Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Strategem: Turning the tables on anti-2A talk of "closing loopholes".

  1. #1
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279

    Strategem: Turning the tables on anti-2A talk of "closing loopholes".

    I've noticed a resurgence in anti-gun talk of "closing the gun show loophole" or "closing the private sale loophole". (It never really died, but its visibility is on the rise in the rise/fall cycle.)

    So, we need to combat this tactic of anti-rights activists by introducing a strategy of our own.

    Speaking of "loopholes"......

    Doesn't the constitution specifically state "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"? How is it that ANY regulation makes it past this all encompassing barrier of complete prohibition on the regulation of firearms?

    Hmmmmmmm: The commerce clause.

    Oh, what a loophole! It seems the government is allowed to regulate interstate commerce....therefore, guns are interstate commerce! Regulate away!

    As an explanation, using the commerce clause creates an entire blasphemy of problems including, but not limited to, legislation and rule by fiat and memo.

    What law makes a shotgun with a barrel less than 18" illegal? When was this voted on in congress? What bill was this introduced in? (That is the process for passage of laws, right? Legislators introduce bills, they are voted on by congress, and they become law passed or vetoed by the executive branch? Isn't that how it works?)

    Unless you're the ATF created by the requirement to "regulate interstate commerce".....then you can just decide that a short barrelled shotgun is illegal, write a memorandum and POOF! Arrest those who fail to adhere to the legal process of lawfully owning one. (A process which is arbitrarily imagined up by the same folks clicking the handcuffs shut.)

    Isn't it strange that the ATF is empowered by the commerce clause allowing them to "regulate interstate commerce".......but it only applies to certain items? (..and those items don't even have to fit the criteria used to regulate them.)

    Aren't anchors, tennis rackets, and futons sold interstate? Where's the ATF? (That would be the Bureau of Anchors, Tennis Rackets, and Futons.) We need federal agencies to regulate interstate commerce, correct?

    How about the ATF? (That would be The Bureau of Arm chairs, Tampons, and Fenceposts) Aren't these items sold interstate?

    What if you have your own machine shop and build your own "destructive device"? (The category of item a shotgun with less than an 18" barrel falls into. It's a "destructive device" because if it were a firearm, it would be O.K. with a 16" barrel as a rifle....but it's not a rifle.....so if you cut the stock off as well... it would be a pistol, and pistols are O.K. at any length....but then it would be legal however you wanted to make it.........so....."destructive device"...POOF! THE ATF MAKES THE RULES! It's now it's own category so it can be regulated according to the rules they cook up as the game progresses: The game of "interstate commerce"! Who needs congress? Woo-Hoo!)

    Well, if you make your own and it never leaves the state you reside in......WHO CARES! It's still "interstate commerce"! Woo-Hoo! THE ATF MAKES THE RULES! Even when the rules the ATF arbitrarily create don't apply....they STILL apply!

    How's that for a loophole?

    So, the next time some gun grabber speaks of "loopholes", I simply suggest turning the conversation to loopholes. Ask them if they're so interested in the closing of loopholes, how would they feel about closing the "commerce clause loophole"?

    Isn't it an obvious loophole? The lack of an ATF regulating any other item sold interstate paints in ina bright light.

    Let's close some loopholes. Anti-gunners seem to like closing them. Maybe they can help.

    Just another strategy to keep in mind when faced with a predictable argument. You know you're going to get the "loophole" argument at some point. The best way to deal with predictable tactics is to create your own in advance.

    Any other ideas?
    Last edited by Superlite27; 09-05-2013 at 08:19 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    I always state there are no such "There is no such thing as "loopholes" when it comes to a liberal society." It's fun destroying much used but wrongly used talking points and phrases and putting them on the defensive.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Only those who place the law on an altar consider "loophole" to be a meaningful construct.

    Laws should be few, simple, and understandable to and enforced solely by juries. Either one is guilty of a criminal act, or one is not.

    I submit that if it's possible for there to be a "loophole", the behavior in question can't be criminal in the first place. Is there a "loophole" for murder? What about theft? Rape?

  4. #4
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Only those who place the law on an altar consider "loophole" to be a meaningful construct.

    Laws should be few, simple, and understandable to and enforced solely by juries. Either one is guilty of a criminal act, or one is not.

    I submit that if it's possible for there to be a "loophole", the behavior in question can't be criminal in the first place. Is there a "loophole" for murder? What about theft? Rape?
    A loophole is any exercise of a right that a libtard has not gotten destroyed yet. Using a computer to communicate is a loophole to the stamp act.

    I agree with the statement that all crimes should be with criminal intent. Civil damages are separate.

    edit:
    As for the murder loophole it's called self-defense or being a government badged agent.

