|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Feb 18, 2016 15:12:34 GMT -5
I would say if I wanted to buy a gun off the streets, I could have one in less than half hour. no gun show , It could be maybe a private sale, All you would have to do go down the street asking, I want to buy a gun do you know anyone that has one for sale? All it takes is money! And that is part of the problem with a country flooded with guns. Guns are cheap here. But I doubt you could get one in a half hour- not if you are a normal law abiding citizen with no connections. The only thing you will get is robbed. People that sell illegal guns don't sell them to freaky strangers walking down the street looking for guns. Take one look at the orange haired theater shooter, or the crazy eyes Sandy Hook killer- even criminals would take a pass on those sales. Even gun shops might send them away. They need a Walmart. You really don't understand how it works, do you? That orange haired theater shooter went through legal steps to obtain his guns. He had no record of mental issues, nor did he have a criminal background. He jumped through the hoops that everyone jumps through. The gun that the Sandy Hook shooter had was also acquired legally. His mom bought them legally and he took them from her. He was not old enough to be able to purchase them himself. BTW.....regardless of wherever you buy a gun though a store, the process is the same. This is whether you go to Walmart, Cabala or Bud's Gun Shop.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Feb 18, 2016 18:44:05 GMT -5
The problem isn't at legitimate gun shops with background checks. And you just never know when some fine citizen that has legally acquired a weapon will just decide to waste a bunch of people. Orange boy and Lanza were obviously deranged. But even trying to get comprehensive background checks for gun shows that don't have them, in the hopes that one (1) person with criminal intent is denied, is still a ways off as is government gun grabbing. Paranoia, however, is on the rise.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 1:49:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2016 19:00:46 GMT -5
I'm willing to bet that many of the criminal element still buy guns on the background check free shows and private sales that exist. If it troubles a legal buyer to have to go through that process, so what! All that means is a crim stayed away and wasn't able to easily acquire a weapon. And I don't think every criminal knows how to go about buying a gun illegally. Obviously some do. But these are still done illegally. There should be a transfer of ownership through and FFL dealer. Even at gun shows (and I've been to them) has an FFL on site to facilitate transfer of ownership. Even the guns my dad (when he knew he didn't have long to live) sent TD went through an FFL. Not necessarily. Some states still allow gun sales without background checks at "gun shows". That's a loop-hole that I do agree needs to be closed. There's a good interactive map HERE that shows states that do and don't require background checks from private sellers at gun shows.
|
|
gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on Feb 19, 2016 8:54:14 GMT -5
But these are still done illegally. There should be a transfer of ownership through and FFL dealer. Even at gun shows (and I've been to them) has an FFL on site to facilitate transfer of ownership. Even the guns my dad (when he knew he didn't have long to live) sent TD went through an FFL. Not necessarily. Some states still allow gun sales without background checks at "gun shows". That's a loop-hole that I do agree needs to be closed. There's a good interactive map HERE that shows states that do and don't require background checks from private sellers at gun shows. Not quite. Some states don't require a background for a private, person to person sale or trade. This doesn't matter if it happens at your home, McDonald's parking lot, or at a gunshow. "Gunshow loophole" is another horseshit media term with no meaning, but it appears you've taken it hook, line, and sinker.
