Do You Support The "Gun Show Loophole?"

[Dubya]

You know why it cools down so fast? Because it is a fucking weak ass gun that barely penetrates human skin, which also explains why the US military now uses a higher caliber weapon despite the advantages of not loading down the troops with the heavier ammo.

As for all the sights, you can do that with any rifle made.

You are full of shit, Windbag, and the fact that the military uses it shows how full of shit you are. It'll penetrate more than skin and is liable to go right through you if it misses bone. The M-16 was considered an inhumane weapon in Vietnam, because of the way the bullet would start to tumble and travel to places all over the body. That happens with a very high speed bullet.

God and goddess, this is like debating a mental patient. The .223 round will not exit a person...a lead-core round tends to fragment upon impact (as do many rifle rounds). It is a high-velocity round, but a small one...it gets its kinetic energy from velocity, not mass.

With military ammo, you could shoot somebody in the chest and have it exit their leg. You are full of shit.

 

[Coyote]

And criminals will obey all of that.

Criminals in general do not obey laws. So, should there then be no laws?

Enforce them, before passing new ones that won't be enforced either, and will just add expense to the law abiding. Sound like a plan?

A universal background check will help enforcement - a partial background check is next to useless. Sound like a plan?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How do you immediately trace a gun to anyone. Let us imagine that a gun is found at a crime scene, and it belongs to you. Does that make you guilty of the crime, or does it mean that your gun was there? What if the crime scene is the result of someone driving a car through your house with someone strapped to the bumper, should the police be able to confiscate your guns simply because they were found at the scene? Are the guns guilty even though they had nothing to do with what happened?

The gun would be traced to the person who sold the gun to the person who committed the crime.

This would have two effects:

1. The gun seller would be a good source of information on who committed the crime in question.

2. The gun seller could be held liable for selling the gun to a criminal, illegally, if the proper procedures were not followed.

The first effect is a direct good result, the second effect would be an indirect good result, in that it would discourage gun owners from selling weapons to criminals in the first place.

Once again, the mere presence of a gun at a crime scene is not proof that the owner of that gun did anything illegal. What if the person that stole the gun is the one that was killed, and they were killed by a different gun?

 

[Oddball]

Criminals in general do not obey laws. So, should there then be no laws?

Enforce them, before passing new ones that won't be enforced either, and will just add expense to the law abiding. Sound like a plan?

A universal background check will help enforcement - a partial background check is next to useless. Sound like a plan?

No, it wouldn't.

How do you enforce anything against someone who steals their guns, buys them on the black market or builds them from parts?

 

[Dubya]

Then its time to remove or replace the government, via elections, or if they really force it, something else.

You can be a sheep your whole life. I will not be.

Anytime you gun nutters feel froggy, jump! We would be glad to get rid of you.

Never happen. Go back to your Government 101 class and have the progressive de jour professor fill your head with more junk.

Didn't you say this:

or if they really force it, something else.

You better hope the cops or military find your kind before I do. I already told you, I'm not taking prisoners, so rebel whenever you want to.

Poly sci majors were a joke in my day. It's amazing how you always have to be wrong about everything. I had to take some electives, but I wouldn't waste my time on bullshit courses like that. You should have learned that stuff in high school. I took European History, but I had no history or civics requirements to get my degree in college. What kind of fool would need a course in government?

 

[Dubya]

Then its time to remove or replace the government, via elections, or if they really force it, something else.

You can be a sheep your whole life. I will not be.

Anytime you gun nutters feel froggy, jump! We would be glad to get rid of you.

Funny, that's what Stalin and Mao said, good job baby boy, you're right up there with your heroes.

You turkeys keep bringing up the revolution, so get it on, bitch!

 

[OKTexas]

Criminals in general do not obey laws. So, should there then be no laws?

Enforce them, before passing new ones that won't be enforced either, and will just add expense to the law abiding. Sound like a plan?

A universal background check will help enforcement - a partial background check is next to useless. Sound like a plan?

I've asked this before, now I'll do it again, how do you verifiably get universal background checks? Tell me, how would it work, and how do you verify compliance?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It has nothing to do with how they 'look'. It has to do with the vast amount of human carnage they inflict in a very, very short time span.

Here is how a Police Chief explains the true purpose of a semiautomatic AR-15 rifle before Congress:

"We use that weapon in police because of its technical capability, it's ability to cool down and handle round after round after round ... It's rugged...it's meant for a combat or environment that one would be placed in facing adversaries, human beings, people. That weapon can be retrofitted with other devices to enhance your offensive capability. The weapon itself has features to adjust it -- optics sights, for example -- that can cost hundreds of dollars, and I've shot this weapon many times -- that would enhance our capability in various tactical maneuvers, whether [you're firing] from the shoulder or the hip or whether you choose to spray fire that weapon or individually shoot from the shoulder. The optic sights are amazing, the technology advances that weapon has.

That weapon is the weapon of our time. It’s the place that we find ourselves in today. And, certainly, I believe it’s meant for the battlefield and in a public safety environment only."

You know why it cools down so fast? Because it is a fucking weak ass gun that barely penetrates human skin, which also explains why the US military now uses a higher caliber weapon despite the advantages of not loading down the troops with the heavier ammo.

As for all the sights, you can do that with any rifle made.

You are full of shit, Windbag, and the fact that the military uses it shows how full of shit you are. It'll penetrate more than skin and is liable to go right through you if it misses bone. The M-16 was considered an inhumane weapon in Vietnam, because of the way the bullet would start to tumble and travel to places all over the body. That happens with a very high speed bullet.

The military has one reason to use them, the average soldier has to carry 75 pounds of gear into combat if they use the lightweight weapons that scare the shit out of you. Why do you think special forces carry heavier weapons?

By the way, the reason an M-16 tumbled when it hit in Vietnam is that the tip of the bullet was heavier than the rear of the bullet. This has nothing to do with muzzle velocity, something any competent armorer would tell you. In fact, higher velocity bullets tend to make cleaner holes than lower velocity ones.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That is the biggest pile of circular drivel you have posted so far. Voting requires registration simply because they have to know how many people are voting, and who votes where. Owning a gun you keep in your home requires none of that. States may require a CCW that shows you are capable of concealed carry, and that is mostly for your own protection so a police officer knows you are allowed to carry.

IF you didnt have voter rolls, you couldnt know who could vote, where the vote came from, and how many representatives a given area gets. Guns require no such information to own.

The Constitution didn't give you the right to vote. It prohibited denying the rights of a citizen, because of race and later gender. The right to vote comes from the states giving those voting rights to it's citizens. The right to vote had conditions which infringed the right of certain citizens until the Constitution changed that.

Voter registration rolls have nothing to do with how many representatives a given area gets and that is done by the census.

The Constitution only prohibits the disarming of the populace and the states and federal government do have a right to deny certain types of weapons, as long as it isn't the whole category, such as pistols. That decision is only based on case law. An assault weapons ban is constitutional and so are bans on magazine sizes.

FOR THE 100,000 TIME
In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and the kind in common use at the time.
Miller vs. U.S.

These are the people that insist there is a gun show loophole, facts don't matter.

 

[OKTexas]

Anytime you gun nutters feel froggy, jump! We would be glad to get rid of you.

Funny, that's what Stalin and Mao said, good job baby boy, you're right up there with your heroes.

You turkeys keep bringing up the revolution, so get it on, bitch!

I laugh, only because I know you would never have the balls to say that to my face.

 

[Coyote]

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.

Most gun companies make a variety of guns - I don't think many are invested in only one variety of weapon, so calling it destroying an industry is false. We previously had an assault weapons ban that was allowed to expire. I don't recall an entire industry "destroyed". It is only one small category of weapons that is being talked about - thats why I call this hyperbole and even fear mongering. The fact that a black market exists (just like the fact that criminals can still get guns) doesn't mean there should be no laws regulating them.

Consider this. Look at say, opium for example. It harms no one but the user. It was, at one time a HUGE industry in the US and UK, and unregulated. Regulation was fought because huge amounts of money were involved. Eventually, regulation did destroy a large portion of that industry. Should it not have been done since it "destroyed an industry"? We're not even talking about something comparable with guns - but that is the way your argument is working.

And, really - to go back to the initial topic, which is what I more strongly support than banning specific categories of weapons - how does this argument support not having universal background checks? Or, is this more fear mongering?

 

[Vast LWC]

The Law already says nuts and felons cannot have weapons, so yes -Law enforcement may take the gun. Of course you would have known that if only you were thinking about the issue rationally instead of emotionally.

Really?

Was there a psychiatrist on the scene to make a diagnosis of insanity, thereby making the person officially a "Nut"?

If that is not the case, does Law Enforcement have the right to take away this person's weapon?

According to you, they do not, up until the moment he actually shoots someone.

 

[Oddball]

And, really - to go back to the initial topic, which is what I more strongly support than banning specific categories of weapons - how does this argument support not having universal background checks? Or, is this more fear mongering?

Back on topic...The current background checks have proven completely ineffective, as evidenced by the headline grabbing mass murders and the one-by-one killings in the streets of DC, NY, Chicago, Detroit, LA, etcetera.

How will doubling down on ineffectiveness be of any benefit to anyone, but the politicians ans the bureaucrats?

What verifiable proof do you have that background checks stop anything that matters?

 

[Coyote]

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.

All laws apply to the law abiding. Criminals will ignore them. So why have any laws?

 

[OKTexas]

The Law already says nuts and felons cannot have weapons, so yes -Law enforcement may take the gun. Of course you would have known that if only you were thinking about the issue rationally instead of emotionally.

Really?

Was there a psychiatrist on the scene to make a diagnosis of insanity, thereby making the person officially a "Nut"?

If that is not the case, does Law Enforcement have the right to take away this person's weapon?

According to you, they do not, up until the moment he actually shoots someone.

Actually they do for public safety, if the officer determines the individual could be a threat, but that would be temporary, only a judge can rule the person incompetent and make it permanent.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

All laws apply to the law abiding. Criminals will ignore them. So why have any laws?

