Members banned from this thread: domer76 |
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.
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
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.
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
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
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
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
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
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
Bookmarks