Do You Support The "Gun Show Loophole?"

[Steve Hanson]

First we need to identify are guns and gun control an issue for the states or for the federal government.

 

[Bfgrn]

They also had slavery. Arguing on the basis of laws they had then just makes it easier for me to mock you.

Ohhhhhhhhh, we can only use what our founding fathers said, not what they did...

You are making a mockery of yourself on this thread. You are among a tiny minority of citizens...radical zealots, absolutists.

You're a MORON...

What?

Aren't you the guy that tried to use a Jefferson quote to argue in favor of more government even though the quote, taken in context, was clearly an argument encouraging people to fight against his opinions about how wonderful the government is?

I don't try to justify my positions by arguing the Founders had stupid laws, nor do I find anyone ever calling me for not understanding any of their quotes. Care to explain how me pointing out your ignorance makes me a mockery?

I debunked your moronic interpretation of that Jefferson quote. TJ even mentioned the 'public good' in that letter. A concept you and the rest of the self-absorbed far right wing absolutist anti-American turds have no concept of.

Our founding fathers AUTHORED the second amendment. What they DID in that regard is seminal to understanding their intent.

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."
Thomas Jefferson to the Republican Citizens of Washington County, Maryland" (March 31, 1809).

 

[Bfgrn]

First we need to identify are guns and gun control an issue for the states or for the federal government.

Both. There are things each can do, and things states can't do.

 

[Dubya]

First we need to identify are guns and gun control an issue for the states or for the federal government.

First you need to identify the four possibilities of neither, one or the other and both.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ohhhhhhhhh, we can only use what our founding fathers said, not what they did...

You are making a mockery of yourself on this thread. You are among a tiny minority of citizens...radical zealots, absolutists.

You're a MORON...

What?

Aren't you the guy that tried to use a Jefferson quote to argue in favor of more government even though the quote, taken in context, was clearly an argument encouraging people to fight against his opinions about how wonderful the government is?

I don't try to justify my positions by arguing the Founders had stupid laws, nor do I find anyone ever calling me for not understanding any of their quotes. Care to explain how me pointing out your ignorance makes me a mockery?

I debunked your moronic interpretation of that Jefferson quote. TJ even mentioned the 'public good' in that letter. A concept you and the rest of the self-absorbed far right wing absolutist anti-American turds have no concept of.

Our founding fathers AUTHORED the second amendment. What they DID in that regard is seminal to understanding their intent.

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."
Thomas Jefferson to the Republican Citizens of Washington County, Maryland" (March 31, 1809).

I did not know debunk is a synonym for ignore.

 

[OKTexas]

Why is it the gun grabbers just quit responding when they get owned? Cowards I guess.

 

[Bfgrn]

What?

Aren't you the guy that tried to use a Jefferson quote to argue in favor of more government even though the quote, taken in context, was clearly an argument encouraging people to fight against his opinions about how wonderful the government is?

I don't try to justify my positions by arguing the Founders had stupid laws, nor do I find anyone ever calling me for not understanding any of their quotes. Care to explain how me pointing out your ignorance makes me a mockery?

I debunked your moronic interpretation of that Jefferson quote. TJ even mentioned the 'public good' in that letter. A concept you and the rest of the self-absorbed far right wing absolutist anti-American turds have no concept of.

Our founding fathers AUTHORED the second amendment. What they DID in that regard is seminal to understanding their intent.

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."
Thomas Jefferson to the Republican Citizens of Washington County, Maryland" (March 31, 1809).

I did not know debunk is a synonym for ignore.

You are a lying sack of shit...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6806775-post697.html

 

[Dubya]

Why is it the gun grabbers just quit responding when they get owned? Cowards I guess.

How would you know?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why is it the gun grabbers just quit responding when they get owned? Cowards I guess.

How would you know?

You put me on ignore when I debunked every argument you had.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Well let me think, you said dealers are not required to copy license and insurance info to sell a car. I said they are required to do so, last I looked they would be contradictory statements. A dealer can't allow you to drive away in a car without making sure you have a license and insurance, and he can't process the registration without those included in most states. Every car I've bought from a dealer, they took copies of both. There, does that help?

No, that is NOT actually what you said. You said they needed the information to "process the registration". (And they do: if you want the dealer to tag the car for you, they would need this information.) But if the dealer DOESN'T tag the car for you, they do not need that information.