|
|
Sam_2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:42:45 GMT -5
Posts: 12,350
|
Post by Sam_2.0 on Feb 19, 2016 14:15:50 GMT -5
Bill allows suits over gun-free zone incidents7:45 a.m. CST January 16, 2016 If a Tennessee grocery store bans guns on its property and a black bear or wild hog kills or injures a person who otherwise would be carrying his or her gun, the gun owner would be allowed to sue the property owner if a newly introduced bill became law. Sponsored by Sen. Dolores Gresham, R-Somerville, Senate Bill 1736 has a very specific purpose. ... More here: WEBPAGE LINK - Tennesean.com (part of the USA Today network) So would this bill apply equally to government facilities that are posted as gun-free zones? Like the military facilities where we've recently had mass shootings? Or would it only apply to private businesses?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 1:49:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2016 14:19:47 GMT -5
Not necessarily. Some states still allow gun sales without background checks at "gun shows". That's a loop-hole that I do agree needs to be closed. There's a good interactive map HERE that shows states that do and don't require background checks from private sellers at gun shows. Not quite. Some states don't require a background for a private, person to person sale or trade. This doesn't matter if it happens at your home, McDonald's parking lot, or at a gunshow. "Gunshow loophole" is another horseshit media term with no meaning, but it appears you've taken it hook, line, and sinker. When seatbelt laws were first passed they were a secondary offense, only enforced if stopped for another primary offense. Only way to get the bills to pass. After a while a lot of people were still not wearing seatbelts by choice, hence most if not all states made the seatbelt requirement a primary offense. Closing the seatbelt loophole. Now it's "click it or ticket". Once the gun show loophole is closed and we have expanded background checks. The next loophole to close will be registering all guns so the proper authorities will know who's selling to who. I'll coin it as the "gun sale loophole" or equivalent. Inch at a time gun control efforts are alive and well in the US. That's why bills allowing suits to proceed when you take away a gun right are important.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Feb 19, 2016 16:40:40 GMT -5
"Gunshow loophole" is another horseshit media term with no meaning, but it appears you've taken it hook, line, and sinker
Of course an easy read here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole quite easily shows the above opinion to be cow poop being foisted on us by a gun collector. I really enjoyed reading the statistics on where criminals acquire their guns. Although I am sure gun nutters out there would probably consider ATF stats as govt. propaganda pushed by CommieObammie to confiscate their weapons.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 1:49:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2016 19:24:35 GMT -5
Not necessarily. Some states still allow gun sales without background checks at "gun shows". That's a loop-hole that I do agree needs to be closed. There's a good interactive map HERE that shows states that do and don't require background checks from private sellers at gun shows. Not quite. Some states don't require a background for a private, person to person sale or trade. This doesn't matter if it happens at your home, McDonald's parking lot, or at a gunshow. "Gunshow loophole" is another horseshit media term with no meaning, but it appears you've taken it hook, line, and sinker. I haven't "taken it hook, line, and sinker" anything. Yes some states do limit the sale. But some states DON'T. Since, by your screen name, you appear to be in Tennessee you might be interested to note the following: and As well as you might want to take a look at the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act which exempted basically all people that don't make a living solely by the sale of firearms from having to do background checks You might want to check your facts, so you can figure out what "you've taken [...] hook, line, and sinker". ETA: and, just for the record, I am about as far from being "anti-gun" as it's possible to be! I own several and am planning on getting my carry permit sometime this spring or summer. I have nothing against the lawful carry and or use of firearms.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 1:49:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2016 19:25:23 GMT -5
Bill allows suits over gun-free zone incidents7:45 a.m. CST January 16, 2016 If a Tennessee grocery store bans guns on its property and a black bear or wild hog kills or injures a person who otherwise would be carrying his or her gun, the gun owner would be allowed to sue the property owner if a newly introduced bill became law. Sponsored by Sen. Dolores Gresham, R-Somerville, Senate Bill 1736 has a very specific purpose. ... More here: WEBPAGE LINK - Tennesean.com (part of the USA Today network) So would this bill apply equally to government facilities that are posted as gun-free zones? Like the military facilities where we've recently had mass shootings? Or would it only apply to private businesses? This would only affect private businesses.
