Do You Support The "Gun Show Loophole?"

[bigrebnc1775]

Yes, District of Columbia vs. Heller did define the right to possess a firearm for "traditionally lawful purposes" such as self-defense within the home.

But to claim the argument was roundly rejected by the Supreme Court in a 5/4 decision is bullshit.

Held:

1. (d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

That is basing the decision on a small minority of the 13 states.

Plus, District of Columbia vs. Heller held things you right wing turds don't want to hear:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Miller vs. U.S. defined what firearms are protected under the second amendment.

Initially defined US v Miller, and then broadened in Heller.

Under Miller, flintlocks are not protected by the 2nd.

Weapons in common use of the time

 

[Oddball]

So you are assuming that unless a law is perfect, then it is of no benefit?
All black or all white, huh?

All dumb and dumber, huh?

I clearly said that perfection is not and cannot be an option. I also said that if a law is ineffective (which background checks are) it serves no purpose, other than to keep bureaucrat administrators busy and buffoons like you believing that "doing something" is more important than actually being effective.

May I suggest an ESL class at your local community college?

You haven't proven they are ineffective - only that they aren't perfect, they don't catch 100% of the cases.

No, they are ineffective.

Thieves and black marketeers don't have to go through background checks...Only the law abiding, who certainly have zero ill intent with their weaponry, do....That makes them ineffective.

 

[Dubya]

So you are assuming that unless a law is perfect, then it is of no benefit?
All black or all white, huh?

All dumb and dumber, huh?

I clearly said that perfection is not and cannot be an option. I also said that if a law is ineffective (which background checks are) it serves no purpose, other than to keep bureaucrat administrators busy and buffoons like you believing that "doing something" is more important than actually being effective.

May I suggest an ESL class at your local community college?

When you find yourself in a hole, may I suggest you stop digging ....

That fool will be in China before he stops digging.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Let me rephrase this, it doesn't matter who you get to call it a loophole, it is not going to be a loophole, and I refuse to bend to the delusion that it is.

That is because you live in a magical fantasy realm where "up" is "down" and "black" is "fire hydrant", also known as "right-wingtania".

To everyone who doesn't live in that realm, it's a loophole.

What the hell difference does it mean ultimately, what these fools want to call it? If Americans settle for anything short of universal background checks and registration of firearms, we are bigger fools than those fools. Fuck the dumb shit!

IMHO, the fools were those who voted for Obama and nearly any Democrat in the House and Senate.

IMHO, the fools are those who are not only willing but actively attempting to take away and limit enumerated rights, rights they don't like, because once that ball gets bouncing, it continues to bounce when they are no longer in power and it will bounce on some "right" that they hold dear. But the precidence will have already been set and it will be too late.

You either protect all the enumerated rights, regardless of how you personally feel about them, or be willing to lose them all.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

All dumb and dumber, huh?

I clearly said that perfection is not and cannot be an option. I also said that if a law is ineffective (which background checks are) it serves no purpose, other than to keep bureaucrat administrators busy and buffoons like you believing that "doing something" is more important than actually being effective.

May I suggest an ESL class at your local community college?

When you find yourself in a hole, may I suggest you stop digging ....

That fool will be in China before he stops digging.

I bet it's painful digging in the spot you're digging in, Your asshole.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Let me rephrase this, it doesn't matter who you get to call it a loophole, it is not going to be a loophole, and I refuse to bend to the delusion that it is.

That is because you live in a magical fantasy realm where "up" is "down" and "black" is "fire hydrant", also known as "right-wingtania".

To everyone who doesn't live in that realm, it's a loophole.

What the hell difference does it mean ultimately, what these fools want to call it? If Americans settle for anything short of universal background checks and registration of firearms, we are bigger fools than those fools. Fuck the dumb shit!

I agree.

I just wonder how many more have to get slaughtered before we can get that?

 

[Dubya]

That is because you live in a magical fantasy realm where "up" is "down" and "black" is "fire hydrant", also known as "right-wingtania".

To everyone who doesn't live in that realm, it's a loophole.

What the hell difference does it mean ultimately, what these fools want to call it? If Americans settle for anything short of universal background checks and registration of firearms, we are bigger fools than those fools. Fuck the dumb shit!

IMHO, the fools were those who voted for Obama and nearly any Democrat in the House and Senate.

IMHO, the fools are those who are not only willing but actively attempting to take away and limit enumerated rights, rights they don't like, because once that ball gets bouncing, it continues to bounce when they are no longer in power and it will bounce on some "right" that they hold dear. But the precidence will have already been set and it will be too late.

You either protect all the enumerated rights, regardless of how you personally feel about them, or be willing to lose them all.

