Is the blood of the dead just the price we pay for freedom now?

Vigilante · August 8, 2019, 11:53pm

No you dont. I can walk into a gun show and buy a gun without a background check

Federal law requires background checks for commercial gun sales, but not for private-party sales whereby any person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the same state as long as they do not know or have reasonable cause to believe the purchaser is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law

WuWei · August 8, 2019, 11:55pm

You don’t need to go to a gun show, the gun show has nothing to do with it. You can make the same purchase in a parking lot.

Both Dayton and El Paso had bgc.

Vigilante · August 8, 2019, 11:57pm

Correct. Its just called the Gun Show Loop Hole

WuWei · August 8, 2019, 11:57pm

By fools. Or the ignorant.

Vigilante · August 8, 2019, 11:58pm

By that you mean Congress

WuWei · August 8, 2019, 11:59pm

Most definitely. And anybody else who calls it a loophole. It’s not.

H_Arendt · August 9, 2019, 12:00am

zantax:

H_Arendt:

party-free:

That’s because they believe the right to bear a firearm is a “natural right” ascribed in some unable to be named set of freedoms they are guaranteed no matter what based on the words of some brainy progressive philosopher educated elite snob. Or that God gave them the right. Or something.

And look-I saw all of this as a firearm owner (I own a “spooky scary AR” and a couple of hand guns), and as someone who has NEVER called for a new gun regulation. All I’ve ever said is “let’s put every option on the table.” And let’s get special interest $$ out of politics once and for all.

I am not a gun owner but I do not favor the confiscation of guns. I don’t even support banning assault rifles because the data show that such bans don’t reduce gun violence. But I do believe in common sense regulations while being more than a little frustrated that the “shall not be infringed” side have taken a position of never making an compromises. That’s why I quoted Scalia – an elite and educated man but certainly no one’s idea of a progressive. In Heller, were he rewrote the 2A (judicial activism much!) he still insisted on limits to 2A.

Never making compromises? Any idea how many gun laws are on the books already?

Not nearly as many as loosening of guns laws in that last ten years. Look at the fact that nothing got passed after the Sandy Hook massacre and tell me again about how the “shall not be abridged” crowd is open to compromise.

Vigilante · August 9, 2019, 12:02am

Yeah its a political term

H_Arendt · August 9, 2019, 12:04am

Cite one compromise in the past twenty years.

zantax · August 9, 2019, 12:04am

H_Arendt:

zantax:

H_Arendt:

party-free:

That’s because they believe the right to bear a firearm is a “natural right” ascribed in some unable to be named set of freedoms they are guaranteed no matter what based on the words of some brainy progressive philosopher educated elite snob. Or that God gave them the right. Or something.

And look-I saw all of this as a firearm owner (I own a “spooky scary AR” and a couple of hand guns), and as someone who has NEVER called for a new gun regulation. All I’ve ever said is “let’s put every option on the table.” And let’s get special interest $$ out of politics once and for all.

I am not a gun owner but I do not favor the confiscation of guns. I don’t even support banning assault rifles because the data show that such bans don’t reduce gun violence. But I do believe in common sense regulations while being more than a little frustrated that the “shall not be infringed” side have taken a position of never making an compromises. That’s why I quoted Scalia – an elite and educated man but certainly no one’s idea of a progressive. In Heller, were he rewrote the 2A (judicial activism much!) he still insisted on limits to 2A.

Never making compromises? Any idea how many gun laws are on the books already?

Not nearly as many as loosening of guns laws in that last ten years. Look at the fact that nothing got passed after the Sandy Hook massacre and tell me again about how the “shall not be abridged” crowd is open to compromise.

Well no, we aren’t open to compromises that punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty. But if you want to increase the penalties on the guilty, we’re all in, unlike Democrats who let convicted gun felons out of jail early.

Chris · August 9, 2019, 12:07am

I hope that it does get through.

Weedhopper · August 9, 2019, 12:08am

My state has it and is a simple fix.

zantax · August 9, 2019, 12:09am

Remind me again? Which mass shooting would “closing the gun show loophole” have prevented? I have a terrible memory.

Weedhopper · August 9, 2019, 12:13am

You mean like they do in Chicago and Baltimore, and to think they have the toughest laws that only Hurt the law abiding citizens.

