Do You Support The "Gun Show Loophole?"

[Polk]

Sure you can. Clinton and the Democrats did it twice.

Once when they made the tax increases retroactive and the second time when they passed the Violence against Women act and made past Domestic Violence convictions, admissions of guilt, and pleas of No Contest fall under the law for the person not being able to own any firearms.

There were reports of Police Officers and Military who were retroactively affected and lost their jobs because of it.

A change in tax rates is not a punishment for a crime, nor are restrictions on gun ownership by convicts.

So you seem to be saying that if Congress makes any form of child abuse an automatic death penalty, anyone in the past who has been convicted, plead guilty to, or even plead No Contest, to child abuse, they should be all rounded up and killed.

Am I right?

After all, Additional punishment was added to the punishment assigned by the court in those cases and Domestic Violence is often not a felony charge or a Class 5/D Felony. Yet by Federal law, once convicted, or if they had ever been convicted prior to the passage of the law, they lost their 2nd Amendment Rights.

You're not even close to right.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Are you actually dumb enough to believe that every gun used in the commission of a crime is stolen?

Are you actually dumb enough to believe that a poorly constructed straw man argument will help you recover in this debate?

 

[Polk]

It's not a strawman. You've claimed that people do not sell guns to criminals. I also enjoy how you ignore the rest of the post.

 

[OriginalShroom]

A change in tax rates is not a punishment for a crime, nor are restrictions on gun ownership by convicts.

So you seem to be saying that if Congress makes any form of child abuse an automatic death penalty, anyone in the past who has been convicted, plead guilty to, or even plead No Contest, to child abuse, they should be all rounded up and killed.

Am I right?

After all, Additional punishment was added to the punishment assigned by the court in those cases and Domestic Violence is often not a felony charge or a Class 5/D Felony. Yet by Federal law, once convicted, or if they had ever been convicted prior to the passage of the law, they lost their 2nd Amendment Rights.

You're not even close to right.

Then explain why retroactively applying the additional punishment of removal of 2nd Amendment rights is not the same as retroactively prosecuting those who ordered the strawman sales of firearms which were used to kill Mexicans and Americans on both sides of the border?

Strawman sales were already illegal when these were done, so a new crime is not being invented, only the punishment will be increased.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's not a strawman. You've claimed that people do not sell guns to criminals.

False.

From logical fallacy to outright lies.

You are the king of empty pockets.

{Where you go off the rails is in your imagining that your neighbor would WANT to sell their gun to a criminal.}

You slander and libel your neighbors.

I can say that the neighbors I know would not want criminals to be armed. So unless you live next to Barack Obama or Eric Holder, there is little to support your libel.

I also enjoy how you ignore the rest of the post.

A false premise with ancillary support is of no meaning.

Fact, The U.S.D.O.J. under Barack Obama sold guns to known criminals in the Mexican drug cartels in violation of federal law.

 

[Polk]

So you seem to be saying that if Congress makes any form of child abuse an automatic death penalty, anyone in the past who has been convicted, plead guilty to, or even plead No Contest, to child abuse, they should be all rounded up and killed.

Am I right?

After all, Additional punishment was added to the punishment assigned by the court in those cases and Domestic Violence is often not a felony charge or a Class 5/D Felony. Yet by Federal law, once convicted, or if they had ever been convicted prior to the passage of the law, they lost their 2nd Amendment Rights.

You're not even close to right.

Then explain why retroactively applying the additional punishment of removal of 2nd Amendment rights is not the same as retroactively prosecuting those who ordered the strawman sales of firearms which were used to kill Mexicans and Americans on both sides of the border?

Strawman sales were already illegal when these were done, so a new crime is not being invented, only the punishment will be increased.

Increasing the punishment after the fact is an ex post facto law, which both states and Congress are prohibited from passing under Article 1. The guns for child abusers thing is different, since it's not a punishment. It's not retroactively punishing someone for a crime they've already committed. It's a regulation preventing them from doing something today because of a status they have today.

 

[Polk]

It's not a strawman. You've claimed that people do not sell guns to criminals.

False.

From logical fallacy to outright lies.

You are the king of empty pockets.

{Where you go off the rails is in your imagining that your neighbor would WANT to sell their gun to a criminal.}

You slander and libel your neighbors.

I can say that the neighbors I know would not want criminals to be armed. So unless you live next to Barack Obama or Eric Holder, there is little to support your libel.

It's not slander. There are clearly individuals selling firearms to criminals. Otherwise, all firearms used in the commission of a crime would be stolen weapons.

I also enjoy how you ignore the rest of the post.

A false premise with ancillary support is of no meaning.

Fact, The U.S.D.O.J. under Barack Obama sold guns to known criminals in the Mexican drug cartels in violation of federal law.

What false premise? You claimed the President violated a particular statute and I showed you why your claim is not consistent with the language of the very statute you cited to.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's not slander.

No, it's libel. You defame your neighbors in print without a hint of evidence. All you have is a political agenda, thus you make outlandish accusations.

There are clearly individuals selling firearms to criminals.

Yes, Eric Holder and Barack Obama pop to mind.