The H stands for humble and you don't know the meaning of the word. The Bill of Rights is protected and I don't want the populace to be disarmed without an amendment to change the 2nd Amendment and I don't think it's a good idea yet. There may come a day and there may be places where people should live without guns. It's possible a city would be better off not having firearms, like the days when cowboys had to turn in their guns to enter a town. Heller screwed up DC's effort to rid itself of gun violence, but I wonder if it's legal to use an armory and insist the people who own guns have to keep them there??? Why shouldn't a city have the right to do things in the public interest and possibly even have cops that don't carry guns, unless there is an emergency requiring it??? It sounds to me like a better world, so why can't we find a way to make a better world for our people???

 

[OriginalShroom]

What the hell difference does it mean ultimately, what these fools want to call it? If Americans settle for anything short of universal background checks and registration of firearms, we are bigger fools than those fools. Fuck the dumb shit!

IMHO, the fools were those who voted for Obama and nearly any Democrat in the House and Senate.

IMHO, the fools are those who are not only willing but actively attempting to take away and limit enumerated rights, rights they don't like, because once that ball gets bouncing, it continues to bounce when they are no longer in power and it will bounce on some "right" that they hold dear. But the precidence will have already been set and it will be too late.

You either protect all the enumerated rights, regardless of how you personally feel about them, or be willing to lose them all.

The H stands for humble and you don't know the meaning of the word. The Bill of Rights is protected and I don't want the populace to be disarmed without an amendment to change the 2nd Amendment and I don't think it's a good idea yet. There may come a day and there may be places where people should live without guns. It's possible a city would be better off not having firearms, like the days when cowboys had to turn in their guns to enter a town. Heller screwed up DC's effort to rid itself of gun violence, but I wonder if it's legal to use an armory and insist the people who own guns have to keep them there??? Why shouldn't a city have the right to do things in the public interest and possibly even have cops that don't carry guns, unless there is an emergency requiring it??? It sounds to me like a better world, so why can't we find a way to make a better world for our people???

Are you willing to lose your rights because you want to take away mine?

 

[Dubya]

That is because you live in a magical fantasy realm where "up" is "down" and "black" is "fire hydrant", also known as "right-wingtania".

To everyone who doesn't live in that realm, it's a loophole.

What the hell difference does it mean ultimately, what these fools want to call it? If Americans settle for anything short of universal background checks and registration of firearms, we are bigger fools than those fools. Fuck the dumb shit!

I agree.

I just wonder how many more have to get slaughtered before we can get that?

I understand our citizens have many concerns, but I'm way beyond my threshold. I love shooting guns, but I can find something else to do that doesn't cause the death of my fellow Americans. I'm a grown up and I don't have to behave like a two year old spoiled child.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Are you willing to lose your rights because you want to take away mine?

You infer a "right" to buy a gun without a background check?

Priceless

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What the hell difference does it mean ultimately, what these fools want to call it? If Americans settle for anything short of universal background checks and registration of firearms, we are bigger fools than those fools. Fuck the dumb shit!

I agree.

I just wonder how many more have to get slaughtered before we can get that?

I understand our citizens have many concerns, but I'm way beyond my threshold. I love shooting guns, but I can find something else to do that doesn't cause the death of my fellow Americans. I'm a grown up and I don't have to behave like a two year old spoiled child.

Fraud

 

[OKTexas]

When you are arrested you are disarmed and it's legal. When you are a felon or judged mentally incompetent you lose the "right" to own a gun. The right belongs to the general public, so everyone has the right to have a general public not disarmed. That is what the 2nd Amendment means and that right applies to everyone.

I'm think I'm still a little confused. You could say pretty much the same thing about any of the items in the bill of rights. A felon doesn't exactly have the right to liberty, anymore, and we don't let them vote either.

All of the rights apply to law-abiding individuals, and the phrase about forming a militia is really just an extension of the right of association: you have the right to own guns, and the right to organize, therefor you have the right to form an organization with guns.

But maybe I'm misunderstanding things.

I don't recall ever seeing the right to liberty in the Bill of Rights. The right to vote isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.

Militia was only mentioned in the 2nd Amendment, because the Founders opposed having a standing army. Did the Founders prohibit a standing army? No, they only prohibited disarming the populace, meaning the general public. The Founders didn't require militias, but encouraged it.

See the 5th Amendment
See Article 1 Clause 2, voters are called electors

The militia was provided for in Article 1 Section 8 in the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment was added by the States with the intent to prevent the Federal Government from disarming them. That was the reason for the first part of the amendment " A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, referred to the States themselves and had nothing to do with the Federal Government.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The poll results are pretty telling about the make-up of this board.

Across the nation 91 to 92% favor background checks for ALL gun purchases. On here, that drops to 62%.

The radical right loves them some message boards (because they can act tough without ever having to back it up????)

 

[OriginalShroom]

Are you willing to lose your rights because you want to take away mine?

You infer a "right" to buy a gun without a background check?

Priceless

Still refusing to answer the question.. Why am I not surprised.

