Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 65

Thread: The GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE FIGHT IS BACK - Congressional Hearings 8/19/2010 in CHICAGO!

  1. #1
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    The GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE FIGHT IS BACK - Congressional Hearings 8/19/2010 in CHICAGO!

    Link: http://www.wbez.org/Content.aspx?audioID=43910


    National Lawmakers Meet in Chicago to discuss Gun Control
    Produced by Sarah Smith on Thursday, August 19, 2010

    National lawmakers were in Chicago holding a Congressional hearing on proposed gun control legislation today.

    The Closing the Gun Show Loophole Act would require private sellers at gun shows to perform background checks before selling firearms. Illinois passed a similar law in 2005.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  2. #2
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    What "Gun Show Loophole" are they referring to? One simply does not exist.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    And as far as print/text goes the "lawmakers" are so far unnamed. Can you imagine statists so craven that they don't even hear the offense in "lawmaker".

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by rodbender View Post
    What "Gun Show Loophole" are they referring to? One simply does not exist.
    The one that allows people to buy weapons from private dealers at the gun shows without any type of back ground check. There is plenty of video evidence that confirms this occurs on a regular basis.

    I'm sorry, if your a criminal or mentally insane, I don't want you to be able to buy a weapon at gun show. That way I don't have to shoot your ass the next time your try to rob me just like you already did someone else.

    When a criminal chooses to violate another's rights, he forfeits his own, including his second amendment rights. That's why I support back ground checks.
    Last edited by trooper46; 08-20-2010 at 05:11 PM.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by trooper46 View Post
    The one that allows people to buy weapons from private dealers at the gun shows without any type of back ground check. There is plenty of video evidence that confirms this occurs on a regular basis.

    I'm sorry, if your a criminal or mentally insane, I don't want you to be able to buy a weapon at gun show. That way I don't have to shoot your ass the next time your try to rob me just like you already did someone else.

    When a criminal chooses to violate another's rights, he forfeits his own, including his second amendment rights. That's why I support back ground checks.
    As someone pointed out, there are no "private dealers." There are private citizens and licensed dealers. Licensed dealers have to do background checks, gun show or no. Private citizens do not, gun show or no.

    The gun show is merely the venue for the sale. It does not define the participants. Any sale upon which the government foists the requirement for a background check can simply be completed outside the show by the same participants with no check.

    It is a silly law that adds no protection for anyone, but places additional burden on some transactions.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law then we can all be

    If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law then we can all be legally disarmed merely by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony as has been done for allegations of domestic abuse and to distressed veterans.

    Commenting on this trooper's narrow minded opinion, we can only hope that he gets to wear the tyrant's boot up his fundament.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    As someone pointed out, there are no "private dealers." There are private citizens and licensed dealers. Licensed dealers have to do background checks, gun show or no. Private citizens do not, gun show or no.

    The gun show is merely the venue for the sale. It does not define the participants. Any sale upon which the government foists the requirement for a background check can simply be completed outside the show by the same participants with no check.

    It is a silly law that adds no protection for anyone, but places additional burden on some transactions.

    By semantics they are not "dealers" only. But there are a number of citizens that make a living off of selling their "personal collections" without an FFL. I do not approve of selling a weapon to someone without a background check for the reasons previously stated. If you are criminal, I do not want you to have any kind of access to a firearm. You have forfeited that right when you became a non-law abiding citizen.

    Honestly, the background check takes about 5 minutes, don't try to tell me that it's such an inconvenience. Anyone who's purchased a firearm from an FFl knows damn well that by the time you fill out the form the back ground check is usually done. In most cases it takes one phone call.

    I support the idea of requiring back ground checks on for anyone who wants to purchase a firearm from any source. Its the only way to insure that a violent criminal does not get his or her hands on a firearm. If a step towards that means banning non FFL dealers from selling at gun shows, OR requiring private dealers to run background checks at the gun shows, I'm all for it.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Huffman View Post
    If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law then we can all be legally disarmed merely by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony as has been done for allegations of domestic abuse and to distressed veterans.

