Biden admin tightens gun show loophole

[ll74]

What "reasonable suspicion" do you have that they need a background check?

Or do you just judge people based on "Profiles"?

It isn't about suspicion....buy a gun, get background checked. No exceptions.

 

[ll74]

No they don't.

Yes, they do.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

you seam awfully upset by a post on the internet. Perhaps you should employ a coping mechanism like going outside.

Here:

View attachment 2338198

fill that out and send it to Merrick Garland. Tell him that a person that posts mean things on the forum told you to get fucked!

I’m not the one who got scared and ran away from a question.

 

[Chobham]

Yes, they do.

They passed a law in this state that every firearm transfer HAS to go through a FFL. It's largely ignored, even by law enforcement.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

They passed a law in this state that every firearm transfer HAS to go through a FFL. It's largely ignored, even by law enforcement.

So much for gun owners follow laws.

 

[Chobham]

So much for gun owners follow laws.

So much for unconstitutional laws.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

So much for unconstitutional laws.

Anywhere else you’d like to move the goalposts?
If it was unconstitutional someone would challenge it.
Here you are advocating for people to break a law simply because you don’t like it.

 

[ll74]

They passed a law in this state that every firearm transfer HAS to go through a FFL. It's largely ignored, even by law enforcement.

And you think that's a good thing?

 

[ll74]

So much for unconstitutional laws.

It's not unconstitutional

 

[SmokingFap]

So, we have a fool that hates the police , wants the police to enforce the law!

So, how are you going to have this enforced?

Hey, tard, when have I ever said I hated the police? I have never even talked about defunding the police, which doesn't mean what you think it means. Sometimes they actually protect us decent folk from maniacs like you. So I expect them to enforce the law in its current iteration the way they enforce all laws. And when we get universal background checks and more red flag laws, I fully expect them to fulfill their oaths and enforce those laws as well. You expect them to enforce all the anti-abortion laws, don't you?

So go fuck yourself, retard.

 

[SmokingFap]

So much for unconstitutional laws.

You and all of your low IQ right wing brethren seem to forget that the Supreme Court has ruled frequently and consistently over the years, decades, and even centuries that NONE of our constitutional rights are absolute or guaranteed forever. SCOTUS has ruled that there can be reasonable restrictions on any one of them. Or do you think it's unconstitutional to prevent felons from owning guns? Because that's been ruled constitutional...

 

[RobDownSouth]

They passed a law in this state that every firearm transfer HAS to go through a FFL. It's largely ignored, even by law enforcement.

Good way to criminalize your scofflaw behavior.

 

[Chobham]

You and all of your low IQ right wing brethren seem to forget that the Supreme Court has ruled frequently and consistently over the years, decades, and even centuries that NONE of our constitutional rights are absolute or guaranteed forever. SCOTUS has ruled that there can be reasonable restrictions on any one of them. Or do you think it's unconstitutional to prevent felons from owning guns? Because that's been ruled constitutional...

Let me clue you in, the Constitution is absolute, no exceptions. As a matter of fact I can't find the word 'except' in the document anywhere. Now, that is not to say that you can't be held culpable for abusing your rights. You CAN yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, but you will be held accountable for any consequences. You CAN indulge in human sacrifice as part of your religious rituals, but you will be held accountable.

From time to time the various courts have rationalized exceptions that don't exist. There are no exceptions, only consequences.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Let me clue you in, the Constitution is absolute, no exceptions. As a matter of fact I can't find the word 'except' in the document anywhere. Now, that is not to say that you can't be held culpable for abusing your rights. You CAN yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, but you will be held accountable for any consequences. You CAN indulge in human sacrifice as part of your religious rituals, but you will be held accountable.

From time to time the various courts have rationalized exceptions that don't exist. There are no exceptions, only consequences.

Again you can only yell fire in a crowded theatre if there is a fire. If there isn’t you don’t have a legal right to do so. Your rights are not unlimited.

 

[Chobham]

Again you can only yell fire in a crowded theatre if there is a fire. If there isn’t you don’t have a legal right to do so. Your rights are not unlimited.

Really? Of course you can yell, fire or not. But you'll be held accountable for the consequences. IF you yell fire in a crowded theater, and there is no fire, and no one moves, there will probably be a few in the crowd that will beat the dog shit out of you, and they will pay the consequences for that as well.

 

[SmokingFap]

Let me clue you in, the Constitution is absolute, no exceptions.

Ever heard of something called an amendment?