They need the information just to transfer the title even if you do the tag yourself. I transferred my Disabled Vet tags to a new vehicle but the dealer needed the license and insurance to do the title. A dealer leaves themselves open to liability if they let you leave the dealership with an open title just like you would if you sold a car and just signed the title and allowed the person to take the car. I have never sold a car where I didn't go with the individual to the tag office and get the paper work done on the spot.

When I bought my Jeep, I gave the guy the money, he gave me the paperwork. That's it.

 

[OKTexas]

Why is it the gun grabbers just quit responding when they get owned? Cowards I guess.

How would you know?

I've asked you to respond to post #1352 five times, so far crickets. Coward.

 

[OKTexas]

No, that is NOT actually what you said. You said they needed the information to "process the registration". (And they do: if you want the dealer to tag the car for you, they would need this information.) But if the dealer DOESN'T tag the car for you, they do not need that information.

They need the information just to transfer the title even if you do the tag yourself. I transferred my Disabled Vet tags to a new vehicle but the dealer needed the license and insurance to do the title. A dealer leaves themselves open to liability if they let you leave the dealership with an open title just like you would if you sold a car and just signed the title and allowed the person to take the car. I have never sold a car where I didn't go with the individual to the tag office and get the paper work done on the spot.

When I bought my Jeep, I gave the guy the money, he gave me the paperwork. That's it.

He took a big chance by doing it, had you got in an accident before you filed the paper work he could have been sued as the lawful owner. Most dealers won't take that chance.

 

[Spoonman]

Why is it the gun grabbers just quit responding when they get owned? Cowards I guess.

How would you know?

probably because he is holding title to you

 

[Dubya]

Why is it the gun grabbers just quit responding when they get owned? Cowards I guess.

How would you know?

I've asked you to respond to post #1352 five times, so far crickets. Coward.

Are you too lazy to do this?

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.

What the hell is Article 1 Clause 2? Find it!

Founders' Constitution: Table of Contents

 

[Dubya]

Why is it the gun grabbers just quit responding when they get owned? Cowards I guess.

How would you know?

probably because he is holding title to you

You retards are great with those false victory claims.

You can't even read the Constitution.

 

[Spoonman]

How would you know?

probably because he is holding title to you

You retards are great with those false victory claims.

You can't even read the Constitution.

Dude you've handed out your pink slip to more people than anyone on this board.

Now would that be the Constitution as it was written by our forefathers or the current one that you liberelas have been repeatedly stripping rights from?

 

[OKTexas]

How would you know?

I've asked you to respond to post #1352 five times, so far crickets. Coward.

Are you too lazy to do this?

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.

What the hell is Article 1 Clause 2? Find it!

Founders' Constitution: Table of Contents

That all you got?


Yup, you're owned. Good day!

 

[Dubya]

I've asked you to respond to post #1352 five times, so far crickets. Coward.

Are you too lazy to do this?

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.

What the hell is Article 1 Clause 2? Find it!

Founders' Constitution: Table of Contents

That all you got?


Yup, you're owned. Good day!

You can't even get the right article of the Constitution and you claim a false victory!

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

Source: Article 2, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3

They are talking about the Electoral College, you dumbass!

It's a fact that the right to vote isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.

 

[Spoonman]

Are you too lazy to do this?



What the hell is Article 1 Clause 2? Find it!

Founders' Constitution: Table of Contents

That all you got?


Yup, you're owned. Good day!

You can't even get the right article of the Constitution and you claim a false victory!

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

Source: Article 2, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3

They are talking about the Electoral College, you dumbass!

It's a fact that the right to vote isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.

But the right to bear arms uninfringed is

 

[OKTexas]

Are you too lazy to do this?



What the hell is Article 1 Clause 2? Find it!

Founders' Constitution: Table of Contents

That all you got?


Yup, you're owned. Good day!

You can't even get the right article of the Constitution and you claim a false victory!

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

Source: Article 2, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3

They are talking about the Electoral College, you dumbass!

It's a fact that the right to vote isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.

Actually the electorial college isn't metioned except in Article 2. Article 1, Section 2 is talking about voter qualifications to vote for members of the House of Representatives. It states those Electors (voters) are required to have the qualifications to vote for the most numerous branch of the State legislature, meaning the State House. Edit to add, those qualifications were changed by several amendments.

Care to try again?