    Commenting on this trooper's narrow minded opinion, we can only hope that he gets to wear the tyrant's boot up his fundament.
    A criminal forfeits his right to the 2nd amendment in the same way that he forfeits his right to life when he attacks you or I.

    As to your personal attack, thats just what I expect from a known TROLL on these forums.
    Last edited by trooper46; 08-20-2010 at 05:36 PM.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    If you can establish that someone is a dealer and is deceptively claiming to be an individual selling his "personal collection," then by all means, go after him for not having the appropriate license. But, requiring private citizens (and this will require private citizens) to do a background check to sell the rifle that has a little "for sale" sign stuck down the barrel is an unnecessary infraction on the rights of individuals.

    And, it won't keep criminals from getting guns. Criminals don't hesitate to break laws to get what they want. Passing another law will only inconvenience law-abiding citizens.

    The size of the inconvenience is irrelevant. As small as a camel's nose is, it is relevant.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Hilton Head, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    524
    Quote Originally Posted by trooper46 View Post
    By semantics they are not "dealers" only. But there are a number of citizens that make a living off of selling their "personal collections" without an FFL. I do not approve of selling a weapon to someone without a background check for the reasons previously stated. If you are criminal, I do not want you to have any kind of access to a firearm. You have forfeited that right when you became a non-law abiding citizen.

    Honestly, the background check takes about 5 minutes, don't try to tell me that it's such an inconvenience. Anyone who's purchased a firearm from an FFl knows damn well that by the time you fill out the form the back ground check is usually done. In most cases it takes one phone call.

    I support the idea of requiring back ground checks on for anyone who wants to purchase a firearm from any source. Its the only way to insure that a violent criminal does not get his or her hands on a firearm. If a step towards that means banning non FFL dealers from selling at gun shows, OR requiring private dealers to run background checks at the gun shows, I'm all for it.

    I don't need the permission of the state to sell my property. I only need the permission of the state to engage in business, whether I'm selling guns or cars or produce. That's the way it should be. There is no "gun show loophole", because gun shows aren't magical places where state and federal firearms laws are suspended. I can sell my AR, AK, or .38 revolver out of the trunk of my car at the Walmart parking lot or at a gun show and the laws governing the transaction remain the same.

    You can't legislate firearms out of the hands of criminals. It just ain't happening, buddy.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    Quote Originally Posted by trooper46 View Post
    A criminal forfeits his right to the 2nd amendment in the same way that he forfeits his right to life when he attacks you or I. As to your personal attack, thats just what I expect from a known TROLL on these forums.
    you can always complain to the administrator about your perceived attack. But I will gladly add your "troll" epithet to the others,

    I-ANAL, a coward (DustiniaC), an 'anus' (GLOCK34), and now troll (trooper46, waiting to take command of his battalion with 28 posts).
    Last edited by Doug Huffman; 08-20-2010 at 05:47 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    If you can establish that someone is a dealer and is deceptively claiming to be an individual selling his "personal collection," then by all means, go after him for not having the appropriate license. But, requiring private citizens (and this will require private citizens) to do a background check to sell the rifle that has a little "for sale" sign stuck down the barrel is an unnecessary infraction on the rights of individuals.

    And, it won't keep criminals from getting guns. Criminals don't hesitate to break laws to get what they want. Passing another law will only inconvenience law-abiding citizens.

    The size of the inconvenience is irrelevant. As small as a camel's nose is, it is relevant.
    I agree that criminals don't obey laws , thats why I carry. They will likely purchase their illegal weapons from an illegal dealer.

