Do You Support The "Gun Show Loophole?"

[ABikerSailor]

A much simpler solution, of which they have the technology available TODAY is to serialize the ammo.

That way, if you found a bullet in something or someone it wasn't supposed to be in, you could trace it back to the person that bought the ammo.

That way, you wouldn't have to register your guns.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A much simpler solution, of which they have the technology available TODAY is to serialize the ammo.

That way, if you found a bullet in something or someone it wasn't supposed to be in, you could trace it back to the person that bought the ammo.

That way, you wouldn't have to register your guns.

A much simpler solution, of which they have the technology available TODAY is to serialize the ammo.

Good luck with that and reloaders.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Not to mention that many rounds fragment on impact!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Not to mention that many rounds fragment on impact!

The only reason for serializing ammo is to raise the cost of ammo, make too expensive for poor people too buy

 

[The Rabbi]

A much simpler solution, of which they have the technology available TODAY is to serialize the ammo.

That way, if you found a bullet in something or someone it wasn't supposed to be in, you could trace it back to the person that bought the ammo.

That way, you wouldn't have to register your guns.

Might be the most idiotic suggestion yet.

 

[ima]

We should just tattoo the serial number of every gun someone buys on his arm or back, that way, we'd always knows whose gun it was.

Nazis were famous for tattooing symbols on the skin of people.

But they didn't have as many guns as Americans.

PS Hitler led the Jews to the Promised Land. So the tatooing thing must have worked!

 

[nodoginnafight]

Incorrect.
The law does not prevent me from walking into the parking lot and doing exactly that.
Disagree? Show how the law stops me.

Silly semantic argument. By your logic no law prevents anything so why pass any laws.

Laws punish law breakers. Universal background checks help us identify these law breakers and punish them.

 

[nodoginnafight]

It's a wild assed guess

That was obvious

 

[The Rabbi]

Incorrect.
The law does not prevent me from walking into the parking lot and doing exactly that.
Disagree? Show how the law stops me.

Silly semantic argument. By your logic no law prevents anything so why pass any laws.

Laws punish law breakers. Universal background checks help us identify these law breakers and punish them.

No, that is not an argument. Laws prevent honest people from doing certain things because they are worried about being caught and punished. They do not prevent criminals from doing anything.
There is no such thing as "universal background checks" because two criminals exchanging guns for dope or money will not go through the check. And those are the people who need to be prevented from owning guns.
Really, this isn't rocket science. I dont know why the libs have such a hard time understanding it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Incorrect.
The law does not prevent me from walking into the parking lot and doing exactly that.
Disagree? Show how the law stops me.

Silly semantic argument.

YOU used thew word.
Glad to see you now admit that you were wrong in your claim that background checks prevent straw sales. et al.

Laws punish law breakers. Universal background checks help us identify these law breakers and punish them.

No... background checks are a form of prior restraint that try to stop people from breaking the law.

Quote:
Prior restraints have been upheld specifically in time and manner restrictions - exactly the type of restriction involved with a background check.

Still waiting for you to show this to be true.
Cite cases and detail the circumstances, and then show how those circumstances create a precedental parallel to background checks.
Else, you've supported your claim by doing nothing greater than rerpeating it.

 

[Jarlaxle]

We should just tattoo the serial number of every gun someone buys on his arm or back, that way, we'd always knows whose gun it was.

Nazis were famous for tattooing symbols on the skin of people.

But they didn't have as many guns as Americans.

PS Hitler led the Jews to the Promised Land. So the tatooing thing must have worked!

You truly are a despicable turd.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Incorrect.
The law does not prevent me from walking into the parking lot and doing exactly that.
Disagree? Show how the law stops me.

Silly semantic argument.

YOU used thew word.
Glad to see you now admit that you were wrong in your claim that background checks prevent straw sales. et al.

Laws punish law breakers. Universal background checks help us identify these law breakers and punish them.

No... background checks are a form of prior restraint that try to stop people from breaking the law.

Quote:
Prior restraints have been upheld specifically in time and manner restrictions - exactly the type of restriction involved with a background check.

