yea, real accurate statistics you got there.  figures bloomberg would haul this one out of his ass to use.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 19, 2013)

A sure sign someone is losing an argument - they start speculating and making crap up.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 19, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> Once again - hit the link and you'll see the study he cited and the studies that offer different conclusions.
> 
> Or you can just keep tilting at windmills. Like you did with felony disenfranchisement and dealer inventories.



First off, there was no "study," just an "estimate" pulled out of the ass of a Duke University professor. Secondly, this estimate is of all gun sales, not those conducted at gun shows. IF you had ever attended a gun show, you'd grasp just how stupid your claim is. Private parties are a rarity, because it's economically not feasible. A guy with 2 guns goes and spends $500 on booth rental, to sell them for $250 each?

Uh, right.......


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 19, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



I would tell you that I have no problem accepting the 2.5 million times a year figure since it is irrelevent to what my point is here ....

but that would destroy this character that you are trying to create to argue with


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 19, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> > all that does is prevent the atf from requiring dealers to perform physical inventories. they can still go in at anytime they want and perform an audit.
> 
> 
> Thank you for admitting you were wrong about dealers being required to maintain an inventory.
> ...



mmm, who is putting words into someone elses mouth now?  they can't force them to take a physical inventory, but they can audit at anytime.  

now tell me this. when we have this background check, how are these 2500 atf agents ever going to enforce it? sounds like we'll need a shitload more agents.    at what cost? do i smell another war on drugs developing here?  who maintains this data base?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 19, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> talk about overpriced, wow.  .223 going for $750/1000   they had a pretty good supply though which was encouraging.   I'm going to try a show in PA next month



Holy crap, that along with 9MM, 30-30, and .45 long colt was what I wanted. That is crazy, the last 200 round box of UMC I bought was $129, in December.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 19, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



but it is very relevant to the shole gun control issue.  and that is the big picture


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 19, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > Once again - hit the link and you'll see the study he cited and the studies that offer different conclusions.
> ...



And the other studies are linked in there as well. Along with the NRA study.

Keep making stuff up - I think it's helping.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 19, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> And the other studies are linked in there as well. Along with the NRA study.
> 
> Keep making stuff up - I think it's helping.



Interesting.

Since I've made no assertions, how exactly can I be "making stuff up?" What do you allege that I'm "making up?"

I just pointed out that your contention defies all rationality.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 19, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



ahh I see

I'm losing on universal background checks so let's move the goal posts a bhit so I can save face.

I'm not interested in banning guns, or clips or umbrellas or anything else you want to try to drag into the conversation.

I've stated what I favor. Universal background check, mandatory dealer inventories, sales database (and here - I'll throw you a bone) I also favor holding gun owners who are neglegent in securing their firearm liable when their gun is used in a crime.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 19, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > talk about overpriced, wow.  .223 going for $750/1000   they had a pretty good supply though which was encouraging.   I'm going to try a show in PA next month
> ...



the last .223 I bought was $330 for 1000 in september.  9mm was going for $134/1000 i think, which isn't that bad.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 19, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> the last .223 I bought was $330 for 1000 in september.  9mm was going for $134/1000 i think, which isn't that bad.



$330 is a great price for 1000 rounds. Hope we can get back to those prices. On the 9mm, was that in bulk?


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 19, 2013)

> Since I've made no assertions, how exactly can I be "making stuff up?"





> You've never been to a gun show



uh oh


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 19, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



and when what this universal background check entails we'll see where we stand on it.  So far, from what is presented and how it is presented as part of an over riding control, I oppose it outright.  there is no goal post move.  you want to fix a goal post, start working on your radical politicians to present sensible legislation. not reactionary paranoia that does nothing.  and you wonder why it gets so much opposition.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 19, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> > Since I've made no assertions, how exactly can I be "making stuff up?"
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's my guess. And based on the shit you're posting, a fairly good one.

Hardly "making stuff up."


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 19, 2013)

ima said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



Yep, it's called revenue enhancement.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 19, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



You mean 92% favor my position and you think I'm wondering about the 8%.

That's pretty funny stuff


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 19, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



The honest estimates put that number at less than 5%.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 19, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > the last .223 I bought was $330 for 1000 in september.  9mm was going for $134/1000 i think, which isn't that bad.
> ...



you could get it bulk or in boxes of 50.    pistol ammo they had a very good supply of


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 19, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > I just bought a car and had to register it to get a plate. THOSE BASTARDS!!!!!!!!!!!!
> ...



Not all states require people to register to carry.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 19, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > > Since I've made no assertions, how exactly can I be "making stuff up?"
> ...



Hand in the cookie jar and this is what you come up with????


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



The NRA puts it at 10% - why would they inflate that figure?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 19, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> You mean 92% favor my position and you think I'm wondering about the 8%.
> 
> That's pretty funny stuff



Most do support background checks. Most don't grasp that they are already required except when guns are transferred by private parties.


*Sniff, Grandpa died. Well, he left you his shotgun. As soon as we get you fingerprinted, and do a background check, we can start the 10 day waiting period to execute the will...*


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 19, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



sure, criminal back ground checks only.  start including classifying and registering mental health issues and see where that support falls out.   figure out how you are going to give an individual who wants to make a sale access to that database and ensure he will use the information for only the potential sale of a gun and not some type of identity theft.  and again, get the proposals in line.  right now, they aren't and no one seems interested in bringing them there


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Not all states require people to register to carry.



True, but I don't see registering for concealed carry as an imposition. Just my personal opinion.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 19, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



the NRA numbers look at inherited guns, and historic and collectibles.  We aren't tallking AR's and AK's here.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 19, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



There was a study posted earlier where UC Davis crunched the numbers and put it at 3.4% before they went on to quote the idiotic claim that it is 40% using 20 year old data. Maybe the NRA didn't get a chance to see the UC study and just guessed, which is what most people do.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 19, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> Hand in the cookie jar and this is what you come up with????



You should lay off the gold paint chips, too much lead in them.....

I can't say what the percentage of private sellers was at the last gun show I went to, but it was way below 5%


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 19, 2013)

> start including classifying and registering mental health issues and see where that support falls out.



They already include that.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 19, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> The NRA puts it at 10% - why would they inflate that figure?



Total sales != gun show sales.

This isn't that hard to grasp.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 19, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> > start including classifying and registering mental health issues and see where that support falls out.
> 
> 
> 
> They already include that.



but 90% of the people don't see it as that.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 19, 2013)




----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Mind linking me to that UC Davis study. I'll take a look. Only thing I could find was a survey of pawnbrokers. Any help would be appreciated.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 19, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > > start including classifying and registering mental health issues and see where that support falls out.
> ...



Can you link me to that study?


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 19, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > Hand in the cookie jar and this is what you come up with????
> ...



You mean that show where you peeked in the door and decided breakfast sounded better???

In that time you were able to assertain the ratio of private v licensed sellers????

Pardon me for being skeptical partner. I think Bloomberg took a harder look than that.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 19, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



no ffl you can't sell a gun at the show.  yes bloomberg looked real hard. and had to go back almost 20 years to find an inconclusive study that could even remotely support his agenda.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 19, 2013)

This UC Davis study goes with the 40% figure.

http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/vprp/p...ce in america chapter 7 background checks.pdf

If you have a newer one - I'd be happy to take a look.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



In TX you just get a license to carry, they don't ask what you are going to carry. I need to amend that, if you qualify with a revolver, you can only carry a revolver, if you qualify with a semi-auto you can carry either.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 19, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



How do you qualify?


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 19, 2013)

Gotta fly - great talking to you gents.
No offense taken - no offense given I hope. 
We disagree - life goes on.
Have a great evening.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 19, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> You mean that show where you peeked in the door and decided breakfast sounded better???



Nope, I didn't wait in the line for parking on that one.

The last I went to was the "Great American Knife and Gun Show" at the Pomona fair grounds. I'm trying to recall if there were ANY private parties selling firearms. I don't think there were. Some homemade knives were sold privately - but so far the left hasn't decided to outlaw knives.



> In that time you were able to assertain the ratio of private v licensed sellers????
> 
> Pardon me for being skeptical partner. I think Bloomberg took a harder look than that.



Not that you had any credibility to start with, but if you *were* trying to build some, this isn't the way.


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 19, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I don't see the revolver /  semiauto thing here.


> Shooting requirements to qualify for Texas concealed handgun license
> 
> List of range requirements for Texas CHL
> Course of Fire:
> ...


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 19, 2013)

I had to go to the FAQ section to find the revolver /  Semi-auto thing..



> 39. Once I am licensed, what type of handgun will I be able to carry?
> You may carry the type of legal, concealed handgun you are licensed to carry under the Concealed Handgun program.  You must demonstrate proficiency with the type of handgun, either a semi-automatic or a non-semi automatic (revolver) to qualify for a concealed handgun license.


----------



## Bigfoot (Feb 19, 2013)

My wife had a Texas permit. She qualified with a 9mm so that she could carry either. We now hold two permits each...neither are from Texas but the two permits we each hold allow us to legally carry in 35 states.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 19, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



CHL class which includes range proficiency. Once you pass you apply for the license.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 19, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> I had to go to the FAQ section to find the revolver /  Semi-auto thing..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not going to scan my license but here's what it says on the back.
Handgun Categories:
NSA = Only handguns that are not semi-automatic
SA = All handguns, whether semi-automatic or not.

My license is Cat SA. Does that help?


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 19, 2013)

Bigfoot said:


> My wife had a Texas permit. She qualified with a 9mm so that she could carry either. We now hold two permits each...neither are from Texas but the two permits we each hold allow us to legally carry in 35 states.



TX alone is good in 32 states.


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 19, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > I had to go to the FAQ section to find the revolver /  Semi-auto thing..
> ...



Just reinforces what I thought.. and what was said by the other poster.  If you qual wiith a revolver, you can only carry a revolver, qual with a semi, you can carry either one.

I never had to qualify for mine, I was active duty when I got it...  But then the owner of the local range, a retired Col, knew me by first name at his range.  Well enough that I didn't have to pay for targets when I went there.


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 19, 2013)

Here is a site you can go to to check which States honor your CCW/CWP.

Concealed Carry Permit Reciprocity Maps - USA Carry


----------



## Bigfoot (Feb 19, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > My wife had a Texas permit. She qualified with a 9mm so that she could carry either. We now hold two permits each...neither are from Texas but the two permits we each hold allow us to legally carry in 35 states.
> ...



That's good. A Utah permit can be qualified for and obtained without having to be a resident of Utah. How about Texas's permit, do you know?


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 19, 2013)

Bigfoot said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...



They offer a nonresident license, but CO only recognizes licenses held by residents of the state of issue.


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 19, 2013)

My Permit is good in the following States

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 19, 2013)

Bigfoot said:


> My wife had a Texas permit. She qualified with a 9mm so that she could carry either. We now hold two permits each...neither are from Texas but the two permits we each hold allow us to legally carry in 35 states.



My god, you have two guns... 
and the government knows you have them...


and they haven't confiscated them yet???


