I concur, but you're too demanding of the American populace, bro.

Alright, so you'll shoot and kill an armed person over your DVD player but not an unarmed person?

if a burglar is going to shoot you over a DVD player, you're unlikely to have the chance to fire back

I have no problem showing some spine. But I'm not taking a life over a "thing." If someone's life's in danger that's another story.
-----Added 17/1/2009 at 07 : 25 : 20-----
How do you know? Their hands might be full of your Bose system, making them an easy target.

This thread already has less guidance than the last 8 years of White House activities...

But the topic of morality is one probably best reserved for another thread.

Highlights include:

- Somebody breaking into your clearly occupied house has no right to live.

- Deterrent effect of laws allowing individuals to kill people who break into homes that are occupied.

- Society is too soft on criminals and ignores victims.

AND MORE!

In all fairness I stopped reading this thread long ago, much of it seemed pointless and senseless long ago. Just saw the post about shooting people over property and it struck me odd, still does.

You guys can go back to deciding who to shoot and with what ammo, I'll be sure to stay clear of the line of fire from here on out.

Ok, to be very clear, again: I will not shoot someone over property, even though I have no moral qualms about doing so.

However, I will NOT surrender my property. I.E. I will try to take it back and make the intruder leave. If at that time the intruder tries to kill me, then I will defend myself. I won't kill over property, though I will take risks to protect it. I will kill in order to save my own life if the burglar attempts to murder me when I confront him.


And Derwood, I disagree. If I am confronting an intruder in my house, I will do so on my terms and I will be prepared.

Oh, and I don't think Obama is going to touch firearm legislation for a while, he's got other things to worry about.

What if the burglar was 6 ft and 230lbs of muscle, and your children slept down stairs where the burglar was? Hell nobody wants to kill nobody, but the thought of leaving loved ones subject to the whim of a burglar who can overpower you are, well, discomfiting.

Well, it's official. PRESIDENT Obama intends to not only reinstate the AWB, but go even further and impose a de-facto nationwide firearms registry, and 'child proof guns' that have also been fairly shooter-proof also. Whatever he may have said during his campaign could be taken with a grain of salt as he was in it to win. However, now that he is President and outlining his official policy, his words matter more.

From the official White House website: Urban Policy


"Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent."

I don't think the AWB thing will pass congress. I really don't. The rest of the stuff sounds completely reasonable to me, particularly the gun show loopholes

"Gun show loopholes."

Educate the thread.

I will not register a single firearm I own. I will not surrender any uncoded ammo and will go so far out of my way to acquire the materials and knowledge to reload my own. I will not perform any background checks IF I sell a personal piece of my firearm property nor will I allow one to be done on myself if I buy from another private individual.

There is no gunshow loophole no matter how many times people try to say there is.

There is no restriction in the tiarht amendment that prevents law enforcement from running traces on guns.

The assault weapons ban of 94 did nothing to prevent a single crime and neither will a new one.

Obama has officially lied to the american people about his so called respect for the 2nd Amendment. It is obvious that the democrats still intend on doing as much as possible to disarm me.

I will not comply.

Molon Labe.

Usa! Usa! Usa! Usa!

There is absolutely a gun show loophole.

If you are a dealer at a gun show but not in "the business of selling firearms" (e.g. just a guy who wants to unload a few handguns) then there is no NCIS requirement.

If you want to hold a gun show in your backyard where you and your buddies can unload your unwanted handguns, there are few if any restrictions.

I repeat, there is no gun show loophole. ANY FFL licensed dealer MUST ABSOLUTELY run a NICS check when selling a weapon be it at their own shop or at a gunshow. The so called 'loophole' is a monstrously huge LIE fabricated by the Brady campaign, democrats, and various other anti gun groups. Their idea of a 'loophole' involves ANY PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL who wants to sell any of their own personal and private firearms that are not part of an FFL inventory. That is all. In other words, they want background checks required for EVERY SINGLE GUN SOLD IN AMERICA which is nothing more than total firearm registration. That is not a loophole, that is regulating who owns what pieces of private property.
-----Added 21/1/2009 at 10 : 16 : 36-----
take a look at your avatar.

you mean like automobiles, which i'm sure you have no problem with

dk...are you suggesting that there are never persons selling weapons at gun shows that are not FFL licensed dealers?

