Do You Support The "Gun Show Loophole?"

[Coyote]

But, of course, if law enforcement actually is given a tool (such as required registration) to enforce the law forbidding gun sales without background checks that would prevent violent criminals from walking into the civic center gun show and walking out with an AR-15, the NRA and others begin wringing their hands and screaming, "They are going to come in the middle of the night and take our guns away!"

Good to see that you're willing to admit that UBC requires universal registration, and that universal registration was the intent all along.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/277079-universal-background-checks.html

Registration is the inevitable consequence of background checks because otherwise it makes enforcement impossible.
Of course registration is impossible as well because there are 300M guns in circulation and people wont register them. That was the experience in Canada, which doesnt have much history of civil disobedience.

Precisely. I don't see that a national register is likely. But I disagree that a universal background check will have to lead to a registry. Enforcement is not based upon weapons owned but upon factors the background check is supposed to find - whether you were a felon for example.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Simple possession of the ability to gather masses and inspire them does no harm - that's oratory skill and charisma. But when the speaker chooses to turn the crowd towards violence - then it does harm. Despite that, we restrict certain types of free speech.

Yes...and...?
Apply that to the right to arms.

Certain types of speech are restricted.

Because they harm others or places them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

Certain types of arms can be restricted.

Simple posession of what sort of firearm causes harm to others or places them in a condtition of clear, present and immediate danger?
How does the simple posession of these firearms do this?

 

[Vast LWC]

How is your idea working with the tracking of EVERY vehicle in America?
Car thefts are at an all time high.
HELLO

That's a false comparison for many, many reasons.

 

[Spoonman]

Up to a point.

Free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to assemble, right to bare arms - you can't treat them exactly the same because they are not the same.

But, for example - you can't incite riots, you can't lead a mob to vigilante justice, you can't commit slander or libel, your freedom of religion does not allow child abuse, animal abuse, the right to burn down other places of worship, sacrificing people and a host of other things.

and you can't kill someone with a gun. you can't bring a gun into a federal building. there are laws, there are sensible liitations that do not restrict rights or limit ownership.

So for you then, the question is about where do you draw the line?

Do you draw it at:

fully automatic weapons
certains types of ammo
high capacity mags
rocket launchers
grenades
nukes
large scale bombs
cannons
napalm

?

i don't draw a line. and again, there are laws that say you can't own rocket launchers, grenades, large scale bombs, but who owns them now? terrorists. automatic weapons are banned, but who owns them? gangs and criminals.

So when you really take a look at the current live examples of what is being proposed, it doesn't work.

 

[Vast LWC]

I know that the cities with the tightest gun control laws have the highest murder rates.

I also know that that none of the perps of the mass shootings that has a bug up the asses of all of you bedwetting lolberals went through a background check to get their weapons.

Background checks are completely ineffective....Period.

Well that is just altogether false.

New York City is one of the safest large cities to live in in the nation, and it has very strict gun control laws.

Missouri doesn't have a particularly strict set of Gun Laws, as far as I know, and is is the most dangerous city in the nation.

Virginia has basically no gun laws, and Richmond is regularly in the top 10 most dangerous cities.

so NY's like 450 gun homicides don't count for anything?

In a population of 9 MILLION people? No, pretty much not.

 

[Spoonman]

Simple possession of the ability to gather masses and inspire them does no harm - that's oratory skill and charisma. But when the speaker chooses to turn the crowd towards violence - then it does harm. Despite that, we restrict certain types of free speech.

Yes...and...?
Apply that to the right to arms.

Certain types of speech are restricted.

Certain types of arms can be restricted.

its actually how you use the speech that is restricted.

 

[Vast LWC]

The people selling guns to criminals are themselves criminals. Or did you miss that?

No, they are not.

Because in private sales, the only rule is that a seller should not sell to a person they have reason to believe is a criminal.

Which can be easily circumvented through pleading ignorance.

It is almost impossible to prove that a person knew that the buyer was a criminal at the time.

 

[tjvh]

Up to a point.

Free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to assemble, right to bare arms - you can't treat them exactly the same because they are not the same.

But, for example - you can't incite riots, you can't lead a mob to vigilante justice, you can't commit slander or libel, your freedom of religion does not allow child abuse, animal abuse, the right to burn down other places of worship, sacrificing people and a host of other things.

and you can't kill someone with a gun. you can't bring a gun into a federal building. there are laws, there are sensible liitations that do not restrict rights or limit ownership.

So for you then, the question is about where do you draw the line?

Do you draw it at:

fully automatic weapons
certains types of ammo
high capacity mags
rocket launchers
grenades
nukes
large scale bombs
cannons
napalm

?

