Do You Support The "Gun Show Loophole?"

[bigrebnc1775]

Instead of forming your own armed gang to protect you from the non-existant boogeyman, maybe you should try getting treated for your paranoia.

oh yeah he's a honest to goodness gun owner that supports the second amendment and knows what the second amendment is for.

The second amendment was possibly needed back in 1776, but seriously, you need to have a citizen army to protect you from the government today? You really need to get a grip on reality, or do the revenuers really keep trying to take your still?

"The second amendment is only needed when they try too take it away."
Who said that?

 

[ima]

I don't support the "gun show loophole" but I do support an individual right to buy or sell personal property without government involvement.

Making mandatory background checks will effectively ban individual sales completely. The dealers won't do it for less than it costs them and they are busy enough that they will refuse to participate. The police can't do it because federal law prohibits it so you have just stopped sales by individuals completely.

I know that is what you want - at least some of you - but I have a right to sell my personal property whether it is an old dining set, a refrigerator,nick-naks, or a gun or two just like you do.

States will sales tax are already involved in all your business. Then you file income tax forms, making the guv'ment involved in all your business. Then every time you make a deal and make money, you have to tell the revenuers and give them a cut. If they legalize moonshine, would that make you happy?

 

[PaulS1950]

Ima,
The government has already infringed on your first amendment rights, your fourth amendment rights and your fifth amendment rights. Even if we leave the second amendment out of the conversation then anyone who has their eyes open can see that the government is in the process of doing away with the rights that they are supposed to be protecting according to the constitution.

Anyone with an ounce of awareness can see that we should fear the final outcome of all this. If you have the brain of a frog you will see nothing wrong because you "feel" good right now. To boil a frog you put it in a pan of water and slowly raise the temperature. The frog adapts to the warmer water never realizing that it is cooking.

 

[ima]

Ima,
The government has already infringed on your first amendment rights, your fourth amendment rights and your fifth amendment rights. Even if we leave the second amendment out of the conversation then anyone who has their eyes open can see that the government is in the process of doing away with the rights that they are supposed to be protecting according to the constitution.

Anyone with an ounce of awareness can see that we should fear the final outcome of all this. If you have the brain of a frog you will see nothing wrong because you "feel" good right now. To boil a frog you put it in a pan of water and slowly raise the temperature. The frog adapts to the warmer water never realizing that it is cooking.

Why are you so paranoid? You people with a gun fetish should learn to relax. The US is an open and free country, nobody's trying to turn it into North Korea. Fear the final outcome? Wtf is that? Rational coherent thought?
Just for fun, what's the final outcome in your mind?

 

[The Rabbi]

I don't support the "gun show loophole" but I do support an individual right to buy or sell personal property without government involvement.

Making mandatory background checks will effectively ban individual sales completely. The dealers won't do it for less than it costs them and they are busy enough that they will refuse to participate. The police can't do it because federal law prohibits it so you have just stopped sales by individuals completely.

I know that is what you want - at least some of you - but I have a right to sell my personal property whether it is an old dining set, a refrigerator,nick-naks, or a gun or two just like you do.

States will sales tax are already involved in all your business. Then you file income tax forms, making the guv'ment involved in all your business. Then every time you make a deal and make money, you have to tell the revenuers and give them a cut. If they legalize moonshine, would that make you happy?

So your argument is that because the gov't intrudes already we need to have them do it more?
Rly?
I predict you wont last long here.

 

[ima]

I don't support the "gun show loophole" but I do support an individual right to buy or sell personal property without government involvement.

Making mandatory background checks will effectively ban individual sales completely. The dealers won't do it for less than it costs them and they are busy enough that they will refuse to participate. The police can't do it because federal law prohibits it so you have just stopped sales by individuals completely.

I know that is what you want - at least some of you - but I have a right to sell my personal property whether it is an old dining set, a refrigerator,nick-naks, or a gun or two just like you do.

States will sales tax are already involved in all your business. Then you file income tax forms, making the guv'ment involved in all your business. Then every time you make a deal and make money, you have to tell the revenuers and give them a cut. If they legalize moonshine, would that make you happy?

So your argument is that because the gov't intrudes already we need to have them do it more?
Rly?
I predict you wont last long here.

I think the government should heavily regulate a VERY dangerous thing called a gun. 10,000 people a year die of gunshot in the US and nuts like you want to loosen the laws.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

States will sales tax are already involved in all your business. Then you file income tax forms, making the guv'ment involved in all your business. Then every time you make a deal and make money, you have to tell the revenuers and give them a cut. If they legalize moonshine, would that make you happy?

