Do You Support The "Gun Show Loophole?"

[Dubya]

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.

Please don't sick that all powerful GOP on us before we have had our chance to grow our numbers for the next election! We saw how the GOP fought so hard in New York to pass that recent New York gun control law. Such cooperation is truly terrifying.

New York cops were exempt in the old law and New York changed that law to reduce even cop magazine size to 7 without exemptions. Why would they go back and change the recent law again to exempt cops? It's possible they may change it in the future, but to state it as a fact now prove you are such a dweeb.

Don't you think the old law was challenged and every change will be challenged in some court? Challenging the law in court doesn't mean the law will be changed.

Don't get us wrong though! We know how you have spent tons money to arm yourself so you could be the mighty patriot that you are and keep our government from becoming a tyranny. We know it wasn't an easy task keeping the millions in our military in check, but you did it didn't you, our hero. We Oldtimers have seen this happen before, so look what they did to this heros weapons:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uV-7D4io1Rs]Branded theme - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Dubya]

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.

Well if someone was advanced enough to write something on the internet, it has to be true, doesn't it? It's always been impossible for right-wing people to lie, right?

It so happens it was your fellow New Yorkers who changed the law and if you don't think so, then you should avoid republics and Republicans. If you do think so just avoid the Republicans and play it safe.

You can get a whole 10 round magazine now or that big 7 rounder later. It's always good to have a gun with them, unless you're standing in front of the White House.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Well if someone was advanced enough to write something on the internet, it has to be true, doesn't it? It's always been impossible for right-wing people to lie, right?

It so happens it was your fellow New Yorkers who changed the law and if you don't think so, then you should avoid republics and Republicans. If you do think so just avoid the Republicans and play it safe.

You can get a whole 10 round magazine now or that big 7 rounder later. It's always good to have a gun with them, unless you're standing in front of the White House.

The law will be overturned, and those who voted for it upstate will likely be out of office soon. NY's state government setup is one of the most crooked in the nation. 3 men control the state.

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

Only for pea brains...

 

[Dubya]

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.

Well if someone was advanced enough to write something on the internet, it has to be true, doesn't it? It's always been impossible for right-wing people to lie, right?

It so happens it was your fellow New Yorkers who changed the law and if you don't think so, then you should avoid republics and Republicans. If you do think so just avoid the Republicans and play it safe.

You can get a whole 10 round magazine now or that big 7 rounder later. It's always good to have a gun with them, unless you're standing in front of the White House.

The law will be overturned, and those who voted for it upstate will likely be out of office soon. NY's state government setup is one of the most crooked in the nation. 3 men control the state.

Right and Obama's going to lose the election, I've heard the shit before!

 

[martybegan]

Well if someone was advanced enough to write something on the internet, it has to be true, doesn't it? It's always been impossible for right-wing people to lie, right?

It so happens it was your fellow New Yorkers who changed the law and if you don't think so, then you should avoid republics and Republicans. If you do think so just avoid the Republicans and play it safe.

You can get a whole 10 round magazine now or that big 7 rounder later. It's always good to have a gun with them, unless you're standing in front of the White House.

The law will be overturned, and those who voted for it upstate will likely be out of office soon. NY's state government setup is one of the most crooked in the nation. 3 men control the state.

Right and Obama's going to lose the election, I've heard the shit before!

If the current gun grabber hysteria happened before the election he probably would have. Ask Al Gore.

 

[Dubya]

The law will be overturned, and those who voted for it upstate will likely be out of office soon. NY's state government setup is one of the most crooked in the nation. 3 men control the state.

Right and Obama's going to lose the election, I've heard the shit before!

If the current gun grabber hysteria happened before the election he probably would have. Ask Al Gore.

Do you believe right-wing gun nutters put Obama in office? Didn't Romney get Ted Nugent to try to get NRA support for him?

Why you see polls with 92% of Americans wanting universal background checks, which would mean the gun show loop hole issue can't exist and even private sales would require a background check and you compare it to what gun nutters want, can't you see the disconnect? Why would our present gun control issues help Obama more than they would help Romney? Why wouldn't more of those 92% be more inclined to go to the polls and vote for Obama than the 8% be motivated to vote for Romney. I say you overestimate your strength and it's delusional the way it's done.

