Do You Support The "Gun Show Loophole?"

[nodoginnafight]

So since NCIC is not perfect - just disregard it?

No law or no law enforcement is perfect - so I guess (by that logic) we should just abandon all law?????

That seems to be the argument being made....

doesn't make sense

 

[Uncensored2008]

There is no such thing as a gun show loophole. How ******* dense can you people be?

You know what I like in a conversation?

When someone joins in, after not having paid attention to any of the prior debate, and tells everyone they are stupid, because they don't agree with a talking point that was proved false days before-hand.

It's one thing to not read the thread, and make a point that was previously debated, that's to be expected sometimes.

It's another to insinuate that everyone lacks intelligence because you didn't bother to read.

For the 4th time in this thread, PredFan, the "Gun Show Loophole" does in fact exist.

It refers to the fact that private sellers can sell guns without any form of documentation at all.

As per the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.

The fact that "Gun Show" is in its title is misleading, as most of these sales do not necessarily occur at gun shows, but they do in fact occur at gun shows.

So then, private sellers can ONLY sell guns at gun shows?

Otherwise, your claim is just a fiction formulated to promote the demagoguery of the anti-liberty left, in your war on civil rights.

 

[Dubya]

I see the right-wing is going after the sex offender vote. You must be getting desperate.

No need to worry, Bill Clinton is still with you...

You'd be following Clinton around hoping he'd toss away a cigar butt to get lucky.

 

[Oddball]

So since NCIC is not perfect - just disregard it?

No law or no law enforcement is perfect - so I guess (by that logic) we should just abandon all law?????

That seems to be the argument being made....

That would be a false dichotomy, completely devoid of any logic whatsoever.

While perfection is in fact not an option, ineffective laws are of no benefit to anyone other than the bureaucrats administering them.

 

[rightwinger]

I support any loophole that allows mass killers with access to the weapons of their choice.

You cannot shoot up a classroom or movie theater without appropriate firepower. Our Second Amendment ensures your right to the weapon of destruction of your choosing

 

[Uncensored2008]

I support any loophole that allows mass killers with access to the weapons of their choice.

You cannot shoot up a classroom or movie theater without appropriate firepower. Our Second Amendment ensures your right to the weapon of destruction of your choosing

Psst... Comrade..

James Holmes had Ricin. Had he not had firearms, he would have killed every last person in all 22 theaters by deploying the Ricin.

Look, I realize you're just a demagogue doing your part to revoke civil rights, but this is some serious dumbfuckery...

 

[rightwinger]

I support any loophole that allows mass killers with access to the weapons of their choice.

You cannot shoot up a classroom or movie theater without appropriate firepower. Our Second Amendment ensures your right to the weapon of destruction of your choosing

Psst... Comrade..

James Holmes had Ricin. Had he not had firearms, he would have killed every last person in all 22 theaters by deploying the Ricin.

Look, I realize you're just a demagogue doing your part to revoke civil rights, but this is some serious dumbfuckery...

Damn skippy!

Look...if you are going to be a mass killer you got to look the part and act the part. None of this killing with a ******* pea shooter. You want to take out dozens of people you need a nasty assed looking weapon.....and thank god our NRA will make sure you have one

 

[Dubya]

I support any loophole that allows mass killers with access to the weapons of their choice.

You cannot shoot up a classroom or movie theater without appropriate firepower. Our Second Amendment ensures your right to the weapon of destruction of your choosing

Psst... Comrade..

James Holmes had Ricin. Had he not had firearms, he would have killed every last person in all 22 theaters by deploying the Ricin.

Look, I realize you're just a demagogue doing your part to revoke civil rights, but this is some serious dumbfuckery...

What you don't realize is there is no rights issue involved. Being permitted to do something isn't a right. People in North Carolina were once permitted to moon others as an expressing of free speech. Making the mooning law was a rare time when politicians actually did something right for a change. It should be an Amendment to the Constitution.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I support any loophole that allows mass killers with access to the weapons of their choice.

You cannot shoot up a classroom or movie theater without appropriate firepower. Our Second Amendment ensures your right to the weapon of destruction of your choosing

Psst... Comrade..

James Holmes had Ricin. Had he not had firearms, he would have killed every last person in all 22 theaters by deploying the Ricin.

Look, I realize you're just a demagogue doing your part to revoke civil rights, but this is some serious dumbfuckery...

What you don't realize is there is no rights issue involved. Being permitted to do something isn't a right. People in North Carolina were once permitted to moon others as an expressing of free speech. Making the mooning law was a rare time when politicians actually did something right for a change. It should be an Amendment to the Constitution.