So your argument is that because the gov't intrudes already we need to have them do it more?
Rly?
I predict you wont last long here.

I think the government should heavily regulate a VERY dangerous thing called a gun. 10,000 people a year die of gunshot in the US and nuts like you want to loosen the laws.

You've convinced me you are a gun owner.

 

[The Rabbi]

States will sales tax are already involved in all your business. Then you file income tax forms, making the guv'ment involved in all your business. Then every time you make a deal and make money, you have to tell the revenuers and give them a cut. If they legalize moonshine, would that make you happy?

So your argument is that because the gov't intrudes already we need to have them do it more?
Rly?
I predict you wont last long here.

I think the government should heavily regulate a VERY dangerous thing called a gun. 10,000 people a year die of gunshot in the US and nuts like you want to loosen the laws.

The gov't already heavily regulates guns. Where have you been since 1968?

 

[M14 Shooter]

a bunch of drunken trailer trash...like you.
So you're stupid enough to think that you and the rest of the heros of the trailer park need to form an armed gang to protect you from the police?

Thank you for proving my point, that you cannot have a honest and knowledgable discussion on this subject.
Please feel free to continue to do so.

Instead of forming your own armed gang to protect you from the non-existant boogeyman, maybe you should try getting treated for your paranoia.

Thank you for proving my point, that you cannot have a honest and knowledgable discussion on this subject.
Please feel free to continue to do so.

 

[Bfgrn]

The Founding Fathers had gun laws so restrictive that today’s NRA leaders would never support them

In 2008 the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment did secure the right of law-abiding, responsible adults to have handguns in their homes for protection. Yet the court went out of its way to acknowledge that most forms of gun regulation remain constitutionally permissible. “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” Justice Antonin Scalia, explained. In a sentence the NRA and many gun-rights extremists apparently missed, Scalia wrote that the Second Amendment is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

Let’s say that again: Justice Scalia, hero of the most intransigent conservatives in the country, stated unequivocally that restrictions of Second Amendment rights are constitutional.

Indeed, Scalia’s opinion in Heller warned that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt” on a wide range of gun laws, including bars on felons and the mentally ill from possessing guns, restrictions on guns in “sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,” or laws “imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” These categories capture the vast majority of gun laws in America.

In short, there’s plenty of room under the Second Amendment for gun control.

In recognizing the legitimacy of many gun laws, the Supreme Court did no more than adhere to the text of the Second Amendment. In the part of the amendment that gun-rights absolutists usually ignore, the Founders extolled the importance of a “well regulated Militia.” (For years, the NRA’s headquarters displayed a sign promoting “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” conveniently omitting the amendment’s opening clause.) Gun advocates are right that this language was not designed to limit the right to people serving in military organizations like the National Guard; the framers repeatedly said the “militia” was composed of we the people, ordinary citizens with our own guns. Yet it’s also clear that the framers thought that the people who make up the militia should be “well regulated”—trained, disciplined, and properly instructed by the government to use arms effectively, safely, and properly.

The Founding Fathers had gun laws so restrictive that today’s NRA leaders would never support them.

In other words, the American right to bear arms has always co-existed with gun regulation. The Founding Fathers had gun laws so restrictive that today’s NRA leaders would never support them: broad bans on possession of firearms by people thought to be untrustworthy; militia laws that required people to appear at musters where the government would inspect their guns; safe-storage laws that made armed self-defense difficult; and even early forms of gun registration. The founders who wrote the Second Amendment did not think it was a libertarian license for anyone to have any gun anytime and anywhere they wanted.

more

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Founding Fathers had gun laws so restrictive that today’s NRA leaders would never support them

In 2008 the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment did secure the right of law-abiding, responsible adults to have handguns in their homes for protection. Yet the court went out of its way to acknowledge that most forms of gun regulation remain constitutionally permissible. “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” Justice Antonin Scalia, explained. In a sentence the NRA and many gun-rights extremists apparently missed, Scalia wrote that the Second Amendment is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

Let’s say that again: Justice Scalia, hero of the most intransigent conservatives in the country, stated unequivocally that restrictions of Second Amendment rights are constitutional.

Indeed, Scalia’s opinion in Heller warned that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt” on a wide range of gun laws, including bars on felons and the mentally ill from possessing guns, restrictions on guns in “sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,” or laws “imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” These categories capture the vast majority of gun laws in America.