    However, if we make private sales require a background check, that limits the market for criminals to buy their weapons and the cost of an illegal hand gun goes up. Thus, making it more difficult for the typical convicted felon to acquire one. Also, you must consider the fact that without a background check, the well intentioned private seller...as I assume you are referring to when discussing inconvenience issues.....cannot be sure that he is not selling a deadly weapon to a criminal who intends to use it for his nefarious deeds.

    Even if the a private seller wanted to conduct a background check to ensure he is not selling his weapon to a criminal, he would be at a severe disadvantage in competition with others who don't care who they put a gun into the hand of. If you had a law requiring private sales to use back ground checks, that would put the well intended seller on the same level with other sellers.

    As to the size of the inconvenience, I would respectfully argue that the prevention of a criminal from acquiring a firearm out weighs the inconvenience of a 3-5 minute phone call.
    Last edited by trooper46; 08-20-2010 at 05:52 PM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Huffman View Post
    you can always complain to the administrator about your perceived attack. But I will gladly add your "troll" epithet to the others,

    I-ANAL, a coward (DustiniaC), an 'anus' (GLOCK34), and now troll (trooper46, waiting to take command of his battalion with 28 posts).
    Lol, let me give you a little help there. It's actually platoon, not battalion you wonderful troll, you . You kinda have to actually read the posts to get all them big words. I'm honored to be added to your list.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by trooper46 View Post
    I agree that criminals don't obey laws , thats why I carry. They will likely purchase their illegal weapons from an illegal dealer. The law has no point if it won't stop the criminal from getting a gun.

    However, if we make private sales require a background check, that limits the market for criminals to buy their weapons and the cost of an illegal hand gun goes up. Thus, making it more difficult for the typical convicted felon to acquire one. Also, you must consider the fact that without a background check, the well intentioned private seller...as I assume you are referring to when discussing inconvenience issues.....cannot be sure that he is not selling a deadly weapon to a criminal who intends to use it for his nefarious deeds. As an individual, it is not my responsibility to ensure another is not breaking the law. Despots use ordinary citizens to "keep each other in line."

    Even if the a private seller wanted to conduct a background check to ensure he is not selling his weapon to a criminal, he would be at a severe disadvantage in competition with others who don't care who they put a gun into the hand of. If you had a law requiring private sales to use back ground checks, that would put the well intended seller on the same level with other sellers. Again, the private seller should not have to worry about putting a gun in a criminals hand. We are not the police, and I don't want private citizens being required to act as such. Despots use citizens for police.

    As to the size of the inconvenience, I would respectfully argue that the prevention of a criminal from acquiring a firearm out weighs the inconvenience of a 3-5 minute phone call. Maybe YOUR 3-5 minutes, but not mine. Keep your hands off my time and freedom. BTW, it takes 3-5 minutes (twenty, the last time I bought a firearm) for a dealer. An individual selling his .22 rifle is going to have to figure out the process and risk breaking some obscure law or pay someone to handle the process for him. The net effect of require checks for private sales will be the virtual elimination of private sales. Quite probably, this is the real goal.
    My responses are in blue.

    I have laid out the rational argument against forcing individuals making private sales at gun shows to do background checks. I know I will not change your mind. However, for those reading the thread and not responding, a counter-point has been provided to your justification for just a little bit more confiscation of Liberty.

    So, I will shut up. I trust the vast majority of folks, once armed with the facts, will make a judgment for Liberty.

    Moving on.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    My responses are in blue.

    I have laid out the rational argument against forcing individuals making private sales at gun shows to do background checks. I know I will not change your mind. However, for those reading the thread and not responding, a counter-point has been provided to your justification for just a little bit more confiscation of Liberty.

    So, I will shut up. I trust the vast majority of folks, once armed with the facts, will make a judgment for Liberty.