Ever heard of the bill of rights?

 

[nodoginnafight]

So since NCIC is not perfect - just disregard it?

No law or no law enforcement is perfect - so I guess (by that logic) we should just abandon all law?????

That seems to be the argument being made....

That would be a false dichotomy, completely devoid of any logic whatsoever.

While perfection is in fact not an option, ineffective laws are of no benefit to anyone other than the bureaucrats administering them.

So you are assuming that unless a law is perfect, then it is of no benefit?
All black or all white, huh?

 

[Uncensored2008]

What you don't realize is there is no rights issue involved. Being permitted to do something isn't a right. People in North Carolina were once permitted to moon others as an expressing of free speech. Making the mooning law was a rare time when politicians actually did something right for a change. It should be an Amendment to the Constitution.

I realize that you dream of the day when the United States Constitution is a relic of antiquity, but that day has not yet arrived.

We the people most certainly do have the RIGHT to arm ourselves and defend ourselves. Particularly in these days when crazed leftist ex-cops are running about killing people.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Ever heard of the bill of rights?

What do you think he's working so hard to revoke?

 

[Dubya]

What you don't realize is there is no rights issue involved. Being permitted to do something isn't a right. People in North Carolina were once permitted to moon others as an expressing of free speech. Making the mooning law was a rare time when politicians actually did something right for a change. It should be an Amendment to the Constitution.

I realize that you dream of the day when the United States Constitution is a relic of antiquity, but that day has not yet arrived.

We the people most certainly do have the RIGHT to arm ourselves and defend ourselves. Particularly in these days when crazed leftist ex-cops are running about killing people.

You have the right to not have the populace disarmed and that doesn't give you the right to own weapons considered too dangerous for society to have.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What you don't realize is there is no rights issue involved. Being permitted to do something isn't a right. People in North Carolina were once permitted to moon others as an expressing of free speech. Making the mooning law was a rare time when politicians actually did something right for a change. It should be an Amendment to the Constitution.

I realize that you dream of the day when the United States Constitution is a relic of antiquity, but that day has not yet arrived.

We the people most certainly do have the RIGHT to arm ourselves and defend ourselves. Particularly in these days when crazed leftist ex-cops are running about killing people.

You have the right to not have the populace disarmed and that doesn't give you the right to own weapons considered too dangerous for society to have.

You have the right to own firearms protected by the second amendment.
Miller vs U.S.

 

[rightwinger]

I realize that you dream of the day when the United States Constitution is a relic of antiquity, but that day has not yet arrived.

We the people most certainly do have the RIGHT to arm ourselves and defend ourselves. Particularly in these days when crazed leftist ex-cops are running about killing people.

You have the right to not have the populace disarmed and that doesn't give you the right to own weapons considered too dangerous for society to have.

You have the right to own firearms protected by the second amendment.
Miller vs U.S.

Hell yea!

And if I want to shoot up a packed movie theater or classroom full of first graders I better have the weapon of my choice

Where is my Bushmaster baby?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I realize that you dream of the day when the United States Constitution is a relic of antiquity, but that day has not yet arrived.

We the people most certainly do have the RIGHT to arm ourselves and defend ourselves. Particularly in these days when crazed leftist ex-cops are running about killing people.

You have the right to not have the populace disarmed and that doesn't give you the right to own weapons considered too dangerous for society to have.

You have the right to own firearms protected by the second amendment.
Miller vs U.S.

Weapons that are effective in and useful for service in the militia, part of the ordinary military equipment in common use at the time, and are suitable for any of the traditionally lawful uses of a firearm.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You have the right to not have the populace disarmed and that doesn't give you the right to own weapons considered too dangerous for society to have.

You have the right to own firearms protected by the second amendment.
Miller vs U.S.

Weapons that are effective in and useful for service in the militia, part of the ordinary military equipment in common use at the time, and are suitable for any of the traditionally lawful uses of a firearm.

Yes indeed.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You have the right to not have the populace disarmed and that doesn't give you the right to own weapons considered too dangerous for society to have.

{Article [II.]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. }

Try again, sparky.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You have the right to not have the populace disarmed and that doesn't give you the right to own weapons considered too dangerous for society to have.

You have the right to own firearms protected by the second amendment.
Miller vs U.S.

Hell yea!

And if I want to shoot up a packed movie theater or classroom full of first graders I better have the weapon of my choice

Where is my Bushmaster baby?

Fine that crime would be on you not me or any other owner of said weapon. Take your punishment and leave me and others the hell alone.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Background checks don't impact any of that.