View Single Post
Old January 28, 2013, 03:14 PM   #192
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
Yes, I reject expanding BG checks to encompass all private sales. That doesn't mean the details will not have to be worked out, if universal BG checks become standard.
That is really, really bad idea trying to fix something after the fact. Since you won’t even consider it there is no point in discussing it.

How about 10 years of higher magazine prices? The sunset clause was, as far as I know, the only thing that came close to being a "compromise" on that one.
The law is completely null and void and you want to bring it up as though you have “lost” some kind of right through compromise? Your complaint is higher magazine prices 15 years ago? Have you priced magazines lately?

I haven't accused you of wanting an AWB, nor have I suggested anything about the NFA.
Then why bring it up? It is not the topic being discussed.

And now that you've been pushed to show some evidence, I guess it's time for you to resort to personal attacks.
“give them an inch they will take a mile….”
Evidence of what? That two laws are null and void? At least one was a clear victory for gun rights? You were trying to link (unsuccessfully) my position on background checks to the NFA. This is a misrepresentation of my position and you were aware of that when you were doing it. Just because I won't allow you to misrepresent my position does not make it a personal attack.

I'm not the one that needs the remedial reading lesson here, AS. I specifically mentioned an exception for obscenity in my last post. At this point, I don't want to get into prior restraints, content-neutral & content-based regulation because: (1) most of it is off-topic; and (2) it has become obvious that you won't get it.
That is because there is nothing to "get". Once again:

“A prior restraint, by contrast and by definition, has an immediate and irreversible sanction.”

You can in no way demonstrate this to be true in regard to instant checks. The NFA, sure it is a terrible abomination that needs to disappear and is a huge restraint.

Compared to the evidence you've provided, it's a gold mine. You're the one proposing to change the law to further restrict 2A rights, but you haven't shown anything other than your desire to "feel better" about transfers. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that your proposal would actually do any good? If you've got better data, pony on up. I'd love to see it.
You made the assertion so you prove it. If you have a problem with any data I have provided or not provided show me where the problem is. If you want me to provide data on hypothetical’s, future events or proving a negative forget it. Such data obviously does not exist.

However since you brought it and the data is a “gold mine” let us go back and look at it again:

According to the survey (which I believe to be fraught with error) the method of acquiring weapons changed from nearly 21% in 1991 to less than 14% in 1997 through retail sales. If true data, this is a huge shift a 33% drop.

Now why would that be? Any idea on how to account for that? I can give you a good solid theory: Background checks. The barriers put in place during that time forced a shift in the way criminals acquired guns.

Wow. And you were worried about ME changing facts around in the hypo until I got the results I want?!?
I gave you a different scenario entirely for an entirely different purpose. Mostly becuase this is getting tiring and I think we need resolution instead of an endless argument. Remember it is you arguing for the unlimited, unrestrained, unrestricted 2A rights purchasing rights. I think the only way to make that work is to make it a protected activity under the CRA.

If I were renting him an apartment, or in the business of selling guns, I would not be acting as an individual.
No you are not. This is why hypos don’t work. You changed it. I said you owned the building not that you were running it for someone else. Make it one of several houses that you own but don’t live in if you like. I guarantee you that if you do not rent the place for discriminatory reasons you will be facing a personal civil rights law suit. The CRA of 1968 specifies that this is illegal activity.

Now that you are NOT running a gun shop but that you simply offered a gun for sale (say an online ad). You are not acting as an agent for a business. Just you. If you offer and he accepts now you must sell regardless of whatever misgivings you might have if this protected activity right?

I've spent the majority of my career defending cities and police officers in civil rights lawsuits.
Good, then this should sound familiar:

The Civil Rights Act of 1968 enacted 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2), which permits federal prosecution of anyone who "willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's race, color, religion or national origin" because of the victim's attempt to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as attending school, patronizing a public place/facility, applying for employment, acting as a juror in a state court or voting.
The constitution does not regulate activities as between private individuals.
Still Bull.

The mistaken belief that you have to a cop, shop keep, agent or whatever to violate civil rights is incorrect. If I stand outside of a polling place with a baseball bat and try to influence your vote through fear and intimidation that is a civil rights violation (regardless of whatever the current AG thinks).

I’d like to know now what your answer to the above scenario on gun pruchases will be as this is the resolution to most of this argument. You should already see where this is going. Your answer will also show where your real interests lie in regard to freedom.
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Page generated in 0.03812 seconds with 7 queries