I would take the phrase bear arms to mean any gun that I can physically carry. Magazines are specific to the guns they are designed for, thus I consider magazines part of that gun. Let me know when the issue of private citizens obtaining nukes, napalm, hand grenades, etc. become a rational argument in the case for gun control.

 

[Spoonman]

Well that is just altogether false.

New York City is one of the safest large cities to live in in the nation, and it has very strict gun control laws.

Missouri doesn't have a particularly strict set of Gun Laws, as far as I know, and is is the most dangerous city in the nation.

Virginia has basically no gun laws, and Richmond is regularly in the top 10 most dangerous cities.

so NY's like 450 gun homicides don't count for anything?

In a population of 9 MILLION people? No, pretty much not.

excellent, so don't let me hear you complain about 26 deaths in connecticut

 

[Vast LWC]

Actually DC is the most dangerous, with the strictest gun laws pretty much in the country.

However, DC is for all intensive purposes, part of Virginia (and Maryland), and therefore, anyone who lives in a DC suburb to the south of the city can purchase guns under Virginia law.

Chicago ranks up there.

Not anywhere near the top, in fact.

But we dont need to play this game. Look at two cities with identical gun laws and disparate records on gun crime: Memphis TN and Knoxville TN. Memphis has a crime rate about 80% higher than Knoxville, even with the same laws. Why? Because laws are no deterrent to crime. Culture is.

You're right, we don't need to play this game.

And I wasn't saying that guns made a city more dangerous.

I was responding to a post where it was claimed that guns make a city LESS dangerous.

Which is simply untrue.

 

[Coyote]

and you can't kill someone with a gun. you can't bring a gun into a federal building. there are laws, there are sensible liitations that do not restrict rights or limit ownership.

So for you then, the question is about where do you draw the line?

Do you draw it at:

fully automatic weapons
certains types of ammo
high capacity mags
rocket launchers
grenades
nukes
large scale bombs
cannons
napalm

?

I would take the phrase bear arms to mean any gun that I can physically carry. Magazines are specific to the guns they are designed for, thus I consider magazines part of that gun. Let me know when the issue of private citizens obtaining nukes, napalm, hand grenades, etc. become a rational argument in the case for gun control.

I would say that banning fully automatic weapons, certain types of ammo, and large capacity mags to be rational.

Is the line you are drawing then arbritrary?

 

[Coyote]

and you can't kill someone with a gun. you can't bring a gun into a federal building. there are laws, there are sensible liitations that do not restrict rights or limit ownership.

So for you then, the question is about where do you draw the line?

Do you draw it at:

fully automatic weapons
certains types of ammo
high capacity mags
rocket launchers
grenades
nukes
large scale bombs
cannons
napalm

?

i don't draw a line. and again, there are laws that say you can't own rocket launchers, grenades, large scale bombs, but who owns them now? terrorists. automatic weapons are banned, but who owns them? gangs and criminals.

So when you really take a look at the current live examples of what is being proposed, it doesn't work.

That's always going to be the case. So do you think nothing should be banned then?

 

[Dubya]

And how many in Mexico, which has stricter gun laws than the U.S?

As usual you deflect to irrelevance when caught in a web of lies and deceit.

That's why they come here to buy their guns, see?

You understand that's illegal, right?

As usual you deflect to irrelevance when caught in a web of lies and deceit.

I understand you NRA gun nutters send the Mexican Drug Cartels invitations.

 

[martybegan]

So for you then, the question is about where do you draw the line?

Do you draw it at:

fully automatic weapons
certains types of ammo
high capacity mags
rocket launchers
grenades
nukes
large scale bombs
cannons
napalm

?

I would take the phrase bear arms to mean any gun that I can physically carry. Magazines are specific to the guns they are designed for, thus I consider magazines part of that gun. Let me know when the issue of private citizens obtaining nukes, napalm, hand grenades, etc. become a rational argument in the case for gun control.

I would say that banning fully automatic weapons, certain types of ammo, and large capacity mags to be rational.

Is the line you are drawing then arbritrary?

Magazine size bans are cosmetic and silly. considering the newtown shooter had 10-20 minutes by himself, he could have used 10 round mags just as easy.

Fully automatic weapons have been used in how many crimes recently? Explosive ammuntion has been used in how many crimes recently?

And before you go all nutty on "hollow points" remember these are actually the preferred type of round in an urban setting, as FMJ tends to go through drywall rather easily.

 

[Oddball]

That's why they come here to buy their guns, see?

You understand that's illegal, right?

As usual you deflect to irrelevance when caught in a web of lies and deceit.

I understand you NRA gun nutters send the Mexican Drug Cartels invitations.

