Do You Support The "Gun Show Loophole?"

[M14 Shooter]

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?

Tell you what:
Prove to me that....

...universal background checks/registration would have stopped the Newtown shooting...
...universal background checks/registration will stop another...

...and I will support both.

Failure to do so means you're simply using the blood of schoolkids, past, present and future. to push your pre-existing anti-gun agenda.

Please proceed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Yup - because there's nothing regarding a background checks that is inherent to the exercise of the right to arms. Any such requirement is a precondition to the exercise not inherent to same and therefore infringes on the right - a right that shall not be infringed.

 

[GuyPinestra]

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?

Tell you what:
Prove to me that....

...universal background checks/registration would have stopped the Newtown shooting...
...universal background checks/registration will stop another...

...and I will support both.

Failure to do so means you're simply using the blood of schoolkins, past, present and future. to push your pre-existing anti-gun agenda.

Please proceed.

This ought to be interesting...

 

[Vast LWC]

I can't beleive that the Democrats are actually pushing a bill that would require a back ground verification for the sale of private property, yet refuse to allow a requirement to verify eligability to work, IE E-Verify.

Democrats claim that there are too many chances of a false return with E-Verify, yet they are saying that the NICS background checks are accurate enough?

Wait, when did that happen?

E-Verify sounds like an excellent idea to this Democrat.

 

[Vast LWC]

Not one word as to how you could verify people are using the system, care to try again?

As soon as the gun is used in a crime, the seller becomes liable for contributing to said crime. Thus, sellers will want to use the system, to cover their ass.

In combination with a national registry, it works.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So there's more chance of someone stealing your car than someone stealing my guns, and now you say it doesn't matter?
What a fucking joke.

Car owners are licensed. Those who are irresponsible lose their license

With guns.....I hold YOU responsible if you provide a gun to a criminal

That's bullshit and you know it. If you can't keep track of your car I HOLD YOU responsible

Never mind that NO state will revoke YOUR driver's license if you car was stolen and involved in criminal activity, intentional or otherwise.

The rabid anti-gun loons really don;t understand that they do not, in any way, want to impose the restrictions we have on cars onto the right to arms.

 

[Oddball]

I can't beleive that the Democrats are actually pushing a bill that would require a back ground verification for the sale of private property, yet refuse to allow a requirement to verify eligability to work, IE E-Verify.

Democrats claim that there are too many chances of a false return with E-Verify, yet they are saying that the NICS background checks are accurate enough?

Wait, when did that happen?

E-Verify sounds like an excellent idea to this Democrat.

Right...But most democratics -those in the ruling class anyways- don't want E-Verify for employment, to screen out illegals.

Frankly, I'm against both...America has become far too much of a snoop society.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sure there are. You sell a gun to Felon. You become a felon and lose your gun(s).

Enforce it.

The NICS background check should be online public domain.

You can't enforce it if you can't prove the seller knew the buyer was a felon.

Because if the seller doesn't know the buyer is a felon, the law says it's not a felony...

Thus the reason for universal background checks...

How do you implement a UBC in a verifiable manner?

There's only one way: Universal registration.
That's what they REALLY want.

 

[Vast LWC]

Can you say unconstitutional? Are you ever going to address the post I provided the color keyed response on, or are you admitting defeat on that one?

The Constitution provides for federal oversight over interstate commerce.

 

[M14 Shooter]

How do you implement a UBC in a verifiable manner?

It's easy to verify with universal registration that requires periodic renewal.

Can you say unconstitutional?

If for no reason other than the federal government has no power to regulate a sale tha tales place between my brother and I in my living room.

 

[Vast LWC]

There's only one way: Universal registration.
That's what they REALLY want.

Yep. Sounds like an excellent idea to me.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Can you say unconstitutional? Are you ever going to address the post I provided the color keyed response on, or are you admitting defeat on that one?

The Constitution provides for federal oversight over interstate commerce.

...but not inTRAstate...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not one word as to how you could verify people are using the system, care to try again?

As soon as the gun is used in a crime, the seller becomes liable for contributing to said crime.

Based on... what?

 

[M14 Shooter]

How do you implement a UBC in a verifiable manner?