    Moving on.
    I think we just come different perspectives of the centuries old balance of security and liberty debate. Not to say that I fully subscribe to one side (rarely do). Both arguments rational, I agree that it will be up to the people to decide how far the laws will lean in one direction or the other on this particular issue.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Hey Trooper, chew on these points if you really care

    Quote Originally Posted by trooper46 View Post
    By semantics they are not "dealers" only. But there are a number of citizens that make a living off of selling their "personal collections" without an FFL. I do not approve of selling a weapon to someone without a background check for the reasons previously stated. If you are criminal, I do not want you to have any kind of access to a firearm. You have forfeited that right when you became a non-law abiding citizen.

    Honestly, the background check takes about 5 minutes, don't try to tell me that it's such an inconvenience. Anyone who's purchased a firearm from an FFl knows damn well that by the time you fill out the form the back ground check is usually done. In most cases it takes one phone call.

    I support the idea of requiring back ground checks on for anyone who wants to purchase a firearm from any source. Its the only way to insure that a violent criminal does not get his or her hands on a firearm. If a step towards that means banning non FFL dealers from selling at gun shows, OR requiring private dealers to run background checks at the gun shows, I'm all for it.
    OK Trooper, lets put the philosophical arguments about whether background checks really do more good than harm aside.

    Here are 3 really good arguments:

    1) Significant cost. The background check can only be provided by a Class I FFL. They normally charge $30 to do the work. Who should pay for this? The buyer? Would you be so kind as to open your wallet for this cause?

    Ruins Gun Collecting. Licensed Gun collectors are FFLs (FFL III) that are permitted to buy and sell interstate. There are lots of these guys at gun shows. They will not be allowed to engage in interstate gun trading at gun shows if this law passes. FFL I (Dealer) cannot transfer that nice vintage Colt 45 to you if you are from out of state. Yup the law you are supporting is extremely destructive to gun collectors.

    No Constitutional Basis. The law would restrict intrastate trade in firearms, which is not permitted under the US Constitution. Yup the law you are supporting tears at the founding principles of our Republic.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Western PA
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by trooper46 View Post
    The one that allows people to buy weapons from private dealers at the gun shows without any type of back ground check. There is plenty of video evidence that confirms this occurs on a regular basis.
    By "this" you mean face-to-face transactions without an FFL or PICS check? You can't mean "criminal or insane people stocking up on firepower at gun shows," because there ISN'T plenty of video evidence of that. If they could prove that prohibited persons and criminals did their shopping at gun shows, we'd be seeing the clips 24x7 on CNN.

    In fact the opposite is so much the case that if I went looking, I'd expect to see clips of gun shows with reporter narration about how they're overrun with lower-middle-class white redneck working-poor racists--by which they'd mean that it's full of ordinary guys in blue jeans without gang colors or hoodies. Since the last big anti-gun-show crusader was Clinton, and the enemy du jour was "the militia movement," I'm even willing to put some money on that prediction.

    I'm sorry, if your a criminal or mentally insane, I don't want you to be able to buy a weapon at gun show.
    Last time I was at a gun show, I remember how spooky it was to watch this guy with a zigzag scar on his face, an eye patch, and his pants on backwards kept muttering about how "this'll keep them daggone sumbiches out'n muh head!" I asked the seller, "Why would you sell your gun to a guy like this? Doesn't he give you the creeps?" He told me he had to sell the gun, because the aliens in his big toe told him to.

    Well, actually I lied. That didn't happen.

    When a criminal chooses to violate another's rights, he forfeits his own, including his second amendment rights. That's why I support back ground checks.
    I agree that a criminal forfeits his rights; that's why force can be used against him at the time, and why he can be punished afterward. However, I am not a criminal and have not forfeited my rights, so I am not willing to be subjected to such egregious violations of them.
    Last edited by Ponch; 08-20-2010 at 06:49 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by trooper46 View Post
    A criminal forfeits his right to the 2nd amendment in the same way that he forfeits his right to life when he attacks you or I.

    As to your personal attack, thats just what I expect from a known TROLL on these forums.
    Complain about someone making a personal attack against you, then direct a personal attack against them. Nice job.

