SodaHeadlines Entertainment Living Fun & Humor games sports music fashion News & Politics Leaderboard

Do you really want these creeps to have guns?

Do you really want these creeps to have guns?

by Christian Posted 2012/08/11 06:55:31

Related Topics: Nazi, Guns, Nazis, Gun, Neo Nazi, Have Gun

Read all 107 opinions

neo nazis

Fef 2012/08/11 07:18:27

+5
These creeps have guns... so I want mine.
>> See Replies

More polls by Christian

Marvelo... to lurx: t... 2012/08/11 20:48:57

+1
There is no such thing as "gun show loopholes", that was only a term dreamed up by the Anti-Freedom bigots to frighten the cowardly.
Proof: What is *LEGAL* inside a gun show, that is *ILLEGAL* outside of a gun show?

reply
lurx: t... to Marvelo... 2012/08/11 20:56:06

+1
To date, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) has prevented nearly 1.8 million criminals and other prohibited purchasers from buying guns. The law also has a deterrent effect—prohibited purchasers are less likely to try to buy guns when they know comprehensive background check requirements are in place.

Unfortunately, current federal law requires criminal background checks only for guns sold through licensed firearm dealers, which account for just 60% of all gun sales in the United States. A loophole in the law allows individuals not “engaged in the business” of selling firearms to sell guns without a license—and without processing any paperwork. That means that two out of every five guns sold in the United States change hands without a background check.

Though commonly referred to as the “Gun Show Loophole,” the “private sales” described above include guns sold at gun shows, through classified newspaper ads, the Internet, and between individuals virtually anywhere.

Unfortunately, only six states (CA, CO, IL, NY, OR, RI) require universal background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows. Three more states (CT, MD, PA) require background checks on all handgun sales made at gun shows. Seven other states (HI, IA, MA, MI, NJ, NC, NE) require purchasers to o...

To date, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) has prevented nearly 1.8 million criminals and other prohibited purchasers from buying guns. The law also has a deterrent effect—prohibited purchasers are less likely to try to buy guns when they know comprehensive background check requirements are in place.

Unfortunately, current federal law requires criminal background checks only for guns sold through licensed firearm dealers, which account for just 60% of all gun sales in the United States. A loophole in the law allows individuals not “engaged in the business” of selling firearms to sell guns without a license—and without processing any paperwork. That means that two out of every five guns sold in the United States change hands without a background check.

Though commonly referred to as the “Gun Show Loophole,” the “private sales” described above include guns sold at gun shows, through classified newspaper ads, the Internet, and between individuals virtually anywhere.

Unfortunately, only six states (CA, CO, IL, NY, OR, RI) require universal background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows. Three more states (CT, MD, PA) require background checks on all handgun sales made at gun shows. Seven other states (HI, IA, MA, MI, NJ, NC, NE) require purchasers to obtain a permit and undergo a background check before buying a handgun. Florida allows its counties to regulate gun shows by requiring background checks on all firearms purchases at these events. 33 states have taken no action whatsoever to close the Gun Show Loophole.

http://www.csgv.org/issues-an...
(more)

reply
Marvelo... to lurx: t... 2012/08/11 21:37:56

You state: "To date, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) has prevented nearly 1.8 million criminals and other prohibited purchasers from buying guns. The law also has a deterrent effect—prohibited purchasers are less likely to try to buy guns when they know comprehensive background check requirements are in place."

Where are you getting your numbers?
WOW! Your own numbers show what a dismal failure the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to be, considering that in 2006, of 77,000 Field Office referrals for NICS violations (25,259 of which NICS identified as buyers with felony records), there were only 273 (0.4%) that were ever charged with a crime and only SEVENTY-THREE were convicted. (Enforcement of the Brady Act, 2006, Regional Justice Information Service, study funded by Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.)

You state: "Unfortunately, current federal law requires criminal background checks only for guns sold through licensed firearm dealers, which account for just 60% of all gun sales in the United States. A loophole in the law allows individuals not “engaged in the business” of selling firearms to sell guns without a license—and without processing any paperwork. That means that tw...

