Do You Support The "Gun Show Loophole?"

[bigrebnc1775]

If you had a brain you would know criminals aren't going to make their own guns and gang bang. The penalty for having a homemade gun are much worse than having a real one and the cops will profile people to remove guns from their streets. The cops will use stats and focus on that area, searching people every day.

Most homicides aren't planned in advance.

It will become a booming industry. Where there is something restricted that people want, there is a black market for it.

What are they going to want, a five year felony conviction for being stupid? Once guys are restricted in cities, it's smarter to just avoid the hassle of having them and they can be removed faster than returned. A member of a gang is not going to want to be on the streets with a gun. They'll work out other ways to cope with the new reality.

A member of a gang is not going to want to be on the streets with a gun.

Care to explain why cities with the most restrictive gun control laws has the most shootings and gang related murders? Or are you going to keep saying stupid shit?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Did I not already point out that I am not stupid enough to cooperate with your attempt to change the subject? Do you think adding more words to your attempt to obfuscate the issue will confuse me?

You are the one that wants to ban assault weapons, which, if I am not mistaken, are guns. You also want to track every gun in existence in this country in the deluded belief that it will prevent gun violence. When I point out a real world example of the a country that actually bans assault weapons, and restricts the transfer of other weapons, and also has a complete registry of every gun that is legally owned, and show that the result is an increase in gun violence, you pretend I am accusing you of posting something else.

Stick to the actual topic here, which is the evidence that, in your words, plan to sensibly restrict guns to reduce gun violence does not work.

You point out a country that has 35 homicides by gun when we have over 11,000 that year. You use a vague description of what a gun crime is in the UK and compare it to a country with more than that many homicides by guns. What about the people who were shot in America and didn't die?

Your day is done, so deal with it! We don't buy your crap.

Gun crime may be down but violent crimes are on a rise in your paradise called the UK.
You have more a chance to become a victim there than you are here.

 

[tjvh]

Try a dictionary and look up the law definition on intent! Try educating yourself, too!

Try a dictionary and look up the law definition on infringe! Try educating yourself, too!

I have in modern dictionaries like this:

in·fringe (n-frnj)
v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es
v.tr.
1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.

Source: infringe - definition of infringe by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

....and since I can read and know the word had an obsolete definition I looked it up in a dictionary of that time. There was no contemporary American dicitionary for some years later, but there were plenty of English dictionaries in the UK. Infringe comes from Latin and means:

[Latin nfringere, to destroy

....and I had Latin, just like those Founders did.

Thanks for playing, Semper Stupidus

Ok, I'll bite... The 2A says very clearly that "the Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"... By your partisan interpretation of the dictionary meaning: Obsolete To defeat; invalidate, The 2A clearly states THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE DEFEATED OR INVALIDATED. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Brady bill passed in 1993....Regardless, correlation still doesn't equal causation....Never has, never will.

P.S...The Brady bill encompassed ALL firearms, not just handguns.

Correct me if I'm wrong but, while the Brady Bill may have required background checks - an effective system was not in place until NICS right?

Sometimes correlation does equal causation. El Nino cycles can cause corresponding cycles of aridity or increased rainfall in other parts of the world. Rush hour traffic can cause a longer drive. Spending an inordinate amount of time on the computer can make me to forget I have the tea kettle on and cause a meltdown. Which just happened...

How effective was the NCIS system at Fort Hood, Aurora, Sandy Hook and/or Clackamas Town Center Mall?..How effective is it in the gangland zones in NYC, LA, Chicago, Detroit, Memphis, etcetera?

I mean besides not at all.

Clackamas Town Center Mall was the place where a shooter was stopped by an armed citizen.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Cops in cities target areas and people to remove guns from the streets and that is a battle that has proven it can be won. If they search enough people, they're going to find a gun and with the supply halting, the guns that were on the streets will dry up.

Your mindless, NRA gun nutter, "keep the status quo" objections are never going to convince rational people that nothing can be done and guess what, you're ran out of fools to buy that bullshit!

Cops in cities have been targeting dope dealers for decades and still I could still lay my mitts on an ounce of coke or heroin, a bottle full of 'scrip pain killers and/or a pound of weed with no more than a few phone calls.....A few "clean" firearms wouldn't be no thang.

You are truly one stupid mothafuckah.