|
|
gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on Feb 19, 2016 20:06:39 GMT -5
Not quite. Some states don't require a background for a private, person to person sale or trade. This doesn't matter if it happens at your home, McDonald's parking lot, or at a gunshow. "Gunshow loophole" is another horseshit media term with no meaning, but it appears you've taken it hook, line, and sinker. I haven't "taken it hook, line, and sinker" anything. Yes some states do limit the sale. But some states DON'T. Since, by your screen name, you appear to be in Tennessee you might be interested to note the following: and As well as you might want to take a look at the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act which exempted basically all people that don't make a living solely by the sale of firearms from having to do background checks You might want to check your facts, so you can figure out what "you've taken [...] hook, line, and sinker". ETA: and, just for the record, I am about as far from being "anti-gun" as it's possible to be! I own several and am planning on getting my carry permit sometime this spring or summer. I have nothing against the lawful carry and or use of firearms. As a life long collector and resident of Tennessee, I doubt you can tell me anything I don't already know about gun laws. Again, "gun show loophole" is a horseshit term with no meaning. You can post all the links you want, but you won't change this fact. I assume you are saying you have a problem with the private transfer of firearms. Do you have a problem with me also giving a relative a firearm as a birthday or Christmas present? How many background checks would you consider enough? I've had well over a hundred ran on me so far. Guess what the next one will show. All this is is a $10 a pop tax. What does the phrase "shall not be infringed" mean to you? I find it simple and self explanatory.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 1:49:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2016 21:03:38 GMT -5
I haven't "taken it hook, line, and sinker" anything. Yes some states do limit the sale. But some states DON'T. Since, by your screen name, you appear to be in Tennessee you might be interested to note the following: and As well as you might want to take a look at the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act which exempted basically all people that don't make a living solely by the sale of firearms from having to do background checks You might want to check your facts, so you can figure out what "you've taken [...] hook, line, and sinker". ETA: and, just for the record, I am about as far from being "anti-gun" as it's possible to be! I own several and am planning on getting my carry permit sometime this spring or summer. I have nothing against the lawful carry and or use of firearms. As a life long collector and resident of Tennessee, I doubt you can tell me anything I don't already know about gun laws. Again, "gun show loophole" is a horseshit term with no meaning. You can post all the links you want, but you won't change this fact.I assume you are saying you have a problem with the private transfer of firearms. Do you have a problem with me also giving a relative a firearm as a birthday or Christmas present? How many background checks would you consider enough? I've had well over a hundred ran on me so far. Guess what the next one will show. All this is is a $10 a pop tax. What does the phrase "shall not be infringed" mean to you? I find it simple and self explanatory. LOL.... Since the bolded has about as much "fact" in it as the statement "The moon is made of green cheese", I'm o.k. with not changing anything factual about it. I have no problem with a person that knows another person selling or giving them a firearm... as long as they KNOW that that person isn't disqualified from owning or possessing them. Because I do believe in that, I recently gave one to my Mother as a housewarming present. It was a nice one too... a Smith & Wesson "Governor" (for those not in the know, it fires both shotgun shells AND/OR .45 AND/OR .45ACP rounds... nice pistol!). As far as your "how many background checks?" question... I'm fine with one from everyone that doesn't know you or doesn't know you've already passed one RECENTLY (like that same month). I assume that you are aware it's possible to pass a background check, then, that very same day, later commit a crime, and shortly later be found guilty and lose your right to firearm possession... right? How does someone that hasn't recently run a background check on you know that you are allowed to possess a firearm? Answer: They don't. A background check that you pass isn't an infringement. Once you pass it you get your gun.
