Universal background checks... really?

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

And it is not unconstitutional for gun shop requirement to do a background check before selling,...

Absent probable cause or reasonable suspicion, the state cannot constitutionally restrain or delay your exercise of your rights.

then how come States DO? And no one has won a civil case against it?

Without probable cause or reasonable suspicion?

And, I don't know where you are getting your information on American Jurisprudence, but every state has a tort action for malicious prosecution, along with civil rights suits. There are not a lot of them because most of the time the State has acted with probable cause or reasonable suspicion.

.

 

[Defiant1]

Your statement, above, is a lie.

No, it's not

It is, as you are aware of the fact a lacunae or non-liquet is not a loophole.
Thus, you lied.

It's a loophole....

As you are aware of the fact a lacunae or non-liquet is -not- a loophole, your statement is a lie.

It's not a lie.

Loophole:
an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.

If someone who failed a background check was able to buy a gun from a private seller where the transaction did not legally require a background check then that would be an inadequacy in the law.

You lose everytime.

How do you know he didn't already have the weapon?

 

[Care4all]

can any citizen who passed a back ground check, buy multiple guns legally from gun shops, and then go out and sell them as a private seller? Can they be in a quasi business of selling guns at gun shows or thru advertising?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If you are not too stupid to know how to buy illegal drugs you would be able to buy illegal firearms. The fact is, everytime we ban something for which there is a high demand, we create a new criminal subculture that supplies the need. If he were smart enough to be able to buy grass, he was smart enough to be able to buy a gun illegally.

It is as if no one has learned from history. Prohibition created some of the most violent monsters America has ever seen. The "War On Drugs" is doing the same.

The problem is that if you let a black market linger, these low-life thugs get so rich and powerful that when we all finally come to our senses, it's too late to stop them.

Create a criminal element for a gun black market and watch the violence soar.


.

 

[HappyJoy]

But this is another idiotic argument. Why should murder be illegal if sociopaths are going to commit it anyway?

Look at you, unable to understand the purpose of criminal law.
Criminal law has no fantasy about stopping anyone from doing anything - it exists to punish people after they act.
Laws enacted with the intent to prevent people from breaking the law will fail because no law an prevent someone from breaking the law.

Not really, attempted murder is a crime as well...

... the law for which does not take effect until -after- someone tries to murder someone, but fails - at that point, the actor is punished for his crime.
Thank you for continuing to demonstrate your inability to understand the purpose of criminal law.

Before the murder takes place.

The murder did not take place because of the law, the murder did not take place because the murderer tried but failed.
Thank you for continuing to demonstrate your inability to understand the purpose of criminal law.

Not really. Law enforcement could get a tip that a murder was about to take place and then prevent it. Such as the case with Dalia Dippolito who only failed because the cops stepped in and prevented it. She failed due to law enforcement coming in and actively preventing a murder from taking place

Dalia Dippolito gets 16 years for trying to have husband killed

 

[toomuchtime_]

Your statement, above, is a lie.

No, it's not

It is, as you are aware of the fact a lacunae or non-liquet is not a loophole.
Thus, you lied.

It's a loophole....

As you are aware of the fact a lacunae or non-liquet is -not- a loophole, your statement is a lie.

It's not a lie.

Loophole:
an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.

If someone who failed a background check was able to buy a gun from a private seller where the transaction did not legally require a background check then that would be an inadequacy in the law.

You lose everytime.

You are making a nonsense argument. You are claiming that if Seth Ator, a man set on committing mass murder, couldn't have bought a gun legally, he would have balked at buying one illegally and the murders never would have taken place.

 

[HappyJoy]

No, it's not

It is, as you are aware of the fact a lacunae or non-liquet is not a loophole.
Thus, you lied.

It's a loophole....

As you are aware of the fact a lacunae or non-liquet is -not- a loophole, your statement is a lie.

It's not a lie.

As you are aware of the fact a lacunae or non-liquet is -not- a loophole, your statement is a lie.

I didn't like. I've now provided you a right wing source that used the same term and I even provided you the definition of 'loophole' and you still keep coming back with nothing more than "nuh-uh".

 

[M14 Shooter]

Look at you, unable to understand the purpose of criminal law.
Criminal law has no fantasy about stopping anyone from doing anything - it exists to punish people after they act.
Laws enacted with the intent to prevent people from breaking the law will fail because no law an prevent someone from breaking the law.

Not really, attempted murder is a crime as well...

... the law for which does not take effect until -after- someone tries to murder someone, but fails - at that point, the actor is punished for his crime.
Thank you for continuing to demonstrate your inability to understand the purpose of criminal law.

