|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 26, 2009, 06:16 PM | #226 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Liquor to minors? Or is liquor definitionally not legal to sell to minors because it is dangerous?
So should we sell guns to minors now? Or does some societal need define what can sold? So if you agree to guns and minors being controlled - what about guns to felons or folks who don't pass the mental health test on the 4473?
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
January 26, 2009, 07:18 PM | #227 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; January 26, 2009 at 09:48 PM. |
|
January 26, 2009, 07:23 PM | #228 | |
Junior member
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
|
Quote:
|
|
January 26, 2009, 07:43 PM | #229 |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
These last posts, correct as they are in response to thallub, are just Oroboros as the issue is not Governemt control qua government control, but how to make it work in a practical sense
So member Thallub, to reask the question posted: For the purpose of this thread, you are just going to have to suck it up. NICS is a fact, NICs is constituional, NICs works. You will always need to get "permission" if you want to look at it that way. So now how do we deal with the issue of private sales with the foregoing already reality WildifitsdonothingthenthatsyouranswerAlaska ™ |
January 27, 2009, 01:27 PM | #230 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
Quote:
Look at the title of the thread: Quote:
I buy a couple guns a month and know all about NICS. Have no problem with NICS. Was not talking about NICS. Was talking about infrequent sales of guns by non-dealers. Lets' not close the non-existent "gunshow loophole." Last edited by thallub; January 27, 2009 at 02:47 PM. |
||
January 27, 2009, 01:56 PM | #231 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
We do not need the federal governments long nose in the gunshow business. Here is just one thing from the failed McCain-Lieberman "gunshow loophole" bill:
Quote:
http://www.gunlaws.com/McCainLieberman.htm |
|
January 27, 2009, 05:08 PM | #232 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
||
January 27, 2009, 05:17 PM | #233 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: The shores of Lake Huron
Posts: 4,783
|
Quote:
At the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights, this country's statesmen were concerned with the need to protect citizens from the government itself, and the passage of almost two centuries has not negated the validity of that concern. The fact that Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to organize, arm, and discipline the militia, clearly indicates a quite different intention for the Second Amendment...........James L. Buckley I don't see a gun show loophole where I attend. I don't know if private sales are allowed there or not, but there are no signs. At some I used to go to, somebody might be walking carrying a rifle over their shoulder with a for sale sign attached, but I haven't seen anything like that in a long while. I suppose since it is private property, they can ban private non-FFL sales if they want. I really don't think it was ever much of a problem though, and too many make way too much of it.
__________________
Stevie-Ray Join the NRA/ILA I am the weapon; my gun is a tool. It's regrettable that with some people those descriptors are reversed. |
|
January 27, 2009, 05:59 PM | #234 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
Quote:
Illegals get the vast majority of their guns from their burglar friends and from their clean buds who make straw purchases for them. If you believe so passionately in this stuff then lobby your state reps to change that law in your state. Maybe I woke up and signed onto the Brady site by mistake. |
|
January 27, 2009, 06:18 PM | #235 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
Unlike here, yes? Quote:
WildibetinsomeareasitsthefavouredwaytobuyillegalgunsAlaska TM |
||
January 27, 2009, 08:02 PM | #236 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; January 27, 2009 at 11:00 PM. |
|||
January 27, 2009, 10:20 PM | #237 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
|
||
January 27, 2009, 10:59 PM | #238 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Here is some facts I looked at: http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/20...alfindings.pdf Go to Page 26, it is interesting.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; January 27, 2009 at 11:15 PM. |
|
January 27, 2009, 11:13 PM | #239 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by alloy; January 28, 2009 at 08:33 AM. |
|||
January 28, 2009, 12:19 AM | #240 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 30, 2005
Location: NWFL
Posts: 3,031
|
Quote:
Are you alleging that every gun sold through a dealer is always to a perfectly legal guy? I'll answer that for you. This guy Seung-Hui Cho bought his guns at a dealer and went through an NICS check and he was not legal to own firearms after being adjudicated mentally ill. If you aren't sure who he is google his name. |
|
January 28, 2009, 03:15 AM | #241 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,853
|
The real probloem, from my point of view...
Is not the basic idea of ensuring a prohibited person doesn not buy a gun from a private seller, it is the fact that every single proposed law to "ensure" this tramples on the rights of the rest of us.
I, for one, find the idea of having to run a background check on someone I have known for a dozen years before I can sell him a gun, a distinctly unpleasent idea. Both the time, and the expense (that will certainly be involved, if not at first, eventually), is an onerous burden, and completely without need or any redeeming social benefit, except that of adding to the govt coffers from fees charged. Running a check on an individual unknown to me, is not as bad an issue, especially if you are considering sanctions against those who sell (knowingly) to prohibited persons. But none of the proposed solutions (laws) ever has any provision for avoiding the check (and its cost) when you know the individual is not a prohibited person. They paint us all with the same brush, and the color is guilty until proven innocent. That is not right. The background check by an FFL is part of the requirement for him doing business. I am not doing business. I am just selling a gun. Or a book. Or a chair. Or .....
