Gun show loophole?

[Old TexMex]

Crime committed with a gun is not a "gun problem". It's a crime problem.
If Einstein said "You can't cure a sick mind with a sick mind" (or words to that effect), when criminals write law.....

You follow me?

 

[Ramikrav]

It's an amazing thing that even many gun owners think the 2A reads... the right of the people to keep and bear arms is secondary to government's right to infringe upon.

Ahhh, the good old "preamble straw man", where grabbers think that the preamble to the Second Amendment is a grant of government power over our unalienable, individual HUMAN rights.

Thats been answered, but as they say " a LIE gets half way around the world before the TRUTH can get its boots on ".

First, an educated retort to the stupid:

The Unabridged Second Amendment by J. Neil Schulman

And a simpler explanation:

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4zE0K22zH8"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4zE0K22zH8[/ame]


As for the Second Amendment itself, its part of the first 10 amendments to the Bill of Rights, which itself was proposed because many states would not ratify the Constitution without a list of specific prohibitions on the power of the federal government.

The Second Amendment is a clear and concise "thou shalt not" directed squarely at the central government regarding the right of the people to keep and to bear arms.

Gun control is illegitimate and illegal. All of it.

It should be treated as such by any American worth being called an American.

Period.

Now, this doesn't mean that dangerous people should be given access to firearms (or sporting goods, kitchen cutlery, household cleaning chemicals, cars, etc etc) but that they should be kept locked up so they cannot harm other people.

Gun control is also a joke- criminals laugh at it and deranged people pass their background checks and buy the weapons they use to commit their crimes of infamy on a regular basis.

The "gun show loophole" is just another hyperbolic LIE, that the ENEMIES OF LIBERTY and OUR REPUBLIC, as well as our UNALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE, expect to get around the world before the truth can catch up to it.

 

[Muss Muggins]

The Second Amendment is a clear and concise "thou shalt not" directed squarely at the central government regarding the right of the people to keep and to bear arms.

Gun control is illegitimate and illegal. All of it.

It should be treated as such by any American worth being called an American.

Period.

Now, this doesn't mean that dangerous people should be given access to firearms (or sporting goods, kitchen cutlery, household cleaning chemicals, cars, etc etc) but that they should be kept locked up so they cannot harm other people.

So, where in the Constitution are you allowed to keep dangerous people from having access to firearms?

 

[Ramikrav]

So, where in the Constitution are you allowed to keep dangerous people from having access to firearms?

The part that says your supposed to give them due process (then lock them up).

 

[Muss Muggins]

The part that says your supposed to give them due process (then lock them up).

But what happens when they get out?

 

[Ramikrav]

But what happens when they get out?

1.If they're still dangerous they should not be released.

2.If they are deemed rehabilitated enough to be released then they should have the same ability to exercise their rights as anyone else.

 

[Muss Muggins]

1.If they're still dangerous they should not be released.

2.If they are deemed rehabilitated enough to be released then they should have the same ability to exercise their rights as anyone else.

1: Who decides that?

2: Who pays for it?

3: Still not buying that "due process" can eliminate a constitutional right. Don't really see that anywhere. And don't give me "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Completely different.

 

[Ramikrav]

1: Who decides that?

2: Who pays for it?

3: Still not buying that "due process" can eliminate a constitutional right. Don't really see that anywhere. And don't give me "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Completely different.

1. As a layperson I cannot begin to answer how to rehabilitate criminals, as this seems to be an ongoing trial for the experts.

2. I'm perfectly willing to pay taxes to keep dangerous people locked up, maybe not as per the "progressive income tax" system we have now, but thats another subject entirely.

3. I never said that due process could devoid one of unalienable rights, to the contrary, what the purpose of due process should be is to establish guilt for a crime, and should that crime be enough to imprison someone, they will be (or should be) unable to access weapons of any type.

The fire in a crowded theater argument justifying "reasonable regulation" is nonsense. I'll accept that argument when its deemed "reasonable" to regulate the first amendment by making liberals pass background checks to buy the macbooks they troll the internet with.

I think were on the same wavelength here, just a little different.......

 

[Muss Muggins]

1. As a layperson I cannot begin to answer how to rehabilitate criminals, as this seems to be an ongoing trial for the experts.

