Playboypenguin
Moderator
Yes, the meanings do matter when you are trying to use an absolute to quantify the effectiveness of an action that includes the human variable. You are misusing language to try and support a weak argument.
Let's Close The Gunshow Loophole
- Thread starter orchidhunter
- Start date
- Status
nocrosstalk4u
Moderator
How about this idea? Drivers license's and state ID's have a code on them to show that the person lost his gun rights. That way we dont all have to be penalized for the foolishness of a few. But can simple logic be applied?
Playboypenguin
Moderator
You would still have to call in and verify the validity of the licenses. You would still be doing pretty much the same thing that is done now. 
IronEagle318
Inactive
"Loophole", HA!
Closing the "loophole" would tell me that my friends and I could not trade, swap, or pass on guns to each other without the government sticking its overlarge nose into our private business. NO!
By the way, I had to wikipedia the "Gun Show Loophole" to see exactly what some anti-gunners THOUGHT it meant. It was still full of holes, like so many gun control arguments are.
Closing the "loophole" would tell me that my friends and I could not trade, swap, or pass on guns to each other without the government sticking its overlarge nose into our private business. NO!
By the way, I had to wikipedia the "Gun Show Loophole" to see exactly what some anti-gunners THOUGHT it meant. It was still full of holes, like so many gun control arguments are.
nocrosstalk4u
Moderator
Unless your a convicted felon or the gun in question is a machine gun the government has no right to know a thing about it.
DonR101395
New member
A few folks including myself would argue they have no right to know about those things either.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
nocrosstalk4u said:
Also, if you are mentally incompetent or have a order of protection against you for domestic abuse. Again, its not "the government knowing about it" because if you are on the NICS as a prohibited party they already know about it. It is a way for the seller to know that he can't sell to this person. This is no different from registering to vote. It is a reasonable way to protect the seller.
IronEagle318 said:
Also, I suspect you know your friends and wouldn't sell to them if you knew they it was illegal for them to own firearms. If everybody who traded and sold did as you do then I believe this wouldn't be an issue but because of greedy and unscrupulous folks we have to do stuff like this.
DonR101395 said:
I am afraid the majority wants them to know and the courts have upheld it.
DonR101395
New member
And there lies the crux of the problem, what right does the majority or the court have to infringe upon a person's god given rights? Both laws came about as sell out compromises.
I will admit I'm torn on felons, but the older I get the more I don't have a problem with it.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
DonR101395 said:
If the legislature limits or otherwise restricts a right and courts say it is constitutional then it is not an infringement. You or I may think it is but our way of government will prevail.
Every single right in the BOR is limited or regulated in some way.
My view is that are no absolute rights without restriction except in an Anarchy and only then if you have the power to enforce it.
Anyway, a nut or a crook doesn't have a right IMO to own a firearm.
DonR101395 said:
What about lunatics? As to felons my standard response comes from one of my favorite songs from the '70s. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
DonR101395
New member
Some of the regulators are lunatics and tyrants who should be felons.
What about lunatics? Do you think that gun laws prevent lunatics or crooks from owning guns? Pick any city you like that has stringent gun laws. I'll bet you that they have a higher percentage of gun and violent crime than their surrounding areas.
My point being I'm for putting everyone on equal ground instead of hamstringing or making a criminal out of an otherwise law abiding person.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
DonR101395 said:
I have to chuckle at that a bit for you have a point. However, not sure that is the topic we are discussing. Maybe in politics one man's savior is another man's lunatic/felon. Marion Barry comes to mind.
DonR101395 said:
Not sure what you mean. Are you saying that we shouldn't make something illegal if there are some who won't obey the law?
But to your question, yes I think gun laws do keep guns out of the hands of criminals and nuts but not all of them all the time. However, that is true with any law, but that is not why we make things illegal.
DonR101395 said:
I will agree but with a different twist. Let's put FFLs and FTF sellers on equal ground and make them both legal and good for public safety by requiring everyone to submit to a background check not just those that buy from FFLs.
DonR101395
New member
What I'm saying is enforce the laws already written. Enforce them harshly. Murder, rape, robbery etc. should have a zero recidivism rate; not because the offenders were rehabilitated, but because they aren't given another chance.
Chicago, DC, NYC, LA all have draconian gun laws and they have done nothing to curb violence or keep guns from criminals who want them.
Do you also support getting federal approval to sell your car, house, maybe to buy a phone?
FWIW: I haven't always felt this way, but my beliefs are becoming this way rapidly. I've simply grown tired of govt. intervention where it has no place.
Once was a time when the government and the courts considered slavery to be Constitutional. Depending on which side you happen to be born on, that decision could really suck.
How many people, for public safety, agree with the government calling US citizens "terrorists" and holding them without charge?
Why don't we just pass a law where a convicted felon with a gun gets a mandatory life without parole? Would probably have a lot more affect on public safety and it won't hassle me in my chosen hobby of collecting firearms.
Of course, I consider the 1934 NFA, 1968 GCA and everything since to be unconstitutional.
Last edited:
Wildalaska
Moderator
But thats a necessary part of a scrutiny analysis
WildjustsayingandheyalsofarshilenistheonlyoneAlaska TM
How exactly, does one tell between a person with a "closed mind" and a person that has merely made the correct decision and is sticking to it?
There are some in this country that consider anyone not agreeing with an "assault weapon" ban to be a closed minded gun fanatic that cannot understand the need to ban these guns for public safety.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
DonR101395 said:
Don, I never said that gun control laws reduce crime. The issue is whether we should require FTF sales to include a background check the same as sales from an FFL. Should lunatics and crooks be allowed to legally own firearms? I think not and I think most would agree with me. The NRA does.
NICS is a tool to help enforce that ban. It is not perfect and no system would be but many (me included) feel it is better than nothing.
I don't think we should expand the discussion to crime because I believe that violent crime is caused by a variety of reasons and certainly not just easy access to guns.
antipitas said:
Al, you are right and great care must be exercised in regulating the BOR but it is a role of government to protect the public when it is necessary and within the contraints of our COTUS. And as Ken said that is a necessary part of the analysis but can't be the ONLY criteria or I would not be allowed out of the house! But as you have indicated before the NICS check passes muster.
DonR101395 said:
I think if you look closely you'll see that they are to varying degrees involved in those transactions you mention. Like a HUD statement, title and registration, safety and pollution inspections AND the FCC? They are there and have constitutional reasons to be there.
DonR101395 said:
I think you should work to repeal them through the legislature as no court will strike them down I'm afraid.
Hkmp5sd said:
I collect firearms to as a hobby too and the NICS system doesn't hamper my ability to engage in that hobby.
Last edited:
NC already requires a permit or CHL, even for private handgun transactions. A NICS check is run before the permits/licenses are issued, but the permits/licenses are then good for five years. It would be very practical, at least in NC, to encode firearms permit/license information on drivers' licenses.
DonR101395
New member
Sorry, if you want to talk about "crooks" you have to talk about crime. Can't have one without the other. I do agree that guns aren't needed to have crooks or crime though.
I knew you would bite on that one. The govt can regulate all of the things I listed because they are not rights. Thanks for playing.
I can agree with you on both points.
- Status