 

[Coyote]

Yes...and...?
Apply that to the right to arms.

Certain types of speech are restricted.

Because they harm others or places them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

Certain types of arms can be restricted.

Simple posession of what sort of firearm causes harm to others or places them in a condtition of clear, present and immediate danger?
How does the simple posession of these firearms do this?

Certain types of free speech can be restricted.
Certain types of arms can be restricted.

We all possess the right to express ourselves (free speech) - the possession of expression.

We all possess the right to own arms - the possession of a physical tool.

Right?

However, in both cases those rights are restricted in terms of public safety.

 

[martybegan]

Right and Obama's going to lose the election, I've heard the shit before!

If the current gun grabber hysteria happened before the election he probably would have. Ask Al Gore.

Do you believe right-wing gun nutters put Obama in office? Didn't Romney get Ted Nugent to try to get NRA support for him?

Why you see polls with 92% of Americans wanting universal background checks, which would mean the gun show loop hole issue can't exist and even private sales would require a background check and you compare it to what gun nutters want, can't you see the disconnect? Why would our present gun control issues help Obama more than they would help Romney? Why wouldn't more of those 92% be more inclined to go to the polls and vote for Obama than the 8% be motivated to vote for Romney. I say you overestimate your strength and it's delusional the way it's done.

Gun control lost Gore his own state in 2000. I propose that alot of the people who were OK with the "dont mention gun control" Obama are not OK with him now.

If 92% of americans really really wanted it why are there not millions of people rallying for it?

Polls for questions like that are worthless.

 

[martybegan]

Certain types of speech are restricted.

Because they harm others or places them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

Certain types of arms can be restricted.

Simple posession of what sort of firearm causes harm to others or places them in a condtition of clear, present and immediate danger?
How does the simple posession of these firearms do this?

Certain types of free speech can be restricted.
Certain types of arms can be restricted.

We all possess the right to express ourselves (free speech) - the possession of expression.

We all possess the right to own arms - the possession of a physical tool.

Right?

However, in both cases those rights are restricted in terms of public safety.

But the burden on restricting either one is supposed to be overwhelming in favor of retaining the rights. You are not getting a fight on howitzers, you ARE getting a fight on semi automatic rifles, and that burden is on the side of banning to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the weapons need to be banned. The only other was is to modify the 2nd amendment.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Certain types of speech are restricted.

Because they harm others or places them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

Certain types of arms can be restricted.

Simple posession of what sort of firearm causes harm to others or places them in a condtition of clear, present and immediate danger?
How does the simple posession of these firearms do this?

Certain types of free speech can be restricted.
Certain types of arms can be restricted.

We all possess the right to express ourselves (free speech) - the possession of expression.
We all possess the right to own arms - the possession of a physical tool.

Right?
However, in both cases those rights are restricted in terms of public safety.

You did not address the questions I asked.

You argue that the right to arms should be treated no differently than any other.
Certain kinds of speech may be restricted because they harm others or places them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

So, I ask again:
Simple ownership/posession of what sort of firearm causes harm to others or places them in a condtition of clear, present and immediate danger?
How does the ownership/simple posession of these firearms do this?

 

[Spoonman]

Certain types of speech are restricted.

Because they harm others or places them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

Certain types of arms can be restricted.

Simple posession of what sort of firearm causes harm to others or places them in a condtition of clear, present and immediate danger?
How does the simple posession of these firearms do this?

Certain types of free speech can be restricted.
Certain types of arms can be restricted.

We all possess the right to express ourselves (free speech) - the possession of expression.

We all possess the right to own arms - the possession of a physical tool.

Right?

However, in both cases those rights are restricted in terms of public safety.

speech is not restricted. how you use the speech is restricted. you can't use speech to harm someone. just like there are laws that state you can't use a gun to harm someone. the difference it, with guns the limit what you can have as well as how you use them. there is a difference. a very significant difference.

 

[Dubya]

If the current gun grabber hysteria happened before the election he probably would have. Ask Al Gore.

Do you believe right-wing gun nutters put Obama in office? Didn't Romney get Ted Nugent to try to get NRA support for him?