|
|
gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on Feb 19, 2016 21:10:45 GMT -5
As a life long collector and resident of Tennessee, I doubt you can tell me anything I don't already know about gun laws. Again, "gun show loophole" is a horseshit term with no meaning. You can post all the links you want, but you won't change this fact.I assume you are saying you have a problem with the private transfer of firearms. Do you have a problem with me also giving a relative a firearm as a birthday or Christmas present? How many background checks would you consider enough? I've had well over a hundred ran on me so far. Guess what the next one will show. All this is is a $10 a pop tax. What does the phrase "shall not be infringed" mean to you? I find it simple and self explanatory. LOL.... Since the bolded has about as much "fact" in it as the statement "The moon is made of green cheese", I'm o.k. with not changing anything factual about it. I have no problem with a person that knows another person selling or giving them a firearm... as long as they KNOW that that person isn't disqualified from owning or possessing them. Because I do believe in that, I recently gave one to my Mother as a housewarming present. It was a nice one too... a Smith & Wesson "Governor" (for those not in the know, it fires both shotgun shells AND/OR .45 AND/OR .45ACP rounds... nice pistol!). As far as your "how many background checks?" question... I'm fine with one from everyone that doesn't know you or doesn't know you've already passed one RECENTLY (like that same month). I assume that you are aware it's possible to pass a background check, then, that very same day, later commit a crime, and shortly later be found guilty and lose your right to firearm possession... right? How does someone that hasn't recently run a background check on you know that you are allowed to possess a firearm? Answer: They don't. A background check that you pass isn't an infringement. Once you pass it you get your gun.Sure it's an infringement. Here in Tennessee, it'a a $10 infringement. You'd be raising hell about a poll tax. This equates to the same thing. I have two large safes full of firearms, plus many more. When I go to purchase another one, other than revenue, what good would a background check do? I thought we were innocent until proven guilty.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 1:49:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2016 21:57:38 GMT -5
LOL.... Since the bolded has about as much "fact" in it as the statement "The moon is made of green cheese", I'm o.k. with not changing anything factual about it. I have no problem with a person that knows another person selling or giving them a firearm... as long as they KNOW that that person isn't disqualified from owning or possessing them. Because I do believe in that, I recently gave one to my Mother as a housewarming present. It was a nice one too... a Smith & Wesson "Governor" (for those not in the know, it fires both shotgun shells AND/OR .45 AND/OR .45ACP rounds... nice pistol!). As far as your "how many background checks?" question... I'm fine with one from everyone that doesn't know you or doesn't know you've already passed one RECENTLY (like that same month). I assume that you are aware it's possible to pass a background check, then, that very same day, later commit a crime, and shortly later be found guilty and lose your right to firearm possession... right? How does someone that hasn't recently run a background check on you know that you are allowed to possess a firearm? Answer: They don't. A background check that you pass isn't an infringement. Once you pass it you get your gun.Sure it's an infringement. Here in Tennessee, it'a a $10 infringement. You'd be raising hell about a poll tax. This equates to the same thing. I have two large safes full of firearms, plus many more. When I go to purchase another one, other than revenue, what good would a background check do? I thought we were innocent until proven guilty. It's not an infringement. It's a cost associated with the purchase. You are damned right I'd be raising hell about a poll tax... know why? Voting is a FREE EXERCISE of our right to cast that vote. Do you see the difference between that and a PURCHASED gun? I see a difference. A background check would prove that you hadn't had your right to own guns taken away. And yes... we are "innocent until proven guilty" but that is limited to the GOVERNMENT assessment of our innocence or guilt... how does Mr Gun Dealer know that you have or haven't been proven guilty of something without the background check?
|
|
fishy999
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 9, 2015 20:40:43 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by fishy999 on Feb 19, 2016 23:29:29 GMT -5
Not quite. Some states don't require a background for a private, person to person sale or trade. This doesn't matter if it happens at your home, McDonald's parking lot, or at a gunshow. "Gunshow loophole" is another horseshit media term with no meaning, but it appears you've taken it hook, line, and sinker. When seatbelt laws were first passed they were a secondary offense, only enforced if stopped for another primary offense. Only way to get the bills to pass. After a while a lot of people were still not wearing seatbelts by choice, hence most if not all states made the seatbelt requirement a primary offense. Closing the seatbelt loophole. Now it's "click it or ticket". Once the gun show loophole is closed and we have expanded background checks. The next loophole to close will be registering all guns so the proper authorities will know who's selling to who. I'll coin it as the "gun sale loophole" or equivalent. Inch at a time gun control efforts are alive and well in the US. That's why bills allowing suits to proceed when you take away a gun right are important. And good- give me one reason gun purchases along with serial numbers should not be registered into a database. The old 'gun confiscation' argument has proven fantasy so why hamstring the police? This isn't seatbelts- and guns should be controlled- why not? You think they should sell machine guns at Walmart?
