Do You Support The "Gun Show Loophole?"

[OKTexas]

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.

I believe EVERY sale of a firearm should require a background check.

If you wanted to sell a gun, how would you do a background check?

 

[Tech_Esq]

A person can be disarmed without it violating the Constitution...Yes. If that person violates the Law they can, everyone else is protected by that pesky little line that says "shall not be infringed".

So, if a raving lunatic is outside a Denny's waving an AR-15 in people's faces, and yelling about snakes crawling all over his body, then local law enforcement cannot take his weapon?

You can't yell fire in a crowded theater and you can't yell snakes at Denny's. Public safety exception.

 

[Tech_Esq]

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.

I believe EVERY sale of a firearm should require a background check.

If you wanted to sell a gun, how would you do a background check?

Right now, you and the person you are selling it to go to a FFL and you pay a transfer fee and they do the check.

 

[OKTexas]

There have been other shootings besides Newtown where, perhaps that might have made a small difference or - reloading could have allowed someone a chance to get at the shooter.



I don't have stats on that but, again they are something that could add a margin of safety without drastically impacting legitimate gun owners.



I wasn't going to go all "nutty" on hollow points, but thanks for the info

you can change a magazine in two seconds. I don't think anyone who is unarmed and under fire is going to be able to react that quickly.

Some can change a magazine in two seconds - that's an ideal for a pro. It gives someone an opening that could divert a shooters attention long enough to make a difference.

Why does anyone need to have a high capacity magazine - any more than say a rocket launcher?

Never been wild bore hunting in S. TX have you?

 

[Vast LWC]

Dumbasses. There's no such thing as a gun show loophole.

Wow, this is quite a talking point today, isn't it?

Did FoxNews hand this down over the weekend?

 

[Liability]

Dumbasses. There's no such thing as a gun show loophole.

but but but



Sorry. Just channeling the dopey Crack_Fable.

 

[Vast LWC]

I'm a lawful gun owner. If you pass a law saying I now have to register my guns. I would not comply. Now I'm a criminal. You've just made a criminal out of a law abiding citizen. This is how you know you are passing bad laws.

No, YOU have made a criminal out of a law-abiding citizen.

There is nothing stopping you from registering your weapon, you are choosing not to do so, thus breaking the law.

By definition, if you are breaking the law, then you are not in fact a "law-abiding citizen".

 

[Tech_Esq]

I'll add that the number of murders from all causes in Richmond in 2010 was 41. The crime rate in Richmond has been steadily declining since 2004. Richmond crime stats

That's good for Richmond, I'll give you that. It's still way up there in terms of dangerous cities though.

But again, my point is that local gun laws have little to no bearing on violent crime rates within a city.

Mainly because we have this thing called a "national highway system" on which people can "drive" from place to place.

Ummm.....beats Baltimore....lol. And look at the gun laws there or DC.

I'd say local gun laws have a great deal to do with gun crime. Most murder is committed by someone the victim knew. Almost no crime is committed by roving people going up and down I-95 and when it is, the press talks about it because it is unusual. And, that's just not murder, that's any crime. We had a guy that was committing burglary over a wide area over a couple of states and it was all over the news. There was another guy that was committing stabbings around here and in Ohio I think. We heard about him too. It's fairly rare.

But, the word is on the street around here, if you are going to commit a crime in the DC Metro area, you make sure you aren't in VA. Because you are going to do hard time. We have the outgrowth of Project Exile and truth in sentencing. Exile involves mandatory minimums for gun possession in the commission of a felony, gun use and actually hitting someone with higher sentences for each. Truth in sentencing means you do at least 85% of whatever time you are sentenced to. Your state should try it, it works.

 

[tjvh]

A person can be disarmed without it violating the Constitution...Yes. If that person violates the Law they can, everyone else is protected by that pesky little line that says "shall not be infringed".

So, if a raving lunatic is outside a Denny's waving an AR-15 in people's faces, and yelling about snakes crawling all over his body, then local law enforcement cannot take his weapon?