There are already laws to punish criminals, adding more restrictions on the law abiding will not change that and will not improve public safety. Even criminals are protected by the 4th Amendment yet you want to intrude on those rights of non-criminals. How does that make sense?

 

[The Rabbi]

You know why it cools down so fast? Because it is a fucking weak ass gun that barely penetrates human skin, which also explains why the US military now uses a higher caliber weapon despite the advantages of not loading down the troops with the heavier ammo.

As for all the sights, you can do that with any rifle made.

You are full of shit, Windbag, and the fact that the military uses it shows how full of shit you are. It'll penetrate more than skin and is liable to go right through you if it misses bone. The M-16 was considered an inhumane weapon in Vietnam, because of the way the bullet would start to tumble and travel to places all over the body. That happens with a very high speed bullet.

God and goddess, this is like debating a mental patient. The .223 round will not exit a person...a lead-core round tends to fragment upon impact (as do many rifle rounds). It is a high-velocity round, but a small one...it gets its kinetic energy from velocity, not mass.

It will certainly exit a person in some circumstances.
But so what?

 

[Coyote]

And, really - to go back to the initial topic, which is what I more strongly support than banning specific categories of weapons - how does this argument support not having universal background checks? Or, is this more fear mongering?

Back on topic...The current background checks have proven completely ineffective, as evidenced by the headline grabbing mass murders and the one-by-one killings in the streets of DC, NY, Chicago, Detroit, LA, etcetera.

How will doubling down on ineffectiveness be of any benefit to anyone, but the politicians ans the bureaucrats?

What verifiable proof do you have that background checks stop anything that matters?

What evidence do you that they are "completely" ineffective? The stats for gun violence shows otherwise (though I suspect the reduction is do to multiple factors, not any one thing): Gun Violence | National Institute of Justice

Dealth by blunt objects, alas, remains relatively unchanged. I suspect current headlines have more to do with what the media chooses to highlight than it does with actual trends in violence.

The current background checks cover only a portion of gun sales and completely exclude private transactions and gun shows. I think it is reasonable to suppose that broadening background checks might help.

 

[Dubya]

Homicides by gun are increasing. Uou claim they will end if we ban guns and track all weapons.

You are wrong, end of discussion.

Post where I said anything about banning guns! You make up shit, Windbag, so you can't even deal with the simple reality of what someone has said. When you aren't correct about what someone has said, you can't be correct evaluating what was said. That was just another insane impulse where mind keeps telling you they will ban guns, whether they said it or not.

Either post a quote of what wasn't said or just admit you're a lying ass loser! We know which choice that will be.

Guns are not banned in the UK. It is perfectly legal to won them, as long as you accept the government registration program. That is exactly what you want to do here, and you are trying to deflect this into a debate about something else rather than admit you are wrong.

If only I was stupid enough to cooperate.

If you can't post where I said anything about banning guns, then you are a liar and admitting it by not posting it.

I want renewable registration with background checks and periodic ballistics tests. With that, I don't really care if they ban a type of gun or not, but they could place some as Title II and not ban them. That's up to the people living in that area to make the laws that benefit them. My system is better than the present Title II weapons system. All I want is to discourage people shooting others with guns and making sure the guns are in the control of the owner. I don't give a fuck if you have 20 guns under those circumstances, as long as they are registered and watched to keep them out of the wrong hands. If the weapon is reported stolen and shows up in the future, I want it returned to the owner.

There was a guy here a couple days ago who has 22 guns and many are passed down from generations, like a couple Winchester Model 1873 rifles. He was telling me about his .300 Winchester Magnum and hunting elk from a helicopter. My brother probably has that many and nearly all are assault weapons. The point is as long as someone isn't purchasing and giving those weapons to criminals, it isn't important if they like to shoot them.

What's going to happen to those people when you gun nutters continue to be unreasonable and the states stick it up your ass? Your stupidity is going to hurt those law abiding citizens who don't mind being responsible and want the guns taken out of the hands of criminals and gangs. There are benefits to gun owners for registration of firearms. If the weapon is stolen, there is a system to return it. It's a benefit to not have guns in the hands of criminals and to discourage someone stealing weapons by shutting down the market for stolen weapons. When a person won't tranfer the registration, you know the gun is stolen. When having an unregistered weapon is a serious offense, people aren't going to want to buy them.

You gun nutters are just like a bunch of kids who screw it up for everybody.

 

[Coyote]

Enforce them, before passing new ones that won't be enforced either, and will just add expense to the law abiding. Sound like a plan?

A universal background check will help enforcement - a partial background check is next to useless. Sound like a plan?

I've asked this before, now I'll do it again, how do you verifiably get universal background checks? Tell me, how would it work, and how do you verify compliance?

Truthfully, I don't know. But then again - I don't know the ins and outs of how a lot of laws work in terms of verifying compliance. Do you?

What is obvious to me is a background check is better than no background check.
A universal background check - even if incomplete in terms of compliance - is better than a partial background check.

What's so darn difficult in doing that?