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
January 28, 2009, 09:05 AM | #242 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,462
|
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
January 28, 2009, 10:04 AM | #243 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Does the view that there should be little regulation of the selling of firearms extend to all products? Or is it only guns due to the 2nd Amend. ? Or is a more libertarian philosophy.
Guns are controlled because they are dangerous - in theory. Some argue tht they shouldn't be controlled anymore than cigarettes. However, there are strong controls over the purchase of various and extremely dangerous toxins. I used to work with stuff that would have quite a lot of 'stopping power'. They could even be used as 'arms' if you like the chemical warfare path. Should gallons of neurotoxins be sold at the gun show? To all that come by. The theoretic issue is whether limits exist at all or are guns a special case and the choir of RKBA supports only fixate on that. Does the cigarette position extend to other controlled recreational drugs? Does the gun world think outside of guns on bans and control of dangerous things? Is the 2nd or general libertarian extreme views? I find it hard to justify uncontrolled access to NFA gear and then want penalties for marijuana as an example.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
January 28, 2009, 10:08 AM | #244 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; January 28, 2009 at 10:17 AM. |
|||
January 28, 2009, 10:41 AM | #245 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,462
|
Quote:
At different times and places, different restrictions have been imposed for different reasons, and even the same restriction can be suppported by different people for different reasons. I've little doubt that some people support some restrictions as a matter of perceived safety, while other support restrictions as a matter of uncomplex intolerance. Quote:
That doesn't force one to conclude that all restrictions are forbidden, but it does support a particularly wide birth for the right. Quote:
I am not an enthusiast for MJ legalisation, but the reach of federal regulatory authority and how it has come about is not a peculiarly libertarian concern. But perhaps MJ and neurotoxins are tangential and not ideally analogous.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|||
January 28, 2009, 10:53 AM | #246 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
The 2nd says "Arms".
How do you define that? The firearms of today didn't exist then. Do you want to go down the path of saying just the arms of the Revolutionary war are protected? Neurotoxin based weaponry is quite possible - but is it constitutionally protected. Laser weapons are becoming possible now. In fact, hand held blinding (permanently - not distracting) weapons do exist but are controlled. Should they be open to all buyers? If in the future, reasonably destructive handheld energy weapons become possible - such the patriots and potential defenders against tyranny be limited to antique gun powder based weapons based on the 2nd's use of 'arms'? And what is the line - any gunpowder weapon - there wasn't smokeless powder back then. You get into a Talmudic set of arguments with blanket assertions. Also denying the state to ability to regulate dangerous things on the basis of absolutism doesn't fly. Religious freedom isn't absolute - try building an Aztec temple and freedom of expression has limits that are well discussed. To go back to toxic warfare - even in those days - germs were used as weapons of war - small pox infected blankets to native Americans - so by usage in the past - I would argue to sell small pox at the gun show? "Arms" is a tricky term - isn't it?
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
January 28, 2009, 11:14 AM | #247 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,462
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You are free to build an Aztec temple. You can't sacrifice people until the eclipse comes, because that is already illegal. The ability to build an aztec temple doesn't make the 1st Am absolute. It just makes it meaningful. If (for the sake of illustration and argument) you were perfectly free to purchase, own, possess and carry a select fire rifle, you still would not be free to kill people at the mall becuase you had a bad day. The application of the amendment would not be absolute simply because its terms are given substantial meaning.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|||||
January 28, 2009, 11:22 AM | #248 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
So presumably swords, cannons, crossbows, bows, bludgeons, daggers, spears, and, oh yes, firearms. I think the larger point may be that the arms, in whatever form, need to be sufficiently effective to overcome any force the bearer is likely to encounter. If they are not sufficiently effective, then the right will have been undermined. Last edited by maestro pistolero; January 28, 2009 at 11:29 AM. |
|
January 28, 2009, 11:24 AM | #249 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Quote:
And the neurotoxin/Aztec point - you are free to buy it at the gun show if you don't use it? Got to work now but it seems to me that the FFL thing is just a social consensus about legislation and has Ken says - it passed constitutional muster unless you go for absolutism. So then objections would have to be based on empirical evidence as to expense and lack of success in preventing crime.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens Last edited by Glenn E. Meyer; January 28, 2009 at 12:24 PM. Reason: Back from explaining the brain |
|
January 28, 2009, 01:24 PM | #250 | ||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,462
|
Quote:
Quote:
If every exercise of a specific right requires a license from the government, how is it a right? Quote:
Any limitation should at a minimum bear a reasonable relation to a legitimate governmental purpose. Arguably, a limitation of a right so plainly stated should only be on much greater scrutiny. Quote:
Quote:
To abor "absolutism" in examination of the issue of further regulation, then assert further regulation as constitutional simply because some more modest regulation passed challenge is an absolutism of its own. Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||||||
|
|