You state: "To date, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) has prevented nearly 1.8 million criminals and other prohibited purchasers from buying guns. The law also has a deterrent effect—prohibited purchasers are less likely to try to buy guns when they know comprehensive background check requirements are in place."

Where are you getting your numbers?
WOW! Your own numbers show what a dismal failure the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to be, considering that in 2006, of 77,000 Field Office referrals for NICS violations (25,259 of which NICS identified as buyers with felony records), there were only 273 (0.4%) that were ever charged with a crime and only SEVENTY-THREE were convicted. (Enforcement of the Brady Act, 2006, Regional Justice Information Service, study funded by Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.)

You state: "Unfortunately, current federal law requires criminal background checks only for guns sold through licensed firearm dealers, which account for just 60% of all gun sales in the United States. A loophole in the law allows individuals not “engaged in the business” of selling firearms to sell guns without a license—and without processing any paperwork. That means that two out of every five guns sold in the United States change hands without a background check."

That's called "FREEDOM" and "The selling of private property." Just like the selling, of the far more deadly, car does not require going through a licensed dealer. Prior to 1968, you could order a gun directly from the manufacturer, and the postman would hand it to you at your front door.
There was also far less violent crimes too.

You state: "Though commonly referred to as the “Gun Show Loophole,” the “private sales” described above include guns sold at gun shows, through classified newspaper ads, the Internet, and between individuals virtually anywhere."

Calling something a "loophole" doesn't make it so.

You state: "Unfortunately, only six states (CA, CO, IL, NY, OR, RI) require universal background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows. Three more states (CT, MD, PA) require background checks on all handgun sales made at gun shows. Seven other states (HI, IA, MA, MI, NJ, NC, NE) require purchasers to obtain a permit and undergo a background check before buying a handgun. Florida allows its counties to regulate gun shows by requiring background checks on all firearms purchases at these events. 33 states have taken no action whatsoever to close the Gun Show Loophole."

That's because there is no "Gun Show loophole", only the exercise of *FREEDOM* that the dictator-wannabes hate so much.
(more)

reply
lurx: t... to Marvelo... 2012/08/11 21:39:40 (edited)

+1
When I state...

"Unfortunately, current federal law requires criminal background checks only for guns sold through licensed firearm dealers, which account for just 60% of all gun sales in the United States. A loophole in the law allows individuals not “engaged in the business” of selling firearms to sell guns without a license—and without processing any paperwork. That means that two out of every five guns sold in the United States change hands without a background check."

...I've proven my point.

reply
Marvelo... to lurx: t... 2012/08/11 21:43:45

Only if your point, was to prove you didn't know what you were talking about.

Proof: Name the U.S. Cities with *STRICT* gun control laws *AND* violent crime rates *LOWER* than the national average.

reply
lurx: t... to Marvelo... 2012/08/11 21:45:56

+1
"Only if your point, was to prove you didn't know what you were talking about."

You first suggested that loopholes don't exist, then you don't seem to be bothered by their existence.

...apparently it's you that doesn't know what he is talking about.

reply
Marvelo... to lurx: t... 2012/08/11 21:53:37

I said *GUN SHOW LOOPHOLES* don't exist.
Then you went *OUTSIDE* of gun shows, to claim actions *OUTSIDE OF GUN SHOWS* were "gun shows loopholes".

Just calling something a "Gun Show Loophole" doesn't make it so.

reply
lurx: t... to Marvelo... 2012/08/11 21:56:12 (edited)

+1
When I state...

"Unfortunately, current federal law requires criminal background checks only for guns sold through licensed firearm dealers, which account for just 60% of all gun sales in the United States. A loophole in the law allows individuals not “engaged in the business” of selling firearms to sell guns without a license—and without processing any paperwork. That means that two out of every five guns sold in the United States change hands without a background check."