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 19, 2013)

I have been licensed in Georgia for many years for concealed and there are reciprocal agreements with other states.
But fuck all of that, I will carry no matter what if I need to.
Would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 19, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> I have been licensed in Georgia for many years for concealed and there are reciprocal agreements with other states.
> But fuck all of that, I will carry no matter what if I need to.
> Would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.



The states that don't honor the TX license probably aren't the kind of place I'd want to go to anyway. Since SCOTUS just required IL the last hold out on concealed carry to pass a law, I think there should be class action to require reciprocity across the nation, just like drivers licenses. That would piss off the libs.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 19, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > My wife had a Texas permit. She qualified with a 9mm so that she could carry either. We now hold two permits each...neither are from Texas but the two permits we each hold allow us to legally carry in 35 states.
> ...



The government has no reason to take any of his guns.


----------



## Vast LWC (Feb 19, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The government has no reason to take any of his guns.



And there you go...

The only "reason" to take anyone's gun, is if they are a criminal or insane.

Which is why Government will never be coming to your home and taking your guns.

Even if they're registered, like those of a permit-holder's would be...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 19, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > The government has no reason to take any of his guns.
> ...


This is how they will start confiscating guns.
He's under investigation for this or that but they'll do it slowly a first 
Feds seized nearly 1,500 guns in raid


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 19, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > I have been licensed in Georgia for many years for concealed and there are reciprocal agreements with other states.
> ...



Considering that NOT honoring another state's CCW permit is a clear violation of the Constitution, I hope someone takes this to court!


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 19, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...




According to the article they still haven.t charged him.


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 20, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> *Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts*.
> Daniel Patrick Moynihan
> 
> The author is a constitutional law professor. He has done extensive research on the subject for his book.





> Where this book is most interesting and useful is in the sections in which Mr. Winkler examines the early history of gun rights and gun control in the United States.* Of the founding fathers,  he argues that they &#8220;understood that gun rights had to be balanced with public safety needs.&#8221;*


 *^^^Opinion^^^*​


> He writes that &#8220;they supported forcible disarmament of slaves, free blacks, and people of mixed race out of fear that these groups would use guns to revolt against slave masters.&#8221; He says that before the Revolution, *&#8220;at least one colony, Maryland, passed a law barring Catholics from possessing firearms&#8221;*


*^^^No supporting data^^^*​

This 'book' is a 300 page opinion with 40 pages of footnotes for crying out loud.
Let him argue and write all he wants. It still does not make it so.

Why are you afraid of guns?


----------



## ima (Feb 20, 2013)

Anyone who feels the need to carry a concealed weapon at all times should consider that they may have mental health issues.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 20, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> And there you go...
> 
> The only "reason" to take anyone's gun, is if they are a criminal or insane.
> 
> ...



Is BigReb a "criminal" on the basis that he hasn't taken a loyalty oath to Obama?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 20, 2013)

ima said:


> Anyone who feels the need to carry a concealed weapon at all times should consider that they may have mental health issues.



Ima, as a small, Islamic woman, you do realize that most men could beat you to death with little trouble, right?

So a gun will no make you less safe. In fact, if YOU had a gun, you might equalize the odds a bit.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 20, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



Sounds pretty solid to me.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 20, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > > start including classifying and registering mental health issues and see where that support falls out.
> ...



So your contention is that support for universal background checks will fall off when people realize that those who have been adjudicated insane will be unable to legally purchase a firearm????

Really?

You think people who are too insane to stand trial for the crimes they have been accused of committing are going to get a lot of support in their effort to purchase a gun?

Sounds wacky to me, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 20, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I read the article. Sounds like a fair cop to me. Sure looks like an illegal gun runner to me. Canadian authorities already got him up there. If it's a misunderstanding, he'll get 'em back. If it's not a misunderstanding there's 1,500 guns that won't be in the hands of criminals.

Thumbs up from me.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 20, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > You mean that show where you peeked in the door and decided breakfast sounded better???
> ...



Awww, did I hurt him feelings busting him on his lies????

My heart's breaking for you son.


----------



## ima (Feb 20, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone who feels the need to carry a concealed weapon at all times should consider that they may have mental health issues.
> ...



lol, "small Islamic woman". Is that a fantasy of yours? 

Before I start packing, how many women per day in the US get beat to death by random men?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 20, 2013)

ima said:


> lol, "small Islamic woman". Is that a fantasy of yours?



Well, I know what a fan of Islam you are... 



> Before I start packing, how many women per day in the US get beat to death by random men?



Women with personalities like yours?


----------



## ima (Feb 20, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > lol, "small Islamic woman". Is that a fantasy of yours?
> ...



So since there are none, am I to deduce that people packing concealed weapons are mentally unstable and have paranoid delusions? Now THERE'S a reason for me to start packing heat.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 20, 2013)

ima said:


> So since there are none, am I to deduce that people packing concealed weapons are mentally unstable and have paranoid delusions? Now THERE'S a reason for me to start packing heat.



Are you kidding me?

There are thousands.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvv.pdf


----------



## Bigfoot (Feb 20, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > So since there are none, am I to deduce that people packing concealed weapons are mentally unstable and have paranoid delusions? Now THERE'S a reason for me to start packing heat.
> ...



I cannot recall ever reading a post by ima that made much sense. ~shrug~


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 20, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



Why?  There is no evidence going through quals like that results in more safety.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 20, 2013)

Vast LWC said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > The government has no reason to take any of his guns.
> ...



And how many citizens in the past has the government labeled as "insane" and committed them to asylums on nothing other than the diagnosis of a doctor paid off by a family member?
Just like my friend that had a bad reaction to prednizone and left his house, hit 8 mail boxes on his road and at the ER they put him in the mental ward at that hospital for 2 days.
His health insurance now rates him a mental risk.
You trust government to make those decisions.
I DON'T TRUST GOVERNMENT.


----------



## ima (Feb 20, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > So since there are none, am I to deduce that people packing concealed weapons are mentally unstable and have paranoid delusions? Now THERE'S a reason for me to start packing heat.
> ...



...thousands of mentally unstable people with paranoid delusions? I'd say millions.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 20, 2013)

ima said:


> ...thousands of mentally unstable people with paranoid delusions? I'd say millions.



What the fuck are you yapping about?

You made a really stupid claim, own the humiliation that you earned.


----------



## ima (Feb 20, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > ...thousands of mentally unstable people with paranoid delusions? I'd say millions.
> ...



If you're going out late at night to buy some crack, it's probably a good idea to be packing. Otherwise, you're just paranoid.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 20, 2013)

ima said:


> If you're going out late at night to buy some crack, it's probably a good idea to be packing. Otherwise, you're just paranoid.



No doubt...

{VILLA PARK, Calif.  In 75 minutes of terror, an Orange County gunman committed three murders and wounded three others before taking his own life Tuesday morning.

Police say 20-year-old Ali Syed, a college student, began his rampage in Ladera Ranch, where he murdered a young woman inside his parents home.

Syed then drove to Tustin, Santa Ana and back to Tustin, carjacking three vehicles, killing two more victims and shooting indiscriminately at morning commuters on the 55 Freeway.}

ktla.com/2013/02/20/2-dead-in-multiple-shootings-in-tustin-villa-park/


Fucktardation, the root cause of leftism.


----------



## ima (Feb 20, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > If you're going out late at night to buy some crack, it's probably a good idea to be packing. Otherwise, you're just paranoid.
> ...


So why don't you walk around with a life vest on? There's also a miniscule chance that you might drown?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 20, 2013)

ima said:


> So why don't you walk around with a life vest on? There's also a miniscule chance that you might drown?



Villa Park is 15 minutes from my home.

You Obamunists keep telling us that the police will protect us, lay down our arms and take Obama as our personal lord and savior, and we need never worry, because the loving police will keep us from any harm..

So why did the police not protect these people?


----------



## ima (Feb 20, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > So why don't you walk around with a life vest on? There's also a miniscule chance that you might drown?
> ...



It's not the fucking wild west!  
You have way more chance of getting hit by a car than getting shot in some random act like that. So what are you doing about that? Nothing? Just worried about guns? Like I said, potential mental instability. Get it checked, you carry a gun. Or maybe one day, YOU'll snap from the paranoia and be the next Villa Park dude.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 20, 2013)

ima said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...


Thank you for another mindless, ignorant and bigoted opinion.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 20, 2013)

ima said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



So you're saying the 2.5 million people per year that use firearms to protect themselves, which are a very small percentage of people who carry, are just paranoid? So I guess you would prefer to have a few more million victims, right?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 20, 2013)

ima said:


> It's not the fucking wild west!



Really? Tell that to the 4 dead!



> You have way more chance of getting hit by a car than getting shot in some random act like that.



No, I sure don't. Because I protect myself from getting hit by a car by using crosswalks and paying attention.



> So what are you doing about that? Nothing? Just worried about guns? Like I said, potential mental instability. Get it checked, you carry a gun. Or maybe one day, YOU'll snap from the paranoia and be the next Villa Park dude.



Are you planning a shooting rampage? Is that your game, you want to make sure your victims can't shoot back?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Feb 21, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > So why don't you walk around with a life vest on? There's also a miniscule chance that you might drown?
> ...



Quick question.............................................

Why wasn't there a good man with a gun to take down the bad man with a gun?


----------



## ima (Feb 21, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



A few more million victims? Wtf are you talking about? Like ABS asked: if you guys are so badass with your concealed weapons, how come I NEVER hear about one of you guys stopping a gun assault in the street?


----------



## ima (Feb 21, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > It's not the fucking wild west!
> ...



I myself was standing on a street corner waiting for the light to change and an accident happened and one of the cars came up onto the sidewalk, hit me and broke both my legs (I know, you're all ecstatic, too bad it was a long time ago and I'm fine ). And I've been in other cars accidents, one when my mother was injured, one a friend of mine was ejected from her car and broke her back. ... 
Just to say that you have WAY more to fear from cars than guns and you do nothing about it. Makes me wonder if you're not paranoid and/or mentally unstable.
I've never felt threatened by someone with a gun. Ever.


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 21, 2013)

ima said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...


----------



## ima (Feb 21, 2013)

I never said that you shouldn't have a gun in your house for protection. We're talking about walking around with a concealed weapon. Please try to keep up.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 21, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> Quick question.............................................
> 
> Why wasn't there a good man with a gun to take down the bad man with a gun?



Because it is the Peoples Republic of California; the law abiding are prohibited from carrying guns. 

California is a "victims rights" state; you have the right to be a victim, it's your only right.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 21, 2013)

ima said:


> I myself was standing on a street corner waiting for the light to change and an accident happened and one of the cars came up onto the sidewalk, hit me and broke both my legs (I know, you're all ecstatic, too bad it was a long time ago and I'm fine ). And I've been in other cars accidents, one when my mother was injured, one a friend of mine was ejected from her car and broke her back. ...
> Just to say that you have WAY more to fear from cars than guns and you do nothing about it. Makes me wonder if you're not paranoid and/or mentally unstable.
> I've never felt threatened by someone with a gun. Ever.