    You may hate Doug, I might have a distaste for him. But that doesn't change the fact that he's right about it being wrong to infringe on the rights of the people to keep and bare arms, regardless of the circumstance.

    He's also right that denying the right of "criminals" to own and carry weapons is a slippery slope that we are already sliding down. Did you know that under the current law, you can have right to self defense restricted for life over a simple third degree misdemeanor?

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    ... Did you know that under the current law, you can have right to self defense restricted for life over a simple third degree misdemeanor?
    It is still a crime. Rights are routinely revoked after conviction of a crime via due process. That a right can be revoked under such circumstances is undeniable. Which rights and for how long they are denied is a matter of policy to be determined using republican methods of legislation.

    I would argue that a policy revoking the RKBA for only a third degree misdemeanor is unduly harsh and should be changed. But, the ability of the State to revoke the RKBA for life for certain crimes is reasonable in theory and in practice.

  20. #20
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Doug may be a lot of things, a troll he is not. He is a liberty loving individual with some really good thoughts (occasionally). More times than not actually.

    Lets see, shall not be infringed, giving up liberties for security, lowering the bar of felony seems like a pretty good one if you ask me. If the despots in power want to disarm the American persons, all they have to do is...let's say make speeding, running a red light or stop sign, failure to use turn signal, jaywalking, cursing in public and a host of other infractions a felony. That should do the trick. All of a sudden you have probably 7 people left in the U.S. that still have the RKBA.

    This GCA '68 really stinks to high heaven.

    Edit: He's up to 31 posts now. He'll be taking over the entire forum shortly.
    Last edited by rodbender; 08-20-2010 at 11:22 PM.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    Complain about someone making a personal attack against you, then direct a personal attack against them. Nice job.

    You may hate Doug, I might have a distaste for him. But that doesn't change the fact that he's right about it being wrong to infringe on the rights of the people to keep and bare arms, regardless of the circumstance.

    He's also right that denying the right of "criminals" to own and carry weapons is a slippery slope that we are already sliding down. Did you know that under the current law, you can have right to self defense restricted for life over a simple third degree misdemeanor?
    I have no problem with his opinion on the issue. I have debated with others on this thread without resorting to such and he is perfectly capable of giving the same respect. I do have a problem with adding a negative attack at the end of an argument under the guise of just making a legitimate opinion. He choose to open up his argument by wishing harm befall me so I simply responded in kind. I don't...hate..Doug, I just find both his negative comments and grammar nazism distracting from meaningful debate.
    Last edited by trooper46; 08-21-2010 at 03:49 AM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by rodbender View Post
    Doug may be a lot of things, a troll he is not. He is a liberty loving individual with some really good thoughts (occasionally). More times than not actually.

    Lets see, shall not be infringed, giving up liberties for security, lowering the bar of felony seems like a pretty good one if you ask me. If the despots in power want to disarm the American persons, all they have to do is...let's say make speeding, running a red light or stop sign, failure to use turn signal, jaywalking, cursing in public and a host of other infractions a felony. That should do the trick. All of a sudden you have probably 7 people left in the U.S. that still have the RKBA.

    This GCA '68 really stinks to high heaven.

    Edit: He's up to 31 posts now. He'll be taking over the entire forum shortly.
    Who gives a crap about post count? What exactly does that have to do with the debate? Do you think your some how superior because you've run your mouth more than I. Wow...thats a real achievement. I've been watching the forums long before I made an account to engage in debate. Only recently has my schedule allowed me the lee way to do so. Get over yourself and then may'be we'll discuss big boy things.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    It is still a crime. Rights are routinely revoked after conviction of a crime via due process. That a right can be revoked under such circumstances is undeniable. Which rights and for how long they are denied is a matter of policy to be determined using republican methods of legislation.