...I've already proven my point.

reply
Marvelo... to lurx: t... 2012/08/11 22:08:44

Nope.
You only *FEEL* you have.

reply
lurx: t... to Marvelo... 2012/08/11 22:10:41

...whatever you say, genius.

reply
Christian to lurx: t... 2012/08/11 20:24:36

+1
I believe you and I should be able to purchase and carry a gun, but we have to try to limit it to people with out history's of violence or unbalanced or hate monger behavior.

reply
lurx: t... to Christian 2012/08/11 20:27:39

+1
...although I don't think people need weapons of mass destruction (a.k.a. automatic weapons) in order to defend themselves.

reply
Marvelo... to lurx: t... 2012/08/11 21:38:54

Automatic weapons are *VERY* tightly controlled, and have been since 1934.

reply
lurx: t... to Marvelo... 2012/08/11 21:41:35

+1
...like I said before, nobody needs them in order to defend themselves.

reply
Marvelo... to lurx: t... 2012/08/11 21:45:56

The last I read, the Second Amendment was in the *Bill of RIGHTS*; not the "Bill of Needs".

reply
lurx: t... to Marvelo... 2012/08/11 21:47:06

...like I said before, nobody needs them in order to defend themselves.

reply
Marvelo... to lurx: t... 2012/08/11 21:54:11

Say you.

reply
lurx: t... to Marvelo... 2012/08/11 21:56:44

+1
...whatever you say, genius.

reply
Marvelo... to lurx: t... 2012/08/11 22:10:40

Says one who has read the Constitution, and intent of the Founders.

reply
lurx: t... to Marvelo... 2012/08/11 22:12:56

+1
You do realize that our founding fathers were not opposed to gun control...

March 14, 1776

Resolved, That it be recommended to the several assemblies, conventions, and councils or committees of safety of the United Colonies, immediately to cause all persons to be disarmed within their respective colonies, who are notoriously disaffected to the cause of America, or who have not associated, and shall refuse to associate, to defend, by arms, these United Colonies, against the hostile attempts of the British fleets and armies; and to apply the arms taken from such persons in each respective colony, in the first place to the arming the continental troops raised in said colony; in the next, to the arming such troops as are raised by the colony for its own defence, and the residue to be applied to the arming the associators; that the arms when taken be appraised by indifferent persons, and such as are applied to the arming the continental troops, be paid for by Congress, and the residue by the respective assemblies, conventions, or councils, or committees of safety:

http://www.loc.gov/teachers/c...

reply
Marvelo... to lurx: t... 2012/08/11 22:53:11

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." ---- Thomas Jefferson

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; what would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty - so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator - and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crime...

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." ---- Thomas Jefferson

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; what would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty - so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator - and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree."

--Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishments 87-88 (H. Paulucci transl. 1963).-- (Thomas Jefferson copied this passage in full in his Commonplace Book 314 (G. Chinard ed. 1926), which was "the source book and repertory of Jefferson's ideas on government." Id. at 4.)

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." -George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."-William Pitt the Younger
(more)

reply
lurx: t... to Marvelo... 2012/08/11 22:55:32 (edited)

+1
...and oddly enough, our founding fathers were not against the use of gun control when it became necessary to do so.

http://www.loc.gov/teachers/c...

reply
Marvelo... to lurx: t... 2012/08/11 23:35:21

I'd have much more respect for your opinion, if your own “evidence” didn't show how little you know about the subject.
For example:
"Resolved, That it be recommended to the several assemblies, conventions, and councils or committees of safety of the United Colonies, immediately to cause all persons to be disarmed within their respective colonies, *WHO ARE NOTORIOUSLY DISAFFECTED TO THE CAUSE OF AMERICA*, or who have not associated, and *SHALL REFUSE TO ASSOCIATE, TO DEFEND, BY ARMS*, these United Colonies, *AGAINST THE HOSTILE ATTEMPTS OF THE BRITISH* fleets and armies;" (Emphasis mine.)

reply
lurx: t... to Marvelo... 2012/08/11 23:38:21 (edited)