2. I'm perfectly willing to pay taxes to keep dangerous people locked up, maybe not as per the "progressive income tax" system we have now, but thats another subject entirely.

3. I never said that due process could devoid one of unalienable rights, to the contrary, what the purpose of due process should be is to establish guilt for a crime, and should that crime be enough to imprison someone, they will be (or should be) unable to access weapons of any type.

The fire in a crowded theater argument justifying "reasonable regulation" is nonsense. I'll accept that argument when its deemed "reasonable" to regulate the first amendment by making liberals pass background checks to buy the macbooks they troll the internet with.

I think were on the same wavelength here, just a little different.......

I'm not real sure we're all that close. Some people living free today should not have firearms, and there's not a sane person in the country that would disagree with some of the examples I could provide. Some people currently prohibited from having firearms probably should not be, and again, those examples are easy to provide. There's not enough money in the country to lock all the violent, mean and crazy people up until they are "rehabilitated" enough to have firearms, since we're really struggling with it now, and when it comes right down to it, like Grandma Muggins used to say, "People, they never change . . . "

 

[Ramikrav]

I'm not real sure we're all that close. Some people living free today should not have firearms, and there's not a sane person in the country that would disagree with some of the examples I could provide. Some people currently prohibited from having firearms probably should not be, and again, those examples are easy to provide. There's not enough money in the country to lock all the violent, mean and crazy people up until they are "rehabilitated" enough to have firearms, since we're really struggling with it now, and when it comes right down to it, like Grandma Muggins used to say, "People, they never change . . . "

The decision as to who may or may not have firearms is not up to the government as per the Second Amendment.

The only way to keep dangerous people from doing harm to innocent people is to keep them locked up.

We can most certainly incarcerate people convicted of violent crimes until they are rehabilitated. We just have to be willing to stop incarcerating people for non violent offences, thus freeing up the space and funds for the dangerous minority.

And they are a minority, for the most part.

Heck,if we stopped locking people up over trifling nonsense we'd probably have so much money left over and bed space as well, we could actually consider revamping our mental health system so we could lock up all the nutjobs who plan for months, even years, to go postal -BEFORE- they go postal.

Its all about priorities.

and right now, ours are way, way off.

 

[Muss Muggins]

The decision as to who may or may not have firearms is not up to the government as per the Second Amendment.

The only way to keep dangerous people from doing harm to innocent people is to keep them locked up.

We can most certainly incarcerate people convicted of violent crimes until they are rehabilitated. We just have to be willing to stop incarcerating people for non violent offences, thus freeing up the space and funds for the dangerous minority.

And they are a minority, for the most part.

Heck,if we stopped locking people up over trifling nonsense we'd probably have so much money left over and bed space as well, we could actually consider revamping our mental health system so we could lock up all the nutjobs who planned for months, even years, to go postal.

Its all about priorities.

and right now, ours are way, way off.

Yeah, we're pretty far apart. At some point, I'd like to run by the house with 20 or 30 people I know personally who are not incarcerated and have committed no crime that in no way, shape or form should ever be permitted to possess firearms. If you thought about it long and hard enough, you can probably think of a few yourself to introduce to me . . . After I introduce them to you, I'm going to give them a pistol and a couple rounds of ammunition, and wait out front . . .

You can't lock up everybody who shouldn't have a gun. I agree that several that are now prohibited should be allowed to have a gun, but I'm willing to bet that Madison, Hamilton and Jay knew people that they wouldn't let have gunpowder as well . . .

 

[Ramikrav]

Yeah, we're pretty far apart. At some point, I'd like to run by the house with 20 or 30 people I know personally who are not incarcerated and have committed no crime that in no way, shape or form should ever be permitted to possess firearms. If you thought about it long and hard enough, you can probably think of a few yourself to introduce to me . . . After I introduce them to you, I'm going to give them a pistol and a couple rounds of ammunition, and wait out front . . .

You can't lock up everybody who shouldn't have a gun. I agree that several that are now prohibited should be allowed to have a gun, but I'm willing to bet that Madison, Hamilton and Jay knew people that they wouldn't let have gunpowder as well . . .

.......and those same people likely would be just as naughty with sporting goods, household chemicals, kitchen cutlery, etc.