An automobile is a mobile piece of property that ANYONE of legal age to participate in legal contracts can own. As to having a problem with it, hell yes I have a problem with it. Registration is nothing more than a so called 'tax' to increase state revenue, supposedly to pay for road maintenance, but is never used for that purpose which is why most states are implementing more and more toll roads.
-----Added 21/1/2009 at 10 : 24 : 20-----
Read closer dc. If someone is a dealer, they must run a NICS check. I am not FFL licensed, therefore NOT a dealer. If I go to a gun show and want to sell one of my firearms, I can. I do NOT need to run a NICS check because I am not a dealer. That is the 'loophole' they say needs closing. They want to shut down private sales, thereby implementing total firearm registration.

well then we'll never agree on this subject, as I feel the opposite (that if cars are registered, then so should guns).
-----Added 21/1/2009 at 10 : 25 : 22-----
correct. and many people support this idea

dk...so if you want to sell one of your firearms to a know felon who stops by your little home-made stand at a gun show, you should have that right..because you are not a dealer?

it's the "don't ask, don't tell" of the gun world; don't tell me your a felon, and I won't tell anyone you bought a gun here

many people support lots of things. mandating what I do and don't do with my personal property will never be one of them.
-----Added 21/1/2009 at 10 : 35 : 35-----
you've never been to a gun show, have you? non dealers cannot setup a stand or table, at least none of the gun shows I've ever worked at have let them. private citizens who want to sell a private gun have always had to carry it on their person and have some sort of sign indicating what they want to sell. All the TX gunshows I've been to require the person to have an FFL if they want to set up a table or booth. As to selling to a felon, it's not my responsibility to ensure that the person has the right to own a gun. I am not responsible for someone breaking the law, nor should I be required to.

there are 100's of laws mandating what you do or don't do with your personal property. what are you talking about?


thus......wait for it......a LOOPHOLE

if the government has a policy that requires background checks on gun purchases through a dealer, but you can sell it to someone without a background check as long as it's from your home or out the trunk of your car, that's a loophole

I understand that gun sellers fear the idea of "the person I sell this gun to may go shoot up a shopping mall, and I'll end up an accessory to the crime." I think that would be avoided if all the checks and balances are in place. If you ahve to run a background check on the guy you're selling to, you wouldn't have sold him the gun in the first place, right? If I sell my car to someone and then they go run over a group of school children, am I an accessory to that crime?

and I ignore every single unconstitutional one of them.




what part of I'M NOT A DEALER are you having a problem comprehending? The law is about buying from dealers, not private individuals, thus NO LOOPHOLE!!!!


No, if someone you sold your car to runs over a entire playground of schoolchildren, you are not an accessory UNLESS you KNEW he/she intended to do just that. If your buyer says nothing other than 'i want to buy your car', you are not an accessory. Now WHY would you need to run a background check on someone buying your car? no reason whatsoever, and the same with a gun. It is not a requirement of me to automatically assume that anyone wanting to buy a gun from me intends on using it for a crime. It is also unconstitutional to run me up the hangmans noose because someone that bought a gun from me committed a crime later.

dk...I recall seeing a stat that more than 30 states do not limit gun show displays and sales to FFL registered dealers. I know for a fact that unlicensed dealers display and sell at gun shows in Virginia.

I will have to find the source (I think it was the National Conference of State Legislatures)

By any reasonable standard, that is a loophole.

accepting that it's true, that a private individual can indeed 'rent' space at a gun show to sell a collection of private firearms, that would then make him a dealer in your eyes?

and i'd refrain from using the term 'reasonable'. It's highly debatable.

strange to see this thread still twitching.

if you look at the webpage slims links above, you'll notice that the paragraph which has prompted the new round of snippy "i will not comply" statements is way down near the bottom of a very long list of statements concerning initiatives directed toward american cities. like way way way down on the list. and if you actually read through the list, you'll see that there are a number of quite complex initiatives aimed at problems FAR greater than whether you do or do not have to register your guns or have to use trigger locks or any of that.

personally, i have no problem with there being a distinction between urban and rural spaces in terms of gun regulation---i've lived far too long in cities to find any of the various modes of posturing about "soft society" (phrases redolent of those nice german lads with brown shirt predelictions during the 20s and most of their subsequent imitators) or "self-defense" to mean anything beyond more bullets flying around in already densely populated areas. so i think it entirely ok for gun controls to be one way inside chicago, say, and other ways outside---and i don't see why there'd be a problem with that for the gun people if the regulations were locally enacted.

again, in the confirmation hearings for obama's attorney general nominee, it was made quite explicit that the support indicated in the decontextualized paragraph above is not being translated into any action any time soon by the administration. i wouldn't expect to see anything until a second term, if there is one...

so i would consider untwisting your knickers, comrades.
look around at the problems facing the administration, facing all of us....you are way way way down on the list.
stop being so narcissistic.

your argument lacks flavor, considering that in order to make it you have to color it with visions of nazism. But then again, maybe that's the only way you can put an antigun stance in a malcontextualized light.