    I would argue that a policy revoking the RKBA for only a third degree misdemeanor is unduly harsh and should be changed. But, the ability of the State to revoke the RKBA for life for certain crimes is reasonable in theory and in practice.
    That I wouldn't have too much of an issue with a change in that regard. My concern is more focussed towards violent or drug related criminals being able to purchase a firearm without some type of background check barrier. It would depend on what the misdemeanor entailed exactly.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    OK Trooper, lets put the philosophical arguments about whether background checks really do more good than harm aside.

    Here are 3 really good arguments:

    1) Significant cost. The background check can only be provided by a Class I FFL. They normally charge $30 to do the work. Who should pay for this? The buyer? Would you be so kind as to open your wallet for this cause?

    Ruins Gun Collecting. Licensed Gun collectors are FFLs (FFL III) that are permitted to buy and sell interstate. There are lots of these guys at gun shows. They will not be allowed to engage in interstate gun trading at gun shows if this law passes. FFL I (Dealer) cannot transfer that nice vintage Colt 45 to you if you are from out of state. Yup the law you are supporting is extremely destructive to gun collectors.

    No Constitutional Basis. The law would restrict intrastate trade in firearms, which is not permitted under the US Constitution. Yup the law you are supporting tears at the founding principles of our Republic.
    I apologize if I was unclear in my opening posts regarding the gun show issue. I am not specifically endorsing this law in particular as I haven't had the time pour over it and make a determination. I do however support requiring a background for anyone that wishes to purchase a firearm from any source. But I will answer those good points that are in respect to that idea.

    1. Yes, a law requiring background checks between private sales would cost an additional amount in the exchange. The seller could include this in the price of the sale (or we could always make the brady campaign pay for it...they want it anyway) . It is my opinion that the extra cost on this issue is outweighed by the creation of yet another barrier to criminals buying firearms, it makes the market more expensive and more difficult for them to acquire them.

    I do agree with the points regarding interstate trade and contend that they would violate the constitution. Having not studied the specific law, I will trust your judgement on that. My argument is based more towards that idea that criminals have forfeited their rights purchase a firearm , backgrounds checks are a necessary barrier to this occurring, and that gun shows provide a venue for purchases without background checks.
    Last edited by trooper46; 08-21-2010 at 04:09 AM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by trooper46 View Post
    Who gives a crap about post count? What exactly does that have to do with the debate? Do you think your some how superior because you've run your mouth more than I. Wow...thats a real achievement. I've been watching the forums long before I made an account to engage in debate. Only recently has my schedule allowed me the lee way to do so. Get over yourself and then may'be we'll discuss big boy things.
    Well, you addressed the last statement in the quote. Are you going to address the real issues I mentioned or is your tactic to avoid them.

    Post count affords us the oportunity to determine if you may simply be a troll, sent to divide and conquer, or maybe just a newby. Personally, I don't think you are a troll, but I do think you are misguided in the fact that you think this government (any government) can and will keep you safe.

    Criminals are going to get their guns. They don't care about the law, thus they are called criminals. GCA '68 and background checks do nothing more than make criminals out of dealers that don't do their paperwork quite right. Sure there are the FFLs that ignore the law about selling to felons and straw purchases, but then you'll always have that.

    Criminals are going to get their guns. Whether it be through crooked FFLs, private sales, straw purchases, on the black market, or even stealing them directly. It doesn't matter, they will get their guns. If it is more expensive for them to get guns, they will simply commit that one or two extra robberies or burglaries, or they will sell more dope to get the money.

    If you give up liberties for safety you will get neither. I think Ben Franklin said something along those lines. We should listen to the founders of this federation and the framers of the Constitution. They were very wise men, one and all.

    Sure there is the provision about "felon in possession" included in the GCA '68, but according to the 2 DAs that I know, it is almost always the first charge to be dropped in the process of a plea bargain. Very few felons are ever tried on the all important "felon in possession" charge.

    Background checks and GCA '68 do nothing to stop criminals from getting their guns.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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