Do You Support The "Gun Show Loophole?"

[Oddball]

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.

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]

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?

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]

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.



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.

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]

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?

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.

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]

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.



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.



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.

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?

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]

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.



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.



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.

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?

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]

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

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.

If that's the oldest modem you remember, you can't be that old. You're going troll because you are losing the debate.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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]

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

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.

If that's the oldest modem you remember, you can't be that old. You're going troll because you are losing the debate.

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]

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?

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]

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.

If that's the oldest modem you remember, you can't be that old. You're going troll because you are losing the debate.

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.

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]

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?

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%.

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]

If that's the oldest modem you remember, you can't be that old. You're going troll because you are losing the debate.

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.

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!

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]

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]

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.



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.



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.

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?

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]

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?

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%.

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.

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]

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%.

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.

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.

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]

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.



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.



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.

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?

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]

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.

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!

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?

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!