ETA:

why should localities be given authority to determine what parts of the constitution are stronger than others because of population density?

As for being 'way down on the list', doesn't matter to me. The mere presence of it is enough for me to say 'no way and no thanks.

and the 'i will not comply' statement is nowhere near snippy, but deadly matter of fact. I will not comply and they will have to use deadly force to attempt to make me. My line in the sand has been drawn.

And some of us have to sell our guns to pay the bills these days.

...

Guns don't keep the lights and the heat on, bro.

i was referring to the litany earlier on this page of complaints about the civilian population "lacking spine" or having "gone soft"--see for yourself--it's right there. as for the lineage of these arguments, that's also a matter of record. it is of no concern to me whether you like it or not.

lacking spine? gone soft? yeah, i'd have to agree that most have. We've gone from a nation of warriors to a nation of nanny staters demanding someone else protect us from evil, mainly because of population density in localized areas. Yes, big city dwellers are mostly to blame.

nice dk--that's like my saying that everyone who lives in a rural space is stupid. both are ridiculous statements, both are patently false.

and this is a waste of time.

dk and crompin:

Just so I understand...

In those 30+ states where anyone, not just FFL registered dealers, can display and sell weapons at gun shows, including Crompsin selling a handgun from his private collection at a gun show in Virginia if he chooses, in order to pay bills....the buyer, who may or may not be a felon, should not be subject to a background check?

And that is not a loophole?
-----Added 21/1/2009 at 12 : 04 : 06-----
Evidently, federalism and states rights are at the foundation of beliefs for conservatives and libertarians except in the case of state or local actions that may limit gun ownership within the framework of the 2nd amendment.

Please don't associate me with DK.

I have a hobby. He has an obsession.

That is correct. The sole power of congress to regulate firearms resides in the judicially gifted commerce clause loophole. The power to regulate interstate commerce, which now includes intrastate commerce as well, but precludes the private possession of firearms (U.S. v. Lopez). Since congress already regulates the interstate sale of firearms through FFLs, it is not a power of congress to further regulate the private sale and possession of firearms, most notable in their limitation to require background checks or form 4473s for state to state long gun sales and the already assumed power of requiring NICS and 4473s for state to state handgun sales, not same state handgun sales between private individuals. That is not a loophole. It is a limitation on the power of congress.
-----Added 21/1/2009 at 12 : 12 : 47-----
ANY aspect of the US constitution, not just the 2nd.
-----Added 21/1/2009 at 12 : 13 : 59-----
The key difference between your statement and mine is you included everyone and I said most.

Cromp....you offered to educate us on "gun show loopholes"
So please educate me how it is not a loophole if you were to display and sell a gun from your private collection at a gun show in Virginia w/o a requirement of a background check of the buyer who might be a felon.
-----Added 21/1/2009 at 12 : 21 : 34-----

ahhh...dk educated me....the dreaded commerce clause

Uh, what?

Wrong, I was referring to Derwood's comment about the "gun show loophole." I wanted him to educate the thread.

My mistake and I take back any wrongful associations.

But if you sell a gun from your private collection at a VA gun show, please try to make sure its not to a felon!

its that and the law is very specific about licensed dealers, not private individuals selling parts of their personal collection. That was a hotly debated part of the bill when it was crafted and voted on.

Thanks for the tip.

Hey, when you drive your car... please try to avoid hitting small children.

...

I'm an educated and responsible firearm owner. Don't patronize me with your "wisdom." Have you ever purchased or sold a firearm? It's a lot of paperwork and waiting. The government has a good program in place already. Gun show loopholes? You can't stop the illegal from being illegal without screwing everyone else.

Just because DC_Dux puts a toddler up on the hood of his Buick doing 86 in a 25 doesn't mean everybody with a car is a badguy.