Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Facepalm:

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 8>
Author
Lightningbolt View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
PHAT and PLAT

Joined: 10 July 2002
Location: Dean's List
Status: Offline
Points: 4884
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lightningbolt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 February 2009 at 3:06pm
Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

Originally posted by Lightningbolt Lightningbolt wrote:

Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

Originally posted by Lightningbolt Lightningbolt wrote:

I can see how this will cut down on illegal guns held by criminals.  Just like the lack of illegal drugs we have here in the states considering that they are illegal and all.  sheep
Well if it's illegal, then people won't buy/own them . . . duh.
 
wow.sheep


wow.fixyoursarcasmmeter
 
yeah I don't lurk around here enough to know where everyone stands on issues.  I'm afraid I might get too edgimicated by listening to the real world opinions of what people learn from their teacher's and text books.
 
Kind of like the certified engineer that couldn't understand why his truss design figures weren't correct and would not work out in the field.  "But it looks good on paper" 
 
Metaphorically speaking, I bet he had never pounded a nail in his life.  but really I'm sure he never had.


Edited by Lightningbolt - 26 February 2009 at 3:18pm
Sent from a phone booth
Back to Top
jmac3 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Official Box Hoister

Joined: 28 June 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 9201
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jmac3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 February 2009 at 3:17pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

Originally posted by Skillet42565 Skillet42565 wrote:

Even as a supporter of the 2nd amendment, do we really need AK47s...?
 
I hope every paintball gun you own is a single shot pump...
 
Because in a overmatched firefight, you could easily take out 20 enemies with one shot, at a time... While they are shooting fully auto speed ball guns...
 
 
If the chips came down, and you could only grab one gun to defend yourself... Say, if the government failed because they ran out of money (I know, that couldn NEVER happen...)
 
You would want to grab a gun with only 10 shots?
 
really?
 
My latest pistol falls under this proposed law, as it holds 17 per magazine.
 


Yes paintball is completely comparable to guns being limited to 10 round clips.


Your pistol I am pretty sure DOES NOT fall under this law. Why would it?...

Also, this:

Originally posted by Skillet42565 Skillet42565 wrote:


Even as a supporter of the 2nd amendment, do we really need AK47s...?
Que pasa?


Back to Top
Eville View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 5/19, Filter-dodge

Joined: 19 September 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3146
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Eville Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 February 2009 at 3:19pm
need? no.  want? hell yes.  the freedom to do stuff shouldnt be limited to just what is necessary. 
Back to Top
stratoaxe View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
And my axe...

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6831
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stratoaxe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 February 2009 at 3:24pm

I have a challenge-

Give me one way in which the assault weapons ban will make society safer. Cookies to anybody who can answer that.
Back to Top
Lightningbolt View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
PHAT and PLAT

Joined: 10 July 2002
Location: Dean's List
Status: Offline
Points: 4884
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lightningbolt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 February 2009 at 3:28pm
Originally posted by Lightningbolt Lightningbolt wrote:

Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

Originally posted by Lightningbolt Lightningbolt wrote:

Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

Originally posted by Lightningbolt Lightningbolt wrote:

I can see how this will cut down on illegal guns held by criminals.  Just like the lack of illegal drugs we have here in the states considering that they are illegal and all.  sheep
Well if it's illegal, then people won't buy/own them . . . duh.
 
wow.sheep


wow.fixyoursarcasmmeter
 
yeah I don't lurk around here enough to know where everyone stands on issues.  I'm afraid I might get too edgimicated by listening to the real world opinions of what people learn from their teacher's and text books.
 
Kind of like the certified engineer that couldn't understand why his truss design figures weren't correct and would not work out in the field.  "But it looks good on paper" 
 
Metaphorically speaking, I bet he had never pounded a nail in his life.  but really I'm sure he never had.
I guess to be more blunt, some of you don't have callus one on your hands yet.  My disclaimer on this is that I explain to people I know that this group at TF to be one of the most intellectual groups I've come across on teh intrunetzez
Sent from a phone booth
Back to Top
Rofl_Mao View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
request denied

Joined: 27 October 2008
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3192
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rofl_Mao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 February 2009 at 3:35pm
Originally posted by stratoaxe stratoaxe wrote:

I have a challenge-

Give me one way in which the assault weapons ban will make society safer. Cookies to anybody who can answer that.


There is none.