I'm glad you're okay.

But why aren't you demanding that cars be outlawed, instead of guns? You already know that cars kill and injure FAR more than guns do, so why not demand that cars be outlawed?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 21, 2013)

ima said:


> I never said that you shouldn't have a gun in your house for protection. We're talking about walking around with a concealed weapon. Please try to keep up.



Do you need help with moving those goal posts? They look pretty heavy.....


----------



## ima (Feb 21, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > I myself was standing on a street corner waiting for the light to change and an accident happened and one of the cars came up onto the sidewalk, hit me and broke both my legs (I know, you're all ecstatic, too bad it was a long time ago and I'm fine ). And I've been in other cars accidents, one when my mother was injured, one a friend of mine was ejected from her car and broke her back. ...
> ...



I never said guns should be outlawed. And you're right, I'm WAY more afraid of cars then guns. I can't really do anything about either one. But in your case, if you carry a gun, shouldn't you also carry an airbag?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 21, 2013)

ima said:


> I never said guns should be outlawed. And you're right, I'm WAY more afraid of cars then guns. I can't really do anything about either one. But in your case, if you carry a gun, shouldn't you also carry an airbag?



Cars use airbags, guns use bullets....


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 21, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



Yep, they cover safety in the class and practice it on the range. Only one person in my class wasn't already a gun owner but he did well.


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 21, 2013)

ima said:


> I never said that you shouldn't have a gun in your house for protection. We're talking about walking around with a concealed weapon. Please try to keep up.



I take it you didn't read all the posted stories did you?

You really shouldn't be so lazy.


----------



## ima (Feb 21, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > I never said that you shouldn't have a gun in your house for protection. We're talking about walking around with a concealed weapon. Please try to keep up.
> ...



Sure, carrying a gun saved two people. That doesn't justify 3 million concealed carry permits, or whatever the number is. That's TOTAL paranoia.


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 21, 2013)

ima said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



Here's one example there are thousands more on the net, of course you already know that.

Nevada CCW Holder Stops Mass Shooting | Concealed Carry | News


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 21, 2013)

ima said:


> Sure, carrying a gun saved two people. That doesn't justify 3 million concealed carry permits, or whatever the number is. That's TOTAL paranoia.



It does if you're one of the two people.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 21, 2013)

ima said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...


You choose not to.


----------



## ima (Feb 21, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



Gangs shooting each other don't count. Please try again.


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 21, 2013)

ima said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



And if you were one of those people saved??

BTW, I only posted stories from one month, and not even all of those.   Didn't want to take up all the space.

IIRC, it has been estimated that a personally owned weapon is used to prevent a crime or save a life at leat 10k times a year.

That is a lot of lives.  And a lot of criminals taken off the streets.


----------



## ima (Feb 21, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > OriginalShroom said:
> ...



I'll repeat again: I'm all for having a weapon at home to protect your own. No problem. 

Carrying one around is a bit paranoid. I mean, if your job is to carry a suitcase with diamonds in it...


----------



## OKTexas (Feb 21, 2013)

ima said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



From the link you evidently didn't bother to read.

Reports indicated that the shooter entered the bar and began firing at patrons reportedly due to an ongoing *family dispute. *

You really are an ignorant lazy person aren't you.


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 21, 2013)

ima said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



And when you are attacked at a Red Light, at 2 pm, on your way to work?  Your window busted out and someone tries to drag you through that window?

Do you want to have a gun with you to protect yourself?

It's only because of my size that they didn't get me through that window.  It was one of the few times I didn't have my gun with me.  As a man I know would say, I was a bad caveman that day.  I got caught without my club.

As far as the police go...  They took it as a joke.   I had to remind them that it could have easily been my wife, who is half my size and a foot shorter instead of me.

They still haven't gotten him, not that they looked very hard.  Next time, they will have no problem finding him.  His body will be on the road waiting for the Coroner.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 21, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



I suspect bent cops will sell plenty out the back door for quick cash.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 21, 2013)

ima said:


> Anyone who feels the need to carry a concealed weapon at all times should consider that they may have mental health issues.



My uncle is alive because he carries a pistol.  Without it, he would be dead.  Anyone as terrified of inanimate objects as you are should consider that he or she belongs in a mental ward.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 21, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



Because it's Kalifornia, where getting a carry permit requires connections!


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 22, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > OriginalShroom said:
> ...



Where do you live...Baghdad???


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 22, 2013)

The term "gunshow loophole" is a bit misleading when you are discussing the need for universal background checks.

Not all private sales that are not subject to background checks occur at gun shows. Most of them probably do not.

There was a lot of debate earlier in the thread when I quoted a source that estimated 40% of gun sales are accomplished without background checks. Someone countered that no way 40% of gunshow sales are conducted by private sales.

Apples and oranges.

Whatever the percentage of sales not subject to background check is at gunshows, that's not the total percentage of sales that are not subject to background checks.

Second point - straw buyers at gun shows.

If you've ever been to gun show, I think you've probably seen someone purchase a gun and take five steps and sell it to someone else. I've watched a gun change hands three times within an area of 20 feet. The first sale was subject to a background check - the later sales were not. I've seen these straw sales take place so many times that I have a hard time believeing that they are rare occurances. And that's just on the show floor. I can't begin to estimate how often this happens in the parking lot. (and I won't even try).

The point is that real purchasers get people to buy the gun for them. Why? Because the real purchaser cannot pass a background check. (If you can think of another reason this takes place - I'm listening)

*ALL* gun sales should require a background check. 

92% of all U.S. voters (and 91% of gun owners) agree.

No excuse not to get this done.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 22, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> The term "gunshow loophole" is a bit misleading when you are discussing the need for universal background checks.
> 
> Not all private sales that are not subject to background checks occur at gun shows. Most of them probably do not.
> 
> ...



I say I go too a gun show more than you will ever dream of doing 
I call you a lying sack of shit.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 22, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



No L.A.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 22, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> The term "gunshow loophole" is a bit misleading when you are discussing the need for universal background checks.
> 
> Not all private sales that are not subject to background checks occur at gun shows. Most of them probably do not.
> 
> ...



I'm sorry son, your Grandpa has passed away. But he left you his shotgun in his will. Now if you'll just start filling out these 28 forms, pony up $250 in processing fees, we can get you fingerprinted and start the background check. Unless it's found that you voted Republican in the past, you'll have your inheritance within 6 months. 

Yeah, you have a peachy proposal there, sparky.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 22, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > The term "gunshow loophole" is a bit misleading when you are discussing the need for universal background checks.
> ...



Aww you ARE still made about catching you in your lie the other day. Unfortunately (for you) you just lied again in your lashing out.

Show me my quote on inheritance.
And does a background check cost $250 or require 28 forms?

Pretty pathetic.

Really - if that is *ALL* you got, why draw attention to it?

You need to put wheels on your goalposts. Make 'em easier to move as often as you like.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 22, 2013)

> I say I go too a gun show more than you will ever dream of doing
> I call you a lying sack of shit.



I have no idea how many gun shows you go to. You have no idea how many guns shows I go to.
Senseless pissing contest.

But show me where I've lied.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 22, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> > I say I go too a gun show more than you will ever dream of doing
> > I call you a lying sack of shit.
> 
> 
> ...



I'm 51 years of age
I once said I've been too thousands of gun shows I say I've been to over 2500 in my lifetime.
Some times I'll go to two different shows  on the same weekend because where I live they'll have two or three different gun show in the same weekend within driving distances of each other.

You said



> I've seen these straw sales take place so many times that I have a hard time believeing that they are rare occurances. And that's just on the show floor. I can't begin to estimate how often this happens in the parking lot. (and I won't even try).



Yes it happens but not like the orgy you're trying to say it happens


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 22, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > > I say I go too a gun show more than you will ever dream of doing
> ...



I never said orgy - I said I've seen them happen so many times that I have a hard time believeing that they are that rare. It appears to me that you wanted to read "orgy" into that.

The fact that you have seen them too, confirms my post.

btw - you have been to more gun shows than I have. By at least a factor of 10 - probably more - if you have been to 2500. That doesn't make your opinion on universal background checks any more "authoritative" than mine.

btw - I'm 52 - what does that have to do with anything?


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 22, 2013)

If you have seen straw sales and didn't report it to the police who are at every gun show, then you have committed a crime.


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 22, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



No, I live in a small to medium sized city.  

Who knows what was in that tweaker's mind, or if he even had one at the time.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 22, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> If you have seen straw sales and didn't report it to the police who are at every gun show, then you have committed a crime.



I saw one where the person who went through the background check literally turned on her heels and sold the gun to a guy who took two steps forward to get the dealer to show him how to unjam the clip that he was having trouble with. The dealer helped him, and the real buyer walked 10 feet before someone else offered to buy the gun from him.

I wouldn't call it "an orgy" as previously noted. And if anyone wants to prosecute me, knock yourself out.

I have to believe that virtually everyone who has been to a gun show more than once, has seen this type of thing.

Arrest us all if you like - maybe it's the right thing to do????

Doesn't change the fact that all gun sales should be subject to a background check. Whether that is at a gun show, a parking lot, or a living room doesn't make any difference to me. Background check ALL of them.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 22, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> Aww you ARE still made about catching you in your lie the other day.



????

You should huff less over cleaner, seriously.



> Unfortunately (for you) you just lied again in your lashing out.



Ohhhh, so exposing your stupidity is "lying..."



> Show me my quote on inheritance.
> And does a background check cost $250 or require 28 forms?



You're really quite stupid.

You seek background checks on every transaction - that means that even transfers between family members would be subject to your oversight. 

I use sarcasm to illustrate the stupidity of your draconian proposals.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 22, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > Aww you ARE still made about catching you in your lie the other day.
> ...



I said all gun sales.

You move the goal posts into inheritance.

So you can keep making all the personal insults you like. It appears to be your only argument.

In fact, that's all I've gotten from the over-represented 8% who oppose background checks on all gun sales.

Diversion to other topics, goal post moving, and personal insults.

So can anyone of these 8% articulate a reason why background checks for all gun sales should not be mandated without all the diversionary tactics?

I'll be listening ....


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 22, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> So can anyone of these 8% articulate a reason why background checks for all gun sales should not be mandated without all the diversionary tactics?
> I'll be listening ....


2 reasons:
- Background checks are a form of prior restraint, which violates the constitution.
- The Constitution does not grant the power to regulate commerce across my fencline.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 22, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...


You're a fucking gun grabber you have no authority  or factual opinion to support your argument.
You can lie to those who don't go to gun shows but you can't lie too those who do.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 22, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > So can anyone of these 8% articulate a reason why background checks for all gun sales should not be mandated without all the diversionary tactics?
> ...



Thanks M14, I sincerely appreciate your response. I may disagree with it, but you have a right to it and you are able to articulate it honestly. Rep coming.

And I agree that background checks are a form of prior restraint. In D.C v Heller the court ruled an all out ban on gun ownership by law-abiding citizens is unconstitutional. But the court specifically noted in the decision a non-exhaustive list of a number of presumptively lawful regulatory measures that included imposing conditions on sales.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 22, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...


The court was unspecific about what conditions it meant, and so to argue that its statenent to that effect supports the idea that background checls are constitutionally permissible is unsupportable.  In specific, the phrase you refer to points more to the commercial restrictions on the sale of firearms, not the restrictions placed on thise who buy them.

Prior restraint is a particularly egregious affront to the rights and liberties protected by the constitution, and so, in terms of the 2nd amendment will surely be considered in a manner similar to that in the 1st -- at the very least, there is no sound argument that the rights protected under the 2nd deserve any less consideration that those protected by the 1st.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 22, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Very good points and I agree that the standard for upholding a prior restraint is a very high one. But they have been upheld in regards to the First Amendment in some circumstances.

Alito said the court had made clear in its 2008 decision that it was not casting doubt on such long-standing prohibitions on gun possession by felons and the mentally ill, or keeping firearms out of "sensitive places" such as schools and government buildings. 

"We repeat those assurances here," Alito wrote. "Despite municipal respondents' doomsday proclamations, [the decision] does not imperil every law regulating firearms." 

Since that time the District has survived a legal challenge to a new system of regulations implemented after Heller, including mandatory background checks, firearms training and other requirements for gun ownership.

So far, no mandatory background check law has been sucessfully overturned. But I guess anything could happen in the future.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 22, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> So far, no mandatory background check law has been sucessfully overturned. But I guess anything could happen in the future.



There have not been any Federal requirements for background check other than what is in the 1968 GCA and subsequent legislation.  The Feds do this under authority of the Commerce Clause on interstate commerce.  I dont have a legal problem with that (I have a policy problem with it, but thats another matter).
What they want is to regulate commece intrastate.  And that they do not have the authority to do.  Nor has anyone been able to show that it would decrease crime in any way.  So you are talking about abridging rights with no correspnding benefit to the state.  That would prima facie be unconstitutional.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 22, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...


Yes - the specifics for which are inapplicable to the simple posession/ownership of a firerarm.



> Alito said the court had made clear in its 2008 decision that it was not casting doubt on such long-standing prohibitions on gun possession by felons and the mentally ill, or keeping firearms out of "sensitive places" such as schools and government buildings.


Yes...  which isn't relevant here.



> Since that time the District has survived a legal challenge to a new system of regulations implemented after Heller, including mandatory background checks, firearms training and other requirements for gun ownership.


All of which means nothing as none of these have been argued in front of the SCotuUS.

You agree that background checks are a fiorm of prior restraint.
On what established basis, then, would background checkls be upheld by the SCotUS?


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 22, 2013)

> You agree that background checks are a fiorm of prior restraint.
> On what established basis, then, would background checkls be upheld by the SCotUS?



The very same basis that you wrote off as irrelevant to this argument.



> Alito said the court had made clear in its 2008 decision that it was not casting doubt on such long-standing prohibitions on gun possession by felons and the mentally ill,



The only way to enforce these long standing, acceptable prohibitions is with background checks.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 22, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > So far, no mandatory background check law has been sucessfully overturned. But I guess anything could happen in the future.
> ...



SCOTUS has given strong signals that they would uphold background checks.

But when 92% of all U.S. voters favor the measure, it behooves congress to enact it and even move to amend the Constitution if that is initially struck down.

Another option is to tie federal law enforcement subsidies to states to their enactment of mandatory background checks.


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 22, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



So if 92% of the U.S. voters favor a return to slavery, we should amend the Constituition to allow it?

If 92% of the U.S. Voters favor a return to male/female only marriages, we should amend the Constitution to allow that?


Since when do we put our rights up to a vote?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 22, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Your argument is flawed, because it goes against his belief and could not support the acts of the majority that went against his belief system.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 22, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> So if 92% of the U.S. voters favor a return to slavery, we should amend the Constituition to allow it?
> 
> If 92% of the U.S. Voters favor a return to male/female only marriages, we should amend the Constitution to allow that?
> 
> ...



Since we became and Obamunist country.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 22, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> > You agree that background checks are a fiorm of prior restraint.
> > On what established basis, then, would background checkls be upheld by the SCotUS?
> 
> 
> The very same basis that you wrote off as irrelevant to this argument.


Ummmm.....  no.  You misunderstood the question.

You agree that background checks are a form of prior restraint, and that standard for upholding a prior restraint is a very high one -but, even so, prior restraint has been upoheld by the court.

Specifically, on what basis?  That is, when did they do so, why did they do it?
Then, explain how this example can be soundly applied to the issue at hand - background checks.


> The only way to enforce these long standing, acceptable prohibitions is with background checks


Incorrect - it is perfectly possible to enforce these prohibitions by arresting and prosecuting those found illegally posessing firearms, who have therefore broken the laws in question.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Feb 22, 2013)

The biggest problem with universal back-ground checks is that:
1. it won't keep the guns out of the hands of criminals
2. unless you use gun registration you can't track sales that are "illegal" and registration is illegal.
3. It will effectively prohibit personal sales of guns because:
........1. the police can't do the checks - it is illegal for them to do them for private citizens - federal law.
........2. Dealers won't do it without being able to make a profit. The bill in my state will only charge $20 for the check and the dealers here charge $60 to do it now.
........3. When the background check is in process the gun is transfered to the dealers inventory. That means if the sale falls through you have to pay for another background check to get your own gun back. The dealer can't release it to you without the background check and appropriate paperwork.

So you pay the dealer $80 (his fee plus the state fee) for him to take your gun and sell it to your buyer and his background check doesn't clear or he backs out of the sale because of the additional cost. Now you get to pay the dealer another $80 to get your gun back. So you are out $160 and have the same gun that you had all but sold two weeks before.

What happens if the gun dealers can't charge more than the $20 that the state sets up? Then they can refuse to do the check and you can't sell your gun.

I have a right to buy or sell anything that I can legally own from or to anyone else who can legally own it. The one time that I sold a gun it was to someone I knew and they had a concealed pistol permit which shows that they have passed the background check. (a stricter check than is needed to buy the gun in the first place)


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 22, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> ........2. Dealers won't do it without being able to make a profit. The bill in my state will only charge $20 for the check and the dealers here charge $60 to do it now.


Thus, creating an undue burden.
Game over.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 22, 2013)

> The biggest problem with universal back-ground checks is that:
> 1. it won't keep the guns out of the hands of criminals


This is just your speculation. If EVERY gun sale required a background check, criminals would not be able to use straw buyers.
In fact according to the associated press Virginia's background check system has prevented 54,260 people, including more than 16,000 felons, from buying guns since it began in 1989.



> 2. unless you use gun registration you can't track sales that are "illegal" and registration is illegal.


Incorrect - a sales database would give law enforcement a trail to follow.



> 3. It will effectively prohibit personal sales of guns because:
> ... 2. Dealers won't do it without being able to make a profit. The bill in my state will only charge $20 for the check and the dealers here charge $60 to do it now.



The checks cost $2. I've seen ranges of free to $25. I've never seen $60. What state are you in?


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 22, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



They have given no such signals.  They have not commented at all on it.
As for 92% of voters, let me ask the question and I will get you the result you want.
If states enact it, that is legal adn fine.  I dont think it has any effect on crime but they are welcome to their folly.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 22, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > > You agree that background checks are a fiorm of prior restraint.
> ...



Yes, one approach would be to step over the corpses to ask the perp about his background.

Not my first choice.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 22, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> This is just your speculation. If EVERY gun sale required a background check, criminals would not be able to use straw buyers.


Background checks do not, and can not, in any way, stop straw purchases.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 22, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Your are right - it wasn't really a signal. It was a flat out statement in the Heller ruling.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 22, 2013)

if it ever does come to the point where we do have background checks I guess that means we are safe to lift all restrictions on what can be owned


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 22, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > This is just your speculation. If EVERY gun sale required a background check, criminals would not be able to use straw buyers.
> ...



Of course they can. The money is so good that they probably can't elimenate 100% - but they can certainly put a big dent in them.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 22, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> Yes, one approach would be to step over the corpses to ask the perp about his background.
> Not my first choice.


So, you agree that your statement -- *The only way to enforce these long standing, acceptable prohibitions is with background checks* -- is false.  

This removes any argument of an imperative - a compelling state interest, if you will - to have background checks, as the laws you mention - just like every other criminal law - CAN be enforced w/o them.

So - back to this:

You agree that background checks are a form of prior restraint, and that standard for upholding a prior restraint is a very high one -but, even so, prior restraint has been upoheld by the court.

Specifically, on what basis? That is, when did they do so, why did they do it?
Then, explain how this example can be soundly applied to the issue at hand - background checks.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 22, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



the black market will trump background checks.  especially with the people we really need to be controlling.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 22, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...


I go to a dealer.  I get a background check.  I buy a gun.

What about that background check stops me frop handing that gun off to a guy in the parking lot?


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 22, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Nothing - UNLESS you are required to perform a background check to sell the gun to that guy in the parking lot. Your example is a good snapshot of exactly WHY we need universal background checks.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 22, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...


And so, background checks do -not- stop straw purchases.  Thank you.



> UNLESS you are required to perform a background check to sell the gun to that guy in the parking lot.


How does requiring me to run a background check on the guy in the parking lot prevent me from buying the gun and handing it off to him w/o running that check?


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 22, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



ah - I see where you are coming from.

When a gun is involved in a crime, you want the perp to be punished for purchasing the gun illegally. But you you don't think the person who sold it to him illegally should be punished.

There are several ways to achieve the trace back to the seller. A sales database, testimony ...


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 22, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



There was no statement in the Heller ruling that dealt with federal universal background checks.  Period.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 22, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



Testimony by a felon doesn't carry much weight.
But you are right that to be effective there must be universal rregistration of guns.  Something that won't happen for a variety of reasons.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 22, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...


You did not answer the question:

How does requiring me to run a background check on the guy in the parking lot prevent me from buying the gun and handing it off to him w/o running that check?

The answer to this question goes directly to supporting, or destroying your statement that "If EVERY gun sale required a background check, criminals would not be able to use straw buyers."


Further:
You agree that background checks are a form of prior restraint, and that standard for upholding a prior restraint is a very high one -but, even so, prior restraint has been upoheld by the court.

Specifically, on what basis? That is, when did they do so, why did they do it?
Then, explain how this example can be soundly applied to the issue at hand - background checks.


----------



## Dubya (Feb 22, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Background checks work fine with registration that requires renewing. When the country wises up, that's going to be the requirement. Missing guns should be treated as possible trafficking and computers can easily spot trends of registrations not being renewed. If you are caught with a gun that isn't registered or caught making a straw purchase, your days of legally being around a gun are gone and you can practice it in prison.


----------



## ima (Feb 23, 2013)

They should end every gun show with a massive shootout.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 23, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



UNLESS...it is a survey of where felons got guns they used to perpetrate crimes, THEN what they say is GOSPEL...