Cut off the dope dealers supply at the source and see how fast the dope is off the streets.

Can't you idiots figure out America will not listen to you anymore? Your day is done, so deal with it! Don't come crying to me, so bend over like the man you are and take it! Think of it as just overtime in your bathhouse job.

How many years have we had the war on drugs?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Cops in cities have been targeting dope dealers for decades and still I could still lay my mitts on an ounce of coke or heroin, a bottle full of 'scrip pain killers and/or a pound of weed with no more than a few phone calls.....A few "clean" firearms wouldn't be no thang.

You are truly one stupid mothafuckah.

Cut off the dope dealers supply at the source and see how fast the dope is off the streets.

Can't you idiots figure out America will not listen to you anymore? Your day is done, so deal with it! Don't come crying to me, so bend over like the man you are and take it! Think of it as just overtime in your bathhouse job.

So how are you going to restrict the supply of steel, lead and brass ingots?

or 3D printers
How 3D Printing Is Inflaming The Gun Control Debate ? ReadWrite

and those 30 round magazines
3D-printed 30-round AR magazine brings us ever closer to a fully 3D-printed gun | ExtremeTech

 

[Dubya]

Try a dictionary and look up the law definition on infringe! Try educating yourself, too!

I have in modern dictionaries like this:



Source: infringe - definition of infringe by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

....and since I can read and know the word had an obsolete definition I looked it up in a dictionary of that time. There was no contemporary American dicitionary for some years later, but there were plenty of English dictionaries in the UK. Infringe comes from Latin and means:

[Latin nfringere, to destroy

....and I had Latin, just like those Founders did.

Thanks for playing, Semper Stupidus

Ok, I'll bite... The 2A says very clearly that "the Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"... By your partisan interpretation of the dictionary meaning: Obsolete To defeat; invalidate, The 2A clearly states THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE DEFEATED OR INVALIDATED. Thanks for proving my point.

You either have or don't have rights. It's black or white, yes or no. Rights can't be infringed like you think, because it's totally destroyed, if you don't have rights.

You have a right for the populace to not be disarmed and that is it when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. Taking away your high capacity magazines is not taking away your rights.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I have in modern dictionaries like this:



Source: infringe - definition of infringe by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

....and since I can read and know the word had an obsolete definition I looked it up in a dictionary of that time. There was no contemporary American dicitionary for some years later, but there were plenty of English dictionaries in the UK. Infringe comes from Latin and means:



....and I had Latin, just like those Founders did.

Thanks for playing, Semper Stupidus

Ok, I'll bite... The 2A says very clearly that "the Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"... By your partisan interpretation of the dictionary meaning: Obsolete To defeat; invalidate, The 2A clearly states THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE DEFEATED OR INVALIDATED. Thanks for proving my point.

You either have or don't have rights. It's black or white, yes or no. Rights can't be infringed like you think, because it's totally destroyed, if you don't have rights.

You have a right for the populace to not be disarmed and that is it when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. Taking away your high capacity magazines is not taking away your rights.

You either have or don't have rights. It's black or white, yes or no. Rights can't be infringed like you think, because it's totally destroyed, if you don't have rights.

Do you have any idea what you are saying and what you are responding too?
Stupid what you were told was the second amendment right to keep and bear arms cannot be taken away no right can be taken away without DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW.

 

[tjvh]

I have in modern dictionaries like this:



Source: infringe - definition of infringe by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

....and since I can read and know the word had an obsolete definition I looked it up in a dictionary of that time. There was no contemporary American dicitionary for some years later, but there were plenty of English dictionaries in the UK. Infringe comes from Latin and means:



....and I had Latin, just like those Founders did.

Thanks for playing, Semper Stupidus

Ok, I'll bite... The 2A says very clearly that "the Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"... By your partisan interpretation of the dictionary meaning: Obsolete To defeat; invalidate, The 2A clearly states THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE DEFEATED OR INVALIDATED. Thanks for proving my point.

You either have or don't have rights. It's black or white, yes or no. Rights can't be infringed like you think, because it's totally destroyed, if you don't have rights.

You have a right for the populace to not be disarmed and that is it when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. Taking away your high capacity magazines is not taking away your rights.

