Do You Support The "Gun Show Loophole?"

[tjvh]

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?

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]

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...

You going to pay for that or borrow more money from China to?

 

[OKTexas]

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.

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]

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

Misusing? Thomas Jefferson couldn't be any more clear. He made similar statements.

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.



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?



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?



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.



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.

"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.

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.

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]

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?

If there is no such thing, what are you going to close?

 

[The Rabbi]

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]

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"?

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]

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"?

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]

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.

By God, I think you finally got it.

The Courts have ruled against the Government making that list several times.

 

[Oddball]

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]

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"?

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 — a violation of 26 U.S.C. sec.5851. Consequently, his Fifth Amendment protection against self- incrimination (“No person… shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself&#8221 was being violated — 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 “uncommon.”

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]

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

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]

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?

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.

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:

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]

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.


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.

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.

What was there like 35 to 50 homicides by gun that year in the UK and 11,000 here?

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]

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

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.



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?



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?



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.



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.



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.

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.

[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!

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]

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

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.

But they can prosecute you for have a weapon, just not the unregistered charge.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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?

Dealers are not required to copy licence & insurance info to sell a car.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

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?

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...

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]

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?

Dealers are not required to copy licence & insurance info to sell a car.

No, but they are required to collect a lot of other personal info, per USAPATRIOT Act, that is just plain creepy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

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.

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. "

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.