March 14, 1776

Resolved, That it be recommended to the several assemblies, conventions, and councils or committees of safety of the United Colonies, immediately to cause all persons to be disarmed within their respective colonies, who are notoriously disaffected to the cause of America, or who have not associated, and shall refuse to associate, to defend, by arms, these United Colonies, against the hostile attempts of the British fleets and armies; and to apply the arms taken from such persons in each respective colony, in the first place to the arming the continental troops raised in said colony; in the next, to the arming such troops as are raised by the colony for its own defence, and the residue to be applied to the arming the associators; that the arms when taken be appraised by indifferent persons, and such as are applied to the arming the continental troops, be paid for by Congress, and the residue by the respective assemblies, conventions, or councils, or committees of safety:

http://www.loc.gov/teachers/c...

...just like I said, our founding fathers were not against the use of gun control when it became necessary to do so.

reply
Marvelo... to lurx: t... 2012/08/12 00:38:55

Disarming know enemies has always been accepted.
Even you should understand that.

Disarming groups simply because they *might* do wrong was not.

reply
lurx: t... to Marvelo... 2012/08/12 00:42:14 (edited)

"Disarming know enemies has always been accepted."

...so I take it that gun control is justified when the government feels threatened by elements from within it's society.

BTW, since independence wouldn't be declared until July, the people being disarmed weren't "enemies" but fellow colonists.

reply
Marvelo... to lurx: t... 2012/08/12 00:54:43 (edited)

In known enemies are to be confined.
Until July, these were *BRITISH* colonies, weren't they?

reply
lurx: t... to Marvelo... 2012/08/12 00:59:25 (edited)

...and in March when this measure of gun control was used, all the colonists were officially British citizens.

So I take it that gun control is justified when a segment of a society doesn't conform to the will of another.

reply
Marvelo... to lurx: t... 2012/08/12 03:26:29

You state: "So I take it that gun control is justified when a segment of a society doesn't conform to the will of another."

NO! ONLY where the *INDIVIDUAL* is a *KNOWN THREAT*.

reply
lurx: t... to Marvelo... 2012/08/12 03:35:40 (edited)

Oh I see,

...when the government feels threatened by individuals from within it's society, then gun control is justified.

reply
Marvelo... to lurx: t... 2012/08/12 04:40:57

When the *PEOPLE* are threatened by known menaces: YES!

reply
lurx: t... to Marvelo... 2012/08/12 04:44:25 (edited)

...so I take it that gun control is justified when a segment of a society doesn't conform to the will of another and becomes a "known menace" to it's interests.

reply
Marvelo... to lurx: t... 2012/08/12 05:13:16

No, when an individual is a known menace.

reply
lurx: t... to Marvelo... 2012/08/12 05:15:23

...are you suggesting that the Loyalists weren't a segment of the early colonial society?

reply
Marvelo... to lurx: t... 2012/08/12 05:50:02

They addressed the actual *MENACE*, not the *TOOL* that the *MENACE* might choose to misuse.

reply
lurx: t... to Marvelo... 2012/08/12 05:58:51 (edited)

That it be recommended to the several assemblies, conventions, and councils or committees of safety of the United Colonies, immediately to cause all persons to be disarmed within their respective colonies, who are notoriously disaffected to the cause of America, or who have not associated, and shall refuse to associate, to defend, by arms, these United Colonies, against the hostile attempts of the British fleets and armies; and to apply the arms taken from such persons in each respective colony, in the first place to the arming the continental troops raised in said colony...

...sure sounds like gun control to me.

reply
Marvelo... to lurx: t... 2012/08/12 06:06:21

From *KNOWN* enemies.

reply
lurx: t... to Marvelo... 2012/08/12 06:13:51

...so I take it that gun control is justified when a segment of a society doesn't conform to the will of another and becomes "known enemies" to it's interests.

reply
(▪‿▪)DoctorWhoGuru(▪‿▪) 2012/08/11 08:10:25

+1
No

reply
Heathen 2012/08/11 07:59:54

«« First « Prev 1 2 3 Next » Last »

News & Politics

2013/05/20 17:44:24

Hot Questions on SodaHead

More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals