Do You Support The "Gun Show Loophole?"

[Dubya]

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.

It was one of those Illinois needed to be three times as big things.

Still, what cost him Tennesee?

Can't you see the whole South went for a southern governor named Dubya? I've lived down there, it isn't New York.

 

[Coyote]

We don't restrict the exercise of a right - any right -because someone -might- do something illegal.
The right to arms should be treated the same as any other right.
So... there's no basis for restricting simple ownership/posession.

Then nothing should be restricted right? Nothing.

Try not to go all non-sequitur on me.

Only that which causes harm or places others in a condtition of clear, present and immediate danger. As you said, simple posession/ownership of a firearm does neither, and so there's no basis for restriction.

One of three things is going to happen here:
- You're going to admit that there's no basis for restricting simple posession/ownership of a firearm
- You're going to change your argument and say that firearms -should- be treated differenrly than other rights (and be forced to provide a sound argument for same)
- You're going to move away from reasoned, civil discourse.

Maybe none of the above.

Given your first statement, there is no reason to restrict personal nuclear bombs, rocket launchers, or even biological weapons is there?

 

[Vast LWC]

uh-huh......except that gun show operators tend to keep the riff-raff out. But you'll never hear the MSM or Dems admit it.

Claude Hall's GUN SHOW RULES & REGULATIONS

There is no rule in that list restricting private undocumented sales on premises.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Then nothing should be restricted right? Nothing.

Try not to go all non-sequitur on me.

Only that which causes harm or places others in a condtition of clear, present and immediate danger. As you said, simple posession/ownership of a firearm does neither, and so there's no basis for restriction.

One of three things is going to happen here:
- You're going to admit that there's no basis for restricting simple posession/ownership of a firearm
- You're going to change your argument and say that firearms -should- be treated differenrly than other rights (and be forced to provide a sound argument for same)
- You're going to move away from reasoned, civil discourse.

Maybe none of the above.

Given your first statement, there is no reason to restrict personal nuclear bombs, rocket launchers, or even biological weapons is there?

- You're going to move away from reasoned, civil discourse.

We're duiscussing the right to own/posess firearms in a topic about gun control - I have very clearly stated "firearms" through this entire discussion. Further, current jurisprudence makes it quite clear that the posession/ownership of the weapons you mention lays outside the protection of the 2nd, and so their inclusion into the discussion is a simple red herring, likely born of frustration on your part.

So, back on topic...

As you said, simple posession/ownership of a firearm does not cause harm or places others in a condtition of clear, present and immediate danger, and so, to remain consistent in your statements and positions, you must admit there's no basis for the restriction of that simple ownership/posession.

if I am wrong, tell me how - remembering, of course, that the right to arms should be treated no differently than any other right.

 

[Dubya]

We don't restrict the exercise of a right - any right -because someone -might- do something illegal.
The right to arms should be treated the same as any other right.
So... there's no basis for restricting simple ownership/posession.

Then nothing should be restricted right? Nothing.

Try not to go all non-sequitur on me.

Only that which causes harm or places others in a condtition of clear, present and immediate danger. As you said, simple posession/ownership of a firearm does neither, and so there's no basis for restriction.

One of three things is going to happen here:
- You're going to admit that there's no basis for restricting simple posession/ownership of a firearm
- You're going to change your argument and say that firearms -should- be treated differenrly than other rights (and be forced to provide a sound argument for same)
- You're going to move away from reasoned, civil discourse.

Let's see how it works! It wasn't the Nazis and Communists, it was the people. It wasn't the brain tumor, it was the person. By Reagan, I think I've got it!

 

[Coyote]

Try not to go all non-sequitur on me.

Only that which causes harm or places others in a condtition of clear, present and immediate danger. As you said, simple posession/ownership of a firearm does neither, and so there's no basis for restriction.

One of three things is going to happen here:
- You're going to admit that there's no basis for restricting simple posession/ownership of a firearm
- You're going to change your argument and say that firearms -should- be treated differenrly than other rights (and be forced to provide a sound argument for same)
- You're going to move away from reasoned, civil discourse.