Though the dems will try to back Obama even though they are beat on this one.
Back to Top
Tolgak View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Master of MSPaint and bri's Daddy

Joined: 12 July 2002
Location: BEHIND YOU!
Status: Offline
Points: 1239481
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tolgak Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 February 2009 at 3:38pm
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

Originally posted by Bunkered Bunkered wrote:

Maybe the problem could be made lesser if there were no black market for drugs.
Of course, that's politically un-palatable, even if it's hard to argue with.
Legalizing a lot of things would lessen the problem of fighting it, but not the results of the legalization. Are you seriously suggesting legalizing heroin, cocaine, meth etc. ? Really? Why not legalize child pornography as well? We could save all sorts of money. Prostitution, loan sharking, all victimless crimes, lets open the flood gates. Why have any laws? If it feels good do it.
 
Vote Bunkered in 012"


I love that jump from voluntary drug use to involuntary child abuse.

If nobody is harmed by an action, why make it illegal? There's a reason that "victimless crimes" are so hotly debated. They shouldn't be crimes because they have no victims, but people who want to legislate morality are way too stupid and powerful to allow them. Child porn and loan sharking do have victims. Legal prostitution does not; and, in most cases, neither does voluntary, personal drug use (provided those drugs are obtained by legal outlets).

Of course, we still factor in potential to do harm. That's why we still have speed limits and other such preventative laws.

Legal gun ownership and use has no victims and the potential for death is very slim. Yes, it does happen due to stupidity, but incidents are pretty rare. If we take a rational approach to lawmaking, one in which people aren't punished for actions that do not victimize people, there is no reason whatsoever to ban most firearms.
Back to Top
Eville View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 5/19, Filter-dodge

Joined: 19 September 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3146
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Eville Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 February 2009 at 3:43pm
Originally posted by stratoaxe stratoaxe wrote:

I have a challenge-

Give me one way in which the assault weapons ban will make society safer. Cookies to anybody who can answer that.
less lead content in the soil.
Back to Top
High Voltage View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Fire in the disco

Joined: 12 March 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Points: 14179
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote High Voltage Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 February 2009 at 3:58pm
Originally posted by stratoaxe stratoaxe wrote:

I have a challenge-

Give me one way in which the assault weapons ban will make society safer. Cookies to anybody who can answer that.

Would the ban bring greater penalties(more jail time) upon those arrested in possession of an assault rifle?
Back to Top
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldpbnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 February 2009 at 4:27pm
Originally posted by Tolgak Tolgak wrote:

Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

Originally posted by Bunkered Bunkered wrote:

Maybe the problem could be made lesser if there were no black market for drugs.
Of course, that's politically un-palatable, even if it's hard to argue with.
Legalizing a lot of things would lessen the problem of fighting it, but not the results of the legalization. Are you seriously suggesting legalizing heroin, cocaine, meth etc. ? Really? Why not legalize child pornography as well? We could save all sorts of money. Prostitution, loan sharking, all victimless crimes, lets open the flood gates. Why have any laws? If it feels good do it.
 
Vote Bunkered in 012"


I love that jump from voluntary drug use to involuntary child abuse.

If nobody is harmed by an action, why make it illegal? There's a reason that "victimless crimes" are so hotly debated. They shouldn't be crimes because they have no victims, but people who want to legislate morality are way too stupid and powerful to allow them. Child porn and loan sharking do have victims. Legal prostitution does not; and, in most cases, neither does voluntary, personal drug use (provided those drugs are obtained by legal outlets).

Of course, we still factor in potential to do harm. That's why we still have speed limits and other such preventative laws.

Legal gun ownership and use has no victims and the potential for death is very slim. Yes, it does happen due to stupidity, but incidents are pretty rare. If we take a rational approach to lawmaking, one in which people aren't punished for actions that do not victimize people, there is no reason whatsoever to ban most firearms.
Not once did I mention any support for banning firearms.
 
I love the jump from disussion of how stuipid it is to propose legalizing hardcore drugs to alleging support of the banning of firearms.
 
As for there being no victims of drug use.. whatever. I'll tell that to the kids who end up in foster care, or better yet get to watch their parents whore themselves out everyday so they can get their next fix while the kids sit around dirty, hungry and often times abused. As for prostitution, I would venture to guess a vast majority of prostitutes are in the trade to pay for drugs. Back to square one.  Don't take my position against legalizing hard core drugs with being a holy roller. Truthfully, I support legalizing pot. I think it should be legal and taxed like cigarettes. However, I think there is a specific difference between legalizing mary jane and giving the green light to sell crack in the isle next to the beer.
 
As for legislating morality how does that have to do with speed limits? Personally, I am all for opening up the highways simliar to the Autobahn. And before anyone says it, they have better safety records than we do here.
 