Bold ^ That is where we disagree. A gun designed with a magazine is nearly useless without that magazine, magazines are specific to each gun which makes them a part of that guns functionality, and thus a part of that gun. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a limit to the amount of rounds a person can use to protect themselves. The State I am in is trying to make previously legal magazines illegal, without any mention of compensation for those previously legal magazines. And that is a violation of several of my Constitutional Rights. If the State wants to make my personal property illegal, when previously it wasn't, I have a Right to some form of compensation for my property, and so far -no mention of compensation has been made, and the legislation IS going to court. If the State wants to give me $400.00 for each magazine I have, then I have no problem with selling them some of my magazines, but as for any that I feel I want for home protection and will keep, the State is welcome to try to violate my Civil Rights and get them from my home, and to that I say... Good luck.

 

[MeBelle]

Ok, I'll bite... The 2A says very clearly that "the Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"... By your partisan interpretation of the dictionary meaning: Obsolete To defeat; invalidate, The 2A clearly states THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE DEFEATED OR INVALIDATED. Thanks for proving my point.

You either have or don't have rights. It's black or white, yes or no. Rights can't be infringed like you think, because it's totally destroyed, if you don't have rights.

You have a right for the populace to not be disarmed and that is it when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. Taking away your high capacity magazines is not taking away your rights.

You either have or don't have rights. It's black or white, yes or no. Rights can't be infringed like you think, because it's totally destroyed, if you don't have rights.

Do you have any idea what you are saying and what you are responding too?
Stupid what you were told was the second amendment right to keep and bear arms cannot be taken away no right can be taken away without DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW.

Hey bigrebnc- You know that nothing you will try to say to Dub will ever get through. Do you know why? He has lived in a nanny country his whole life and doesn't understand the concept of FREEDOM when it comes to our Second Amendment rights.
Part of me thinks he's also verrry jealous!

 

[S.J.]

You either have or don't have rights. It's black or white, yes or no. Rights can't be infringed like you think, because it's totally destroyed, if you don't have rights.

You have a right for the populace to not be disarmed and that is it when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. Taking away your high capacity magazines is not taking away your rights.

You either have or don't have rights. It's black or white, yes or no. Rights can't be infringed like you think, because it's totally destroyed, if you don't have rights.

Do you have any idea what you are saying and what you are responding too?
Stupid what you were told was the second amendment right to keep and bear arms cannot be taken away no right can be taken away without DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW.

Hey bigrebnc- You know that nothing you will try to say to Dub will ever get through. Do you know why? He has lived in a nanny country his whole life and doesn't understand the concept of FREEDOM when it comes to our Second Amendment rights.
Part of me thinks he's also verrry jealous!

He was laughed off qna for being a snitch (reported everybody's posts). He came back, posing as his daughter and was laughed off again. Don't take him seriously, he's a weenie.

 

[jtpr312]

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?

Exactly how do you close something that doesn't exist. There is no such thing as a gun show loop hole. Dealers at gun shows MUST perform the same exact background checks at a gun show as they do at their shops. Some private sales between individuals are not covered by the same laws as sales by licensed dealers, but that has absolutely nothing to do with gun shows, that applies to sales between individuals anywhere at any time so it's not any gun show "loophole", it's state laws.

 

[Dubya]

Ok, I'll bite... The 2A says very clearly that "the Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"... By your partisan interpretation of the dictionary meaning: Obsolete To defeat; invalidate, The 2A clearly states THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE DEFEATED OR INVALIDATED. Thanks for proving my point.

You either have or don't have rights. It's black or white, yes or no. Rights can't be infringed like you think, because it's totally destroyed, if you don't have rights.

You have a right for the populace to not be disarmed and that is it when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. Taking away your high capacity magazines is not taking away your rights.

Bold ^ That is where we disagree. A gun designed with a magazine is nearly useless without that magazine, magazines are specific to each gun which makes them a part of that guns functionality, and thus a part of that gun. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a limit to the amount of rounds a person can use to protect themselves. The State I am in is trying to make previously legal magazines illegal, without any mention of compensation for those previously legal magazines. And that is a violation of several of my Constitutional Rights. If the State wants to make my personal property illegal, when previously it wasn't, I have a Right to some form of compensation for my property, and so far -no mention of compensation has been made, and the legislation IS going to court. If the State wants to give me $400.00 for each magazine I have, then I have no problem with selling them some of my magazines, but as for any that I feel I want for home protection and will keep, the State is welcome to try to violate my Civil Rights and get them from my home, and to that I say... Good luck.