----------



## logical4u (Feb 23, 2013)

ima said:


> They should end every gun show with a massive shootout.



They already have shootouts.... in cities where guns are limited and regulated!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 25, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> This is just your speculation. If EVERY gun sale required a background check, criminals would not be able to use straw buyers.



Well that takes care of .00000001% of guns acquisition by criminals.



> In fact according to the associated press Virginia's background check system has prevented 54,260 people, including more than 16,000 felons, from buying guns since it began in 1989.



I'm sure those figures aren't cooked by HGI or another anti-liberty group.



> Incorrect - a sales database would give law enforcement a trail to follow.



Ah, despite assurances by leftists that such information would be completely private.

I could see party apparatchiks feeding the names and addresses of gun owners to the party press so they could be target by criminals. There is precedent for this.



> The checks cost $2. I've seen ranges of free to $25. I've never seen $60. What state are you in?



Sorry Jr. Can't let you inherit Grandpa's shotgun because we haven't done a background check...

What you're doing, and what the intent is, is to make criminals out of legitimate citizens. We all know that no one will comply with these chicken shit edicts, so the effect will be to criminalize transactions between private individuals. And I believe that is the intent.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 25, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



I did answer your question. The law will prevent you from selling your weapon without doing a background check. 
Prior restraints have been upheld specifically in time and manner restrictions - exactly the type of restriction involved with a background check.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 25, 2013)

> Well that takes care of .00000001% of guns acquisition by criminals.


And you accuse others of "cooking numbers"????
Oh pleeeze.



> Sorry Jr. Can't let you inherit Grandpa's shotgun


I never mentioned anything about inheritence.

You just keep on making crap up...

it's working soooo well for you.


----------



## ima (Feb 25, 2013)

We should just tattoo the serial number of every gun someone buys on his arm or back, that way, we'd always knows whose gun it was.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 25, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...


Incorrect.
The law does not prevent me from walking into the parking lot and doing exactly that.
Disagree?  Show how the law stops me.


> Prior restraints have been upheld specifically in time and manner restrictions - exactly the type of restriction involved with a background check.


Show this to be true.  Cite cases and detail the circumstances,  and then show how those circumstances create a precedental parallel to background checks.
Else, you've supported your claim by doing nothing greater than rerpeating it.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 25, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



A survey is not testimony in a court of law, hairboy.
Fail.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 25, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> And you accuse others of "cooking numbers"????
> Oh pleeeze.



It's a wild assed guess - which means it is every bit as accurate as the crap you're throwing out.

How many criminals get guns through "straw purchases?" Damn few, why would they bother? Chinese and Russian guns flow with no real obstruction, just like drugs. A criminal has no incentive not to buy a Chinese AK47 - it's not like they worry about breaking the law..

As with all attacks on civil liberty, your proposal ONLY affects the law abiding. Criminals don't care, they don't buy from Bass Pro Shops, they buy from the Sons of Anarchy or some other criminal gang. Or they flat out steal they guns they use.



> I never mentioned anything about inheritence.



What is the difference? If every transfer, even between private parties, requires a background check, then the scenario I've repeatedly spelled out is the reality. 

AND we both know this is nothing more than a means to punish the nominally law abiding, because NO ONE is going to follow the chicken shit laws you propose, no one. So it becomes nothing but another club to beat the law abiding public with.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 25, 2013)

ima said:


> We should just tattoo the serial number of every gun someone buys on his arm or back, that way, we'd always knows whose gun it was.



You need your patient number at the nut farm tattooed on your face.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 25, 2013)

ima said:


> We should just tattoo the serial number of every gun someone buys on his arm or back, that way, we'd always knows whose gun it was.



Nazis were famous for tattooing symbols on the skin of people.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Feb 25, 2013)

A much simpler solution, of which they have the technology available TODAY is to serialize the ammo.

That way, if you found a bullet in something or someone it wasn't supposed to be in, you could trace it back to the person that bought the ammo.

That way, you wouldn't have to register your guns.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 25, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> A much simpler solution, of which they have the technology available TODAY is to serialize the ammo.
> 
> That way, if you found a bullet in something or someone it wasn't supposed to be in, you could trace it back to the person that bought the ammo.
> 
> That way, you wouldn't have to register your guns.





> A much simpler solution, of which they have the technology available TODAY is to serialize the ammo.


Good luck with that and reloaders.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 26, 2013)

Not to mention that many rounds fragment on impact!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 26, 2013)

Jarlaxle said:


> Not to mention that many rounds fragment on impact!


The only reason for serializing ammo is to raise the cost of ammo, make too expensive for poor people too buy


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 26, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> A much simpler solution, of which they have the technology available TODAY is to serialize the ammo.
> 
> That way, if you found a bullet in something or someone it wasn't supposed to be in, you could trace it back to the person that bought the ammo.
> 
> That way, you wouldn't have to register your guns.



Might be the most idiotic suggestion yet.


----------



## ima (Feb 26, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > We should just tattoo the serial number of every gun someone buys on his arm or back, that way, we'd always knows whose gun it was.
> ...



But they didn't have as many guns as Americans. 

PS Hitler led the Jews to the Promised Land. So the tatooing thing must have worked!


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 26, 2013)

> Incorrect.
> The law does not prevent me from walking into the parking lot and doing exactly that.
> Disagree? Show how the law stops me.



Silly semantic argument. By your logic no law prevents anything so why pass any laws.

Laws punish law breakers. Universal background checks help us identify these law breakers and punish them.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 26, 2013)

> It's a wild assed guess


That was obvious


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 26, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> > Incorrect.
> > The law does not prevent me from walking into the parking lot and doing exactly that.
> > Disagree? Show how the law stops me.
> 
> ...



No, that is not an argument.  Laws prevent honest people from doing certain things because they are worried about being caught and punished.  They do not prevent criminals from doing anything.
There is no such thing as "universal background checks" because two criminals exchanging guns for dope or money will not go through the check. And those are the people who need to be prevented from owning guns.
Really, this isn't rocket science.  I dont know why the libs have such a hard time understanding it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 26, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> > Incorrect.
> > The law does not prevent me from walking into the parking lot and doing exactly that.
> > Disagree? Show how the law stops me.
> 
> ...


YOU used thew word.   
Glad to see you now admit that you were wrong in your claim that background checks prevent straw sales. et al.



> Laws punish law breakers. Universal background checks help us identify these law breakers and punish them.


No... background checks are a form of prior restraint that try to stop people from breaking the law.



> *Quote:*
> Prior restraints have been upheld specifically in time and manner restrictions - exactly the type of restriction involved with a background check.


Still waiting for you to show this to be true. 
Cite cases and detail the circumstances, and then show how those circumstances create a precedental parallel to background checks.
Else, you've supported your claim by doing nothing greater than rerpeating it.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Feb 26, 2013)

ima said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



You truly are a despicable turd.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 28, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > > Incorrect.
> ...



I've made my point and I've demonstrated my point you are simply trying to play silly semantic games. You can private message me all you want - not going to suck me into playing your juvenile game.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 28, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...


You've made claims that have been proven wrong.
You've made claims you refuse to support.
And now, you're running away from both.

Tell us -- why do you hold on to positions that you cannot support and/or have been demonstrated unsound?


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 28, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



The fact that you cram your head into the sand ... or your fingers in your ears doesn't mean you've prevailed on anything. You clearly have not. But you go ahead and think whatever you want.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 28, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...


You'd have a point here if I'd done either -- but I haven't.

I HAVE dispelled your claim that background checks will prevent any of the things you claim they will prevent -- with "prevent" being YOUR word.

I HAVE asked you to support your claims regarding the instances where prior resttaint is constitutionally acceptable and then show how these instances support the idea that background check are also a permissible prior restraint -- which you have refused to even TRY to do.

Fact of the matter is that you have been trounced and you're all butthurt about it.
Disagree?  You know what you have to do...


----------



## Polk (Feb 28, 2013)

It's pretty difficult to "dispelled" his claim, since we don't really have background checks in any meaningful way right now.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 28, 2013)

Polk said:


> It's pretty difficult to "dispelled" his claim, since we don't really have background checks in any meaningful way right now.


His claim was that universal background checks would "prevent" - his word - straw purchases.
That was simply and easily dispelled.  He refuses to accept this.


----------



## ima (Feb 28, 2013)

Guns don't kill people, bullets do. Outlaw bullets today. No 2nd amendment protection for bullets.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 28, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > It's pretty difficult to "dispelled" his claim, since we don't really have background checks in any meaningful way right now.
> ...



ONE person refuses to make a straw purchase because the act can be traced and is illegal.

BINGO - universal background check has PREVENTED a straw purchase.

So go dispel yourself.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 28, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



So the buyer goes down to the local bar and finds someone who isn't so choosy, mainly because he's a criminal himself selling stolen guns.
BINGO--universal background check enables gun theft and prevents nothing.

You lose.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 28, 2013)

nodoginnafight said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...


I see you're still butthurt aboud being proven wrong.
Not much I can do about that.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 28, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> I see you're still butthurt aboud being proven wrong.
> Not much I can do about that.



Send him a case of "Preparation H?"

It's just a suggestion.....


----------



## logical4u (Mar 3, 2013)

ima said:


> We should just tattoo the serial number of every gun someone buys on his arm or back, that way, we'd always knows whose gun it was.



Are we going to do that for vehicles (in case a vehicle is used in a killing)?
Are we going to do that for knives?
Hammers?
Ropes?
Chains?
Clubs?


----------



## logical4u (Mar 3, 2013)

ima said:


> Guns don't kill people, bullets do. Outlaw bullets today. No 2nd amendment protection for bullets.



How about if we outlaw "idiots", "insane", idealogical wackos?

Better yet, let's have the same registration process for voting that is required for gun ownership!


----------



## Black_Label (Mar 3, 2013)

logical4u said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > We should just tattoo the serial number of every gun someone buys on his arm or back, that way, we'd always knows whose gun it was.
> ...



*Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaakk*!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 3, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



Why does a person who claims too be black support the racist agenda of gun control?


----------



## ima (Mar 3, 2013)

logical4u said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > We should just tattoo the serial number of every gun someone buys on his arm or back, that way, we'd always knows whose gun it was.
> ...



No , just guns, and the tattoo goes on the forehead, since you yahoos are so proud of your guns. What's the prob?


----------



## ima (Mar 3, 2013)

logical4u said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > Guns don't kill people, bullets do. Outlaw bullets today. No 2nd amendment protection for bullets.
> ...



Or better yet, put a $100 tax on EACH bullet. That would solve the debt/deficit problem, now wouldn't it?


----------



## Black_Label (Mar 3, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



I've asked you at least 5 times and you have never responded. When have I claimed to be black?


----------



## logical4u (Mar 3, 2013)

ima said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



So you would be okay with $100 tax on each vote?


----------



## ima (Mar 3, 2013)

logical4u said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



My idea is better. Yours is moronic.


