Do You Support The "Gun Show Loophole?"

[nodoginnafight]

stop foaming at the mouth long enough to show me something I advocated that is out of whack with the U.S. Constitition.

waiting ......

You gotta be kidding me.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ort-the-gun-show-loophole-87.html#post6826899

Oh please - you took that sarcasm seriously?

SERIOUSLY????

Now since you dug that one up - I'm sure you also saw my REAL positions.
Quote them.

 

[Dubya]

Background checks for all gun sales, requiring gun dealers to maintain an inventory, and maitaining a database of gun sales don't have any Constitutional ramifications. Period.

So let it be written
So let it be done

**** off, thug.

What you scumbags have proposed so far;



Possession of hollow point bullets and similar assault bullets a felony.
Must register and report ammo purchases. Only purchase max 500 rounds.
10 round magazine limit
ALL magazines must be fixed to the gun (can not be removed without the use of a tool)
100% prohibition of all magazines greater than 10 rounds. All previous grandfathered magazines become illegal. Felony if you keep one.
Changing definition of shotgun revolving cylinder — Basically only single shot shotguns will remain legal.
Bullet Buttons will become illegal — All AR and AK style rifles that are currently equipped with them will be designated Assault Weapons. Felony to possess.
All gun owners now must be licensed like drivers.
All gun owners must carry gun liability insurance

List of Proposed California Gun Control Measures -- 500 Round Max, No Grandfathering, No Detachable Mags, Mandatory License | The Truth About Guns

I do say **** you.

No removable magazines would turn many a firearm into a single shot weapon.

 

[Dubya]

There is a very big difference, because it's perfectly legal to take guns away from individuals, but not the general public.

How do you take guns away from individuals but not "the general public"? Are you proposing we have some sort of shared-gun pool where you can go borrow one when you want it?

If private individuals can't own guns, then how do you arm a militia?

When you are arrested you are disarmed and it's legal. When you are a felon or judged mentally incompetent you lose the "right" to own a gun. The right belongs to the general public, so everyone has the right to have a general public not disarmed. That is what the 2nd Amendment means and that right applies to everyone.

 

[Dubya]

Be specific! What do we have to do to get a civil war out of you Ned Beattyite, Ted Nugent types? Let us know and we'll get our politicians right on it!

Just continue being the Pol Pot types you already are.

I want specifics. What do we have to do to get you and your types to go Batshit Crazy, so we can get rid of you in the killing fields?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Be specific! What do we have to do to get a civil war out of you Ned Beattyite, Ted Nugent types? Let us know and we'll get our politicians right on it!

Just continue being the Pol Pot types you already are.

I want specifics. What do we have to do to get you and your types to go Batshit Crazy, so we can get rid of you in the killing fields?

You want specifics?
From him/her?
Seriously?

All you are going to get is a bunch of mouth diarrhea

 

[Deepbluediver]

When you are arrested you are disarmed and it's legal. When you are a felon or judged mentally incompetent you lose the "right" to own a gun. The right belongs to the general public, so everyone has the right to have a general public not disarmed. That is what the 2nd Amendment means and that right applies to everyone.

I'm think I'm still a little confused. You could say pretty much the same thing about any of the items in the bill of rights. A felon doesn't exactly have the right to liberty, anymore, and we don't let them vote either.

All of the rights apply to law-abiding individuals, and the phrase about forming a militia is really just an extension of the right of association: you have the right to own guns, and the right to organize, therefor you have the right to form an organization with guns.

But maybe I'm misunderstanding things.

 

[Oddball]

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?

All dumb and dumber, huh?

I clearly said that perfection is not and cannot be an option. I also said that if a law is ineffective (which background checks are) it serves no purpose, other than to keep bureaucrat administrators busy and buffoons like you believing that "doing something" is more important than actually being effective.

May I suggest an ESL class at your local community college?

 

[Dubya]

Just continue being the Pol Pot types you already are.

I want specifics. What do we have to do to get you and your types to go Batshit Crazy, so we can get rid of you in the killing fields?

You want specifics?
From him/her?
Seriously?