I personally don't care about banning assault rifles. I don't plan on ever having one, so it would never effect me anyways. Do I think people should have them? Not sure. Do I think there is any good derived from someone having them? Not really. Do I think there is more potential harm from someone having them, than good? Absolutely.  If they were banned, do I think it would stop people from having them? No, it would just create a black market where only criminals would have access to them.
 
 
Back to Top
merc View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
American Scotchy

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: VA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 7108
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote merc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 February 2009 at 4:49pm
as for mexico... dont ban guns in the US just BUILD A FREAKIN WALL!

automatic weapons and hand grenades are not part of the AWB... im having a hard enough time finding ways to buy them legally at an affordable price how are mexicans getting them in a legal mannor in the USA? there not, the weapons they are getting (if from the USA) are already illegal here...

"I think closing the gun show loophole, the banning of cop-killer bullets and I also think that making the assault weapons ban permanent"

there is no "gun show loophole", remember a few weeks ago we talked about how this is lefty BS...

armor piercing hand gun ammo is already illegal, and class 3 body armor is not designed to take a round from a rifle.

the AWB banned any semi auto rifle with with more than 2 of the following: detachable mag, pistol grip, front vertical grip, bayonet lug, quick change barrel, threaded muzzle, grenade launcher, folding/collapsible stock. (muzzle break may have been in that list too)

(the ar15 was not banned by the AWB, you just couldent get the rifle with a bayonet lug or threaded muzzle.) the P90 would be banned under it IN that configuration.

they arnt banning the guns they are banning the features, (at least thats how it was with the last one) you can still keep the ones you have you just cant modify or build any new ones after the ban date.

now, for those of you who think "no need for a scary black rifle" the 2nd amendment was for combat effective arms to be in the hands of the people. A lot of people think America is headed in a bad direction, only about 50% of the population wanted a dem in office, and now that hes pushing for banning guns, and taking money from the working and giving it to the non working or illegal immigrants, many people are VERY unhappy.

as Americans are loosing rights it it putting tension on the relationship between the government and the people. while it sounds paranoid the American people will only stand for it for so long.
(sounds stupid when we talk about guns but what happens when they start banning the type of food you can eat? or the type of car you can drive? already happening)

the question is not "why are assault rifles are needed" its "when will assault rifles be needed". it might not be in our lifetime or our kids life time but its coming.

Edited by merc - 26 February 2009 at 4:50pm
saving the world, one warship at a time.
Back to Top
IMPULS3. View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar
Guested

Joined: 07 November 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 579
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote IMPULS3. Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 February 2009 at 4:53pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

Originally posted by Skillet42565 Skillet42565 wrote:

Even as a supporter of the 2nd amendment, do we really need AK47s...?
 
I hope every paintball gun you own is a single shot pump...
 
Because in a overmatched firefight, you could easily take out 20 enemies with one shot, at a time... While they are shooting fully auto speed ball guns...
 
 


The only gun I own is a pump. Wink Bring on all the noobs with ions and r/t triggers. Big smile
Back to Top
Tolgak View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Master of MSPaint and bri's Daddy

Joined: 12 July 2002
Location: BEHIND YOU!
Status: Offline
Points: 1239481
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tolgak Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 February 2009 at 4:57pm
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

Not once did I mention any support for banning firearms.
 
I know. I was just using the points I made to add my two cents into the firearms argument.

I love the jump from disussion of how stuipid it is to propose legalizing hardcore drugs to alleging support of the banning of firearms.

I didn't say that.
 
As for there being no victims of drug use.. whatever. I'll tell that to the kids who end up in foster care, or better yet get to watch their parents whore themselves out everyday so they can get their next fix while the kids sit around dirty, hungry and often times abused. As for prostitution, I would venture to guess a vast majority of prostitutes are in the trade to pay for drugs. Back to square one.  Don't take my position against legalizing hard core drugs with being a holy roller. Truthfully, I support legalizing pot. I think it should be legal and taxed like cigarettes. However, I think there is a specific difference between legalizing mary jane and giving the green light to sell crack in the isle next to the beer.

When you threw child porn and other unrelated subjects into the mix of legalization of less harmful things,  you clumped them all as if they were equally bad. Prostitution is a "moral crime" that doesn't harm anybody when under a legal setting (look up the brothels in Nevada). Abusers of alcohol also have kids who they neglect.  Where do we draw the line between OK drugs and Not-OK drugs? I tried to place that line in my previous post.