This in no way supports your defamatory claim that your neighbor wants to sell his personal weapons to criminals for personal gain, as you stated.

Otherwise, all firearms used in the commission of a crime would be stolen weapons.

Wow, logic and reason are not elements you have even a passing familiarity with, are they?

Sources for criminals to get guns;

They buy them at a store. Background checks occasionally stop convicted felons. But unless the buyer has a prior conviction, the check does nothing. Christopher Dorner passed several in-depth background checks.

They buy them from criminal gangs. Chinese and Eastern European guns are extremely common and easy to get. No background checks, no issues at all. The black market is thriving. These are the weapons preferred by street gangs, since Uzi and Tec-9 full auto are favored in drive-bys.

They steal them. Theft from family and friends is the most common.

Private sales are the least common.

What false premise? You claimed the President violated a particular statute and I showed you why your claim is not consistent with the language of the very statute you cited to.

Obama cannot be tied directly. Holder violated the cited statute.

As for your claim;

{The firearms involved here were not being exported for official use by an agency, nor as part of foreign aid. This a lot narrower than the GCA exception for acts by a government agency, and for good reason: the purpose of this statute is to control executive agency actions. No gun running to foreign governments or persons without a paper trail (and in cases of large transactions, a prior request for Congressional approval)}

 

[OriginalShroom]

You're not even close to right.

Then explain why retroactively applying the additional punishment of removal of 2nd Amendment rights is not the same as retroactively prosecuting those who ordered the strawman sales of firearms which were used to kill Mexicans and Americans on both sides of the border?

Strawman sales were already illegal when these were done, so a new crime is not being invented, only the punishment will be increased.

Increasing the punishment after the fact is an ex post facto law, which both states and Congress are prohibited from passing under Article 1. The guns for child abusers thing is different, since it's not a punishment. It's not retroactively punishing someone for a crime they've already committed. It's a regulation preventing them from doing something today because of a status they have today.

Up until the day that law was passed, they were allowed to have guns. The next day they were.

Sure sounds like a punishment to me. A restriction of an Constitutionally Protected Right imposed on people who had already completed their sentence.

So you can keep tap dancing, but the facts are the facts and you can't change them.

 

[Polk]

It's not slander.

No, it's libel. You defame your neighbors in print without a hint of evidence. All you have is a political agenda, thus you make outlandish accusations.

There are clearly individuals selling firearms to criminals.

Yes, Eric Holder and Barack Obama pop to mind.

This in no way supports your defamatory claim that your neighbor wants to sell his personal weapons to criminals for personal gain, as you stated.

Otherwise, all firearms used in the commission of a crime would be stolen weapons.

Wow, logic and reason are not elements you have even a passing familiarity with, are they?

Sources for criminals to get guns;

They buy them at a store. Background checks occasionally stop convicted felons. But unless the buyer has a prior conviction, the check does nothing. Christopher Dorner passed several in-depth background checks.

They buy them from criminal gangs. Chinese and Eastern European guns are extremely common and easy to get. No background checks, no issues at all. The black market is thriving. These are the weapons preferred by street gangs, since Uzi and Tec-9 full auto are favored in drive-bys.

They steal them. Theft from family and friends is the most common.

Private sales are the least common.

So, different types of purchases are proof no one purchases them. That makes no sense.

What false premise? You claimed the President violated a particular statute and I showed you why your claim is not consistent with the language of the very statute you cited to.

Obama cannot be tied directly. Holder violated the cited statute.

As for your claim;

{The firearms involved here were not being exported for official use by an agency, nor as part of foreign aid. This a lot narrower than the GCA exception for acts by a government agency, and for good reason: the purpose of this statute is to control executive agency actions. No gun running to foreign governments or persons without a paper trail (and in cases of large transactions, a prior request for Congressional approval)}

The statute does not require the export to be for official use.

 

[Polk]

Then explain why retroactively applying the additional punishment of removal of 2nd Amendment rights is not the same as retroactively prosecuting those who ordered the strawman sales of firearms which were used to kill Mexicans and Americans on both sides of the border?

Strawman sales were already illegal when these were done, so a new crime is not being invented, only the punishment will be increased.

Increasing the punishment after the fact is an ex post facto law, which both states and Congress are prohibited from passing under Article 1. The guns for child abusers thing is different, since it's not a punishment. It's not retroactively punishing someone for a crime they've already committed. It's a regulation preventing them from doing something today because of a status they have today.

Up until the day that law was passed, they were allowed to have guns. The next day they were.

Sure sounds like a punishment to me. A restriction of an Constitutionally Protected Right imposed on people who had already completed their sentence.

So you can keep tap dancing, but the facts are the facts and you can't change them.

The facts are on my side. It's been fully litigated in court, and that's the relevant issue. Restrictions of criminals owning firearms are status offenses. Just like minors drinking alcohol.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Key word: knowingly. Good luck proving that in court.

Where you go off the rails is in your imagining that your neighbor would WANT to sell their gun to a criminal.

They're more than willing to do it, for a premium.

You must live in a very ratty neighborhood...

 

[Polk]

Where you go off the rails is in your imagining that your neighbor would WANT to sell their gun to a criminal.

They're more than willing to do it, for a premium.