The Law already says nuts and felons cannot have weapons, so yes -Law enforcement may take the gun. Of course you would have known that if only you were thinking about the issue rationally instead of emotionally.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I'm a lawful gun owner. If you pass a law saying I now have to register my guns. I would not comply. Now I'm a criminal. You've just made a criminal out of a law abiding citizen. This is how you know you are passing bad laws.

No, YOU have made a criminal out of a law-abiding citizen.

There is nothing stopping you from registering your weapon, you are choosing not to do so, thus breaking the law.

By definition, if you are breaking the law, then you are not in fact a "law-abiding citizen".

You know exactly what I mean. Don't get cute.

Yes, I am choosing to break the law. The law should not have been enacted. It is a bad law and I believe it violates the oath I took to uphold the Constitution. I believe it will be overturned and it's a bad idea to let the government know I have whatever guns in the meantime or depend on records destruction later.

I will not be fingerprinted, I will not have my picture taken, I will not register any weapons I will not comply.

 

[Dubya]

so when do we start doing background checks on people registering to vote and force them to have some form of government ID? Now i recall when conservatives made this type of recommendation you cried it was a violation of their constitutional rights and unfairly inconvenieced the poor. why do you have a sudden change of heart all of a sudden? why the double standard?

The Constitution doesn't give you the right to vote and only prohibits denying people's rights as citizens. How can you claim the person voting has to register, but a gun owner can't be required to register? The fact is the state requires a person to register to vote and the state can require a registration to own a firearm. The Constitution only prohibits disarming the populace and that is a right involvng the general public and not an individual's right in the sense of applying it to themselves. A person can be disarmed without it violating the Constitution. A person has the right to not have the populace disarmed.

I'd say "disarmed" is not the standard. The populace has the right to have an effective deterrent, via arms, to a tyrannical government. That is the point. That's why the amendment is there. Anything that degrades that effectiveness must be subject to the highest of scrutiny. The government must show a compelling state interest and that there is no less restrictive alternatives than the one that they have chosen and that it is both neutral and effective in its operation.

Effective deterrence, it seems to me, would have a couple of components. First, access to arms that are effective enough, when widely held, to achieve their purpose. Think about it, potentially, these people would have to go up against jets, drones, bombs, helicopters disciplined troops. It would be a nightmare. We've restricted military level arms from civilian ownership already for the most part. We don't let anyone own mortars, let alone artillery. We can't have anti-aircraft missiles or armor for the most part, just old disarmed stuff. It would be quite a feat. And, the current proposals would make it even more of an uphill battle. And for what? Any hope of effectiveness? No. Just a, "well, maybe we could get a bad guy when he reloads." What a crock. Nobody that knows anything about guns believes that for an instant. This last guy didn't even finish any magazines. He reloaded a bunch when he didn't even run out so he wouldn't run out in the middle of a room. There goes the reload theory.

And effective deterrence means something that is not easily thwarted by the government itself. If it knows where to go to pick up the guns, then it can do it. It did it in New Orleans and it can do it anywhere else.

Interestingly, this is where only the lawful gun owner needs to worry. It's unlikely the criminal would join in a patriotic regime change effort. So, only the lawful gun owners are serious threats to the government. Kinda paradoxical isn't it?

That's your point of view, but the fact is the Founders believed the government could be changed at the polls and their concern was the military taking control and making a tyrannical government. The Founders created a government that couldn't be tyrannical and it's people talking about changing the government by force who are the tyrants. Logic should dictate, we have not followed the warning of the Founders and created a standing army and then some. Only a moron would think they can change our government by force. Try taking over the government around people like me and you're going to get a trial by a firing squad! Tell Ted Nugent and all the rest of the NRA nutters that! You better take your rebellion to a country that will put up with it and a country where you have a chance of surviving!