Getting a straight answer from a Liberal on this board is like pulling Hen's teeth.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Are you willing to lose your rights because you want to take away mine?

You infer a "right" to buy a gun without a background check?

Priceless

Still refusing to answer the question.. Why am I not surprised.

Getting a straight answer from a Liberal on this board is like pulling Hen's teeth.

Funny - I got called a right wing radical the other day.
What question did you ask me?
(you didn't ask me the combat question - btw)

Liar

 

[OriginalShroom]

You infer a "right" to buy a gun without a background check?

Priceless

Still refusing to answer the question.. Why am I not surprised.

Getting a straight answer from a Liberal on this board is like pulling Hen's teeth.

Funny - I got called a right wing radical the other day.
What question did you ask me?
(you didn't ask me the combat question - btw)

Liar

You quoted my question...

Are you willing to give up your rights as easily are you are willing to take mine away?

 

[Dubya]

IMHO, the fools were those who voted for Obama and nearly any Democrat in the House and Senate.

IMHO, the fools are those who are not only willing but actively attempting to take away and limit enumerated rights, rights they don't like, because once that ball gets bouncing, it continues to bounce when they are no longer in power and it will bounce on some "right" that they hold dear. But the precidence will have already been set and it will be too late.

You either protect all the enumerated rights, regardless of how you personally feel about them, or be willing to lose them all.

The H stands for humble and you don't know the meaning of the word. The Bill of Rights is protected and I don't want the populace to be disarmed without an amendment to change the 2nd Amendment and I don't think it's a good idea yet. There may come a day and there may be places where people should live without guns. It's possible a city would be better off not having firearms, like the days when cowboys had to turn in their guns to enter a town. Heller screwed up DC's effort to rid itself of gun violence, but I wonder if it's legal to use an armory and insist the people who own guns have to keep them there??? Why shouldn't a city have the right to do things in the public interest and possibly even have cops that don't carry guns, unless there is an emergency requiring it??? It sounds to me like a better world, so why can't we find a way to make a better world for our people???

Are you willing to lose your rights because you want to take away mine?

What rights? Have you ever been to cities like DC and Baltimore? What the hell is wrong with having an armory across the city lines and getting rid of the guns? I used to have to change buses in DC to go back to Camp Lejeune, sometimes when that was the ticket. The Greyhound and Trailways bus terminals were diagonally located across the street in DC and just making a transfer resulted in me seeing someone laying in the street, because he was knived from behind. Cities can be beautiful places to live and it's a damned shame when they are turned into jungles.

 

[OKTexas]

The poll results are pretty telling about the make-up of this board.

Across the nation 91 to 92% favor background checks for ALL gun purchases. On here, that drops to 62%.

The radical right loves them some message boards (because they can act tough without ever having to back it up????)

And if it were explained to Amenricans exactly what would be required to do background checks on all purchases the numbers wouldn't be a high as they are. Of course no one bothers to mention that criminals don't bother with checks at all. There are illegal guns imported into this country everyday to supply the black market. More laws on the law abiding won't change that.

 

[OKTexas]

The H stands for humble and you don't know the meaning of the word. The Bill of Rights is protected and I don't want the populace to be disarmed without an amendment to change the 2nd Amendment and I don't think it's a good idea yet. There may come a day and there may be places where people should live without guns. It's possible a city would be better off not having firearms, like the days when cowboys had to turn in their guns to enter a town. Heller screwed up DC's effort to rid itself of gun violence, but I wonder if it's legal to use an armory and insist the people who own guns have to keep them there??? Why shouldn't a city have the right to do things in the public interest and possibly even have cops that don't carry guns, unless there is an emergency requiring it??? It sounds to me like a better world, so why can't we find a way to make a better world for our people???

Are you willing to lose your rights because you want to take away mine?

What rights? Have you ever been to cities like DC and Baltimore? What the hell is wrong with having an armory across the city lines and getting rid of the guns? I used to have to change buses in DC to go back to Camp Lejeune, sometimes when that was the ticket. The Greyhound and Trailways bus terminals were diagonally located across the street in DC and just making a transfer resulted in me seeing someone laying in the street, because he was knived from behind. Cities can be beautiful places to live and it's a damned shame when they are turned into jungles.

Yep, it's a damned shame the people living in those shit holes won't stand up for themselves and put a stop to that shit. All they have to do is start cooperating with the police and that shit would stop. Instead of trying to educate them you want to screw over people who have nothing to do with it. But you being the good little statist your are, what can we expect?

 

[Vast LWC]

No it's what you fools want to call it, just like your wrong ass name of assault weapons.

I was unaware Wayne LaPierre could be grouped with us on this issue.

You don't find it odd that pretty much everyone in the nation calls it a "loophole", except for right-wingers who are trying a classic Luntz "rebranding" strategy?

That doesn't seem even the least Orwellian to you?