What if Bush wasn't the president?

[Stormbringer]

He supports "closing the gun show loophole" which is really a code-word for outlawing all private sales of firearms in this country.

No, it means closing the gun show loophole. Because it's a pointless exception to a lot of gun registration. Why exactly should we keep it open?

[Joe]

Moratorium...

[MKSheppard]

No, it means closing the gun show loophole. Because it's a pointless exception to a lot of gun registration. Why exactly should we keep it open?

OK, then tell me why I had to undergo a background check in 1999
to buy a fucking Ruger .22 Rifle at a gun show if there was a "gun-show
loophole"?

[Darth Wong]

I was naware of this Incumbent protection act. nteresting. A very bad political move this is.

It's called "Campaign Finance Reform". See, now that you can't use money
to buy your name in lights on the side of busses, billboards, and tv spots,
how much chance do you have of defeating the incumbent who has had
his name in the media over and over during the last 2-6 years?

The answer is: Jack Shit.

Who said you can't do any advertising at all? I was under the impression that you just can't accept huge contributions from corporations in return for favoured treatment after election.

[Stormbringer]

No, it means closing the gun show loophole. Because it's a pointless exception to a lot of gun registration. Why exactly should we keep it open?

OK, then tell me why I had to undergo a background check in 1999
to buy a fucking Ruger .22 Rifle at a gun show if there was a "gun-show
loophole"?

Because you're trying to buy a deadly weapon, that's why. Guns can kill people and therefor it's in the best interest of society to keep them out of the hands of people like you.

[MKSheppard]

Who said you can't do any advertising at all? I was under the impression that you just can't accept huge contributions from corporations in return for favoured treatment after election.

Basically, CFR put a "limit" on the amount of money you can spend in
an election, and also banned ads from TV a week before the election.

[MKSheppard]

Because you're trying to buy a deadly weapon, that's why. Guns can kill people and therefor it's in the best interest of society to keep them out of the hands of people like you.

This was in 1999, before my arrest, and nobody's asking the cogent question
of why there is a so-called "gun-show loophole" if someone with no criminal
record (at the time) had to undergo a background check at a gunshow before
he could buy a gun...

[Stormbringer]

This was in 1999, before my arrest,

So? This isn't all about. For fuck's sake this isn't a government crusade against you.

and nobody's asking the cogent question of why there is a so-called "gun-show loophole" if someone with no criminal
record (at the time) had to undergo a background check at a gunshow before he could buy a gun...

I'm asking for you to provide a overiding reason for the "gunshow loophole". What is it? Why should we allow this exception?

[MKSheppard]

I'm asking for you to provide a overiding reason for the "gunshow loophole". What is it? Why should we allow this exception?

The "Gun show loophole" is not a evil idea that leapt up out of the blue,
dreamed up by evil NRA lobbyists. It has been the way things have
been conducted in this country ever since the gun control act of 1968.

GCA 68 split firearms sales into two separate types: Public/Private.

PUBLIC is defined as buying a firearm from a publically licensed vendor,
such as a gunstore, Wal-Mart, K-Mart, etc, or someone with a Federal
Firearms License. These sales have to go through a background check
and have to be logged on a Form 4473.

Private is defined as buying a firearm from someone who does not
have a Federal Firearms license and sells less than 5 guns a year. These
sales do not have to be documented on paper (I.E., you want to buy a
rifle from your friend, etc etc)

And for legal reasons, virtually every gun show in the country REQUIRES
that you have to have a Federal Firearms License if you want to set up
a table to sell firearms at the gunshow.

[Stormbringer]

The "Gun show loophole" is not a evil idea that leapt up out of the blue,
dreamed up by evil NRA lobbyists. It has been the way things have
been conducted in this country ever since the gun control act of 1968.

GCA 68 split firearms sales into two separate types: Public/Private.

PUBLIC is defined as buying a firearm from a publically licensed vendor,
such as a gunstore, Wal-Mart, K-Mart, etc, or someone with a Federal
Firearms License. These sales have to go through a background check
and have to be logged on a Form 4473.

Private is defined as buying a firearm from someone who does not
have a Federal Firearms license and sells less than 5 guns a year. These
sales do not have to be documented on paper (I.E., you want to buy a
rifle from your friend, etc etc)

And for legal reasons, virtually every gun show in the country REQUIRES
that you have a Federal Firearms License.

Nice explanation but I see no reason at all in there to keep the loophole open. So again I ask you why?

[MKSheppard]

Nice explanation but I see no reason at all in there to keep the loophole open. So again I ask you why?

There's no such loophole. Read again. I clarified my point further.

"And for legal reasons, virtually every gun show in the country
REQUIRES that you have to have a Federal Firearms License if
you want to set up a table to sell firearms at the gunshow."

So tell me, If the sellers are liscensed and the buyers are
undergoing background checks, what's the problem here?
Where's the "loophole" for gunshows?

[RedImperator]

Moratorium...

One of the arguments for having a politics forum was that certain moratoriums could be lifted because it would keep the flamewars out of OT...

[Darth Wong]

Who said you can't do any advertising at all? I was under the impression that you just can't accept huge contributions from corporations in return for favoured treatment after election.

Basically, CFR put a "limit" on the amount of money you can spend in
an election, and also banned ads from TV a week before the election.

Ah, that's what I'd heard. In other words, you admit you were using wild exaggeration and rhetoric before. People would think more highly of your opinions if you didn't pull that kind of shit.

As for CFR, it's a good idea. As long as the limit isn't set too low, it gives both sides equal spending which is completely fair. The practice of buying elections has to stop, and you know it. And the TV time-out is actually a pretty good idea too; it's not as if you get useful information from TV ads anyway, and they usually appeal to emotion, not intellect.

[Stormbringer]

Nice explanation but I see no reason at all in there to keep the loophole open. So again I ask you why?

There's no such loophole. Read again. I clarified my point further.

"And for legal reasons, virtually every gun show in the country
REQUIRES that you have to have a Federal Firearms License if
you want to set up a table to sell firearms at the gunshow."

But that's merely gun show policy not law. So what's wrong with making it law? Why not document the sale of all guns?

[Darth Wong]

So tell me, If the sellers are liscensed and the buyers are undergoing background checks, what's the problem here? Where's the "loophole" for gunshows?

If it's not a federal law, it's still a loophole, Besides, if the loophole doesn't exist, then why are you so upset about him closing it?

[MKSheppard]

The practice of buying elections has to stop, and you know it.

Money is not a gurantee of winning elections. I'm trying to prod my brain,
but in California recently, this millionaire tried to buy an election and spent
over $100 million and still lost

[Knife]

But that's merely gun show policy not law. So what's wrong with making it law? Why not document the sale of all guns?

Ouch, instead lets close the gunshow loophole and document all people who can't own a gun. (MKS being first on the list.)

[The Yosemite Bear]

Figures that with Mc Cain as a no nonsense type, would have been far more descisive and with less/no fucking around with our civil rights.

Gore: Would still be waffeling.

[RedImperator]

But that's merely gun show policy not law. So what's wrong with making it law? Why not document the sale of all guns?

Because it's the next to last step before outlawing the private possession of firearms. Now, before the cries of "slippery slope!" come down on my head from the rafters, this is PRECISELY how it was achieved in Britain, and in less guarded moments, gun-control activists have admitted this is their plan. Registration lists have been used for confiscating weapons in Chicago, New York, and Washington D.C. Yes, logically, it's perfectly possible to register firearms (which is what I assume you mean by "documenting the sale of all guns") without those registration lists ever being used for anything but their stated purpose. But they've been abused in the past, and all you have to do to keep a gun-rights activst up at night is to mention what happened in England. So you'll forgive us for not trusting the motives of "commonsense" gun control advocates.

On the gun show loophole: Shep's covered most of the important points already. In addition, a great many of the "unliscensed dealers" at gun shows are selling gun-related merchandise (cleaning kits, display boxes, safes, books, videotapes, tee-shirts, "Charleton Heston is MY president" bumper stickers, etc.) but NOT guns. The statistics quoted by gun control advocates on that topic are misleading. I won't get into the propety-rights implications of making it illegal to sell one's private property without a government liscense, which is what closing the "gun-show loophole" would entail.

At any rate, using Federal legislation to close this "loophole" is equivilant to using a sledgehammer to kill a mosquito. Most sellers are liscensed, and most shows are kicking out the unliscensed sellers, and most crimes are committed with illegal handguns anyway. The private sector is handling this non-problem effectively without needing Federal interference.

[Stormbringer]

Yes, logically, it's perfectly possible to register firearms (which is what I assume you mean by "documenting the sale of all guns") without those registration lists ever being used for anything but their stated purpose. But they've been abused in the past, and all you have to do to keep a gun-rights activst up at night is to mention what happened in England. So you'll forgive us for not trusting the motives of "commonsense" gun control advocates.

You might not trust all of them but it is possible for people to be for gun control with out taking away guns.

I won't get into the propety-rights implications of making it illegal to sell one's private property without a government liscense, which is what closing the "gun-show loophole" would entail.

There isn't really any signifcance to the property rights issues. It's a potentially deadly weapon and so it should be regulated.

At any rate, using Federal legislation to close this "loophole" is equivilant to using a sledgehammer to kill a mosquito. Most sellers are liscensed, and most shows are kicking out the unliscensed sellers, and most crimes are committed with illegal handguns anyway. The private sector is handling this non-problem effectively without needing Federal interference.

But it is and remains legal. If it's being taken care of already why would it be such a big deal to close the loophole entirely?

[Darth Wong]

Because it's the next to last step before outlawing the private possession of firearms. Now, before the cries of "slippery slope!" come down on my head from the rafters, this is PRECISELY how it was achieved in Britain, and in less guarded moments, gun-control activists have admitted this is their plan.

It is a slippery slope nonetheless. Canada has had extremely strict gun regulation for decades, with no confiscation anywhere in sight. And the fact that some extremists on the other side think something does not mean that it will actually happen. NRA extremists such as Shep think that private individuals should be able to own fucking rocket launchers.