In short, there’s plenty of room under the Second Amendment for gun control.

In recognizing the legitimacy of many gun laws, the Supreme Court did no more than adhere to the text of the Second Amendment. In the part of the amendment that gun-rights absolutists usually ignore, the Founders extolled the importance of a “well regulated Militia.” (For years, the NRA’s headquarters displayed a sign promoting “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” conveniently omitting the amendment’s opening clause.) Gun advocates are right that this language was not designed to limit the right to people serving in military organizations like the National Guard; the framers repeatedly said the “militia” was composed of we the people, ordinary citizens with our own guns. Yet it’s also clear that the framers thought that the people who make up the militia should be “well regulated”—trained, disciplined, and properly instructed by the government to use arms effectively, safely, and properly.

The Founding Fathers had gun laws so restrictive that today’s NRA leaders would never support them.

In other words, the American right to bear arms has always co-existed with gun regulation. The Founding Fathers had gun laws so restrictive that today’s NRA leaders would never support them: broad bans on possession of firearms by people thought to be untrustworthy; militia laws that required people to appear at musters where the government would inspect their guns; safe-storage laws that made armed self-defense difficult; and even early forms of gun registration. The founders who wrote the Second Amendment did not think it was a libertarian license for anyone to have any gun anytime and anywhere they wanted.

more

They also had slavery. Arguing on the basis of laws they had then just makes it easier for me to mock you.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Founding Fathers had gun laws so restrictive that today’s NRA leaders would never support them

In 2008 the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment did secure the right of law-abiding, responsible adults to have handguns in their homes for protection. Yet the court went out of its way to acknowledge that most forms of gun regulation remain constitutionally permissible. “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” Justice Antonin Scalia, explained. In a sentence the NRA and many gun-rights extremists apparently missed, Scalia wrote that the Second Amendment is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

Let’s say that again: Justice Scalia, hero of the most intransigent conservatives in the country, stated unequivocally that restrictions of Second Amendment rights are constitutional.

Indeed, Scalia’s opinion in Heller warned that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt” on a wide range of gun laws, including bars on felons and the mentally ill from possessing guns, restrictions on guns in “sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,” or laws “imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” These categories capture the vast majority of gun laws in America.

In short, there’s plenty of room under the Second Amendment for gun control.

In recognizing the legitimacy of many gun laws, the Supreme Court did no more than adhere to the text of the Second Amendment. In the part of the amendment that gun-rights absolutists usually ignore, the Founders extolled the importance of a “well regulated Militia.” (For years, the NRA’s headquarters displayed a sign promoting “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” conveniently omitting the amendment’s opening clause.) Gun advocates are right that this language was not designed to limit the right to people serving in military organizations like the National Guard; the framers repeatedly said the “militia” was composed of we the people, ordinary citizens with our own guns. Yet it’s also clear that the framers thought that the people who make up the militia should be “well regulated”—trained, disciplined, and properly instructed by the government to use arms effectively, safely, and properly.

The Founding Fathers had gun laws so restrictive that today’s NRA leaders would never support them.

In other words, the American right to bear arms has always co-existed with gun regulation. The Founding Fathers had gun laws so restrictive that today’s NRA leaders would never support them: broad bans on possession of firearms by people thought to be untrustworthy; militia laws that required people to appear at musters where the government would inspect their guns; safe-storage laws that made armed self-defense difficult; and even early forms of gun registration. The founders who wrote the Second Amendment did not think it was a libertarian license for anyone to have any gun anytime and anywhere they wanted.

more

They also had slavery. Arguing on the basis of laws they had then just makes it easier for me to mock you.

Is it cruel to mock the mentally defective?

 

[Bfgrn]

The Founding Fathers had gun laws so restrictive that today’s NRA leaders would never support them

In 2008 the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment did secure the right of law-abiding, responsible adults to have handguns in their homes for protection. Yet the court went out of its way to acknowledge that most forms of gun regulation remain constitutionally permissible. “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” Justice Antonin Scalia, explained. In a sentence the NRA and many gun-rights extremists apparently missed, Scalia wrote that the Second Amendment is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

Let’s say that again: Justice Scalia, hero of the most intransigent conservatives in the country, stated unequivocally that restrictions of Second Amendment rights are constitutional.