Maybe none of the above.

Given your first statement, there is no reason to restrict personal nuclear bombs, rocket launchers, or even biological weapons is there?

- You're going to move away from reasoned, civil discourse.

What???? I am being civil and serious. You have made an argument that essentially invalidates many restrictions on weaponry.

We're duiscussing the right to own/posess firearms in a topic about gun control - I have very clearly stated "firearms" through this entire discussion.

The right in question is to bare "arms" and it is in relation to a well regulated militia that is commonly interpreted to mean all citizens capable of bearing arms.

The definition from the dictionary for arms is: Weapons and ammunition; armaments: "they were subjugated by force of arms".

Further, current jurisprudence makes it quite clear that the posession/ownership of the weapons you mention lays outside the protection of the 2nd, and so their inclusion into the discussion is a simple red herring, likely born of frustration on your part.

Nope. Not a red herring. We haven't discussed what the current jurisprudence has done or said - only whether or not the mere possession of any firearms should be illegal.

Currently laws restricting fully automatic weapons exist and have apparently stood the test of the courts.

They meet your definition of arms yet remain restricted. I see only a few degrees of difference between those and semi-automatic.

So, back on topic...

As you said, simple posession/ownership of a firearm does not cause harm or places others in a condtition of clear, present and immediate danger, and so, to remain consistent in your statements and positions, you must admit there's no basis for the restriction of that simple ownership/posession.

if I am wrong, tell me how - remembering, of course, that the right to arms should be treated no differently than any other right.

Again - your argument doesn't work well when you consider that fully automatic weapons are banned and if those are considered outside the 2nd amendment protection why can't others be? If the reason is arbritrary - which it seems - then why not nukes?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Maybe none of the above.

Given your first statement, there is no reason to restrict personal nuclear bombs, rocket launchers, or even biological weapons is there?

- You're going to move away from reasoned, civil discourse.

What???? I am being civil and serious. You have made an argument that essentially invalidates many restrictions on weaponry.

Firearms. The issue is firearms. I've used the term in every post, and so it is quite clear that -I- am talking about firearms.

Nope. Not a red herring. We haven't discussed what the current jurisprudence has done or said - only whether or not the mere possession of any firearms should be illegal.

Yep. Firearms.

The inclusion of any other sort of weapons into the discussion on no way changes the soundness of the argument regarding restrictions on the simple posession/ownership of firearms; the fact that certain firearms are currently restricted has no bearing on the discussion as the discussion itelf centers around the legitimacy of those restrictions, when the right to arms is treated no differently than any other right.

As you said, simple posession/ownership of a firearm does not cause harm or place others in a condtition of clear, present and immediate danger, and so, to remain consistent in your statements and your position that the right to arms should be treated no differenrly than any other right, you must admit there's no basis for the restriction of that simple ownership/posession.

If I am wrong, tell me how - remembering, of course, that the right to arms should be treated no differently than any other right.

 

[Vast LWC]

Though, Justice Alito recently made statements indicating it's his belief that the intent of the founding fathers left space for banning some types of weapons based on how much fear they engender...

I am not in agreement with him on said statement, but he did say it, and he's the biggest second amendment guy on the Court.

 

[Dubya]

I'd have to check the statute, but I highly doubt it's a strict liability offense. Meaning selling to a felon is fine as long as you don't know they're a felon.

It's only illegal to knowingly sell to someone who shouldn't have a gun. That's why these occasional sellers at gun shows advertise: No paperwork, no ID required, no waiting period, no background check, and no questions asked.

uh-huh......except that gun show operators tend to keep the riff-raff out. But you'll never hear the MSM or Dems admit it.

Claude Hall's GUN SHOW RULES & REGULATIONS

Just how can you determine who is riff-raff based on appearance? I think those Neo-Nazi and KKK types are riff-raff and they can be selling their products at gun shows.