Once we do away with the moral BS, we get into potential to do harm in an action.  I'm saying that legislation should be written based on that potential. A lonely guy in a shack in the woods isn't harming anybody by pumping himself full of heroin... but buying that heroin supports a group of people that do harm others.


 
As for legislating morality how does that have to do with speed limits? Personally, I am all for opening up the highways simliar to the Autobahn. And before anyone says it, they have better safety records than we do here.
 
It also costs about $2000 and you must go through driving school to get a license there.  They must wait until they are 18 years old to drive. Punishments for infractions are much more severe, and BAC must be lower than .03, unlike the .08 here.

I mentioned speedlimits to justify the considerations for potential harm/damage in making laws.
 
Back to Top
tallen702 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Swearing on Facebook

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: Under Your Bed
Status: Online
Points: 10949
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tallen702 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 February 2009 at 5:18pm
Merc hit upon something interesting in his post that many people either do not know or choose to ignore. SCOTUS ruled in the USA v Miller case of 1938 in favor of the state of Arkansas' argument that Miller's weapon which he was arrested for transporting was not a military type weapon (it was a double-barrel shotgun) and thus was not protected by the 2nd amendment under the provisions of the NFA of 1934. In short, in 1938, SCOTUS ruled that the only weapons that we DO have a guaranteed right to own as civilians are military firearms in a configuration which would be suitable for wartime action. The Miller case has never been challenged in that sense and therefore still stands as precedence to this day.
<Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.>
Back to Top
ammolord View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 06 July 2007
Location: Minot, ND
Status: Offline
Points: 1832
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ammolord Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 February 2009 at 6:26pm

wow. just wow.

PSN Tag: AmmoLord
XBL: xXAmmoLordXx


~Minister of Tinkering With Things That Go "BOOM!"(AKA Minister of Munitions)~
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 February 2009 at 6:48pm
Let's see...

Granted I kind of zoomed through the article, but I think I missed the part where the government is going to take your guns.

Comparing the legalization of heroin to the legalization of child porn does in fact make me want to facepalm.

Slightly more educated on the "gun show loophole" now, and while that is a misnomer, it is real. Real in the sense that sales by individuals are generally unregulated, and gun shows allow a bazaar-type situation where large numbers of individuals have an opportunity to buy/sell/trade their guns. Where under normal circumstances a "regular" gun owner would sell his gun to his friend/cousin/neighbor, in the gun show context individually owned guns can more easily fall off the radar.

The 1938 Miller case did rule on the "military applicability" of a sawed-off shotgun, but the exact interpretation of that case has been hotly disputed since the ruling. It is certainly not clear from Miller that the only weapons we have a right to own are military-style weapons. That is NOT a holding of that case.

Miller interpretation issues were aided somewhat by the recent DC gun case, which addressed Miller(but danced around overturning it). That case ruled (among other things) that there is an individual right to own handguns, subject to reasonable restrictions, but with no mention of any "military-style" requirement. Citing Miller without also citing the DC case is a mistake. The DC case does, on the other hand, specifically state that the second amendment simply does not apply to weapons of a type that a normal citizen would not normally possess (such as fully automatic weapons, nuclear warheads, and whatnot). Whether that exception to the second amendment covers "assault rifles" is not clear - but it seems pretty clear that there is no constitutional right to a pistol grip, bayonet lug, or hi-cap magazine.

I would be shocked if any second amendment challenge to a new AWB would go anywhere at all.

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
stratoaxe View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
And my axe...

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6831
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stratoaxe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 February 2009 at 7:24pm
Originally posted by High Voltage High Voltage wrote:

Originally posted by stratoaxe stratoaxe wrote:

I have a challenge-

Give me one way in which the assault weapons ban will make society safer. Cookies to anybody who can answer that.

Would the ban bring greater penalties(more jail time) upon those arrested in possession of an assault rifle?
 
In theory yes, but that brings to light a few questions-
 
A-How many gun crimes a year involve assault weapons? I have't been able to find a reliable site for information, but a conglomerate of these sites generally pointed to less than 1%. If anybody has different stats, I'll be glad to entertain then,
 
B-That argument could be made for anything. Why is extra penalty needed for a crime with an assault weapon? There are already laws in place that prevent certain people from owning weapons of any kind, and those laws are tacked on to convictions.
 
The goal here is to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, and there are laws in place to do that.
 