Think about this! I don't give a **** what you people believe the 2nd Amendment was made for and if you cross the line, you die if you're around me. The day you fools try to take over our government is your last day on Earth, unless the military gets to you first and arrests you for treason. I'm not taking prisoners.

Keep stirring the pot until it all boils over at once and see what you get!

 

[M14 Shooter]

Gun registration is a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same, and thus, an infringement - that alone is enough to oppose it.

That is only true if a person is charged for gun registration. If they are not, then it is not a precondition, but simply an official record keeping, kept for public safety purposes.

No, its true, period - payment or not, its is something you have to do before you can exercise your right -- a precondition to the exercise.
Nothing about the right to arms inherently requires that the govenment know you have a gun, and so the precondition is not inherent to said exercise.
Thus, infringement.

Background checks are in fact a precondition....

...one also not inherent to the exercise, and thus, an infringement.
They are also a form of prior restraint, in and of itsel,f an infringement.

It is impossible to argue that these things are not infringements; the only question is they are an effective means to affect a compelling state interest and are the least restrictive means to that end - the burden of proof of which is on the state. Feel free to show this to be the case.

...and have been ruled constitutional time and time again.

Please cite just one SCotUS decision that upholds the constitutionality of a background check for the purchase of a firearm.

Keeping tabs on who has guns is not only not a violation of the Second Amendment, but is in perfect keeping with organizing "a well-regulated militia", which is the entire purpose of the Second Amendment in the first place.

Except, of course, that the 2nd protects the right of an individual regardless of his relationship to any militia - and ns such, the idea that the state needs to know who does and does not have weapons because of some need to regulate the militia does not hold water.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Think about this! I don't give a **** what you people believe the 2nd Amendment was made for and if you cross the line, you die if you're around me. The day you fools try to take over our government is your last day on Earth, unless the military gets to you first and arrests you for treason. I'm not taking prisoners.

Keep stirring the pot until it all boils over at once and see what you get!

So you will muster in to attack Texas and Texans should she vow dissolution ?

 

[Dubya]

Dumbasses. There's no such thing as a gun show loophole.

Then there should be no problem for you gun nutters when we close it!

It never happened, right?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Think about this! I don't give a **** what you people believe the 2nd Amendment was made for and if you cross the line, you die if you're around me. The day you fools try to take over our government is your last day on Earth, unless the military gets to you first and arrests you for treason. I'm not taking prisoners.

Keep stirring the pot until it all boils over at once and see what you get!

So you will muster in to attack Texas and Texans should she vow dissolution ?

Why does anyone respond to Dubya? He's clearly little more than a pre-pubescent lunatic.

 

[OKTexas]

Some can change a magazine in two seconds - that's an ideal for a pro. It gives someone an opening that could divert a shooters attention long enough to make a difference.

Why does anyone need to have a high capacity magazine - any more than say a rocket launcher?

Some can change a magazine in less time than that. The standard for Infantry soldiers is that you must be able to clear a misfire in you weapon (which requires many more steps than changing magazines) in under 5 seconds. So, how many of those could there possibly be in the country. Hmmm....lessee. We graduate about maybe 50 or 60 thousand a year. They probably live to more than 70, but let's just say 60 years old. So about 50,000 times 40. So that's roughly a couple million people. And, that's just the former Infantry out of one branch and not giving anyone else any credit.

Why do I need a need a "high capacity" magazine. I don't. I consider a "High Capacity" magazine something that is larger than the manufacturer recommended for that weapon. I don't need anything larger than a 20 or 30 round magazine.

Why do I need a normal sized magazine for my rifle? For the same reason the military does. We all have a second amendment responsibility that goes along with the right. We have a responsibility to overthrow a tyrannical government should one arise. A military weapon would be nice to have for that. But, since we can't have that, we have to make due with semi-autos. That's bad enough, but limiting the capacity of the magazine is unconscionable. The rocket launcher would no doubt go past it's due date before I ever used it. They have a shelf life.....did you know?