The only way universal background checks won't become law is if the Republicans block a vote or poison bill the legislation with other things to justify voting against it. If someone writes a bill that only includes background checks and it's voted on, it would be political suicide in many areas to vote against UBC. Even the Republican base supports it. With UBC, the gun show loophole stops. Many states require waiting periods, so how that is dealt with is another matter. That UC Davis report said 19 states have some additional restrictions on gun show sales, such as waiting periods

When 85% of the weapons seized in criminal activity were sold in private sales since originally purchased from a dealer, then private sales without background checks have to be contributing to gun crime.

 

[Spoonman]

It's only illegal to knowingly sell to someone who shouldn't have a gun. That's why these occasional sellers at gun shows advertise: No paperwork, no ID required, no waiting period, no background check, and no questions asked.

uh-huh......except that gun show operators tend to keep the riff-raff out. But you'll never hear the MSM or Dems admit it.

Claude Hall's GUN SHOW RULES & REGULATIONS

Just how can you determine who is riff-raff based on appearance? I think those Neo-Nazi and KKK types are riff-raff and they can be selling their products at gun shows.

The only way universal background checks won't become law is if the Republicans block a vote or poison bill the legislation with other things to justify voting against it. If someone writes a bill that only includes background checks and it's voted on, it would be political suicide in many areas to vote against UBC. Even the Republican base supports it. With UBC, the gun show loophole stops. Many states require waiting periods, so how that is dealt with is another matter. That UC Davis report said 19 states have some additional restrictions on gun show sales, such as waiting periods

When 85% of the weapons seized in criminal activity were sold in private sales since originally purchased from a dealer, then private sales without background checks have to be contributing to gun crime.

all this alleged support you keep on touting is based on something that hasn't even been defined yet. based on what is proposed so far by the anti gun crowd I think you are going to see that support drop drastically with the final draft.

 

[Dubya]

uh-huh......except that gun show operators tend to keep the riff-raff out. But you'll never hear the MSM or Dems admit it.

Claude Hall's GUN SHOW RULES & REGULATIONS

Just how can you determine who is riff-raff based on appearance? I think those Neo-Nazi and KKK types are riff-raff and they can be selling their products at gun shows.

The only way universal background checks won't become law is if the Republicans block a vote or poison bill the legislation with other things to justify voting against it. If someone writes a bill that only includes background checks and it's voted on, it would be political suicide in many areas to vote against UBC. Even the Republican base supports it. With UBC, the gun show loophole stops. Many states require waiting periods, so how that is dealt with is another matter. That UC Davis report said 19 states have some additional restrictions on gun show sales, such as waiting periods

When 85% of the weapons seized in criminal activity were sold in private sales since originally purchased from a dealer, then private sales without background checks have to be contributing to gun crime.

all this alleged support you keep on touting is based on something that hasn't even been defined yet. based on what is proposed so far by the anti gun crowd I think you are going to see that support drop drastically with the final draft.

Universal background checks have been defined and it means a background check on all purchases of firearms, including private sales.

 

[kwc57]

It's only illegal to knowingly sell to someone who shouldn't have a gun. That's why these occasional sellers at gun shows advertise: No paperwork, no ID required, no waiting period, no background check, and no questions asked.

uh-huh......except that gun show operators tend to keep the riff-raff out. But you'll never hear the MSM or Dems admit it.

Claude Hall's GUN SHOW RULES & REGULATIONS

Just how can you determine who is riff-raff based on appearance? I think those Neo-Nazi and KKK types are riff-raff and they can be selling their products at gun shows.

The only way universal background checks won't become law is if the Republicans block a vote or poison bill the legislation with other things to justify voting against it. If someone writes a bill that only includes background checks and it's voted on, it would be political suicide in many areas to vote against UBC. Even the Republican base supports it. With UBC, the gun show loophole stops. Many states require waiting periods, so how that is dealt with is another matter. That UC Davis report said 19 states have some additional restrictions on gun show sales, such as waiting periods

When 85% of the weapons seized in criminal activity were sold in private sales since originally purchased from a dealer, then private sales without background checks have to be contributing to gun crime.