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Feb 20, 2016 3:47:27 GMT -5
If someone owns 100 guns and is whining about a $10 background check being the equal of a poll tax they should either stop buying guns to save the $10, buck up and consider it the cost of doing business, or sell a gun to get the scratch to pay to buy another one $10 included.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Feb 20, 2016 7:23:59 GMT -5
"Gunshow loophole" is another horseshit media term with no meaning, but it appears you've taken it hook, line, and sinker
Of course an easy read here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole quite easily shows the above opinion to be cow poop being foisted on us by a gun collector. I really enjoyed reading the statistics on where criminals acquire their guns. Although I am sure gun nutters out there would probably consider ATF stats as govt. propaganda pushed by CommieObammie to confiscate their weapons. ATF stats as govt. propaganda pushed by CommieObammie to confiscate their weapons.Absolutely. Gun nutters, Thanks for the compliment.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Feb 20, 2016 7:33:31 GMT -5
If it is so important for the background check, why doesn't the state of Tennessee, just pickup the tab?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 1:49:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2016 7:47:31 GMT -5
If it is so important for the background check, why doesn't the state of Tennessee, just pickup the tab? That's simple. If Tennessee "picked up the tab" it would have to come from the State coffers... which are filled by ALL taxpayers... including people opposed to gun ownership. Making: "Why do you think people opposed to gun ownership should help finance your purchase of a gun?" a much better question.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Feb 20, 2016 8:02:37 GMT -5
If it is so important to the anti gunners, they should be happy to pick up the tab.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 1:49:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2016 8:51:18 GMT -5
If it is so important to the anti gunners, they should be happy to pick up the tab. You getting a gun isn't really "so important" to the "anti gunners". They would MUCH more prefer that you NOT get one. How do you not see that?
|
|
gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on Feb 20, 2016 9:09:55 GMT -5
Sure it's an infringement. Here in Tennessee, it'a a $10 infringement. You'd be raising hell about a poll tax. This equates to the same thing. I have two large safes full of firearms, plus many more. When I go to purchase another one, other than revenue, what good would a background check do? I thought we were innocent until proven guilty. It's not an infringement. It's a cost associated with the purchase. You are damned right I'd be raising hell about a poll tax... know why? Voting is a FREE EXERCISE of our right to cast that vote. Do you see the difference between that and a PURCHASED gun? I see a difference.A background check would prove that you hadn't had your right to own guns taken away. And yes... we are "innocent until proven guilty" but that is limited to the GOVERNMENT assessment of our innocence or guilt... how does Mr Gun Dealer know that you have or haven't been proven guilty of something without the background check? So is owning a gun. There is NO difference.
|
|
gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on Feb 20, 2016 9:11:44 GMT -5
When seatbelt laws were first passed they were a secondary offense, only enforced if stopped for another primary offense. Only way to get the bills to pass. After a while a lot of people were still not wearing seatbelts by choice, hence most if not all states made the seatbelt requirement a primary offense. Closing the seatbelt loophole. Now it's "click it or ticket". Once the gun show loophole is closed and we have expanded background checks. The next loophole to close will be registering all guns so the proper authorities will know who's selling to who. I'll coin it as the "gun sale loophole" or equivalent. Inch at a time gun control efforts are alive and well in the US. That's why bills allowing suits to proceed when you take away a gun right are important. And good- give me one reason gun purchases along with serial numbers should not be registered into a database. The old 'gun confiscation' argument has proven fantasy so why hamstring the police? This isn't seatbelts- and guns should be controlled- why not? You think they should sell machine guns at Walmart? No it hasn't. That's exactly how gun confiscation began in any country where it's happened. Yes. If it proves to be profitable, machine guns should be sold at WalMart if they choose to sell them.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Feb 20, 2016 12:57:14 GMT -5
Old Coyootie,
Gunnutters case in point: Yes. If it proves to be profitable, machine guns should be sold at WalMart if they choose to sell them.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 1:49:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2016 18:56:36 GMT -5
It's not an infringement. It's a cost associated with the purchase. You are damned right I'd be raising hell about a poll tax... know why? Voting is a FREE EXERCISE of our right to cast that vote. Do you see the difference between that and a PURCHASED gun? I see a difference.A background check would prove that you hadn't had your right to own guns taken away. And yes... we are "innocent until proven guilty" but that is limited to the GOVERNMENT assessment of our innocence or guilt... how does Mr Gun Dealer know that you have or haven't been proven guilty of something without the background check? So is owning a gun. There is NO difference. Wrong. You might want to read up on the Constitution and it's amendments. Poll taxes are unconstitutional... fees for buying a gun aren't.