You must live in a very ratty neighborhood...

Very nice neighborhood, actually. I'm just not so naive as to believe people don't have a price.

 

[polarbear]

A spin off of the other thread where I have asked numerous times and not a single right winger has answered, is if you support the gun show loophole.

For those that may not know, under current federal law if you wish to purchases a firearm, you have to be run in a background check to make sure you are not a felon, been convicted of a violent crime, been in a mental institution, etc,..before they give the go ahead to sell that person a weapon. However under the "gun show loophole", there are not background checks at all.

That's right, absoutly nothing. A violent thug fresh out of the penitentiary, a terrorist, or a nutcases ready to commit the next sandy hook could go down to their local gun show, or find a classified ad selling a firearm and they could purchase deadly weapons, with no questions asked.

So you go on the assumption that a felon or would be felon who wants a gun to shoot up a school, files the application form , gets turned down and that`s it ?

I`ve got my own hobby machine shop and I can make whatever I want whenever I want and sell it to whomever I want...how would you control that..? Just for the fun of it I made a .22 that looks like a ball point pen and put it into the tray at Winnipeg International a few years ago. Nobody gave it even a second look !
I don`t have a 3D printer (yet) ...but would I own one then I would not even need any machining skills at all:

Wiki Weapon - 3D Printable Gun - Defense Distributed



Lucky for you, that almost all legitimate gun-owners and those who are able to make their own have no intention to harm anyone unless it`s a last resort self defense action.

Don`t worry I`m just as concerned as you to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but I`ll rather disarm him at gun point than reminding him what the law says and hope he doesn`t kill me...
I got stuck with my truck for 3 days on Fort Street in Detroit and the only thing that kept me alive was the .38 a Detroit city cop lent me because they could not stay there to babysit me till I got a new alternator.
He had not even turned the corner and I was already accosted by a carload of hoods that knew damn well that Canadian Truckers don`t carry guns. 10 yards in front of my truck the pavement still had dried blood stains where another trucker was brutally murdered for his credit cards.

I got lucky because later that night I gave a bum who wanted some buck$ my grease gun and showed him how to lube U-joints in the fenced and guarded truck stop just 1 mile down that road. He made a fistful of money, came back and wanted to split it with me,...luck had it he was the dad of 3 of the hoods that tried to rob me earlier...after that they "organized" a new alternator for me, even helped me install it and used their car to charge my batteries.
But if I would have been unarmed at the first contact I would not be able to sit here today and tell you about it.
The trucking...I did that just for the fun of it and because I always got bored when I had 6 months off duty from my regular job.

And before you ask, no I never had to shoot a polar bear, every one I encountered broke off the charge when I stood my ground.

 

[ima]

We should have National Shootout Day, and everyone who owns a gun gets to be in one massive shootout once a year. We could have the 10 paces face-off...

 

[logical4u]

Then explain why retroactively applying the additional punishment of removal of 2nd Amendment rights is not the same as retroactively prosecuting those who ordered the strawman sales of firearms which were used to kill Mexicans and Americans on both sides of the border?

Strawman sales were already illegal when these were done, so a new crime is not being invented, only the punishment will be increased.

Increasing the punishment after the fact is an ex post facto law, which both states and Congress are prohibited from passing under Article 1. The guns for child abusers thing is different, since it's not a punishment. It's not retroactively punishing someone for a crime they've already committed. It's a regulation preventing them from doing something today because of a status they have today.

Up until the day that law was passed, they were allowed to have guns. The next day they were.

Sure sounds like a punishment to me. A restriction of an Constitutionally Protected Right imposed on people who had already completed their sentence.

So you can keep tap dancing, but the facts are the facts and you can't change them.

IMHO, since the "right to bear arms" is in the Constitution, before the right to "vote", any law made against the right to "bear arms" (specifically AGAINST the Constitution), should also be applied to every VOTER. If you are required to be "fingerprinted" to buy a gun, you should also be "fingerprinted" to vote. Waiting periods, ID, etc should also be applied to the voter. Let us see how serious the left is when it comes to trampling their "rights"?

 

[hunarcy]

Guns should only be sold at gun stores, if you have a gun to sell, sell it on consignment at the gun store. VERY VERY simple measure.

So, you feel perfectly comfortable telling me how to deal with my private property that I want to leave to my children or grandchildren. I have never understood that sort of dictatorial mindset.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So, you feel perfectly comfortable telling me how to deal with my private property that I want to leave to my children or grandchildren. I have never understood that sort of dictatorial mindset.

That just means that you're not a democrat.

 

[Uncensored2008]

We should have National Shootout Day, and everyone who owns a gun gets to be in one massive shootout once a year. We could have the 10 paces face-off...

We should have "National Gulag Day." Where every democrat in the nation gets to put other democrats in death camps and create "Killing Fields" once a year.

 

[ima]

We should have National Shootout Day, and everyone who owns a gun gets to be in one massive shootout once a year. We could have the 10 paces face-off...

We should have "National Gulag Day." Where every democrat in the nation gets to put other democrats in death camps and create "Killing Fields" once a year.

I'm a republican who voted for Obama.

Romney=stupid