    As for theft if you were a badge you can steal anything so long as you claim it was in the war against drugs.

    As for rape.... Well you get a reduced punishment if you're a badged officer of the government. Does that count as a loop hole?
    Last edited by Freedom1Man; 09-05-2013 at 02:51 PM. Reason: added supporting argument
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  5. #5
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    I agree with the statement that all crimes should be with criminal intent. Civil damages are separate.

    edit:
    As for the murder loophole it's called self-defense or being a government badged agent.

    Couldn't pull more of a "180" in two consecutive sentences.

    I also agree crime should mostly be based on intent.....with a few exceptions. If I drink 15 beers and decide I've had enough....I intend to drive home without incident. However, the family of six I run over might think I'm committing a crime.

    Good thing I can tell the survivors I didn't intend on hurting anyone. TA-DA! No crime! (right?)

    It would be more agreeable to me to base crime on identifiable negligence (intended or not).

    However, I take issue with your classificatin of self defense as a "murder loophole". You just stated, in the sentence directly previous to that statement, that crime should be based on intent. Then, in the very next sentence, you classify self-defense as a "loophole" for murder.

    I offer that the intent of self defense is not the death of the perpetrator, but the avoidance of death by the defender. The intent of self defense is not to kill the other guy, but to avoid the opposite: him killing you. Therefore, no "loophole".

    The entire point of loopholes is to "work around" barriers to desired activity.

    There is no "gun show loophole"....Either A) a person is lawfully allowed to purchase a firearm, therefore A LOOPHOLE ISN'T NEEDED, or B) They are not allowed to posess a firearm in which THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW ANYWAY, and a loophole doesn't allow them to lawfully do anything.

    However, the government using the commerce clause IS a loophole as it enables those who wish to infringe upon a right to do so by completely circumventing the intent, and the wording entirely. SHOW ME in the commerce clause where it was intended as an end run around the bill of rights. Any regulation of a person's right to keep and bear arms is a "loophole" in the truest meaning of the term.

    So, when anti-2A gun grabbers begin the "close the gun show loophole" blabber.......explain the difference between their FAKE, non-existent loophole.....

    ....and the REAL, obvious one the government perpetuates.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    As Superlite observed, self-defense isn't a loophole for murder. Murder requires mens rea. There is no mens rea when one is defending oneself. This is why self-defense is a common law right.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Superlite27 View Post
    Couldn't pull more of a "180" in two consecutive sentences.

    I also agree crime should mostly be based on intent.....with a few exceptions. If I drink 15 beers and decide I've had enough....I intend to drive home without incident. However, the family of six I run over might think I'm committing a crime.

    Good thing I can tell the survivors I didn't intend on hurting anyone. TA-DA! No crime! (right?)

    It would be more agreeable to me to base crime on identifiable negligence (intended or not).

    However, I take issue with your classificatin of self defense as a "murder loophole". You just stated, in the sentence directly previous to that statement, that crime should be based on intent. Then, in the very next sentence, you classify self-defense as a "loophole" for murder.

    I offer that the intent of self defense is not the death of the perpetrator, but the avoidance of death by the defender. The intent of self defense is not to kill the other guy, but to avoid the opposite: him killing you. Therefore, no "loophole".

    The entire point of loopholes is to "work around" barriers to desired activity.

    There is no "gun show loophole"....Either A) a person is lawfully allowed to purchase a firearm, therefore A LOOPHOLE ISN'T NEEDED, or B) They are not allowed to posess a firearm in which THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW ANYWAY, and a loophole doesn't allow them to lawfully do anything.

    However, the government using the commerce clause IS a loophole as it enables those who wish to infringe upon a right to do so by completely circumventing the intent, and the wording entirely. SHOW ME in the commerce clause where it was intended as an end run around the bill of rights. Any regulation of a person's right to keep and bear arms is a "loophole" in the truest meaning of the term.

    So, when anti-2A gun grabbers begin the "close the gun show loophole" blabber.......explain the difference between their FAKE, non-existent loophole.....

    ....and the REAL, obvious one the government perpetuates.
    You made the effort to get drunk. Then you made the choice to use a piece of deadly machinery on the roads while drunk. It's a crime. There was intend.

    The whole allowed or not allowed to own a gun implies that the government has total legal control over what should be your right to keep and bear arms. If that is true then you have NO right to keep and bear arms.

    There are no such things as loopholes in the law. You're either breaking it, following it, or realizing that it's unconstitutional and has no effect.

    Okay, I should have used the word homicide.

    RCW 9A.16.050
    Homicide By other person When justifiable.


    Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

    (1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

    (2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.

    [2011 c 336 354; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 9A.16.050.]
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •