Do You Support The "Gun Show Loophole?"

[Dubya]

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!

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.

Try one point at a time! The Constitution saying arms did not mean firearms, which are only one type of arms.

 

[Vast LWC]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

show me where a background check is required to vote.

 

[Vast LWC]

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.

Missouri a dangerous city, REALLY? Do you think anyone should take your seriously after that. I think you need to get out more.

"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]

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

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?

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?

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]

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.

Missouri a dangerous city, REALLY? Do you think anyone should take your seriously after that. I think you need to get out more.

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]

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.

show me where a background check is required to vote.

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]

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.

Every journey begins with the first step.

 

[Dubya]

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!

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?

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]

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!

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.

Try one point at a time! The Constitution saying arms did not mean firearms, which are only one type of arms.

Are you seriously this stupid? If so, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

 

[tjvh]

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!

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?

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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!

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?

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.

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]

Dumbasses. There's no such thing as a gun show loophole.

 

[Tech_Esq]

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"?

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.