Before the murder takes place.

The murder did not take place because of the law, the murder did not take place because the murderer tried but failed.
Thank you for continuing to demonstrate your inability to understand the purpose of criminal law.

Not really.

Yes, really - "attempted murder" means the murder was already attempted.
Thank you for continuing to demonstrate your inability to understand the purpose of criminal law.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It is, as you are aware of the fact a lacunae or non-liquet is not a loophole.
Thus, you lied.

It's a loophole....

As you are aware of the fact a lacunae or non-liquet is -not- a loophole, your statement is a lie.

It's not a lie.

As you are aware of the fact a lacunae or non-liquet is -not- a loophole, your statement is a lie.

I didn't like.

As you are aware of the fact a lacunae or non-liquet is -not- a loophole, you did indeed lie.
And you continue to do so

 

[Care4all]

And it is not unconstitutional for gun shop requirement to do a background check before selling,...

Absent probable cause or reasonable suspicion, the state cannot constitutionally restrain or delay your exercise of your rights.

then how come States DO? And no one has won a civil case against it?

Without probable cause or reasonable suspicion?

And, I don't know where you are getting your information on American Jurisprudence, but every state has a tort action for malicious prosecution, along with civil rights suits. There are not a lot of them because most of the time the State has acted with probable cause or reasonable suspicion.

.

Are required background checks in States illegal, unconstitutional? Are 3 day waiting periods? etc?

 

[HappyJoy]

No, it's not

It is, as you are aware of the fact a lacunae or non-liquet is not a loophole.
Thus, you lied.

It's a loophole....

As you are aware of the fact a lacunae or non-liquet is -not- a loophole, your statement is a lie.

It's not a lie.

Loophole:
an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.

If someone who failed a background check was able to buy a gun from a private seller where the transaction did not legally require a background check then that would be an inadequacy in the law.

You lose everytime.

How do you know he didn't already have the weapon?

It's already known.

Texas gunman purchased weapon in private sale, which doesn't require background check

 

[HappyJoy]

Not really, attempted murder is a crime as well...

... the law for which does not take effect until -after- someone tries to murder someone, but fails - at that point, the actor is punished for his crime.
Thank you for continuing to demonstrate your inability to understand the purpose of criminal law.

Before the murder takes place.

The murder did not take place because of the law, the murder did not take place because the murderer tried but failed.
Thank you for continuing to demonstrate your inability to understand the purpose of criminal law.

Not really.

Yes, really - "attempted murder" means the murder was already attempted.
Thank you for continuing to demonstrate your inability to understand the purpose of criminal law.

It wasn't in the case I posted, someone tried to hire a hit man, the police stepped in, posed as the hit man and then arrested the person.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And it is not unconstitutional for gun shop requirement to do a background check before selling,...

Absent probable cause or reasonable suspicion, the state cannot constitutionally restrain or delay your exercise of your rights.

then how come States DO? And no one has won a civil case against it?

Without probable cause or reasonable suspicion?
And, I don't know where you are getting your information on American Jurisprudence, but every state has a tort action for malicious prosecution, along with civil rights suits. There are not a lot of them because most of the time the State has acted with probable cause or reasonable suspicion.

Are required background checks in States illegal, unconstitutional?

As unconstitutional as a police officer, absent reasonable suspicious or probable cause, stopping you on the street and restraining you while he checks for warrants for your arrest.

Are 3 day waiting periods? etc?

As unconstitutional as forcing someone to wait three days before they can exercise their 4th and 5th amendment rights.

 

[M14 Shooter]

... the law for which does not take effect until -after- someone tries to murder someone, but fails - at that point, the actor is punished for his crime.
Thank you for continuing to demonstrate your inability to understand the purpose of criminal law.

Before the murder takes place.

The murder did not take place because of the law, the murder did not take place because the murderer tried but failed.
Thank you for continuing to demonstrate your inability to understand the purpose of criminal law.

Not really.

Yes, really - "attempted murder" means the murder was already attempted.
Thank you for continuing to demonstrate your inability to understand the purpose of criminal law.

It wasn't in the case I posted, someone tried to hire a hit man, the police stepped in, posed as the hit man and then arrested the person.

The conspiracy to commit murder stopped -after- the person committed the crime of conspiracy to commit - the laws regarding attempted murder had nothing to do with it.
Thank you for continuing to demonstrate your inability to understand the purpose of criminal law.

 

[toomuchtime_]

And it is not unconstitutional for gun shop requirement to do a background check before selling,...

Absent probable cause or reasonable suspicion, the state cannot constitutionally restrain or delay your exercise of your rights.

then how come States DO? And no one has won a civil case against it?