From Wikipedia-
 
Originally posted by Wikipedia Wikipedia wrote:

 

By former U.S. law the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, H&K G36E, TEC-9, all non-automatic AK-47s, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of features from the following list of features:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
  • Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
  • Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
  • Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
  • Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
  • A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
  • Folding or telescoping stock
  • Pistol grip
  • Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
  • Detachable magazine

That being said, how many common thugs can afford an AR-15, or AK-47?

That aside, look at the specifics of the law. Do folding stocks and pistol grips really make a weapon more deadly? How many hardened criminals have the access to grenade launcher?
 
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that this isn't a black and white issue with simple answer.
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 February 2009 at 7:38pm
If they really wanted to attempt to make the country safer, they would ban pistols, and not assault weapons, as pistols are used in SO MANY MORE crimes. Simple as that.


And on top of that, if a criminal wants to buy a gun, he will get any gun he so chooses. They aren't called criminals for having the mentality "Oh, this gun is illegal so I won't buy it".

If anything, criminals are much less likely to legally buy assault weapons for a few reasons--- the cost and the fact that it could be traced back to them.




It's just a case of "people think it's worse if we call it an "assault weapon, so let's ban it".

Edited by Linus - 26 February 2009 at 7:45pm

Back to Top
merc View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
American Scotchy

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: VA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 7108
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote merc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 February 2009 at 7:43pm
the law states that any dealer selling a firearm must record it, any privet seller selling to a privet buyer without cause to suspect they cannot legally own a firearm can make the sale with no records.

that is the laws, gun shows do not change this. gun shows are just a venue that bring privet sellers and privet buyers together.

privet seller selling to a privet buyer with no paper trail = LEGAL (maybe not in NY) but down here in VA its 100% legal and under federal law it is legal.

dealer selling to a buyer with no paper work = illegal. does not change regardless of where it is taking place. (within the USA of corse)

thats the law, no loophole specific to gun shows. (personal opinion, all gun sales should go though an FFL) gun shows dont change laws they just make it easier to find buyers and sellers. (if you want to argue this find me an example of a LAW that is being bypassed LEGALLY at a gun show)

from OED:
Militia: An organized body of people comparable to a military force.

as the technology of the military advance so should the capabilities of the militia as to keep them comparable.

machine guns, artiliary, explosives including but not limited to; mines, grenades, rockets, bombs, artillery and morter(sp) shells are all very much legal under federal law. (all you need to do is pay your taxes)

also surplus armored vehicles and amphibious craft are fairly common within the united states (in privet hands, just need to know where to look)

edit: an ak47 or an ar15 can be had for about the same price as a good pistol from a privet seller ($400 for an AK, $800 for an AR)

quote "If they want to make the country safer, they would ban pistols, and not assault weapons. Simple as that"

back this up with reason? CCW... the more aware people are that concealed carry of hand guns is legal the less they will think about jumping someone on the street...

Edited by merc - 26 February 2009 at 7:53pm
saving the world, one warship at a time.
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 February 2009 at 7:55pm
Originally posted by merc merc wrote:

the law states that any dealer selling a firearm must record it, any privet seller selling to a privet buyer without cause to suspect they cannot legally own a firearm can make the sale with no records.

that is the laws, gun shows do not change this. gun shows are just a venue that bring privet sellers and privet buyers together.

privet seller selling to a privet buyer with no paper trail = LEGAL (maybe not in NY) but down here in VA its 100% legal and under federal law it is legal.

dealer selling to a buyer with no paper work = illegal. does not change regardless of where it is taking place. (within the USA of corse)

thats the law, no loophole specific to gun shows. (personal opinion, all gun sales should go though an FFL) gun shows dont change laws they just make it easier to find buyers and sellers. (if you want to argue this find me an example of a LAW that is being bypassed LEGALLY at a gun show)


That is my understanding of the law as well. And that is also pretty much the definition of a loophole. A legal loophole is what you get when clever people find ways around the law, or when a law inadvertently fails to cover something intended - not something written out in the law. If it is written in the law, then it isn't a loophole, but just part of the law. A loophole is an unintented consequence, not an intended one.

So I think you and I are on the same page here. I do not believe there are any special "gun show free-for-all" laws, but instead a specific exception that has been stretched beyond its original intent. Whether we call that a "loophole" is merely a matter semantics, but that is certainly how I use the word.



Quote machine guns, artiliary, explosives including but not limited to; mines, grenades, rockets, bombs, artillery and morter(sp) shells are all very much legal under federal law. (all you need to do is pay your taxes)


Well, you have to do more than just pay taxes to get a Class III license...

But anyway - those weapons may be legal under federal law, but as I read the DC case they are no longer protected by the second amendment.


"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 8>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.