We won't ever -ever- be able to fix the problem of violence. Its part of human nature.
However,
I can't see where you got the idea that I said that we should lock up all people who should not have a gun- just those who have proven to be dangerous via being convicted of a violent crime and/or being shown to be mentally unstable. Allowing known killers, rapists, and armed robbers, as well as the dangerously mentally unstable, to roam free and unchecked, is absurd.

But as "gun control" "laws", among any other law, don't stop said people from committing new crimes, the only real solution is keeping them incarcerated.

And I'm not willing to engage in conjecture about what a select group of our Founders would or would not do, aside from the understanding that they did in fact ratify into the bill of rights a very specific prohibition on the federal government that clearly denies it the rightful authority to infringe -which means regulate- on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

"Gun control" is directly in contradiction to this fact.

The government doesn't have the legitimate lawful authority to make or enforce such laws.

And, as Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 :

".....that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force "

I -do know- the founders meant that the government should obey its lawful limitations.

In any case, what would you do with these people you say shouldn't have guns?

 

[Muss Muggins]

In any case, what would you do with these people you say shouldn't have guns?

I wouldn't let them have guns . . .

(I'm pretty much okay with what we have on the books now, although I'd like to see some tightening up of the mental health issues, and some lessening of the rules regarding non-felons, including the non-violent sellers and possessors of illegal drugs)

 

[Ramikrav]

I wouldn't let them have guns . . .

(I'm pretty much okay with what we have on the books now, although I'd like to see some tightening up of the mental health issues, and some lessening of the rules regarding non-felons, including the non-violent sellers and possessors of illegal drugs)

OK, so we are NOT on the same page here.

Your ok with all the previous acts of "gun control", despite the fact that

A. It doesn't work. This is proven in the fact that after almost 100 years of it, it still has had no direct effect on reducing violent crime. "Not letting them have guns" is easier enacted into law by hyperbolic idiots then actually done.

B. Each and every "gun control" "law" passed on the federal level has been inflicted on us by leftist morons (government was in the hands of democrats each and every time a new "gun control" "law" was passed, from NFA34 to GCA68) who's sole intent is a deliberate and slow destruction of our liberty in its entirety. At this point, it is crystal clear that these people do not like the idea of privately owned arms, and wish to do away with such in America.

C. Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed. All "gun control" "laws" do, because they clearly have no affect on those violent characters intent on doing harm, is impede -infringe- on the right of we the people to keep and bear arms.

Needlessly.

Because "gun control" doesn't work.

your ok with this?

 

[Muss Muggins]

OK, so we are NOT on the same page here.

Your ok with all the previous acts of "gun control", despite the fact that

A. It doesn't work. This is proven in the fact that after almost 100 years of it, it still has had no direct effect on reducing violent crime. "Not letting them have guns" is easier enacted into law by hyperbolic idiots then actually done.

B. Each and every "gun control" "law" passed on the federal level has been inflicted on us by leftist morons (government was in the hands of democrats each and every time a new "gun control" "law" was passed, from NFA34 to GCA68) who's sole intent is a deliberate and slow destruction of our liberty in its entirety?

C. Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed.

I suspect we're done here. No need for name calling. Reasonable minds can disagree . . .

 

[Ramikrav]

No need for name calling. Reasonable minds can disagree . . .

No, I think I'll express my strong disdain for those who insist on violating my rights and the rights of my fellow citizens with constitutionally illegitimate acts that have no effect on the aspect of policy (public safety) that they are breathlessly enacted upon, -EXACTLY- how I like.

People who support "gun control" are morons.

More then that, they are either idiots and/or tyrants who either-

A. Are true idiots who think that enacting these "laws" actually makes a difference after DECADES of the very same said "laws" proving time and time again to be a miserable failure.

or

B. Are truly tyrants who are exploiting public safety issues ("never let a good crisis go to waste") to destroy, piece by piece, the protections of our natural liberties as per the restrictions on violating them as placed on government by the Second Amendment.

And believe me, I -AM- holding back, there ARE a few more choice words I could use towards gun grabbers.

Bunch of Benedict Arnold sons of.......

 

[ditrina]

Thank you all for your opinions.. and discussion.. opinions vary..


We're done here..

Thank you all