Do You Support The "Gun Show Loophole?"

[nodoginnafight]

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]

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.

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.

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.

...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]

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.

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.

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.

It's only unconstitutional in your screwed up gun nutter mind.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

It wouldn't be incomplete when a gun owner is required to register firearms they have already purchased.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

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.

...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

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]

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.

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.

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.

Tell it to the Judge and tell your gay tutu fantasies to your Shrink!

 

[martybegan]

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.

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.

...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

The tutu stuff is only for Dubya, the "special" child of this forum's gun debate.

You've been cool. Wrong, but cool.

 

[martybegan]

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.

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.

Tell it to the Judge and tell your gay tutu fantasies to your Shrink!

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]

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?

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.

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

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]

You missed the point - they can't keep driving. Legally.

And the felon can't own a gun, legally.

And without background checks, how are you going to prevent that?

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]

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?

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.

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

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]

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.

Tell it to the Judge and tell your gay tutu fantasies to your Shrink!

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?

You're just trolling for cock 24/7 hoping to get a PM from the real gay. Talking about gay is your bait.

 

[Oddball]

And the felon can't own a gun, legally.

And without background checks, how are you going to prevent that?

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?

But there's no proof whatsoever that background checks are completely ineffective!....Nope, none at all.

 

[kwc57]

tell it to the judge and tell your gay tutu fantasies to your shrink!

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?

you're just trolling for cock 24/7 hoping to get a pm from the real gay. Talking about gay is your bait.

 

[Vandalshandle]

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"

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!"

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

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]

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.

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]

Tell it to the Judge and tell your gay tutu fantasies to your Shrink!

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?

You're just trolling for cock 24/7 hoping to get a PM from the real gay. Talking about gay is your bait.

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]

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?

You're just trolling for cock 24/7 hoping to get a PM from the real gay. Talking about gay is your bait.

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.

Now you want to play like Yoda, how old are you?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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!"

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

I have no inside knowledge whether or not, "universal registration was the intent all along.". However, I certainly have no problem with it.

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.