Still waiting for you to show this to be true.
Cite cases and detail the circumstances, and then show how those circumstances create a precedental parallel to background checks.
Else, you've supported your claim by doing nothing greater than rerpeating it.

I've made my point and I've demonstrated my point you are simply trying to play silly semantic games. You can private message me all you want - not going to suck me into playing your juvenile game.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Silly semantic argument.

YOU used thew word.
Glad to see you now admit that you were wrong in your claim that background checks prevent straw sales. et al.


No... background checks are a form of prior restraint that try to stop people from breaking the law.

Quote:
Prior restraints have been upheld specifically in time and manner restrictions - exactly the type of restriction involved with a background check.

Still waiting for you to show this to be true.
Cite cases and detail the circumstances, and then show how those circumstances create a precedental parallel to background checks.
Else, you've supported your claim by doing nothing greater than rerpeating it.

I've made my point...

You've made claims that have been proven wrong.
You've made claims you refuse to support.
And now, you're running away from both.

Tell us -- why do you hold on to positions that you cannot support and/or have been demonstrated unsound?

 

[nodoginnafight]

YOU used thew word.
Glad to see you now admit that you were wrong in your claim that background checks prevent straw sales. et al.


No... background checks are a form of prior restraint that try to stop people from breaking the law.


Still waiting for you to show this to be true.
Cite cases and detail the circumstances, and then show how those circumstances create a precedental parallel to background checks.
Else, you've supported your claim by doing nothing greater than rerpeating it.

I've made my point...

You've made claims that have been proven wrong.
You've made claims you refuse to support.
And now, you're running away from both.

Tell us -- why do you hold on to positions that you cannot support and/or have been demonstrated unsound?

The fact that you cram your head into the sand ... or your fingers in your ears doesn't mean you've prevailed on anything. You clearly have not. But you go ahead and think whatever you want.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I've made my point...

You've made claims that have been proven wrong.
You've made claims you refuse to support.
And now, you're running away from both.

Tell us -- why do you hold on to positions that you cannot support and/or have been demonstrated unsound?

The fact that you cram your head into the sand ... or your fingers in your ears doesn't mean you've prevailed on anything.

You'd have a point here if I'd done either -- but I haven't.

I HAVE dispelled your claim that background checks will prevent any of the things you claim they will prevent -- with "prevent" being YOUR word.

I HAVE asked you to support your claims regarding the instances where prior resttaint is constitutionally acceptable and then show how these instances support the idea that background check are also a permissible prior restraint -- which you have refused to even TRY to do.

Fact of the matter is that you have been trounced and you're all butthurt about it.
Disagree? You know what you have to do...

 

[Polk]

It's pretty difficult to "dispelled" his claim, since we don't really have background checks in any meaningful way right now.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's pretty difficult to "dispelled" his claim, since we don't really have background checks in any meaningful way right now.

His claim was that universal background checks would "prevent" - his word - straw purchases.
That was simply and easily dispelled. He refuses to accept this.

 

[ima]

Guns don't kill people, bullets do. Outlaw bullets today. No 2nd amendment protection for bullets.

 

[nodoginnafight]

It's pretty difficult to "dispelled" his claim, since we don't really have background checks in any meaningful way right now.

His claim was that universal background checks would "prevent" - his word - straw purchases.
That was simply and easily dispelled. He refuses to accept this.

ONE person refuses to make a straw purchase because the act can be traced and is illegal.

BINGO - universal background check has PREVENTED a straw purchase.

So go dispel yourself.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's pretty difficult to "dispelled" his claim, since we don't really have background checks in any meaningful way right now.

His claim was that universal background checks would "prevent" - his word - straw purchases.
That was simply and easily dispelled. He refuses to accept this.

ONE person refuses to make a straw purchase because the act can be traced and is illegal.

BINGO - universal background check has PREVENTED a straw purchase.

So go dispel yourself.

So the buyer goes down to the local bar and finds someone who isn't so choosy, mainly because he's a criminal himself selling stolen guns.
BINGO--universal background check enables gun theft and prevents nothing.

You lose.