All you are going to get is a bunch of mouth diarrhea

I'm ready to clean up the mess in America and I'm tired of being threatened by these idiots. I think it's time for some ass kicking, because they won't say this shit in public, where you can box 'em in the mouth for it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

When you are arrested you are disarmed and it's legal. When you are a felon or judged mentally incompetent you lose the "right" to own a gun. The right belongs to the general public, so everyone has the right to have a general public not disarmed. That is what the 2nd Amendment means and that right applies to everyone.

I'm think I'm still a little confused. You could say pretty much the same thing about any of the items in the bill of rights. A felon doesn't exactly have the right to liberty, anymore, and we don't let them vote either.

All of the rights apply to law-abiding individuals, and the phrase about forming a militia is really just an extension of the right of association: you have the right to own guns, and the right to organize, therefor you have the right to form an organization with guns.

But maybe I'm misunderstanding things.

No, you're dead on - when his voice isn't muffled from his head being fully up his ass, he's talking about due process protections of the 5th amendment.

 

[Dubya]

When you are arrested you are disarmed and it's legal. When you are a felon or judged mentally incompetent you lose the "right" to own a gun. The right belongs to the general public, so everyone has the right to have a general public not disarmed. That is what the 2nd Amendment means and that right applies to everyone.

I'm think I'm still a little confused. You could say pretty much the same thing about any of the items in the bill of rights. A felon doesn't exactly have the right to liberty, anymore, and we don't let them vote either.

All of the rights apply to law-abiding individuals, and the phrase about forming a militia is really just an extension of the right of association: you have the right to own guns, and the right to organize, therefor you have the right to form an organization with guns.

But maybe I'm misunderstanding things.

I don't recall ever seeing the right to liberty in the Bill of Rights. The right to vote isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.

Militia was only mentioned in the 2nd Amendment, because the Founders opposed having a standing army. Did the Founders prohibit a standing army? No, they only prohibited disarming the populace, meaning the general public. The Founders didn't require militias, but encouraged it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I want specifics. What do we have to do to get you and your types to go Batshit Crazy, so we can get rid of you in the killing fields?

You want specifics?
From him/her?
Seriously?

All you are going to get is a bunch of mouth diarrhea

I'm ready to clean up the mess in America and I'm tired of being threatened by these idiots. I think it's time for some ass kicking, because they won't say this shit in public, where you can box 'em in the mouth for it.

You'll piss your pants.

 

[Vast LWC]

Let me rephrase this, it doesn't matter who you get to call it a loophole, it is not going to be a loophole, and I refuse to bend to the delusion that it is.

That is because you live in a magical fantasy realm where "up" is "down" and "black" is "fire hydrant", also known as "right-wingtania".

To everyone who doesn't live in that realm, it's a loophole.

 

[Bfgrn]

The 2nd Amendment involves the populace or general public and isn't an individual right in that sense.

Try again, sparky.

{For many years, scholars and anti-gun proponents have argued that the Second Amendment provides a right to own guns only in connection with service in a militia, and that this right should not extend to private individuals. That argument was roundly rejected by the Supreme Court. In an opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that the right to own a gun is not connected with service in a militia; rather, it is a personal right to own a firearm for "traditionally lawful purposes" such as self-defense within the home.

The bottom line: You have a constitutional right to possess a firearm regardless of whether you are serving in a militia.}

Gun Ownership Rights Under Heller | Nolo.com

Yes, District of Columbia vs. Heller did define the right to possess a firearm for "traditionally lawful purposes" such as self-defense within the home.

But to claim the argument was roundly rejected by the Supreme Court in a 5/4 decision is bullshit.

Held:

1. (d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

That is basing the decision on a small minority of the 13 states.

Plus, District of Columbia vs. Heller held things you right wing turds don't want to hear:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The 2nd Amendment involves the populace or general public and isn't an individual right in that sense.

Try again, sparky.

{For many years, scholars and anti-gun proponents have argued that the Second Amendment provides a right to own guns only in connection with service in a militia, and that this right should not extend to private individuals. That argument was roundly rejected by the Supreme Court. In an opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that the right to own a gun is not connected with service in a militia; rather, it is a personal right to own a firearm for "traditionally lawful purposes" such as self-defense within the home.