New York has had a ten round limit for nearly 20 years and they managed to figure it out so there's hope for you, too. Recently, the New York state law has been changed it to 7 rounds, so they will figure that out, too. The New York state law even applies to cops and hasn't went into effect yet.

Do you have a link proving a law that hasn't been written is going to court, like you claim?

If cops can get by on 7 rounds, maybe you should learn how to shoot. It's nonsense to claim the capacity of a magazine can't be reduced, but I would have to see the law to determine if that is legal according to the law. Most laws I've read set dates and only apply to things manufactured after a certain date, for example, the old law in New York allowed magazines manufactured prior to 1994 to remain legal. The new law may mean 7 rounds and only 7 rounds, but I would imagine they would allow the magazine to be restricted to only hold 7 rounds. That can be done in many ways, for example, a magazine could have the sides punched to prevent more rounds being loaded and the hole filled in. The space within the spring could be filled accomplishing the same purpose. The law may require the magazine to changed so it can't be easily changed back into a high capacity magazine.

Let me explain something about these state laws! If we had reasonable people in this country, instead of people like you, many of these state laws would be different. You NRA gun nutter types don't want anything changed when it's obvious there are big problems in this country and most of the people want it changed. You oppose everything whether it only involves changes in the law, like having mental health reported or background checks done. If someone writes out such changes, you may agree, but if Obama signs an executive order with those exact words, you're going to complain without even knowing what you are complaining about. My point is it's not a good strategy to keep opposing every change and think the people of America will just cave in to what you want. It's human nature to be punitive to a minority group that is being totally uncooperative and be more severe in making law than it would be necessary with cooperation and input.

 

[OODA_Loop]

It's human nature to be punitive to a minority group that is being totally uncooperative and be more severe in making law than it would be necessary with cooperation and input.

Link to legislative precedent ?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You either have or don't have rights. It's black or white, yes or no. Rights can't be infringed like you think, because it's totally destroyed, if you don't have rights.

You have a right for the populace to not be disarmed and that is it when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. Taking away your high capacity magazines is not taking away your rights.

Bold ^ That is where we disagree. A gun designed with a magazine is nearly useless without that magazine, magazines are specific to each gun which makes them a part of that guns functionality, and thus a part of that gun. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a limit to the amount of rounds a person can use to protect themselves. The State I am in is trying to make previously legal magazines illegal, without any mention of compensation for those previously legal magazines. And that is a violation of several of my Constitutional Rights. If the State wants to make my personal property illegal, when previously it wasn't, I have a Right to some form of compensation for my property, and so far -no mention of compensation has been made, and the legislation IS going to court. If the State wants to give me $400.00 for each magazine I have, then I have no problem with selling them some of my magazines, but as for any that I feel I want for home protection and will keep, the State is welcome to try to violate my Civil Rights and get them from my home, and to that I say... Good luck.

New York has had a ten round limit for nearly 20 years and they managed to figure it out so there's hope for you, too. Recently, the New York state law has been changed it to 7 rounds, so they will figure that out, too. The New York state law even applies to cops and hasn't went into effect yet.

Do you have a link proving a law that hasn't been written is going to court, like you claim?

If cops can get by on 7 rounds, maybe you should learn how to shoot. It's nonsense to claim the capacity of a magazine can't be reduced, but I would have to see the law to determine if that is legal according to the law. Most laws I've read set dates and only apply to things manufactured after a certain date, for example, the old law in New York allowed magazines manufactured prior to 1994 to remain legal. The new law may mean 7 rounds and only 7 rounds, but I would imagine they would allow the magazine to be restricted to only hold 7 rounds. That can be done in many ways, for example, a magazine could have the sides punched to prevent more rounds being loaded and the hole filled in. The space within the spring could be filled accomplishing the same purpose. The law may require the magazine to changed so it can't be easily changed back into a high capacity magazine.