|
|
gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on Feb 20, 2016 19:23:20 GMT -5
So is owning a gun. There is NO difference. Wrong. You might want to read up on the Constitution and it's amendments. Poll taxes are unconstitutional... fees for buying a gun aren't. Yes it is. Shall not be infringed isn't hard for an adult with normal mental capacity to understand. A tax is an infringement.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 1:49:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2016 20:19:52 GMT -5
Wrong. You might want to read up on the Constitution and it's amendments. Poll taxes are unconstitutional... fees for buying a gun aren't. Yes it is. Shall not be infringed isn't hard for an adult with normal mental capacity to understand. A tax is an infringement. Again. It's not an infringement. Nowhere does it say those arms "shall be free"... does it? No. It says "the right to keep and bear"... that means you have the right to get them and own/carry them. It doesn't mean you get them for free. So again... if you pay your $10 and pass your background check (meaning the gun store now knows that you have not forfeited your right to "keep and bear")... do you get your gun... Yes or No?
|
|
gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on Feb 20, 2016 20:26:02 GMT -5
Yes it is. Shall not be infringed isn't hard for an adult with normal mental capacity to understand. A tax is an infringement. Again. It's not an infringement. Nowhere does it say those arms "shall be free"... does it? No. It says "the right to keep and bear"... that means you have the right to get them and own/carry them. It doesn't mean you get them for free. So again... if you pay your $10 and pass your background check (meaning the gun store now knows that you have not forfeited your right to "keep and bear")... do you get your gun... Yes or No? The background check is an infringement. If you had to pay $10 for a background check before voting, you'd also still get to vote, right?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 1:49:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2016 21:13:02 GMT -5
Again. It's not an infringement. Nowhere does it say those arms "shall be free"... does it? No. It says "the right to keep and bear"... that means you have the right to get them and own/carry them. It doesn't mean you get them for free. So again... if you pay your $10 and pass your background check (meaning the gun store now knows that you have not forfeited your right to "keep and bear")... do you get your gun... Yes or No? The background check is an infringement. If you had to pay $10 for a background check before voting, you'd also still get to vote, right? You keep wanting to compare this to voting. The two aren't comparable. Voting is a "Free exercise". No "poll taxes" are allowed and that's basically what this $10 the state charges is... a tax. Let me make it simple for you: When it comes to guns, absent all government fees and taxes... what does a PURCHASED gun cost? When it comes to voting, absent all government fees and taxes (there aren't any... but we'll ignore that for now... since you are already ignoring it)... what does voting cost? Guns were never free. Voting has been free since the 24th Amendment. If you want guns to be "state fees & taxes free"... write your Congressman and get an Amendment passed.
|
|
gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on Feb 21, 2016 9:00:57 GMT -5
Name another constitutional right in which you have to pass a background check and pay a fee to take part in.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Feb 21, 2016 9:59:48 GMT -5
Old Coyootie,
Gunnutters case in point: Yes. If it proves to be profitable, machine guns should be sold at WalMart if they choose to sell them. Yes Walmart could sell machine guns in their store as long as they were selling to persons that hold class three permits.
|
|