----------



## logical4u (Mar 3, 2013)

ima said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



Equality under the law.... those that have vehicles (which have killed people), those that have swimming pools (which have killed people), hammers, ropes, chains, clubs have all "killed" people.  Do the same for those.

BTW, a whole lot of people that own guns do not "believe" in tatooing the body (it offends them).


----------



## logical4u (Mar 3, 2013)

ima said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



In the eye of the beholder....

I was just pointing out how ridiculous your idea was.


----------



## ima (Mar 3, 2013)

logical4u said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...


My idea reduces gun violence and eliminates the deficit and debt. Yours is just a crock of shit.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 3, 2013)

logical4u said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...


It's apparent she's just here to troll.


----------



## logical4u (Mar 3, 2013)

ima said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



Prove to me that "crimimals" buy bullets (pay the tax).  
You are not reducing anything, other than the Constitutional rights of others.
The criminals still have the guns, they still get the bullets (unlawfully, of course), the crimes are still being done.  But you have reduced the ability for the weaker citizens an effective method to protect themselves.  You have reduced the number of rabies infected animals that be destroyed thanks to people in rural areas shooting them, because they know they are dangerous.  You have reduced the hobbies of millions of Americans, based on your "beliefs" (talking about shoving your beliefs down someone's throat....).


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 3, 2013)

logical4u said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...


She opposes this because it would virtually eliiminate the Dem voter base.


----------



## Black_Label (Mar 3, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



That would be the GOP voter base. Inbred yokels living off of welfare in the trailer parks is the GOP lifeblood.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 3, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...



OH so you're a white guy that supports the racist agenda of gun control?  Thanks for sharing how racist you are honkey. You going too get the whip and crack a few black backs if they ban guns?


----------



## Black_Label (Mar 3, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



What the fuck is wrong with you?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 3, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...



There is nothing wrong with me what in the fuck is wrong with you supporting the racist agenda of gun control?


----------



## Black_Label (Mar 3, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



How is requiring a background check racist?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 3, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...


Why did the klan want back ground checks done on blacks?


----------



## ima (Mar 3, 2013)

logical4u said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Once everyone's current supply of no tax bullets is used up, how many people are going to keep all kinds of ammo lying around? So once the supply of bullets starts to dry up, guns won't be worth shit. Then maybe we can take our country back and make it a peaceful one. Makes perfect sense.


----------



## Black_Label (Mar 3, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Because they are racists like the teabaggers. 
I'm sure they would love to bring back the laws of the good ol' days when slavery was legal and blacks couldn't own guns.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Mar 3, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...



Good Lord, son...

Are you REALLY this unhinged?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 3, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...



Yet you support the klanns agenda of gun  control.


----------



## Erand7899 (Mar 3, 2013)

ima said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



I imagine it does make perfect sense to you, but that is because you live in a dream world of your own creation.  People will get what they want.  If they can't buy it in a legal market, they will buy it on the black market.  Bullets will not disappear through taxation, or for any other reason, until people no longer want them.


----------



## Black_Label (Mar 3, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I asked this question to a couple other right wingers on this site and they said they agreed with making it illegal for blacks to have guns.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 3, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...



Dumb ass you'll never see me say that.


----------



## Black_Label (Mar 3, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Never said you did, but you never answered me if you support having guns banned for black people


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 3, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...


No I do not


----------



## ima (Mar 3, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Why not start with black people? If it helps, we move on to the other colors.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Mar 3, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...



I don't believe you. Got a quote?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 3, 2013)

ima said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...



Dumb ass how about we start with idiots like you?


----------



## Black_Label (Mar 3, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Black label only speaks two things, facts and the truth 



Bigfoot said:


> If they were serious about reducing crime and gun violence they would be working on Black control instead of Gun control.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Mar 3, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...



I don't see where he said what you said he said, but I guess you're entitled to your own interpretation.

You did say 'they', however, which means more than one. Do you have a quote from somebody else that's a little closer to what you've asserted?


----------



## Black_Label (Mar 3, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Search all the posts from that person, virtually every one is racist and trashing blacks. This post was from a gun debate where that poster feels we should take guns away from blacks, that's as clear as it gets.

I've already posted one example and you are deflecting to find excuses to defend them. With that, it's clear no matter what is presented to you, you are going to try and defend them at all costs.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Mar 3, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...



Bigfoot has posted lots of racist comments, that much is plain, and I did say that you were entitled to your own interpretation, meaning that even though his inference is vague I gave it to you.

Now, get on with providing ONE quote from ONE 'rightwinger' that says "Blacks should be disarmed."

You made the claim, back it up.


----------



## KissMy (Mar 3, 2013)

If the Gun Show Loophole is closed it would make it illegal for a grandparent to leave a weapon to their child or grandchild. Every transfer would have to be registered. After one generation has past every gun in the USA would have to be registered to be legal. That gives the government a complete list of every legal gun owner. It will allow them to easily confiscate all weapons from legal gun owners leaving guns only in the hands of illegal criminal gun owners. This is why we must not allow this. We need a publicized list of bad people who should not be allowed to have weapons just like we do with registered sex offenders. Listing good guys with guns is retarded.


----------



## logical4u (Mar 3, 2013)

ima said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



Do you know what a "reloader" is?
Do you know you can buy bullets from other countries?

According to your own statement, the "bullet tax" will not help the economy or the gov't.  It will just allow the criminals and the thugs to "bully" average citizens.  People will live in fear that someone will break their door in and rob them or worse.....


----------



## logical4u (Mar 3, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...



Please tell me that you understand sarcasm.

The second amendment is for all citizens (unless they have proven not to respect law: felon).


----------



## Black_Label (Mar 3, 2013)

logical4u said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



That wasn't sarcasm, it's a fact many right wing extremists think blacks shouldn't own guns just like the quote I posted.

Keep in mind when the constitution was written, many people, including George Washington himself had slaves. They were not considered people, but property.

That is your "the more you know" fact of the day


----------



## hunarcy (Mar 3, 2013)

I am always amused by the idea that there are all these guns being sold at gun shows that are not being checked.   I'm sure there are a few private sales at gun shows, but there are more sold in the park or on the street using craigslist than at gun shows.

The ignorance is astounding.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Mar 3, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



You miss this one, BL?


----------



## Black_Label (Mar 3, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...



You clearly are not reading,..
_
 "I've already posted one example and you are deflecting to find excuses to defend them. With that, it's clear no matter what is presented to you, you are going to try and defend them at all costs"_


----------



## GuyPinestra (Mar 3, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Once again for the terminally dense...

You said 'they', meaning MORE THAN ONE.

I gave you your 'interpretation' on Bigfoot's post, even though it didn't meet the criteria that YOU set.


			
				Black_Label said:
			
		

> *they* said *they* agreed with making it illegal for blacks to have guns.



Now run along and find me a quote that says what you say it does, no more freebies.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 3, 2013)

KissMy said:


> If the Gun Show Loophole is closed it would make it illegal for a grandparent to leave a weapon to their child or grandchild. Every transfer would have to be registered. After one generation has past every gun in the USA would have to be registered to be legal. That gives the government a complete list of every legal gun owner. It will allow them to easily confiscate all weapons from legal gun owners leaving guns only in the hands of illegal criminal gun owners. This is why we must not allow this. We need a publicized list of bad people who should not be allowed to have weapons just like we do with registered sex offenders. Listing good guys with guns is retarded.



National Sex Offender Registry - Family Watchdog


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Mar 4, 2013)

KissMy said:


> If the Gun Show Loophole is closed it would make it illegal for a grandparent to leave a weapon to their child or grandchild. Every transfer would have to be registered. After one generation has past every gun in the USA would have to be registered to be legal. That gives the government a complete list of every legal gun owner. It will allow them to easily confiscate all weapons from legal gun owners leaving guns only in the hands of illegal criminal gun owners. This is why we must not allow this. We need a publicized list of bad people who should not be allowed to have weapons just like we do with registered sex offenders. Listing good guys with guns is retarded.



You know how else we could "close" the "Gun show loophole"?

Make it illegal to sell guns at a gun show if you're not a dealer. 

Problem solved, and kindly old Grandad can still leave his shotgun "Bessy" to little Opie.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 4, 2013)

theDoctorisIn said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > If the Gun Show Loophole is closed it would make it illegal for a grandparent to leave a weapon to their child or grandchild. Every transfer would have to be registered. After one generation has past every gun in the USA would have to be registered to be legal. That gives the government a complete list of every legal gun owner. It will allow them to easily confiscate all weapons from legal gun owners leaving guns only in the hands of illegal criminal gun owners. This is why we must not allow this. We need a publicized list of bad people who should not be allowed to have weapons just like we do with registered sex offenders. Listing good guys with guns is retarded.
> ...



But.................then the gun nuts are gonna ask why are you infringing on their rights to sell the 2nd Ammendment?

Me?  I think the gun show loophole (and straw purchasers) should be stopped.  If you can't pass a background check, you don't need to own a gun.

I mean shit.......................we stop people from driving after too many DUI's, right?  Why not have at least a bit of that kind of control for something that kills many more people everyday?


----------



## ima (Mar 4, 2013)

theDoctorisIn said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > If the Gun Show Loophole is closed it would make it illegal for a grandparent to leave a weapon to their child or grandchild. Every transfer would have to be registered. After one generation has past every gun in the USA would have to be registered to be legal. That gives the government a complete list of every legal gun owner. It will allow them to easily confiscate all weapons from legal gun owners leaving guns only in the hands of illegal criminal gun owners. This is why we must not allow this. We need a publicized list of bad people who should not be allowed to have weapons just like we do with registered sex offenders. Listing good guys with guns is retarded.
> ...



Better still, only gun stores should be able to sell guns.


----------



## Geaux4it (Mar 4, 2013)

I hope to have some time to catch up on this thread. 

Make no mistake, it will not matter what POTUS wants to implement under his constant mantra of- 'Most Americans would agree', Or, "The Majority of Americans agree' drivel

America will never, ever allow herself to become disarmed. There are to may of us left who understand the ultimate sacrifices laid down by those young brave men before us on Omaha, Saipan, Iwo Jima, Wake, Kwajalein, etc. We answered the call to duty to protect our Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic.

We took the oath to serve for life, and I will not abandon the dream and visions of an America that those before me gave their lives for.

-178S


----------



## Jarlaxle (Mar 4, 2013)

ima said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



Go for it...won't bother me.  I haven't bought ammo in years...I make my own.


----------



## ima (Mar 4, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



We could start with honkeys if that makes you feel better. If it works on that group, extent it to everyone.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Mar 4, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Yes.  Yes he is.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 4, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Why does a person who claims too be black support the racist agenda of gun control?



BlackLable is too stupid to understand that laws such as Pat Brown's prohibition of open carry in California were directly to disarm the Black Panthers.


----------



## Spoonman (Mar 4, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



so by that analogy you are saying that someone with a criminal record should eventually be able to own a gun.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 4, 2013)

ima said:


> No , just guns, and the tattoo goes on the forehead, since you yahoos are so proud of your guns. What's the prob?