Tissue Nancy?

 

[Dubya]

uh-huh......except that gun show operators tend to keep the riff-raff out. But you'll never hear the MSM or Dems admit it.

Claude Hall's GUN SHOW RULES & REGULATIONS

Just how can you determine who is riff-raff based on appearance? I think those Neo-Nazi and KKK types are riff-raff and they can be selling their products at gun shows.

The only way universal background checks won't become law is if the Republicans block a vote or poison bill the legislation with other things to justify voting against it. If someone writes a bill that only includes background checks and it's voted on, it would be political suicide in many areas to vote against UBC. Even the Republican base supports it. With UBC, the gun show loophole stops. Many states require waiting periods, so how that is dealt with is another matter. That UC Davis report said 19 states have some additional restrictions on gun show sales, such as waiting periods

When 85% of the weapons seized in criminal activity were sold in private sales since originally purchased from a dealer, then private sales without background checks have to be contributing to gun crime.

Tissue Nancy?

I just looked at a Canadian poll that said 76% of Americans favor registration of firearms. You're going to need the tissue, boy.

 

[CMike]

Then nothing should be restricted right? Nothing.

Try not to go all non-sequitur on me.

Only that which causes harm or places others in a condtition of clear, present and immediate danger. As you said, simple posession/ownership of a firearm does neither, and so there's no basis for restriction.

One of three things is going to happen here:
- You're going to admit that there's no basis for restricting simple posession/ownership of a firearm
- You're going to change your argument and say that firearms -should- be treated differenrly than other rights (and be forced to provide a sound argument for same)
- You're going to move away from reasoned, civil discourse.

Maybe none of the above.

Given your first statement, there is no reason to restrict personal nuclear bombs, rocket launchers, or even biological weapons is there?

They are not firearms.

Try again.

 

[UKRider]

I just looked at a Canadian poll that said 76% of Americans favor registration of firearms. You're going to need the tissue, boy.

A Canadian poll?

Link?

 

[Liability]

It's only illegal to knowingly sell to someone who shouldn't have a gun. That's why these occasional sellers at gun shows advertise: No paperwork, no ID required, no waiting period, no background check, and no questions asked.

uh-huh......except that gun show operators tend to keep the riff-raff out. But you'll never hear the MSM or Dems admit it.

Claude Hall's GUN SHOW RULES & REGULATIONS

Just how can you determine who is riff-raff based on appearance? I think those Neo-Nazi and KKK types are riff-raff and they can be selling their products at gun shows.

The only way universal background checks won't become law is if the Republicans block a vote or poison bill the legislation with other things to justify voting against it. If someone writes a bill that only includes background checks and it's voted on, it would be political suicide in many areas to vote against UBC. Even the Republican base supports it. With UBC, the gun show loophole stops. Many states require waiting periods, so how that is dealt with is another matter. That UC Davis report said 19 states have some additional restrictions on gun show sales, such as waiting periods

When 85% of the weapons seized in criminal activity were sold in private sales since originally purchased from a dealer, then private sales without background checks have to be contributing to gun crime.

LOL.

Dumbya has figured out that criminals break the law.

 

[M14 Shooter]

uh-huh......except that gun show operators tend to keep the riff-raff out. But you'll never hear the MSM or Dems admit it.

Claude Hall's GUN SHOW RULES & REGULATIONS

Just how can you determine who is riff-raff based on appearance? I think those Neo-Nazi and KKK types are riff-raff and they can be selling their products at gun shows.

The only way universal background checks won't become law is if the Republicans block a vote or poison bill the legislation with other things to justify voting against it. If someone writes a bill that only includes background checks and it's voted on, it would be political suicide in many areas to vote against UBC. Even the Republican base supports it. With UBC, the gun show loophole stops. Many states require waiting periods, so how that is dealt with is another matter. That UC Davis report said 19 states have some additional restrictions on gun show sales, such as waiting periods

When 85% of the weapons seized in criminal activity were sold in private sales since originally purchased from a dealer, then private sales without background checks have to be contributing to gun crime.