There's only one way: Universal registration.
That's what they REALLY want.

Yep. Sounds like an excellent idea to me.

An "excellent idea" that creates a infringement on the exercise of the right to armd by laying a prcndition to the exercise of said right not inherent to same.

It is impossoible to show that universal registration is an effective means to affect a compelling state iinterest, and is the least restrictive means to that end, if for no other reason that felons and others legally unable to own a gun cannot, according to currenlt jurisprudence, be forced to register their guns.

 

[Vast LWC]

Not one word as to how you could verify people are using the system, care to try again?

As soon as the gun is used in a crime, the seller becomes liable for contributing to said crime.

Based on... what?

Based on the fact that the seller illegally provided the criminal with the means to carry out their crime.

 

[Vast LWC]

An "excellent idea" that creates a infringement on the exercise of the right to armd by laying a prcndition to the exercise of said right not inherent to same.

It is impossoible to show that universal registration is an effective means to affect a compelling state iinterest, and is the least restrictive means to that end, if for no other reason that felons and others legally unable to own a gun cannot, according to currenlt jurisprudence, be forced to register their guns.

Registering your weapon may be a precondition, but it's not one that infringes the right.

Simply informing the authorities that you have a weapon does not stop you from having said weapon.

However, if there was a charge for weapon registration, then that would qualify as a precondition. So registration would have to be free to the owner to be legal.

Since the public seems to be behind registration and background checks, the cost would be covered by the taxpayers as a public service.

 

[M14 Shooter]

An "excellent idea" that creates a infringement on the exercise of the right to armd by laying a prcndition to the exercise of said right not inherent to same.

It is impossoible to show that universal registration is an effective means to affect a compelling state iinterest, and is the least restrictive means to that end, if for no other reason that felons and others legally unable to own a gun cannot, according to currenlt jurisprudence, be forced to register their guns.

Registering your weapon may be a precondition, but it's not one that infringes the right.

This is only true if, as I said, you can show that universal registration is an effective means to affect a compelling state iinterest, and is the least restrictive means to that end.

If for no other reason that felons and others legally unable to own a gun cannot, according to currenlt jurisprudence, be forced to register their guns, it cannot be shown that runiversal registration is an "effective means".

Thus, it is not just an infringement, but one that violates the constitution.

 

[Vast LWC]

This is only true if, as I said, you can show that universal registration is an effective means to affect a compelling state iinterest, and is the least restrictive means to that end.

If for no other reason that felons and others legally unable to own a gun cannot, according to currenlt jurisprudence, be forced to register their guns, it cannot be shown that runiversal registration is an "effective means".

Thus, it is not just an infringement, but one that violates the constitution.

Which is clearly why the NRA, and their pet congressmen, pushed through legislation to attempt to ban federal government studies that would provide said proof.

There are many studies that have shown conclusively that around 85% of weapons used in crimes have been sold privately, without documentation.

Which is a clear indication that private undocumented sales of said weapons is a contributing factor to them being used in criminal activity, and thus a threat to public safety.

And, of course, the only sure way to find out is to do it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is only true if, as I said, you can show that universal registration is an effective means to affect a compelling state iinterest, and is the least restrictive means to that end.

If for no other reason that felons and others legally unable to own a gun cannot, according to currenlt jurisprudence, be forced to register their guns, it cannot be shown that runiversal registration is an "effective means".

Thus, it is not just an infringement, but one that violates the constitution.

Which is clearly why the NRA, and their pet congressmen, pushed through legislation to attempt to ban federal government studies that would provide said proof.

There are many studies that have shown conclusively that around 85% of weapons used in crimes have been sold privately, without documentation.

Which is a clear indication that private undocumented sales of said weapons is a contributing factor to them being used in criminal activity, and thus a threat to public safety.

If this all you have, you fail the test. You clearly arent aware of the meaning of the term "compelling state interest".

 

[OKTexas]

Can you say read? Reading into a court decision doesn't make registration unconstitutional and some areas require it.

So you are admitting defeat on that one post, I'd like you to put it on the record.

There aren't going to be successful court challenges against registration of firearms and you know it. Only fools think that's an issue.

Say it all day, doesn't make it so. You ever going to address the other post?