Above or below the Star of David tattoo you will require on us?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 4, 2013)

ima said:


> My idea reduces gun violence and eliminates the deficit and debt. Yours is just a crock of shit.



Civil war REDUCES violence?

Who knew?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 4, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> That would be the GOP voter base. Inbred yokels living off of welfare in the trailer parks is the GOP lifeblood.



Don't you get paid $100 for each vote you cast? Or a rock of crack?

Sure you do...


----------



## logical4u (Mar 4, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...



At that time, most "leaders" had slaves, including most African leaders.  The Constitution was written for "people", the slave holders redefined "blacks" as less than people.  This country overcame that, and rejected that definition.  That "Constitution" has done more good for people all over the world (including blacks in this country, that would not like the treatement they received if they went back to Africa).  NO system in the history of the world has ever had a higher standard of living.  No other system has given its citizens more freedom or opportunity.  

If you disagree, please list the systems or places that have been or are better than this country.


----------



## logical4u (Mar 4, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



The loss of license comes after (that is AFTER) a crime is comitted.  Just sayin'.....


----------



## logical4u (Mar 4, 2013)

ima said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



And people should only be able to vote "at the polling" place......


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 4, 2013)

theDoctorisIn said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > If the Gun Show Loophole is closed it would make it illegal for a grandparent to leave a weapon to their child or grandchild. Every transfer would have to be registered. After one generation has past every gun in the USA would have to be registered to be legal. That gives the government a complete list of every legal gun owner. It will allow them to easily confiscate all weapons from legal gun owners leaving guns only in the hands of illegal criminal gun owners. This is why we must not allow this. We need a publicized list of bad people who should not be allowed to have weapons just like we do with registered sex offenders. Listing good guys with guns is retarded.
> ...


I started a thread a week or two ago that made that suggestion. The government wouldn't even have too get involved. It would be at the organizer directive. After all gun shows are privately run.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6868022-post1.html


----------



## Black_Label (Mar 4, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Why does a person who claims too be black support the racist agenda of gun control?
> ...



Who let you out of the klan rally early? 

It's hilarious watching the radical right wing lunatics like yourself crying racism


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 4, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



What's even more funny is watching you join with the klan in support of gun control. Do you wear gloves too the meetings?


----------



## GuyPinestra (Mar 4, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I see you still haven't substantiated your bullshit claim, jackass.


----------



## Black_Label (Mar 4, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



How is requiring background checks racist with klan ties? 

The klan along with the GOP, teabaggers, and other racists want to assemble their anti-american groups while being able to hide in the shadows by not requiring a background check for their weapons.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 5, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...



We already have back ground checks, why are you wanting more gun control?


----------



## ima (Mar 5, 2013)

We don't need back ground checks, we need BLACK ground checks.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 5, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> We already have back ground checks, why are you wanting more gun control?


See:   my sig.


----------



## hunarcy (Mar 5, 2013)

theDoctorisIn said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > If the Gun Show Loophole is closed it would make it illegal for a grandparent to leave a weapon to their child or grandchild. Every transfer would have to be registered. After one generation has past every gun in the USA would have to be registered to be legal. That gives the government a complete list of every legal gun owner. It will allow them to easily confiscate all weapons from legal gun owners leaving guns only in the hands of illegal criminal gun owners. This is why we must not allow this. We need a publicized list of bad people who should not be allowed to have weapons just like we do with registered sex offenders. Listing good guys with guns is retarded.
> ...




LOL!  Then, everyone will meet in parking lots to sell, having arranged their meetings on Craigslist.

What should happen is we stop trying to punish the weapon, as if it's the problem.  Instead, we need to deal more effectively with those who would victimize us.


----------



## OriginalShroom (Mar 5, 2013)

I actually like the  last bit of news..

That Congress was going to increase the punishment for Straw purchasers.

I only hope that they make it retroactive and prosecute those who ordered the FFL holders to sell those gun that were used in Fast and Furious under it.


----------



## ima (Mar 5, 2013)

hunarcy said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



Guns should only be sold at gun stores, if you have a gun to sell, sell it on consignment at the gun store. VERY VERY simple measure.


----------



## OriginalShroom (Mar 5, 2013)

ima said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...



And property must only be sold through a Government Approved dealer, Cars can only be sold through a Government Approved Dealer, Food can only be sold by an Government Aprroved Dealer.


----------



## Black_Label (Mar 5, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Only on purchases through licensed firearm dealers. Private sales require no background checks what so ever.


----------



## logical4u (Mar 5, 2013)

ima said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...


Cars should only be sold at "dealerships".  If you have a car to sell, sell it on "consignment".  It doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?


----------



## logical4u (Mar 5, 2013)

Any law that is passed for "gun ownership" should be applied to voting.  If we require fingerprints and background check to purchase a gun, the same thing should be required to vote.  They are both rights, but only the right to bear arms adds the clause "shall not be infringed".  Voter rights should be held to higher standards than gun ownership, cause "just one life" might be saved.....


----------



## SinJinsg (Mar 5, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> A spin off of the other thread where I have asked numerous times and not a single right winger has answered, is if you support the gun show loophole.
> 
> For those that may not know, under current federal law if you wish to purchases a firearm, you have to be run in a background check to make sure you are not a felon, been convicted of a violent crime, been in a mental institution, etc,..before they give the go ahead to sell that person a weapon. However under the "gun show loophole", there are not background checks at all.
> 
> That's right, absoutly nothing. A violent thug fresh out of the penitentiary, a terrorist, or a nutcases ready to commit the next sandy hook could go down to their local gun show, or find a classified ad selling a firearm and they could purchase deadly weapons, _with no questions asked._



Actually, you are wrong.  Gun dealers have to perform background checks no matter where they sell a gun - a gun show, a shop, or someone's back yard.  A private person, however, has no reason to show anything to the government.  It is none of your damn business what I do with my private property.  Keep your damn busy-body nose in your own business.


----------



## Polk (Mar 5, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> I actually like the  last bit of news..
> 
> That Congress was going to increase the punishment for Straw purchasers.
> 
> I only hope that they make it retroactive and prosecute those who ordered the FFL holders to sell those gun that were used in Fast and Furious under it.



You can't make the changes retroactive.


----------



## Black_Label (Mar 5, 2013)

logical4u said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > hunarcy said:
> ...



All cars require a title of ownership, as well as the vin number to be on file with the state. Not to mention insurance and registration to use the car.

Firearms require none of the above.


----------



## Polk (Mar 5, 2013)

Also, for those arguing about the intersection of guns and race, remember that the "Klan agenda of gun control" was supported by none other than Ronald Reagan.


----------



## tap4154 (Mar 5, 2013)

I'm not about to read the entire thread, but I just voted no.

In CA there is no GS loophole anyway, but I do want to keep guns out of the hands of felons and mentally ill folks, and gladly filled out the paperwork and waited 10 days recently to pick up an AR-15 lower receiver. ALL my guns have been purchased legally, yet I feel like I'm the one being punished each time a scofflaw lunatic  acts out, by having more restrictions put on me!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 5, 2013)

Polk said:


> You can't make the changes retroactive.



Besides, laws don't apply to member of the King's court.

Laws are for the little people - Barack Obama.


----------



## Polk (Mar 5, 2013)

The law doesn't apply when it wasn't violated in the first place.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 5, 2013)

Polk said:


> The law doesn't apply when it wasn't violated in the first place.



Yes, selling guns to foreign nationals is a federal felony - for the little people, but perfectly legal for Holder, who is above the law applied to commoners.


----------



## Polk (Mar 5, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > The law doesn't apply when it wasn't violated in the first place.
> ...



The particular law doesn't apply to federal agencies .


----------



## OriginalShroom (Mar 5, 2013)

Polk said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > I actually like the  last bit of news..
> ...



Sure you can.  Clinton and the Democrats did it twice.

Once when they made the tax increases retroactive and the second time when they passed the Violence against Women act and made past Domestic Violence convictions, admissions of guilt, and pleas of No Contest fall under the law for the person not being able to own any firearms.

There were reports of Police Officers and Military who were retroactively affected and lost their jobs because of it.


----------



## Black_Label (Mar 5, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > The law doesn't apply when it wasn't violated in the first place.
> ...



Under private sales you can sell to anyone with no questions asked.

Hell you can be a known terrorist and _still _acquire guns, 100% legally even with a federal background check.


----------



## Polk (Mar 5, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > OriginalShroom said:
> ...



A change in tax rates is not a punishment for a crime, nor are restrictions on gun ownership by convicts.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 6, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> Under private sales you can sell to anyone with no questions asked.



Holder directed a federal firearms dealer to sell to the Mexican drug cartels.



> Hell you can be a known terrorist and _still _acquire guns, 100% legally even with a federal background check.



False, as you know.

To knowingly sell to a criminal is illegal - always has been. Private sales simply are not required to do background checks.


----------



## Polk (Mar 6, 2013)

Key word: knowingly. Good luck proving that in court.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 6, 2013)

Polk said:


> Key word: knowingly. Good luck proving that in court.



Where you go off the rails is in your imagining that your neighbor would WANT to sell their gun to a criminal.


----------



## ima (Mar 6, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > hunarcy said:
> ...



Sorry, not relevant. It's like saying if we legalize marijuana, we have to legalize every drug. We're not talking about every transaction, we're talking about guns. Please try again with more integrity.


----------



## Polk (Mar 6, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Key word: knowingly. Good luck proving that in court.
> ...



They're more than willing to do it, for a premium.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 6, 2013)

Polk said:


> They're more than willing to do it, for a premium.



Barack Obama is your neighbor?


----------



## Polk (Mar 6, 2013)

Would you like to provide any sort of evidence for your outlandish claim that Obama is selling guns to drug cartels for personal enrichment?

I'd even settle for you attempting to provide support for claims you made earlier in the thread that have been debunked.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 6, 2013)

Polk said:


> Would you like to provide any sort of evidence for your outlandish claim that Obama is selling guns to drug cartels for personal enrichment?



Would you like to provide any sort of evidence for your outlandish claim that your neighbors are selling guns to criminals for personal enrichment?

I can prove the Eric Holder sold guns to Mexican drug cartels. 

{Any person who willfully violates these provisions "shall upon conviction be fined for each violation not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

There have been some reports of agents having directly transferred firearms to drug cartel buyers, in order to boost their "street creds." That'd clearly be a violation. In other situations, the person who actually exported the firearms would be in clear violation. But what of those government supervisors who allowed the arms to flow -- especially the cases where a protesting FFL was told to sell the guns anyway?

18 U.S. Code §2 provides:

"§ 2. Principals

(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.

(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal."}

Of Arms and the Law: Did Fast & Furious violate the Arms Export Control Act?

The Obama administration is a criminal organization and engaged in federal felonies - that is irrefutable fact, per the above statutes.

The "personal gain" Obama gets from this is furtherance of his war against basic civil liberty. Increased gun violence to support his drive to confiscate and outlaw gun ownership by commoners.

Now about the libel you levied against your neighbors?