Had no idea of rocket launcher shelf life (haven't gone shopping for one yet)

Interesting information though, and thanks. I think one of the fundamental differences in thought we probably have is the view that "we have a responsibility to overthrow a tyrannical government should one arise" and that should drive our choices as to what firearms we can own.

Personally - I tend to be less paranoid of government and trust in the ability of our political system, as slow and half-assed crazy as it is - to prevent the rise of a tyrannical government. That could change, but that is my view at this point.

If you give up the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government wouldn't that be the same as inviting one? History has proven time and time again that governments don't generally have the ability to police themselves. There are 100"s of millions dead to attest to that fact. Even if we don't need the ability now, can you say with absolute certainty that Americans 50 or 100 years from now won't, we have an obligation to them to preserve their rights.

 

[Bfgrn]

Misusing a quote does not prove anything other than your inability to comprehend English.

Misusing? Thomas Jefferson couldn't be any more clear. He made similar statements.

Misusing, as in using it in an attempt to argue one thing when it is about the opposite. For example, in the quote you used above Jefferson was saying that government should not exist if it destroys life.

Yet, somehow, you think it should exist even if it does as long as you can pretend it protects somebody.

**** off.

Let me continue your education, even though you will not learn a god damned thing as a result.



How is you imposing your interpretation of my rights on me by force in any way an accurate representation of the argument that the only legitimate function of government to ensure the equal rights of all people?



How is Jefferson pointing out that the youth of his old age has as much right to rebel against the government as he did when he signed the Declaration of Independence is an argument in favor of government power?



I bet you think this means the whole outweighs the individual.

What it actually means is that without the individual being free, society cannot be free.

"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

Yet you think your fear of guns somehow outweighs another persons right to defend themselves, and you want me to believe Jefferson would agree with you because you don't know how to read English.

"The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465

Once again, this does not give you more rights than it gives me.

Education complete, I hope you learned, even though my guess is you are currently sputtering in indignation because I did not fall into the collective mindset simply because you have a bunch of quotes available to misuse.

Education? Seriously?? Do you make this shit up in your little mind as you go along??? Jefferson and our founding fathers did not have a paranoid fear of the government they created. When Jefferson said: "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government" he was talking about what government's role is. In that same letter he talks about the 'public good'.

If you want to educate yourself, read the Federalist Papers where Hamilton and Madison talk about a well regulated militia. The Federalist Papers were arguments FOR the creation of a federal government. And they come close to outright mocking the anti-Federalist who spewed the same 'slippery slope' paranoia you right wing turds keep spewing.

 

[OriginalShroom]

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.

You missed the point - they can't keep driving. Legally.

How can I miss a point you didn't make? What does the Alcohol industries, or even the automanufacturing industry have to do with laws against drunk drives?

We don't hold either one responsible when someone gets drunk on their product and drives in their product and kills or injuries someone. We hold that individual responsible and the first step is taking away their license to drive.

We never take away their right to consume alcohol once they have completed whatever punishment the courts have given them.

And we definately don't punish the public at large by requiring background checks and 3 day waiting periods and limiting their ability to purchase what ever type alcohol or car with what ever accessories they want simply because someone once drank a certain type of alcohol or drove a certain type of vehicle and killed a bunch of people.

 

[tjvh]

In my State you must transfer guns through a dealer with a FFL -gun show or not. Generally these transfers cost individuals $25.00 per gun. The fact that it costs anything is an infringement upon my Constitutional Rights. Tell me gun grabbing Liberals, how can you be OK with charging people to transfer guns, yet when people bring up license/ ID fees as being Unconstitutional in regards to ID requirements to vote -you back them one hundred percent and scream that the fees would disenfranchise voters. Now I'd argue Registration fees further disenfranchise the poor from having a gun to protect their homes. Curiously, liberals don't have any problems trampling gun owners Rights. It's very hypocritical to defend some Rights, and dump on others that disagree with your twisted ideology using the exact same arguments.

