HawgGoneIt Posted February 20, 2018 Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 19 minutes ago, concha said: https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/facts-about-gun-shows FYI, I've bought online before. You are required to have the gun shipped to an FFL and complete the background check process there. The vast majority of guns sales are through FFLs. Almost every seller at a gun show will be an FFL. They will not sell to you without a check. The famous "loophole" is for a tiny minority of sales by non-dealers, such as a guy selling a shotgun he wants to get rid of to a neighbor. It is a huge canard that keeps gun control folks frothing at the mouth. Taken from your very own link, there is still the loophole, it remains there. A person can claim to be selling a collection or whatever and not be a registered dealer and sell firearms to who the hell ever they want. Similarly, if a gun collector dies and his widow wants to sell the guns, she does not need a federal firearms license because she is just selling off inherited property and is not “engaged in the business.” And if the widow doesn’t want to sell her deceased husband’s guns by taking out a classified ad in the newspaper, it is lawful for her to rent a table at a gun show and sell the entire collection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawgGoneIt Posted February 20, 2018 Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 7 minutes ago, zulu1128 said: The history of 2A cases decided by SCOTUS says otherwise, but best of luck. Still not answering my question. I know the history. That is beside the point though. The SCOTUS is more than willing to uphold infringing on a felon's second amendment right, and to infringe on my right to a fully auto or nuclear warhead. Where there is a will, there is a way. The history is; there is not a will to infringe, except under certain circumstances, yet at some point there was that will to infringe under those certain circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zulu1128 Posted February 20, 2018 Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 4 minutes ago, RedZone said: Your david lee roth album cover avatar always impresses in an adult thread. Take a seat.. You didn't want to answer the original question. Quit wasting our time. Your weird obsession with avatars is, as always, noted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedZone Posted February 20, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 What is the acceptable amount of AR-15s we are comfortable having in our "free" society granted to us by the US Constitution? We are almost at 10 million according to some reports. 25 million?, 50 million?,.........75 million? When does it stop? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted February 20, 2018 Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 Just now, HawgGoneIt said: Taken from your very own link, there is still the loophole, it remains there. A person can claim to be selling a collection or whatever and not be a registered dealer and sell firearms to who the hell ever they want. Similarly, if a gun collector dies and his widow wants to sell the guns, she does not need a federal firearms license because she is just selling off inherited property and is not “engaged in the business.” And if the widow doesn’t want to sell her deceased husband’s guns by taking out a classified ad in the newspaper, it is lawful for her to rent a table at a gun show and sell the entire collection. Again, this is a small minority of gun sales. Trace them back to these mass shootings. How many were committed by guns sold through some supposed "loophole"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedZone Posted February 20, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 1 minute ago, zulu1128 said: Your weird obsession with avatars is, as always, noted. Just weird ones, dave lee.......we see you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zulu1128 Posted February 20, 2018 Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 2 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said: Still not answering my question. I know the history. That is beside the point though. The SCOTUS is more than willing to uphold infringing on a felon's second amendment right, and to infringe on my right to a fully auto or nuclear warhead. The SCOTUS has never ruled on either of those points. Their only ruling ever that would be interpreted as anti 2A was US v. Miller in 1939. 7 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said: Where there is a will, there is a way. The history is; there is not a will to infringe, except under certain circumstances, yet at some point there was that will to infringe under those certain circumstances. From a legislative perspective, sure. Not from the constitutional/SCOTUS perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zulu1128 Posted February 20, 2018 Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 8 minutes ago, RedZone said: Just weird ones, dave lee.......we see you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedZone Posted February 20, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 Any of you "men" here want to play with, little dave lee roth.....maybe roll him a ball or something. I'm done with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted February 20, 2018 Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 7 minutes ago, zulu1128 said: Untold months of a purported man and father with the Hildebeast as an avatar was apparently quite normal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted February 20, 2018 Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 No Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zulu1128 Posted February 20, 2018 Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 6 minutes ago, RedZone said: I'm done with him. This time he really means it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddyr2 Posted February 20, 2018 Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 38 minutes ago, Belly Bob said: Why would that obviously be the best way? There are tradeoffs between limiting the number of people who are murdered by guns and protecting the right citizens have to bear arms. There is no reason to assume that the only goal is to reduce the number of people who are murdered by guns. Because people who commit murder don’t fallow laws and would find other ways to commit murder including buying guns illegally. So the only real way to curtail murders by guns to to get rid of all the guns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedZone Posted February 20, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 3 minutes ago, concha said: Untold months of a purported man and father with the Hildebeast as an avatar was apparently quite normal. Says the guy running with a Russian sexual predator, rapist and depraved executioner "avatar".. Big fan of beria, concha? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedZone Posted February 20, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 What is it with you extremely weird Ohio people? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedZone Posted February 20, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 Will concha defend Lavrentiy Beria like he does donald trump or will he run for the hills? He's a weak runner. We know it. Probably take a couple shots while running fast as he can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedZone Posted February 20, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 dave lee roth and lavrentiy beria. Really? Why can't you misfits be a football helmet or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted February 20, 2018 Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 1 hour ago, Eddyr2 said: Because people who commit murder don’t fallow laws and would find other ways to commit murder including buying guns illegally. So the only real way to curtail murders by guns to to get rid of all the guns. Maybe. But it just doesn't seem very plausible. We don't believe that when it comes to preventing any other crime, so why would we believe it when it comes to preventing murders by guns? For example, we don't argue that burglars don't follow laws and would find other ways to break into your house unless we board up all your windows or cover them in bars; so we should either do nothing or take extreme measures. Rather, we all recognize that if we make it harder (without making it impossible) for burglars to get into your house, we will reduce the likelihood of your getting robbed at home. So why should we think it's different when it comes to guns? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thc6795 Posted February 20, 2018 Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 2 minutes ago, Belly Bob said: Maybe. But it just doesn't seem very plausible. We don't believe that when it comes to preventing any other crime, so why would we believe it when it comes to preventing murders by guns. For example, we don't argue that burglars don't follow laws and would find other ways to break into your house unless we boarded up all your windows or covered them in iron bars. So we should either do nothing or take extreme measures. Rather, we all recognize that if we make it harder (without making it impossible) for burglars to get into your house, we will reduce the likelihood of your getting robbed at home. So why would we think it's different when it comes to guns? Cancer is the biggest mass murderer in the world why not ban cigerettes? According to most libs the internet is the number one cause of fake news. I'm sure our founding fathers were not thinking about the net when they wrote the first amendment. Drunk drivers have killed thousands of people why don't we blame the car? Obesity leads to heart failure also a mass killer ehy not blame the spoon? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddyr2 Posted February 20, 2018 Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 8 minutes ago, Belly Bob said: Maybe. But it just doesn't seem very plausible. We don't believe that when it comes to preventing any other crime, so why would we believe it when it comes to preventing murders by guns? For example, we don't argue that burglars don't follow laws and would find other ways to break into your house unless we board up all your windows or cover them in bars; so we should either do nothing or take extreme measures. Rather, we all recognize that if we make it harder (without making it impossible) for burglars to get into your house, we will reduce the likelihood of your getting robbed at home. So why should we think it's different when it comes to guns? Cause there are already over 300 million guns in the streets... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted February 20, 2018 Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 2 minutes ago, thc6795 said: Cancer is the biggest mass murderer in the world why not ban cigerettes? According to most libs the internet is the number one cause of fake news. I'm sure our founding fathers were not thinking about the net when they wrote the first amendment. Drunk drivers have killed thousands of people why don't we blame the car? Obesity leads to heart failure also a mass killer ehy not blame the spoon? Well, because none of those things are involved in murder. Moreover, cars are necessary to our way of life in a way that guns aren't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted February 20, 2018 Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 5 minutes ago, Eddyr2 said: Cause there are already over 300 million guns in the streets... How's that relevant to the point I made? We can still make it harder for people who would commit murder using a gun from getting a gun to commit murder, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedZone Posted February 20, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 1 minute ago, Belly Bob said: Well, because none of those things are involved in murder. None of those things are in the Constitution either that I'm aware of, so there's that.. They keep trying though, one by one. In the end the 2nd Amendment will eventually be the downfall of this society. The evidence is all around us. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." How it can mean what these radicals believe it means is beyond me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thc6795 Posted February 20, 2018 Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 2 minutes ago, RedZone said: None of those things are in the Constitution either that I'm aware of, so there's that.. They keep trying though, one by one. In the end the 2nd Amendment will eventually be the downfall of this society. The evidence is all around us. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." How it can mean what these radicals believe it means is beyond me. Hopefully your child molesting ass will be first to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thc6795 Posted February 20, 2018 Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 12 minutes ago, Belly Bob said: Well, because none of those things are involved in murder. Moreover, cars are necessary to our way of life in a way that guns aren't. So why not blame the gun when a police officer kills an unarmed person? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.