Let me explain something about these state laws! If we had reasonable people in this country, instead of people like you, many of these state laws would be different. You NRA gun nutter types don't want anything changed when it's obvious there are big problems in this country and most of the people want it changed. You oppose everything whether it only involves changes in the law, like having mental health reported or background checks done. If someone writes out such changes, you may agree, but if Obama signs an executive order with those exact words, you're going to complain without even knowing what you are complaining about. My point is it's not a good strategy to keep opposing every change and think the people of America will just cave in to what you want. It's human nature to be punitive to a minority group that is being totally uncooperative and be more severe in making law than it would be necessary with cooperation and input.

If cops can get by on 7 rounds, maybe you should learn how to shoot.

Just shut the fuck up you don't have a fucking clue what in the hell you are talking about.
What is firearm is the standard issue for police departments?

 

[The Rabbi]

You either have or don't have rights. It's black or white, yes or no. Rights can't be infringed like you think, because it's totally destroyed, if you don't have rights.

You have a right for the populace to not be disarmed and that is it when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. Taking away your high capacity magazines is not taking away your rights.

Bold ^ That is where we disagree. A gun designed with a magazine is nearly useless without that magazine, magazines are specific to each gun which makes them a part of that guns functionality, and thus a part of that gun. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a limit to the amount of rounds a person can use to protect themselves. The State I am in is trying to make previously legal magazines illegal, without any mention of compensation for those previously legal magazines. And that is a violation of several of my Constitutional Rights. If the State wants to make my personal property illegal, when previously it wasn't, I have a Right to some form of compensation for my property, and so far -no mention of compensation has been made, and the legislation IS going to court. If the State wants to give me $400.00 for each magazine I have, then I have no problem with selling them some of my magazines, but as for any that I feel I want for home protection and will keep, the State is welcome to try to violate my Civil Rights and get them from my home, and to that I say... Good luck.

New York has had a ten round limit for nearly 20 years and they managed to figure it out so there's hope for you, too. Recently, the New York state law has been changed it to 7 rounds, so they will figure that out, too. The New York state law even applies to cops and hasn't went into effect yet.

Do you have a link proving a law that hasn't been written is going to court, like you claim?

If cops can get by on 7 rounds, maybe you should learn how to shoot. It's nonsense to claim the capacity of a magazine can't be reduced, but I would have to see the law to determine if that is legal according to the law. Most laws I've read set dates and only apply to things manufactured after a certain date, for example, the old law in New York allowed magazines manufactured prior to 1994 to remain legal. The new law may mean 7 rounds and only 7 rounds, but I would imagine they would allow the magazine to be restricted to only hold 7 rounds. That can be done in many ways, for example, a magazine could have the sides punched to prevent more rounds being loaded and the hole filled in. The space within the spring could be filled accomplishing the same purpose. The law may require the magazine to changed so it can't be easily changed back into a high capacity magazine.

Let me explain something about these state laws! If we had reasonable people in this country, instead of people like you, many of these state laws would be different. You NRA gun nutter types don't want anything changed when it's obvious there are big problems in this country and most of the people want it changed. You oppose everything whether it only involves changes in the law, like having mental health reported or background checks done. If someone writes out such changes, you may agree, but if Obama signs an executive order with those exact words, you're going to complain without even knowing what you are complaining about. My point is it's not a good strategy to keep opposing every change and think the people of America will just cave in to what you want. It's human nature to be punitive to a minority group that is being totally uncooperative and be more severe in making law than it would be necessary with cooperation and input.

New York will exempt cops on the new law, as they do already.
As for challenging it, here ya go
» First challenge to NY gun law filed » News -- GOPUSA

You're such a dweeb.

 

[Dubya]

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?

Exactly how do you close something that doesn't exist. There is no such thing as a gun show loop hole. Dealers at gun shows MUST perform the same exact background checks at a gun show as they do at their shops. Some private sales between individuals are not covered by the same laws as sales by licensed dealers, but that has absolutely nothing to do with gun shows, that applies to sales between individuals anywhere at any time so it's not any gun show "loophole", it's state laws.

In other words, children like to play games claiming something doesn't exist, if they ignore the obvious description of something that does exist.

One third of the guns sold at a gun show are from people called occasional sellers who are not licensed gun dealers running background checks. Signs at gun shows advertise no background checks, no forms, no waiting periods and no ID required. The NRA gun nutters want that to continue and 92% of Americans don't. Those Americans want universal background checks, which means background checks on private purchases or anyone calling themselves an occasional seller at a gun show.