We understand that all your scaremongering lolberal memes and outright lies have been blown to shit, so all that's left for you is to demagogue and try to change the subject.

Happens a lot around here.

 

[DiamondDave]

So for you then, the question is about where do you draw the line?

Do you draw it at:

fully automatic weapons
certains types of ammo
high capacity mags
rocket launchers
grenades
nukes
large scale bombs
cannons
napalm

?

I would take the phrase bear arms to mean any gun that I can physically carry. Magazines are specific to the guns they are designed for, thus I consider magazines part of that gun. Let me know when the issue of private citizens obtaining nukes, napalm, hand grenades, etc. become a rational argument in the case for gun control.

I would say that banning fully automatic weapons, certain types of ammo, and large capacity mags to be rational.

Is the line you are drawing then arbritrary?

And how is limiting capacity rational?? Are you limiting the defensive capability of the law abiding while the criminal ignores the law and gains the upper hand??

As for automatic weapons "illegal"?? No.. but heavily regulated to those with specific need for their profession, sport, etc and to those with special training.. IMHO I do not thing ex military should be banned from owning an automatic weapon...

Is it rational to keep the public away from depleted uranium rounds?? yeah, probably.. away from hollowpoints or other specialty common technology ammunition?? No

 

[OriginalShroom]

I agree to some extent. Laws need to be enforceable and there needs to be the public will to enforce them.

However in this case I think the laws being proposed are modest and moderate: universal background check for example. Yet anytime something is proposed, you have one side jumping up and down claiming that the government is now going to confiscate your weapons and guns will be banned. That is highly unlikely given public opinion and the constitution (with the right to bare arms strongly affirmed in a recent Supreme Court case).

So why not consider reasonable gun control measures if it might keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people, potential suicides (3 day waiting period), and possibly make it more difficult for at least some criminals to get them?

Compromise is a 2-way street.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/277676-so-you-want-the-nra-pro-gun-side-to-compromise.html

Is this about "compromise" or seeing that something might be mutually beneficial?

I don't see any need to "compromise" with the NRA any more than any political action group. We don't "compromise" with the alcohal industries on laws regarding drunk driving do we?

I think they make good points - for example I fully support their educational efforts and think those should be more widespread because are culture has moved far away from the original idea that a gun is a tool that should be used responsibly and with respect for what it can do. Most people today have never grown up with guns.

On the other hand - I see no reason not have a universal background check. I also see no reason why we should allow unrestricted access to fully automatic weapons, armor piercing ammunition, or high capacity magazines who's sole purpose is to kill cops or kill lots of people very quickly. To me, it falls in the same category as restricting pocket nukes or rocket launchers. Beyond that, I see no reason to restrict anything else.

Sorry, but other than age laws and few areas with Sunday blue Laws., I don't know of any laws that prevent a person from buying alcohol. Even a woman who is obviously pregnant can buy and consume if she wants.

Even the town drunk with 14 DUIs can still buy alcohol.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes...and...?
Apply that to the right to arms.

Certain types of speech are restricted.

Because they harm others or places them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

Certain types of arms can be restricted.

Simple posession of what sort of firearm causes harm to others or places them in a condtition of clear, present and immediate danger?
How does the simple posession of these firearms do this?

Waiting for a response.

Simple posession of what sort of firearm causes harm to others or places them in a condtition of clear, present and immediate danger?
How does the simple posession of these firearms do this?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I agree to some extent. Laws need to be enforceable and there needs to be the public will to enforce them.

However in this case I think the laws being proposed are modest and moderate: universal background check for example. Yet anytime something is proposed, you have one side jumping up and down claiming that the government is now going to confiscate your weapons and guns will be banned. That is highly unlikely given public opinion and the constitution (with the right to bare arms strongly affirmed in a recent Supreme Court case).

So why not consider reasonable gun control measures if it might keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people, potential suicides (3 day waiting period), and possibly make it more difficult for at least some criminals to get them?

Compromise is a 2-way street.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/277676-so-you-want-the-nra-pro-gun-side-to-compromise.html

Is this about "compromise" or seeing that something might be mutually beneficial?

"You" want the NRA/Pro-gun side to compromise and agree to give up someting trleated to the right to arms.
By defintion, there can be no compromise unless the other side - the anti-gun/pro-gun control side - gives something in return.

 

[Vast LWC]

Registration is the inevitable consequence of background checks because otherwise it makes enforcement impossible.
Of course registration is impossible as well because there are 300M guns in circulation and people wont register them. That was the experience in Canada, which doesnt have much history of civil disobedience.

And if people are caught with said unregistered weapons, they will be prosecuted. Encouraging everyone to register their weapons.