Indeed, Scalia’s opinion in Heller warned that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt” on a wide range of gun laws, including bars on felons and the mentally ill from possessing guns, restrictions on guns in “sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,” or laws “imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” These categories capture the vast majority of gun laws in America.

In short, there’s plenty of room under the Second Amendment for gun control.

In recognizing the legitimacy of many gun laws, the Supreme Court did no more than adhere to the text of the Second Amendment. In the part of the amendment that gun-rights absolutists usually ignore, the Founders extolled the importance of a “well regulated Militia.” (For years, the NRA’s headquarters displayed a sign promoting “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” conveniently omitting the amendment’s opening clause.) Gun advocates are right that this language was not designed to limit the right to people serving in military organizations like the National Guard; the framers repeatedly said the “militia” was composed of we the people, ordinary citizens with our own guns. Yet it’s also clear that the framers thought that the people who make up the militia should be “well regulated”—trained, disciplined, and properly instructed by the government to use arms effectively, safely, and properly.

The Founding Fathers had gun laws so restrictive that today’s NRA leaders would never support them.

In other words, the American right to bear arms has always co-existed with gun regulation. The Founding Fathers had gun laws so restrictive that today’s NRA leaders would never support them: broad bans on possession of firearms by people thought to be untrustworthy; militia laws that required people to appear at musters where the government would inspect their guns; safe-storage laws that made armed self-defense difficult; and even early forms of gun registration. The founders who wrote the Second Amendment did not think it was a libertarian license for anyone to have any gun anytime and anywhere they wanted.

more

They also had slavery. Arguing on the basis of laws they had then just makes it easier for me to mock you.

Ohhhhhhhhh, we can only use what our founding fathers said, not what they did...

You are making a mockery of yourself on this thread. You are among a tiny minority of citizens...radical zealots, absolutists.

You're a MORON...

 

[The Rabbi]

The Founding Fathers had gun laws so restrictive that today’s NRA leaders would never support them

In 2008 the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment did secure the right of law-abiding, responsible adults to have handguns in their homes for protection. Yet the court went out of its way to acknowledge that most forms of gun regulation remain constitutionally permissible. “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” Justice Antonin Scalia, explained. In a sentence the NRA and many gun-rights extremists apparently missed, Scalia wrote that the Second Amendment is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

Let’s say that again: Justice Scalia, hero of the most intransigent conservatives in the country, stated unequivocally that restrictions of Second Amendment rights are constitutional.

Indeed, Scalia’s opinion in Heller warned that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt” on a wide range of gun laws, including bars on felons and the mentally ill from possessing guns, restrictions on guns in “sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,” or laws “imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” These categories capture the vast majority of gun laws in America.

In short, there’s plenty of room under the Second Amendment for gun control.

In recognizing the legitimacy of many gun laws, the Supreme Court did no more than adhere to the text of the Second Amendment. In the part of the amendment that gun-rights absolutists usually ignore, the Founders extolled the importance of a “well regulated Militia.” (For years, the NRA’s headquarters displayed a sign promoting “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” conveniently omitting the amendment’s opening clause.) Gun advocates are right that this language was not designed to limit the right to people serving in military organizations like the National Guard; the framers repeatedly said the “militia” was composed of we the people, ordinary citizens with our own guns. Yet it’s also clear that the framers thought that the people who make up the militia should be “well regulated”—trained, disciplined, and properly instructed by the government to use arms effectively, safely, and properly.

The Founding Fathers had gun laws so restrictive that today’s NRA leaders would never support them.

In other words, the American right to bear arms has always co-existed with gun regulation. The Founding Fathers had gun laws so restrictive that today’s NRA leaders would never support them: broad bans on possession of firearms by people thought to be untrustworthy; militia laws that required people to appear at musters where the government would inspect their guns; safe-storage laws that made armed self-defense difficult; and even early forms of gun registration. The founders who wrote the Second Amendment did not think it was a libertarian license for anyone to have any gun anytime and anywhere they wanted.

more

They also had slavery. Arguing on the basis of laws they had then just makes it easier for me to mock you.

Ohhhhhhhhh, we can only use what our founding fathers said, not what they did...

You are making a mockery of yourself on this thread. You are among a tiny minority of citizens...radical zealots, absolutists.

You're a MORON...