Seventeen states regulate at least some sales by private parties.

More than 85% of recovered crime guns have gone through at least one private party transaction following their initial sale by a licensed retailer.

Perhaps two-thirds of sales at gun shows are made by licensed retailers.

Current evidence suggests that gun shows account for 4% to 9% of all gun sales.

The best available data on gun shows as a source of crime guns come from investigations of illegal gun trafficking by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Of 1,530 such investigations during the late 1990s, 212 (13.9%) involved gun shows and flea markets. These cases accounted for 25,862 guns—30.7% of all the guns in the study.

Results of trafficking investigations suggest that two thirds of crime guns obtained at gun shows are sold by licensed retailers. Among gun dealers, those who sell at gun shows are more likely to have crime guns traced to them than are those who do not.

Gun shows are studded with “Private Sale” signs that convey to all this message: No paperwork, no background check, no waiting period, no recordkeeping.

Neo-Confederacy groups rent table space and recruit new members. Ku Klux Klan merchandise was observed several times. New Nazi materials (as distinct from memorabilia) are very common; one regular seller at shows in Arizona is a nationally-recognized promoter of neo-Nazism. The Turner Diaries is everywhere, and Mein Kampf can be found next to More Guns, Less Crime.

In 2008, 83% of self-reported gun owners and 87% of the general public supported a requirement that all gun sales, not just those at gun shows, be subject to background checks.

Source: http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/vprp/pdf/IGS/IGScoverprefweb.pdf

Now 92% of the American people in a recent poll want universal background checks and the increase is because of the recent public awareness about gun violence. You see it doesn't make a difference what you want to call something at a gun show and what you want doesn't make a difference to the American people. You've had your chance to go on the internet and claim things like Sandy Hook didn't involve an assault weapon, but what you don't realize is that song only sounds good to you Ted Nugent, NRA gun nutter types, who don't need convincing. People like you and Ted are just going to have to put up or shut up, because the people of America don't give a shit about your threats and again, they don't give a shit what you want.

 

[Bfgrn]

Exactly, A FREE STATE, now show me anywhere the founders used the term "State" and the term "Government or Federal Government", synonymously. Hint, not once.

Our founding fathers chose forming state militias TO defend our government, not protect FROM government. They were concerned that a standing army was a threat to the nation.

The Federalist No. 29​

Concerning the Militia
Wednesday, January 9, 1788
[Alexander Hamilton]​

To the People of the State of New York:

THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress."

Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.

The founders could have never considered such all encompassing government as we are currently dealing with. Or they did, and gave us the 2nd as a method of getting rid of it should it get too frisky.

We are a nation of laws. The insurrection and 'slippery slope' arguments are childish, dogmatic, ignorant, paranoid, and the domain of fear infested pea brains.

 

[OODA_Loop]

We are a nation of laws. The insurrection and 'slippery slope' arguments are childish, dogmatic, ignorant, paranoid, and the domain of fear infested pea brains.

We are foremost a nation of Constitutional protections.

Slippery slope argument has merit on things Constitutional.

 

[martybegan]

How's your magazines or are you still crying about them? You've already lost the gun control battle and it's only going to get worse for you. I'm not the one saying I wish I could move.

Keep telling yourself what a winner you are, so I can laugh pointing out the detail of your great victory! I guess that vet up in New York thought he was a winner too, telling that cop he was there to sell 5 illegal magazines with for military use only written on them.

The NY law will be overturned at least in part by the courts. Or even better when every anti gun nut upstate is voted out of office.

Remember I dont even own a gun yet. I just dont feel the need to eliminate the right of others to own one, up to and including a semi automatic rifle with whatever fucking mag they want, and to not have to have it registered with a nanny state grabbing government.

Keep posting, keep upping my thanks count and rep count, and keep that grey box by your post #.

I thought you told me how the law affected your weapons and magazines.

I don't care if you get thanks and rep on a site dominated by lunatics. The grey box thing, I'm not sure of.

From a previous post, Someone said you are not even an american citizen? Where the hell are you from nanny state boy?

It affects the weapons and magazines of my fellow New Yorkers, and I dont begrudge others owning what they want as provided by the constitution just because I dont own them.

A right is a right, even if I CHOOSE not to exercise it at this time.