WuWei · August 9, 2019, 12:16am

I have posted 100 years of compromises over and over on this forum.

The vast majority of which are still in place. Do compromises have an expiration date?

Bump stocks.

Now what have you given up?

WuWei · August 9, 2019, 12:18am

Gun control is racist.

H_Arendt · August 9, 2019, 12:20am

zantax:

H_Arendt:

zantax:

H_Arendt:

party-free:

That’s because they believe the right to bear a firearm is a “natural right” ascribed in some unable to be named set of freedoms they are guaranteed no matter what based on the words of some brainy progressive philosopher educated elite snob. Or that God gave them the right. Or something.

And look-I saw all of this as a firearm owner (I own a “spooky scary AR” and a couple of hand guns), and as someone who has NEVER called for a new gun regulation. All I’ve ever said is “let’s put every option on the table.” And let’s get special interest $$ out of politics once and for all.

I am not a gun owner but I do not favor the confiscation of guns. I don’t even support banning assault rifles because the data show that such bans don’t reduce gun violence. But I do believe in common sense regulations while being more than a little frustrated that the “shall not be infringed” side have taken a position of never making an compromises. That’s why I quoted Scalia – an elite and educated man but certainly no one’s idea of a progressive. In Heller, were he rewrote the 2A (judicial activism much!) he still insisted on limits to 2A.

Never making compromises? Any idea how many gun laws are on the books already?

Not nearly as many as loosening of guns laws in that last ten years. Look at the fact that nothing got passed after the Sandy Hook massacre and tell me again about how the “shall not be abridged” crowd is open to compromise.

Well no, we aren’t open to compromises that punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty. But if you want to increase the penalties on the guilty, we’re all in, unlike Democrats who let convicted gun felons out of jail early.

So you agree that there will be no compromises from the “shall not infringe” side that have the potential of reducing gun violence. Remember, your side has not allowed background checks to be expanded to include checking whether people are on the terrorism watch list!!!

Reason: some people who are not terrorists might be on the list and they might be inconvenienced while they clear their names. And so there is no check to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists.

Is everyone clear on what you are in favor of?

GWH · August 9, 2019, 12:23am

You misspelled beginning.

zantax · August 9, 2019, 12:24am

H_Arendt:

zantax:

H_Arendt:

zantax:

H_Arendt:

party-free:

That’s because they believe the right to bear a firearm is a “natural right” ascribed in some unable to be named set of freedoms they are guaranteed no matter what based on the words of some brainy progressive philosopher educated elite snob. Or that God gave them the right. Or something.

And look-I saw all of this as a firearm owner (I own a “spooky scary AR” and a couple of hand guns), and as someone who has NEVER called for a new gun regulation. All I’ve ever said is “let’s put every option on the table.” And let’s get special interest $$ out of politics once and for all.

I am not a gun owner but I do not favor the confiscation of guns. I don’t even support banning assault rifles because the data show that such bans don’t reduce gun violence. But I do believe in common sense regulations while being more than a little frustrated that the “shall not be infringed” side have taken a position of never making an compromises. That’s why I quoted Scalia – an elite and educated man but certainly no one’s idea of a progressive. In Heller, were he rewrote the 2A (judicial activism much!) he still insisted on limits to 2A.

Never making compromises? Any idea how many gun laws are on the books already?

Not nearly as many as loosening of guns laws in that last ten years. Look at the fact that nothing got passed after the Sandy Hook massacre and tell me again about how the “shall not be abridged” crowd is open to compromise.

Well no, we aren’t open to compromises that punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty. But if you want to increase the penalties on the guilty, we’re all in, unlike Democrats who let convicted gun felons out of jail early.

So you agree that there will be no compromises from the “shall not infringe” side that have the potential of reducing gun violence. Remember, your side has not allowed background checks to be expanded to include checking whether people are on the terrorism watch list!!!

Reason: some people who are not terrorists might be on the list and they might be inconvenienced while they clear their names. And so there is no check to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists.

Is everyone clear on what you are in favor of?

Again, no we will not compromise in allowing you to remove people’s rights without due process. Are we clear on what you are in favor of now? If the government has evidence someone is a terrorist, arrest them and bring them to trial and then remove their rights when they have been found guilty.

WuWei · August 9, 2019, 12:25am

They had background checks.