You show yourself to a be a bigger moron with every post. Quit while you have some shred of human dignity left.
You brought up that stupid article about hte Founders. So what? Irrelevant to the discussion and you are getting your azz handed to you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Founding Fathers had gun laws so restrictive that today’s NRA leaders would never support them

In 2008 the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment did secure the right of law-abiding, responsible adults to have handguns in their homes for protection. Yet the court went out of its way to acknowledge that most forms of gun regulation remain constitutionally permissible. “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” Justice Antonin Scalia, explained. In a sentence the NRA and many gun-rights extremists apparently missed, Scalia wrote that the Second Amendment is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

Let’s say that again: Justice Scalia, hero of the most intransigent conservatives in the country, stated unequivocally that restrictions of Second Amendment rights are constitutional.

Indeed, Scalia’s opinion in Heller warned that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt” on a wide range of gun laws, including bars on felons and the mentally ill from possessing guns, restrictions on guns in “sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,” or laws “imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” These categories capture the vast majority of gun laws in America.

In short, there’s plenty of room under the Second Amendment for gun control.

In recognizing the legitimacy of many gun laws, the Supreme Court did no more than adhere to the text of the Second Amendment. In the part of the amendment that gun-rights absolutists usually ignore, the Founders extolled the importance of a “well regulated Militia.” (For years, the NRA’s headquarters displayed a sign promoting “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” conveniently omitting the amendment’s opening clause.) Gun advocates are right that this language was not designed to limit the right to people serving in military organizations like the National Guard; the framers repeatedly said the “militia” was composed of we the people, ordinary citizens with our own guns. Yet it’s also clear that the framers thought that the people who make up the militia should be “well regulated”—trained, disciplined, and properly instructed by the government to use arms effectively, safely, and properly.

The Founding Fathers had gun laws so restrictive that today’s NRA leaders would never support them.

In other words, the American right to bear arms has always co-existed with gun regulation. The Founding Fathers had gun laws so restrictive that today’s NRA leaders would never support them: broad bans on possession of firearms by people thought to be untrustworthy; militia laws that required people to appear at musters where the government would inspect their guns; safe-storage laws that made armed self-defense difficult; and even early forms of gun registration. The founders who wrote the Second Amendment did not think it was a libertarian license for anyone to have any gun anytime and anywhere they wanted.

more

They also had slavery. Arguing on the basis of laws they had then just makes it easier for me to mock you.

Ohhhhhhhhh, we can only use what our founding fathers said, not what they did...

You are making a mockery of yourself on this thread. You are among a tiny minority of citizens...radical zealots, absolutists.

You're a MORON...

What?

Aren't you the guy that tried to use a Jefferson quote to argue in favor of more government even though the quote, taken in context, was clearly an argument encouraging people to fight against his opinions about how wonderful the government is?

I don't try to justify my positions by arguing the Founders had stupid laws, nor do I find anyone ever calling me for not understanding any of their quotes. Care to explain how me pointing out your ignorance makes me a mockery?

 

[Liability]

MEANWHILE, there is still no actual gun show loophole.

 

[OKTexas]

If you think REALLY HARD, you will realize why what you posted does not contradict what I posted in any way.

Well let me think, you said dealers are not required to copy license and insurance info to sell a car. I said they are required to do so, last I looked they would be contradictory statements. A dealer can't allow you to drive away in a car without making sure you have a license and insurance, and he can't process the registration without those included in most states. Every car I've bought from a dealer, they took copies of both. There, does that help?

No, that is NOT actually what you said. You said they needed the information to "process the registration". (And they do: if you want the dealer to tag the car for you, they would need this information.) But if the dealer DOESN'T tag the car for you, they do not need that information.

They need the information just to transfer the title even if you do the tag yourself. I transferred my Disabled Vet tags to a new vehicle but the dealer needed the license and insurance to do the title. A dealer leaves themselves open to liability if they let you leave the dealership with an open title just like you would if you sold a car and just signed the title and allowed the person to take the car. I have never sold a car where I didn't go with the individual to the tag office and get the paper work done on the spot.

 

[Lakhota]

John McCain: Background Checks Will Get Broad Support In Senate

 

[Dubya]

Thank you for proving my point that I'm a major doofus.
Please feel free to continue to do so.

a bunch of drunken trailer trash...like you.
So you're stupid enough to think that you and the rest of the heros of the trailer park need to form an armed gang to protect you from the police?

Thank you for proving my point, that you cannot have a honest and knowledgable discussion on this subject.
Please feel free to continue to do so.

.....and yours still has it's wheels on it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

John McCain: Background Checks Will Get Broad Support In Senate

The only difference between John McCain and harry reed are the states they live in and one has a D and the other has an R.