> I'd even settle for you attempting to provide support for claims you made earlier in the thread that have been debunked.



Debunked? 

ROFL

Sure, sparky...


----------



## OriginalShroom (Mar 6, 2013)

Polk said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



So you seem to be saying that if Congress makes any form of child abuse an automatic death penalty, anyone in the past who has been convicted, plead guilty to, or even plead No Contest, to child abuse, they should be all rounded up and killed.

Am I right?

After all, Additional punishment was added to the punishment assigned by the court in those cases and Domestic Violence is often not a felony charge or a Class 5/D Felony.  Yet by Federal law, once convicted, or if they had ever been convicted prior to the passage of the law, they lost their 2nd Amendment Rights.


----------



## Polk (Mar 6, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Would you like to provide any sort of evidence for your outlandish claim that Obama is selling guns to drug cartels for personal enrichment?
> ...





Are you actually dumb enough to believe that every gun used in the commission of a crime is stolen?

Also, perhaps you (and your blogger pal) should read the statute. It's true that "Any person who willfully violates any provision of this section... shall upon conviction be fined for each violation not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." That's 22 USC § 2778 (c). The problem for your argument is that 22 USC § 2778 (b)(1)(A)(1) makes it clear that the actions in question are not violations *because the federal government is exempt from the statute*.



> 22 USC § 2778 (b)(1)(A)(1)
> 
> As prescribed in regulations issued under this section, *every person (other than an officer or employee of the United States Government acting in an official capacity)* who engages in the business of manufacturing, exporting, or importing any defense articles or defense services designated by the President under subsection (a)(1) of this section shall register with the United States Government agency charged with the administration of this section, and shall pay a registration fee which shall be prescribed by such regulations.


----------



## Polk (Mar 6, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > OriginalShroom said:
> ...



You're not even close to right.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 6, 2013)

Polk said:


> Are you actually dumb enough to believe that every gun used in the commission of a crime is stolen?



Are you actually dumb enough to believe that a poorly constructed straw man argument will help you recover in this debate?


----------



## Polk (Mar 6, 2013)

It's not a strawman. You've claimed that people do not sell guns to criminals. I also enjoy how you ignore the rest of the post.


----------



## OriginalShroom (Mar 6, 2013)

Polk said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...




Then explain why retroactively applying the additional punishment of removal of 2nd Amendment rights is not the same as retroactively prosecuting those who ordered the strawman sales of firearms which were used to kill Mexicans and Americans on both sides of the border?

Strawman sales were already illegal when these were done, so a new crime is not being invented, only the punishment will be increased.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 6, 2013)

Polk said:


> It's not a strawman. You've claimed that people do not sell guns to criminals.



False.

From logical fallacy to outright lies.

You are the king of empty pockets.

{Where you go off the rails is in your imagining that your neighbor would WANT to sell their gun to a criminal.}

You slander and libel your neighbors.

I can say that the neighbors I know would not want criminals to be armed.  So unless you live next to Barack Obama or Eric Holder, there is little to support your libel.



> I also enjoy how you ignore the rest of the post.



A false premise with ancillary support is of no meaning.

Fact, The U.S.D.O.J. under Barack Obama sold guns to known criminals in the Mexican drug cartels in violation of federal law.


----------



## Polk (Mar 6, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > OriginalShroom said:
> ...



Increasing the punishment after the fact is an ex post facto law, which both states and Congress are prohibited from passing under Article 1. The guns for child abusers thing is different, since it's not a punishment. It's not retroactively punishing someone for a crime they've already committed. It's a regulation preventing them from doing something today because of a status they have today.


----------



## Polk (Mar 6, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > It's not a strawman. You've claimed that people do not sell guns to criminals.
> ...



It's not slander. There are clearly individuals selling firearms to criminals. Otherwise, all firearms used in the commission of a crime would be stolen weapons.



> > I also enjoy how you ignore the rest of the post.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What false premise? You claimed the President violated a particular statute and I showed you why your claim is not consistent with the language of the very statute you cited to.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 6, 2013)

Polk said:


> It's not slander.



No, it's libel. You defame your neighbors in print without a hint of evidence. All you have is a political agenda, thus you make outlandish accusations.



> There are clearly individuals selling firearms to criminals.



Yes, Eric Holder and Barack Obama pop to mind.

This in no way supports your defamatory claim that your neighbor wants to sell his personal weapons to criminals for personal gain, as you stated.



> Otherwise, all firearms used in the commission of a crime would be stolen weapons.



Wow, logic and reason are not elements you have even a passing familiarity with, are they?

Sources for criminals to get guns;

They buy them at a store. Background checks occasionally stop convicted felons. But unless the buyer has a prior conviction, the check does nothing. Christopher Dorner passed several in-depth background checks.

They buy them from criminal gangs. Chinese and Eastern European guns are extremely common and easy to get. No background checks, no issues at all. The black market is thriving. These are the weapons preferred by street gangs, since Uzi and Tec-9 full auto are favored in drive-bys.

They steal them. Theft from family and friends is the most common.

Private sales are the least common.  



> What false premise? You claimed the President violated a particular statute and I showed you why your claim is not consistent with the language of the very statute you cited to.



Obama cannot be tied directly. Holder violated the cited statute.

As for your claim;

{The firearms involved here were not being exported for official use by an agency, nor as part of foreign aid. This a lot narrower than the GCA exception for acts by a government agency, and for good reason: the purpose of this statute is to control executive agency actions. No gun running to foreign governments or persons without a paper trail (and in cases of large transactions, a prior request for Congressional approval)}


----------



## OriginalShroom (Mar 6, 2013)

Polk said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



Up until the day that law was passed, they were allowed to have guns.  The next day they were.

Sure sounds like a punishment to me.   A restriction of an Constitutionally Protected Right imposed on people who had already completed their sentence.

So you can keep tap dancing, but the facts are the facts and you can't change them.


----------



## Polk (Mar 6, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > It's not slander.
> ...



So, different types of purchases are proof no one purchases them. That makes no sense.



> > What false premise? You claimed the President violated a particular statute and I showed you why your claim is not consistent with the language of the very statute you cited to.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The statute does not require the export to be for official use.


----------



## Polk (Mar 6, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > OriginalShroom said:
> ...



The facts are on my side. It's been fully litigated in court, and that's the relevant issue. Restrictions of criminals owning firearms are status offenses. Just like minors drinking alcohol.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Mar 6, 2013)

Polk said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



You must live in a very ratty neighborhood...


----------



## Polk (Mar 6, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Very nice neighborhood, actually. I'm just not so naive as to believe people don't have a price.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 6, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> A spin off of the other thread where I have asked numerous times and not a single right winger has answered, is if you support the gun show loophole.
> 
> For those that may not know, under current federal law if you wish to purchases a firearm, you have to be run in a background check to make sure you are not a felon, been convicted of a violent crime, been in a mental institution, etc,..before they give the go ahead to sell that person a weapon. However under the "gun show loophole", there are not background checks at all.
> 
> That's right, absoutly nothing. A violent thug fresh out of the penitentiary, a terrorist, or a nutcases ready to commit the next sandy hook could go down to their local gun show, or find a classified ad selling a firearm and they could purchase deadly weapons, _with no questions asked._



*So you go on the assumption that a felon or would be felon who wants a gun to shoot up a school, files the application form , gets turned down and that`s it ?
*
I`ve got my own hobby machine shop and I can make whatever I want whenever I want and sell it to whomever I want...how would you control that..? Just for the fun of it I made a .22 that looks like a ball point pen and put it into the tray at Winnipeg International a few years ago. Nobody gave it even  a second look ! 
I don`t have a 3D printer (yet) ...but would I own one then I would not even need any machining skills at all:

Wiki Weapon - 3D Printable Gun - Defense Distributed



Lucky for you, that almost all legitimate gun-owners and those who are able to make their own have no intention to harm anyone unless it`s a last resort self defense action.

Don`t worry I`m just as concerned as you to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but I`ll rather disarm him at gun point than reminding him what the law says and hope he doesn`t kill me...
I got stuck with my truck for 3 days on Fort Street in Detroit and the only thing that kept me alive was the .38 a Detroit city cop lent me because they could not stay there to babysit me till I got a new alternator.
He had not even turned the corner and I was already accosted by a carload of hoods that knew damn well that Canadian Truckers don`t carry guns. 10 yards in front of my truck the pavement still had  dried blood stains where another trucker was brutally murdered for his credit cards.

I got lucky because later that night I gave a bum who wanted some buck$ my grease gun and showed him how to lube U-joints in the fenced and guarded truck stop just 1 mile down that road. He made a fistful of money, came back and wanted to split it with me,...luck had it he was the dad of 3 of the hoods that tried to rob me earlier...after that they "organized" a new alternator for me, even helped me install it and used their car to charge my batteries.
But if I would have been unarmed at the first  contact I would not be able to sit here today and tell you about it.
The trucking...I did that just for the fun of it and because I always got bored when I had 6 months off duty from my regular  job.
*And before you ask, no I never had to shoot a polar bear, every one I encountered broke off the charge when I stood my ground.*


----------



## ima (Mar 7, 2013)

We should have National Shootout Day, and everyone who owns a gun gets to be in one massive shootout once a year. We could have the 10 paces face-off...


----------



## logical4u (Mar 10, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > OriginalShroom said:
> ...



IMHO, since the "right to bear arms" is in the Constitution, before the right to "vote", any law made against the right to "bear arms" (specifically AGAINST the Constitution), should also be applied to every VOTER.  If you are required to be "fingerprinted" to buy a gun, you should also be "fingerprinted" to vote.  Waiting periods, ID, etc should also be applied to the voter.  Let us see how serious the left is when it comes to trampling their "rights"?


----------



## hunarcy (Mar 11, 2013)

ima said:


> Guns should only be sold at gun stores, if you have a gun to sell, sell it on consignment at the gun store. VERY VERY simple measure.



So, you feel perfectly comfortable telling me how to deal with my private property that I want to leave to my children or grandchildren.  I have never understood that sort of dictatorial mindset.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 11, 2013)

hunarcy said:


> So, you feel perfectly comfortable telling me how to deal with my private property that I want to leave to my children or grandchildren.  *I have never understood that sort of dictatorial mindset.*



That just means that you're not a democrat.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 11, 2013)

ima said:


> We should have National Shootout Day, and everyone who owns a gun gets to be in one massive shootout once a year. We could have the 10 paces face-off...



We should have "National Gulag Day." Where every democrat in the nation gets to put other democrats in death camps and create "Killing Fields" once a year.


----------



## ima (Mar 11, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > We should have National Shootout Day, and everyone who owns a gun gets to be in one massive shootout once a year. We could have the 10 paces face-off...
> ...



I'm a republican who voted for Obama. 

Romney=stupid


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 11, 2013)

ima said:


> I'm a republican who voted for Obama.
> 
> Romney=stupid



One of those "Pol Pot Republicans."

Funny, political forums are virtually the only place in the universe to find people like you and JakeStarkey....


----------