LOL.

Dumbya has figured out that criminals break the law.

Probably not.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have no inside knowledge whether or not, "universal registration was the intent all along.". However, I certainly have no problem with it.

Gun registration is a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same, and thus, an infringement - that alone is enough to oppose it.

The governemt knowing who has guns and who does not will not reduce gun-related crime as nothing prevents someone from using a gun regustered to them to commit a crime; it is therefore nearly impossible to show how gun registration is an effective means to affect a compelling state interest.

The point is to keep the garden variety nut from obtaining a gun in the first place.

The real point is that the garden variety nuts are not the one's shooting people.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

The point being that it can't be cut off if people are willing to buy it, you towering ignoramus!

Can't you central controller commie idiots figure out that the laws of economics will never listen to you?

Listen Dummy! If we wanted to stop crack in this country, all we would have to do is go to places like Bolivia where it is grown on plantations and stop it. It takes about two years to grow a coca plant to produce coca leaf. They could napalm the fields after warning the people to leave and the supply of crack would dry up. You can spot the major growing areas by satellite. You might even be able to hire the people to cut it down. The point is it can be done, but it has to be done at the source. You can't remove it by small amounts on the streets.

The same applies to guns. You have to stop the source of guns feeding the illegal market and then the guns will decline as they are removed. You can't remove things that arrive as fast as they are removed. If they removed the guns and drugs, those street problems would go away. They could legalize pot, keep it cheap and solve that problem too. They could then focus on meth labs with all those extra resources. When it comes to heroin, an international effort to remove it is required and an international effort would be good for coca, but even a nation could do it. Poppies would probably require spraying to kill them or the population to remove them.

If you want to kill hornets, you get a large container with a lid, put a little gasoline in it, go out in the cool of the morning and cut the nest loose from the tree, then put the lid on quickly. The nest comes in contact with the gasoline at the entrance and is absorbed by the paper to destroy the whole colony. If you try to swat hornets one by one as you discover them, you will never kill them off. They will breed faster than you can kill them off. The same destructive analogy applies to other things. When you war against something, it should be total war and you should figure out how to quickly destroy your enemy and get it over with.

Now, consider what has been done using reason instead of the typical dogmatic agenda trying to use events contrary to their intent! Let's say a group is sending drugs to a market and 10% of the volume is busted. The group decides to increase production to make up for the loses. Eventually the group is selling all the market can bear, so yes it costs more to lose a shipment, but whether they lose drugs or people they both can be replaced. Let's say law enforcement discovers a shipment, but they wise up and want to track the distribution. The rationale is busting the shipment isn't going to solve the problem, but tracking it can give them intelligence of who the key players on the other side are and possibly track it back to the distribution source. I think using some creativity in such situations is a good thing whether it's with drugs or firearms. To make a dent, even if it's only temporary, you sometimes have to stop going after the minnows and small fish and try to get the big fish.

The reality of the day is often a balance between two opposing forces and if you think that reality is bad that doesn't mean it can't be worse by doing nothing.

Are you aware that the government already goes to Bolivia and burns them? Maybe we should just carpet bomb any place that grows drugs, that would solve the problem.

Not.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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!

isn't that what they do right now to get rid of drugs? How has that worked out again?

Have you considered the alternative of doing nothing and I'm not taking about the figments of a screwed up mind, but the realities that not doing what is done can truly produce? Your mind likes to play this game that nothing matters and the fact is it does. Why have laws because the people aren't all going to follow them is what a lot of your bullshit boils down to. It isn't rational.

If you bullshit experiment of legalizing drugs was ever applied, it wouldn't stop the drug cartels bringing drugs to the American market. You would just be allowing a bad situation to continue and get worse. America is not going to grow coca to supply itself.

I have no problem with doing something that might work, and stopping it if it doesn't so we can try something else. You, on the other hand, insist that we need to do something, even if that something is proven not to work.

Want to explain how that makes me stupid?