You and Shep have gone from "closing the gun show loophole" to "gun registration" to "total gun confiscation". Perhaps you will mention the Nazis next? I find it's usually only a dozen posts or so before someone does.

Registration lists have been used for confiscating weapons in Chicago, New York, and Washington D.C. Yes, logically, it's perfectly possible to register firearms (which is what I assume you mean by "documenting the sale of all guns") without those registration lists ever being used for anything but their stated purpose. But they've been abused in the past, and all you have to do to keep a gun-rights activst up at night is to mention what happened in England. So you'll forgive us for not trusting the motives of "commonsense" gun control advocates.

You are conjoining the notion of rejecting a slippery slope fallacy and blindly trusting gun-control advocates to have complete unfettered control of national policy and not abuse it. That is yet another fallacy. Is there some allergy to basic logic which is universal to the anti-registration people? If you want to find a problem with registration, fine. I think there are legitimate arguments to be made, but NOT when you resort to the stupidity of the slippery slope. Is that the ONLY thing you can find wrong with the scheme? Is your imagination that limited?

On the gun show loophole: Shep's covered most of the important points already. In addition, a great many of the "unliscensed dealers" at gun shows are selling gun-related merchandise (cleaning kits, display boxes, safes, books, videotapes, tee-shirts, "Charleton Heston is MY president" bumper stickers, etc.) but NOT guns. The statistics quoted by gun control advocates on that topic are misleading. I won't get into the propety-rights implications of making it illegal to sell one's private property without a government liscense, which is what closing the "gun-show loophole" would entail.

No, it would only make it illegal to sell certain types of products without a government license. Do not engage in yet another slippery slope.

At any rate, using Federal legislation to close this "loophole" is equivilant to using a sledgehammer to kill a mosquito. Most sellers are liscensed, and most shows are kicking out the unliscensed sellers, and most crimes are committed with illegal handguns anyway.

Then it won't make a difference, will it? So what's the big deal?

[RedImperator]

You might not trust all of them but it is possible for people to be for gun control with out taking away guns.

And if the gun-control advocates prove their good intentions, I might be more inclined to listen to them. I trust Darth Wong when he says he's in favor of limited gun control. I don't trust Dianne Fienstein, and unfortunately, it's not Darth Wong in the United States Senate.

There isn't really any signifcance to the property rights issues. It's a potentially deadly weapon and so it should be regulated.

So are bread knives and baseball bats. So are swords. None of those require registration. You do realize one of the fundamental tenents of classical liberalism, the foundation of Western society, is the right to sell one's own personal property, correct? Your registration argument might hold water if you could argue a legitimate need for it: if you could prove registration prevents crimes or makes crimes that have been committed easier to solve. So far, you haven't.

But it is and remains legal. If it's being taken care of already why would it be such a big deal to close the loophole entirely?

Because there's a difference between private organizations abolishing a practice that takes places under their aegis and the Federal government interfering in private property and second amendment rights, for no good purpose. If closing the loophole might prevent crimes, then by all means, demonstrate that, and I might be inclined to change my position.

[Stormbringer]

And if the gun-control advocates prove their good intentions, I might be more inclined to listen to them. I trust Darth Wong when he says he's in favor of limited gun control. I don't trust Dianne Fienstein, and unfortunately, it's not Darth Wong in the United States Senate.

If that's the case elect representative you trust but don't give in to mindless NRA propoganda. All guns laws don't automatically end up with your guns gone and government jackboots at your throats.

So are bread knives and baseball bats. So are swords. None of those require registration. You do realize one of the fundamental tenents of classical liberalism, the foundation of Western society, is the right to sell one's own personal property, correct? Your registration argument might hold water if you could argue a legitimate need for it: if you could prove registration prevents crimes or makes crimes that have been committed easier to solve. So far, you haven't.

A guns a far deadlier weapon and you know it. Why is it wrong for the government to regulate something as deadly as a fire arms.

Because there's a difference between private organizations abolishing a practice that takes places under their aegis and the Federal government interfering in private property and second amendment rights, for no good purpose. If closing the loophole might prevent crimes, then by all means, demonstrate that, and I might be inclined to change my position.

Why is it different? And what's the problem with the government closing a legal loophole? It doesn't take away your guns merely ensure that they're less likely to turn up in the hands of criminals.

The 2nd amendmant doesn't say the government can't regulate guns. Only that citizens are allowed to one them.

[Pu-239]

Someone split this thread

[Ender]

Hypothetical question, just for fun: how would the events following 9/11/2001 have been different if:

1) John McCain were president.

His policies towards business would have prevented some of this bullshit going on now from getting so big. In addition, his foreign policies would not have turned so much of the world against us prior to 9-11. His lack of antination building policies would have meant there would be people in the administration who knew how to do it, thus Afganistan would not be having as many problems. Basically, everything would be better.

2) Al Gore were president.

We would have used an assload of tomahawks against Afganistan, but the Taliban would still be in power. We wouldnt' even be dealing with Iraq. And he would have totally caved to NK. Basically, we'd be fucked.

3) Ralph Nader were president.

Not a fucking clue.