Maybe it wasn't the gun's fault

[archives]

have you ever tried to buy one? it's not easy and they aren't that available. the gun show loophole is a myth.

No, I don't hunt, so I don't a gun for anything, and how can the gun show loophole be a myth as long as private sales do not require a licensed dealer nor any background checks? You can even obtain one legally via Craigslist

https://www.revealnews.org/article/s...on-craigslist/

[RB 60]

Or perhaps the easy access and availability to semi automatic weapons

The availability has been there since the 1900's. They just weren't portrayed as evil then.

[SmarterthanYou]

No, I don't hunt, so I don't a gun for anything, and how can the gun show loophole be a myth as long as private sales do not require a licensed dealer nor any background checks? You can even obtain one legally via Craigslist

https://www.revealnews.org/article/s...on-craigslist/

private sales at gun shows were SPECIFICALLY exempted at the request of the ATF because they wanted to limit who had access to NICS. If something is SPECIFICALLY exempted at the request of the agency, it cannot be a loophole, just part of the law. Internet purchases, even private ones, MUST be shipped to an FFL in the purchasers state where a background check is done. so no. no loophole.

[archives]

private sales at gun shows were SPECIFICALLY exempted at the request of the ATF because they wanted to limit who had access to NICS. If something is SPECIFICALLY exempted at the request of the agency, it cannot be a loophole, just part of the law. Internet purchases, even private ones, MUST be shipped to an FFL in the purchasers state where a background check is done. so no. no loophole.

First part is just semantics, point being, an individual can obtain a weapon without background checks or record, and interstate purchases don't have the same requirements, let alone the informal exchange arranged via the internet

[archives]

The availability has been there since the 1900's. They just weren't portrayed as evil then.

Not true, banned in 1934, 1986, and 1994, the last let expired in 2004, which brings us to where we are today living with the consequences

[Mason Michaels]

Does a car kill people?

Just the other day a Uber Car without a driver killed a woman.

[SmarterthanYou]

First part is just semantics, point being, an individual can obtain a weapon without background checks or record, and interstate purchases don't have the same requirements, let alone the informal exchange arranged via the internet

it's not semantics when that was exactly what the ATF wanted. it's also out of the constitutional power of the federal government to regulate private sales.

[SmarterthanYou]

Not true, banned in 1934, 1986, and 1994, the last let expired in 2004, which brings us to where we are today living with the consequences

what the hell are you talking about? nothing was banned in 34. In 86 the only thing banned was machine guns made AFTER may 1, 1986 (which is constitutionally dishonest and anyone agreeing with it is intellectually dishonest). in 94 the 'ban' was so damned stupid that it didn't stop the sales of the weapons. it just forced cosmetic changes to abide by the idiot and unconstitutional law.

[archives]

it's not semantics when that was exactly what the ATF wanted. it's also out of the constitutional power of the federal government to regulate private sales.

Sure it is, point being an individual can legally obtain a weapon without background checks or record, now if you want to call it the guns show loophole, private sale loophole, or "exactly what the AFT wanted," it is still remains a fact

[SmarterthanYou]

Sure it is, point being an individual can legally obtain a weapon without background checks or record, now if you want to call it the guns show loophole, private sale loophole, or "exactly what the AFT wanted," it is still remains a fact

so YOU want to use semantics and call a specific exemption in the law a 'loophole', got it.

[archives]

what the hell are you talking about? nothing was banned in 34. In 86 the only thing banned was machine guns made AFTER may 1, 1986 (which is constitutionally dishonest and anyone agreeing with it is intellectually dishonest). in 94 the 'ban' was so damned stupid that it didn't stop the sales of the weapons. it just forced cosmetic changes to abide by the idiot and unconstitutional law.

Here we go again with the semantics, no, they didn't totally "ban" those weapons, just made it hard as hell to obtain or own one, they ought to revisit the thinking of 1934

And the law wasn't unconstitutional, nor are the overwhelming majority of any gun restrictions, I really don't understand why gun defenders have such a hard time recognizing that all Constitutional rights can be regulated, none are absolute, never have been, never will be

[archives]

so YOU want to use semantics and call a specific exemption in the law a 'loophole', got it.

It is what it is, call it what you want, it allows the legal purchase of weapons free of checks or records, a gun defender as yourself can't say that guns can never be purchased without background checks or official record keeping, and it would be a common occurrence in many States' guns shows

[SmarterthanYou]

Here we go again with the semantics, no, they didn't totally "ban" those weapons, just made it hard as hell to obtain or own one, they ought to revisit the thinking of 1934

so you believe that only the wealthy and connected are trustworthy enough to have those NFA weapons?

And the law wasn't unconstitutional, nor are the overwhelming majority of any gun restrictions, I really don't understand why gun defenders have such a hard time recognizing that all Constitutional rights can be regulated, none are absolute, never have been, never will be

you are wrong. the ONLY reason they get to do it now is because of cowards like you. those terrified of the freedom of others.

The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people; or of peaceable assemblies by them, for any purposes whatsoever, and in any number, whenever they may see occasion. —ST. GEORGE TUCKER'S BLACKSTONE

A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down... a person cannot be compelled 'to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.' —MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA 319 US 105 (1942)

The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now. — SOUTH CAROLINA v. US, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905)

A Constitution is not to be made to mean one thing at one time, and another at some subsequent time when the circumstances may have changed as perhaps to make a different rule in the case seem desirable. - Chief Justice Thomas Cooley, Michigan Supreme Court 1868

[SmarterthanYou]

It is what it is, call it what you want, it allows the legal purchase of weapons free of checks or records, a gun defender as yourself can't say that guns can never be purchased without background checks or official record keeping, and it would be a common occurrence in many States' guns shows

of course it's a common occurrence. i've done it myself, both bought and sold. it's my RIGHT as a citizen and am free to do it without interference or regulation of the fucking federal or state government.

[archives]

so you believe that only the wealthy and connected are trustworthy enough to have those NFA weapons?



you are wrong. the ONLY reason they get to do it now is because of cowards like you. those terrified of the freedom of others.

The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people; or of peaceable assemblies by them, for any purposes whatsoever, and in any number, whenever they may see occasion. —ST. GEORGE TUCKER'S BLACKSTONE

A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down... a person cannot be compelled 'to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.' —MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA 319 US 105 (1942)

The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now. — SOUTH CAROLINA v. US, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905)

A Constitution is not to be made to mean one thing at one time, and another at some subsequent time when the circumstances may have changed as perhaps to make a different rule in the case seem desirable. - Chief Justice Thomas Cooley, Michigan Supreme Court 1868

Fact, all Constitutional rights can be regulated, they are all restricted, you don't see cigarette ads on television, in most cases one has to obtain a permit to begin a parade, and we are all familiar with umpteen Supreme Court cases regulating speech. Forget the "freedom of others" bullshit, freedom itself is a 19th Century abstract concept grossly misunderstood and manipulated today

And your man Scalia threw out the "a Constitution is not to be made to mean one thing at one time, and another at some subsequent time" in his totally discarding the prefatory clause in the Heller case