Do You Support The "Gun Show Loophole?"

[The Rabbi]

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".

Since there is no gun show loophole what would you like to close?
the fact that a majority of people are ignorant is not proof of anything, except stupidity.

 

[Vast LWC]

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

Following what decision?

The senate changed to Democratic control from Republican control in 2000, it only changed over to Republican hands in 2002, when the Republicans used war fever to sway public opinion.

 

[Spoonman]

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".

what's it look like when you factor out the ignorant who actually believe their is a gun show loophole what's it look like?

 

[UKRider]

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.

I see no gun show loophole since you need an a Federal Firearms License (FFL) to sell at gunshows. You also must have some form of firearm carry permit (which to get you need a background check) to buy from any gun seller with such a license.

 

[Spoonman]

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

Following what decision?

The senate changed to Democratic control from Republican control in 2000, it only changed over to Republican hands in 2002, when the Republicans used war fever to sway public opinion.

so what you are saying is americans have no faith in democrats when it comes to international tensions and foriegn policy. I can agree with that

 

[Vast LWC]

Since there is no gun show loophole what would you like to close?
the fact that a majority of people are ignorant is not proof of anything, except stupidity.

Blah, blah, talking point, talking point.

So, it is your considered opinion that private sellers are required to put their buyers through background checks, just like licensed dealers?

Because, that's the "Gun Show Loophole", genius.

Just because it doesn't only happen at gun shows doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Thanks for playing though.

 

[Coyote]

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

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.

Are you saying the granting or restricting of rights should be based primarily on popular opinion?

 

[Vast LWC]

so what you are saying is americans have no faith in democrats when it comes to international tensions and foriegn policy. I can agree with that

Yeah... no.

What I'm saying is, is that whoever starts the "war fever" generally gains the benefit of it, until people grow tired of it.

And the more the party in power fucks things up, the faster the people will grow tired of it, which is why Republicans completely lost control of Congress after they proved to everyone that they had no idea how to successfully fight a war.

 

[Spoonman]

Since there is no gun show loophole what would you like to close?
the fact that a majority of people are ignorant is not proof of anything, except stupidity.

Blah, blah, talking point, talking point.

So, it is your considered opinion that private sellers are required to put their buyers through background checks, just like licensed dealers?

Because, that's the "Gun Show Loophole", genius.

Just because it doesn't only happen at gun shows doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Thanks for playing though.

private sellers can't sell through gun shows, so why the gun show loophole? and do you really want a private seller, who by the way could be a criminal looking of information to be used in identity theft doing a background check on you? I sure don't. but then I don't want reactionary liberals making unthought through legislation for me either

 

[M14 Shooter]

Since there is no gun show loophole what would you like to close?
the fact that a majority of people are ignorant is not proof of anything, except stupidity.

Blah, blah, talking point, talking point.
So, it is your considered opinion that private sellers are required to put their buyers through background checks, just like licensed dealers?
Because, that's the "Gun Show Loophole", genius.

The federal law that requires a background check applies everywhere, and so to call it a "gun show loophole" is, at best, dishonest.

I will admit that it -does- serve for a good talking point to rally support from the useful idiots.

 

[Spoonman]

so what you are saying is americans have no faith in democrats when it comes to international tensions and foriegn policy. I can agree with that

Yeah... no.

What I'm saying is, is that whoever starts the "war fever" generally gains the benefit of it, until people grow tired of it.

And the more the party in power fucks things up, the faster the people will grow tired of it, which is why Republicans completely lost control of Congress after they proved to everyone that they had no idea how to successfully fight a war.

so you are saying that after 2 years of the obama administration inwhich they had total control they fucked up because they lost the control they had gained

 

[Vast LWC]

what's it look like when you factor out the ignorant who actually believe their is a gun show loophole what's it look like?

Again, so it's your belief that private sellers have to require background checks from people who buy from them?

Because, if so, I'd suggest you read up on gun Law.

 

[Coyote]

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

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?

I answered your question by drawing the parallels with free speech, another right - I'm not sure how you want me to answer it differently.

Simple ownership of a firearm - like the simple ability to speak - causes no harm. But we restrict what you can say in certain instances in the name of free speech much like the way we restrict certain types of arms. Thus, you can't have a suitcase nuke.

Does that answer the question?

 

[Vast LWC]

The federal law that requires a background check applies everywhere, and so to call it a "gun show loophole" is, at best, dishonest.

I will admit that ut -does- serve for a good talking point to rally support from the useful idiots.

It is a misnomer. With that I will agree.

But it does exist, and we all know what it refers to.

So, to make a comment like "The gun show loophole doesn't exist" is utterly dishonest.

 

[Vast LWC]

so you are saying that after 2 years of the obama administration inwhich they had total control they fucked up because they lost the control they had gained

I was unaware that:

1. The Democrats lost both houses of Congress

and

2. The losses they did suffer in the House had to do with botched foreign policy.

 

[Coyote]

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

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.

Speech is and can be restricted along with "how" - that is what libel and slander laws are for. Profanity and blasphemy laws still exist in this country. You can't cuss a teacher out without repercussions. If your choice of WORDS is viewed as threatening in certain instances - that two can have restrictions.

 

[Vast LWC]

I see no gun show loophole since you need an a Federal Firearms License (FFL) to sell at gunshows. You also must have some form of firearm carry permit (which to get you need a background check) to buy from any gun seller with such a license.

So, you're saying that private sellers cannot sell weapons at Gun Shows without requiring a background check?

That would be an odd statement, since my cousin bought a rifle at a Gun Show just last month without a background check.

Of course, he's not a felon, but the seller had no way of knowing that.

 

[Spoonman]

so you are saying that after 2 years of the obama administration inwhich they had total control they fucked up because they lost the control they had gained

I was unaware that:

1. The Democrats lost both houses of Congress

and

2. The losses they did suffer in the House had to do with botched foreign policy.

the losses they incurred had to do with the fact they failed. after 8 years of the evil bush/cheney administration the democrats couldn't even hold on for 2 years. man, that is failure.

 

[Coyote]

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

Then gunshows do have to do background checks?

Damn. What a waste of an entire thread.

 

[Spoonman]

I see no gun show loophole since you need an a Federal Firearms License (FFL) to sell at gunshows. You also must have some form of firearm carry permit (which to get you need a background check) to buy from any gun seller with such a license.

So, you're saying that private sellers cannot sell weapons at Gun Shows without requiring a background check?

That would be an odd statement, since my cousin bought a rifle at a Gun Show just last month without a background check.

Of course, he's not a felon, but the seller had no way of knowing that.

that would be a lie.