Without probable cause or reasonable suspicion?

And, I don't know where you are getting your information on American Jurisprudence, but every state has a tort action for malicious prosecution, along with civil rights suits. There are not a lot of them because most of the time the State has acted with probable cause or reasonable suspicion.

.

Are required background checks in States illegal, unconstitutional? Are 3 day waiting periods? etc?

Maybe. If you can demonstrate that they are effective in preventing violent crime, then you could argue that weighing the interests of the many against the interests of the few, they are justified restrictions of the right to bear arms, but if it can't be demonstrated that they are effective in preventing violent crime, they they are just arbitrary restrictions of the Constitutional right to bear arms.

 

[Rigby5]

It is, as you are aware of the fact a lacunae or non-liquet is not a loophole.
Thus, you lied.

It's a loophole....

As you are aware of the fact a lacunae or non-liquet is -not- a loophole, your statement is a lie.

It's not a lie.

Loophole:
an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.

If someone who failed a background check was able to buy a gun from a private seller where the transaction did not legally require a background check then that would be an inadequacy in the law.

You lose everytime.

How do you know he didn't already have the weapon?

It's already known.

Texas gunman purchased weapon in private sale, which doesn't require background check

Reasonable assumption, but untrue none the less.
They have no idea who he got the rifle from, so then they do NOT at all know it was purchased in a private sale.
He could have stolen it for all they or anyone knows.
The media is just lying and saying it was a private sale because they want to push background checks.

 

[Rigby5]

And it is not unconstitutional for gun shop requirement to do a background check before selling,...

Absent probable cause or reasonable suspicion, the state cannot constitutionally restrain or delay your exercise of your rights.

then how come States DO? And no one has won a civil case against it?

Without probable cause or reasonable suspicion?
And, I don't know where you are getting your information on American Jurisprudence, but every state has a tort action for malicious prosecution, along with civil rights suits. There are not a lot of them because most of the time the State has acted with probable cause or reasonable suspicion.

Are required background checks in States illegal, unconstitutional?

As unconstitutional as a police officer, absent reasonable suspicious or probable cause, stopping you on the street and restraining you while he checks for warrants for your arrest.

As well as the fact any federal weapons legislation is totally and completely illegal.

 

[irosie91]

Absent probable cause or reasonable suspicion, the state cannot constitutionally restrain or delay your exercise of your rights.

then how come States DO? And no one has won a civil case against it?

Without probable cause or reasonable suspicion?
And, I don't know where you are getting your information on American Jurisprudence, but every state has a tort action for malicious prosecution, along with civil rights suits. There are not a lot of them because most of the time the State has acted with probable cause or reasonable suspicion.

Are required background checks in States illegal, unconstitutional?

As unconstitutional as a police officer, absent reasonable suspicious or probable cause, stopping you on the street and restraining you while he checks for warrants for your arrest.

As well as the fact any federal weapons legislation is totally and completely illegal.

"ANY FEDERAL WEAPONS LEGISLATION" is illegal? try that one again

 

[Wry Catcher]

Another person who does not know what a fact is.

Fact:
You still have not demonstrated the neessity of background checks.

I didn't need to, Seth Ator already did.

I accept your concession of the point.
When you think you can demonstrate the necessity for background checks, let us know.

I didn't make a concession you just keep insisting you made a point.

Was Ator able to buy a gun and circumvent the background check system even though legally he was not allowed to possess one? Yes or no.

The man was a violent sociopath who must have known he was going to die when he went on his shooting spree, so are you seriously arguing he would have hesitated to buy a gun illegally if he couldn't have bought it legally?

A good reason to have all guns registered, and tracked from manufacturer to end buyer. The end buyer is responsible for the gun an any untoward act, including murder; if the gun is lost, sold or otherwise disposed of, and the weapon(s) is not reported to the ATF&E Agency (or other data base established by law), the end buyer should lose his or her 2nd A. Rights.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Fact:
You still have not demonstrated the neessity of background checks.

I didn't need to, Seth Ator already did.

I accept your concession of the point.
When you think you can demonstrate the necessity for background checks, let us know.

I didn't make a concession you just keep insisting you made a point.

Was Ator able to buy a gun and circumvent the background check system even though legally he was not allowed to possess one? Yes or no.

The man was a violent sociopath who must have known he was going to die when he went on his shooting spree, so are you seriously arguing he would have hesitated to buy a gun illegally if he couldn't have bought it legally?

A good reason to have all guns registered, and tracked from manufacturer to end buyer.

And there we have it -- universal background checks are useless w/o universal registration.
No one wonders why you anti-gun loons seek universal registration.