The bottom line: You have a constitutional right to possess a firearm regardless of whether you are serving in a militia.}

Gun Ownership Rights Under Heller | Nolo.com

Yes, District of Columbia vs. Heller did define the right to possess a firearm for "traditionally lawful purposes" such as self-defense within the home.

But to claim the argument was roundly rejected by the Supreme Court in a 5/4 decision is bullshit.

Held:

1. (d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

That is basing the decision on a small minority of the 13 states.

Plus, District of Columbia vs. Heller held things you right wing turds don't want to hear:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Miller vs. U.S. defined what firearms are protected under the second amendment.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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?

All dumb and dumber, huh?

I clearly said that perfection is not and cannot be an option. I also said that if a law is ineffective (which background checks are) it serves no purpose, other than to keep bureaucrat administrators busy and buffoons like you believing that "doing something" is more important than actually being effective.

May I suggest an ESL class at your local community college?

When you find yourself in a hole, may I suggest you stop digging ....

 

[Dubya]

Let me rephrase this, it doesn't matter who you get to call it a loophole, it is not going to be a loophole, and I refuse to bend to the delusion that it is.

That is because you live in a magical fantasy realm where "up" is "down" and "black" is "fire hydrant", also known as "right-wingtania".

To everyone who doesn't live in that realm, it's a loophole.

What the hell difference does it mean ultimately, what these fools want to call it? If Americans settle for anything short of universal background checks and registration of firearms, we are bigger fools than those fools. **** the dumb shit!

 

[M14 Shooter]

Try again, sparky.

{For many years, scholars and anti-gun proponents have argued that the Second Amendment provides a right to own guns only in connection with service in a militia, and that this right should not extend to private individuals. That argument was roundly rejected by the Supreme Court. In an opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that the right to own a gun is not connected with service in a militia; rather, it is a personal right to own a firearm for "traditionally lawful purposes" such as self-defense within the home.

The bottom line: You have a constitutional right to possess a firearm regardless of whether you are serving in a militia.}

Gun Ownership Rights Under Heller | Nolo.com

Yes, District of Columbia vs. Heller did define the right to possess a firearm for "traditionally lawful purposes" such as self-defense within the home.

But to claim the argument was roundly rejected by the Supreme Court in a 5/4 decision is bullshit.

Held:

1. (d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

That is basing the decision on a small minority of the 13 states.

Plus, District of Columbia vs. Heller held things you right wing turds don't want to hear:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Miller vs. U.S. defined what firearms are protected under the second amendment.

Initially defined US v Miller, and then broadened in Heller.

Under Miller, flintlocks are not protected by the 2nd.

 

[Coyote]

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?

All dumb and dumber, huh?

I clearly said that perfection is not and cannot be an option. I also said that if a law is ineffective (which background checks are) it serves no purpose, other than to keep bureaucrat administrators busy and buffoons like you believing that "doing something" is more important than actually being effective.

May I suggest an ESL class at your local community college?

You haven't proven they are ineffective - only that they aren't perfect, they don't catch 100% of the cases.

 

[Oddball]

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

All dumb and dumber, huh?

I clearly said that perfection is not and cannot be an option. I also said that if a law is ineffective (which background checks are) it serves no purpose, other than to keep bureaucrat administrators busy and buffoons like you believing that "doing something" is more important than actually being effective.

May I suggest an ESL class at your local community college?

When you find yourself in a hole, may I suggest you stop digging ....

When you can read for comprehension, get back to me.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Let me rephrase this, it doesn't matter who you get to call it a loophole, it is not going to be a loophole, and I refuse to bend to the delusion that it is.

That is because you live in a magical fantasy realm where "up" is "down" and "black" is "fire hydrant", also known as "right-wingtania".

To everyone who doesn't live in that realm, it's a loophole.

What the hell difference does it mean ultimately, what these fools want to call it? If Americans settle for anything short of universal background checks and registration of firearms, we are bigger fools than those fools. **** the dumb shit!

No it's what you fools want to call it, just like your wrong ass name of assault weapons.