Why you see polls with 92% of Americans wanting universal background checks, which would mean the gun show loop hole issue can't exist and even private sales would require a background check and you compare it to what gun nutters want, can't you see the disconnect? Why would our present gun control issues help Obama more than they would help Romney? Why wouldn't more of those 92% be more inclined to go to the polls and vote for Obama than the 8% be motivated to vote for Romney. I say you overestimate your strength and it's delusional the way it's done.

Gun control lost Gore his own state in 2000. I propose that alot of the people who were OK with the "dont mention gun control" Obama are not OK with him now.

If 92% of americans really really wanted it why are there not millions of people rallying for it?

Polls for questions like that are worthless.

I don't find it very good political analysis to consider Tennessee and gun control costed Al Gore the election. It also isn't smart for a politician to call universal background checks gun control. A politician can only get away with that in a strongly red state and better not ever try to run for national office. Even the Republicans strongly favor UBC.

 

[Liability]

There is still no such thing as the fictional "gun show loophole."

 

[The Rabbi]

There is still no such thing as the fictional "gun show loophole."

It exists along with cop killer bullets, assault rifles, and saturday night specials.

 

[Spoonman]

Do you believe right-wing gun nutters put Obama in office? Didn't Romney get Ted Nugent to try to get NRA support for him?

Why you see polls with 92% of Americans wanting universal background checks, which would mean the gun show loop hole issue can't exist and even private sales would require a background check and you compare it to what gun nutters want, can't you see the disconnect? Why would our present gun control issues help Obama more than they would help Romney? Why wouldn't more of those 92% be more inclined to go to the polls and vote for Obama than the 8% be motivated to vote for Romney. I say you overestimate your strength and it's delusional the way it's done.

Gun control lost Gore his own state in 2000. I propose that alot of the people who were OK with the "dont mention gun control" Obama are not OK with him now.

If 92% of americans really really wanted it why are there not millions of people rallying for it?

Polls for questions like that are worthless.

I don't find it very good political analysis to consider Tennessee and gun control costed Al Gore the election. It also isn't smart for a politician to call universal background checks gun control. A politician can only get away with that in a strongly red state and better not ever try to run for national office. Even the Republicans strongly favor UBC.

throw in the fact that the republicans also took both the house and senate for the first time in decades following that decision

 

[Vast LWC]

Gun control lost Gore his own state in 2000. I propose that alot of the people who were OK with the "dont mention gun control" Obama are not OK with him now.

If 92% of americans really really wanted it why are there not millions of people rallying for it?

Polls for questions like that are worthless.

I would suggest looking at the poll at the top of the thread.

Even among the heavily right-leaning population of the USMC board, a strong majority of posters support closing the "Gun Show Loophole".

 

[Liability]

USMB member known as "dubya" has phony image of W holding phone wrong way.

Dubya deserves every bit of credibility he has here. None.

 

[martybegan]

Do you believe right-wing gun nutters put Obama in office? Didn't Romney get Ted Nugent to try to get NRA support for him?

Why you see polls with 92% of Americans wanting universal background checks, which would mean the gun show loop hole issue can't exist and even private sales would require a background check and you compare it to what gun nutters want, can't you see the disconnect? Why would our present gun control issues help Obama more than they would help Romney? Why wouldn't more of those 92% be more inclined to go to the polls and vote for Obama than the 8% be motivated to vote for Romney. I say you overestimate your strength and it's delusional the way it's done.

Gun control lost Gore his own state in 2000. I propose that alot of the people who were OK with the "dont mention gun control" Obama are not OK with him now.

If 92% of americans really really wanted it why are there not millions of people rallying for it?

Polls for questions like that are worthless.

I don't find it very good political analysis to consider Tennessee and gun control costed Al Gore the election. It also isn't smart for a politician to call universal background checks gun control. A politician can only get away with that in a strongly red state and better not ever try to run for national office. Even the Republicans strongly favor UBC.

Then what cost him Tennesee? Even Bill Clintion admits the AWB and subsequent attempts at gun control screwed the Democrats over for a decade.

He. Lost. His. Own. State. He shares that with Romney, and Romney lost as well.

 

[Vast LWC]

speech is not restricted. how you use the speech is restricted. you can't use speech to harm someone. just like there are laws that state you can't use a gun to harm someone. the difference it, with guns the limit what you can have as well as how you use them. there is a difference. a very significant difference.

And by closing the "Gun Show Loophole", you wouldn't be restricting guns, you'd be changing how they're resold.