 

[Tech_Esq]

The Constitution doesn't give you the right to vote and only prohibits denying people's rights as citizens. How can you claim the person voting has to register, but a gun owner can't be required to register? The fact is the state requires a person to register to vote and the state can require a registration to own a firearm. The Constitution only prohibits disarming the populace and that is a right involvng the general public and not an individual's right in the sense of applying it to themselves. A person can be disarmed without it violating the Constitution. A person has the right to not have the populace disarmed.

I'd say "disarmed" is not the standard. The populace has the right to have an effective deterrent, via arms, to a tyrannical government. That is the point. That's why the amendment is there. Anything that degrades that effectiveness must be subject to the highest of scrutiny. The government must show a compelling state interest and that there is no less restrictive alternatives than the one that they have chosen and that it is both neutral and effective in its operation.

Effective deterrence, it seems to me, would have a couple of components. First, access to arms that are effective enough, when widely held, to achieve their purpose. Think about it, potentially, these people would have to go up against jets, drones, bombs, helicopters disciplined troops. It would be a nightmare. We've restricted military level arms from civilian ownership already for the most part. We don't let anyone own mortars, let alone artillery. We can't have anti-aircraft missiles or armor for the most part, just old disarmed stuff. It would be quite a feat. And, the current proposals would make it even more of an uphill battle. And for what? Any hope of effectiveness? No. Just a, "well, maybe we could get a bad guy when he reloads." What a crock. Nobody that knows anything about guns believes that for an instant. This last guy didn't even finish any magazines. He reloaded a bunch when he didn't even run out so he wouldn't run out in the middle of a room. There goes the reload theory.

And effective deterrence means something that is not easily thwarted by the government itself. If it knows where to go to pick up the guns, then it can do it. It did it in New Orleans and it can do it anywhere else.

Interestingly, this is where only the lawful gun owner needs to worry. It's unlikely the criminal would join in a patriotic regime change effort. So, only the lawful gun owners are serious threats to the government. Kinda paradoxical isn't it?

That's your point of view, but the fact is the Founders believed the government could be changed at the polls and their concern was the military taking control and making a tyrannical government. The Founders created a government that couldn't be tyrannical and it's people talking about changing the government by force who are the tyrants. Logic should dictate, we have not followed the warning of the Founders and created a standing army and then some. Only a moron would think they can change our government by force. Try taking over the government around people like me and you're going to get a trial by a firing squad! Tell Ted Nugent and all the rest of the NRA nutters that! You better take your rebellion to a country that will put up with it and a country where you have a chance of surviving!

Think about this! I don't give a **** what you people believe the 2nd Amendment was made for and if you cross the line, you die if you're around me. The day you fools try to take over our government is your last day on Earth, unless the military gets to you first and arrests you for treason. I'm not taking prisoners.

Keep stirring the pot until it all boils over at once and see what you get!

Oh please internet tough guy. You aren't doing anything to anybody. And if something did happen you be too busy wetting your pants to do anything useful one way or the other.

I'm certain that every revolution against every tyrannical government was an impossible uphill battle, but the ones that succeeded actually did. Therefore, you're wrong.

The founders did their best, but they were under no illusions about what man could do to their words and meaning over time. I would say their caution was justified. Of course, we all prefer to use peaceful means to ensure that tyranny never encroaches, but we are talking about the 2nd amendment which exist only for extreme situation. So, that discussion must, of necessity, be about why it was created and what it means now. In those days the musket that people held privately was sometimes better than the best musket issued to fighting troops. I don't think people had cannons though. Now, the best light weapon that someone can get is only a fraction as good as that which the average soldier would be equipped with, not to mention all the planes and additional equipment that gives them an edge.

But, don't fret Dubby, the way these things go, some of the military defects to the rebels and brings their equipment with them. Then the lightly armed army of millions gets the job done. Just ask the Chinese what a lightly armed army of millions can do.