From time to time the various courts have rationalized exceptions that don't exist. There are no exceptions, only consequences.

I would have thought that was "self-evident".

 

[SmokingFap]

Let me clue you in, the Constitution is absolute, no exceptions. As a matter of fact I can't find the word 'except' in the document anywhere. Now, that is not to say that you can't be held culpable for abusing your rights. You CAN yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, but you will be held accountable for any consequences. You CAN indulge in human sacrifice as part of your religious rituals, but you will be held accountable.

From time to time the various courts have rationalized exceptions that don't exist. There are no exceptions, only consequences.

Let me clue you in, dumbass. Your rights can be taken away. You can lose the right to vote or possess a firearm if you're convicted of a felony. Ol' Babydoll Hands is finding out that you can lose your constitutional right to freedom of speech in certain situations, like when you're trying to intimidate officers of the court or witnesses, or trying to poison a jury pool. Those are "exceptions" to your constitutional rights. Just because you can still physically do illegal things before you're caught and jailed doesn't mean you still have the constitutional right to do them. Dumbass.

 

[SmokingFap]

What "reasonable suspicion" do you have that they need a background check?

Or do you just judge people based on "Profiles"?

What reasonable suspicion is there that someone can't safely drive a car? Does the DMV profile people? Or do they mandate that everyone who wants to legally drive a car pass a driver's test?

God, I get so tired of these dumbasses.

 

[Chobham]

Ever heard of something called an amendment?

I would have thought that was "self-evident".

So pass one. Until then you just have to live with what we have.

I'll pass on another little tidbit, a law is only as good as those that are willing to abide. Case in point, in 2023 the Ill. legislature passed a law that all "assault weapons" are banned and those in possession must be registered. That along with magazines and other odd and ends. The law took effect on Jan. 1st of this year. So far the compliance rate is less than 4%. All but two county sheriffs have said, "I'm not going to enforce that."

If you want to change things your way then eliminate the second amendment. The ways and means are there at your disposal, but that doesn't guarantee compliance. As a matter of fact the reaction might be quite different than you expect, or can deal with.

 

[SmokingFap]

So pass one. Until then you just have to live with what we have.

I'll pass on another little tidbit, a law is only as good as those that are willing to abide. Case in point, in 2023 the Ill. legislature passed a law that all "assault weapons" are banned and those in possession must be registered. That along with magazines and other odd and ends. The law took effect on Jan. 1st of this year. So far the compliance rate is less than 4%. All but two county sheriffs have said, "I'm not going to enforce that."

So 96% of those people are already criminals. Fair enough.

If you want to change things your way then eliminate the second amendment. The ways and means are there at your disposal, but that doesn't guarantee compliance. As a matter of fact the reaction might be quite different than you expect, or can deal with.

Don't have to eliminate the Second Amendment, and no rational liberal or progressive is even advocating for that, so cut that bullshit straw man argument. We support, as do the vast majority of ALL Americans, universal background checks, red flag laws, and restrictions on the types of murderous hardware "upgrades" individual citizens can own. Even the majority of NRA members support universal background checks and red flag laws. So we should at least start there. But the NRA stopped representing its members a long time ago. Now it exists only to support its gun manufacturing donors being able to sell as many weapons as possible. Regardless of the consequences.

So how about we just settle on what the majority of NRA members support?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Really? Of course you can yell, fire or not. But you'll be held accountable for the consequences. IF you yell fire in a crowded theater, and there is no fire, and no one moves, there will probably be a few in the crowd that will beat the dog shit out of you, and they will pay the consequences for that as well.

No one is saying a person isn’t physically capable of yelling fire in a theatre. The reality is that if someone yells fire in a crowded theatre maliciously that isn’t something that is protected by The Constitution.

 

[desecration]

Remember how the abortion debate died by Plan B but basically no one recognized that? It's the same with guns. Enough people have home machine shops at this point that they could ban guns tomorrow and there will still be weapons on the streets.

 

[rainsol]

The loophole isn't about businesses, dip shit. It's private sellers who aren't businesses who buy and sell guns. Maybe check out Malinowski for more info. They don't require background checks.

https://www.ualrpublicradio.org/loc...house-searched-over-alleged-illegal-gun-sales

Dipshit your self. That miserable mother fucker in the white house needs to check his fucking kid out. We know he lied about his drug usage on the 4473 federal form. No that shit doesnt work but it makes you feel good. So go feel good for a while but it doesnt change a damned thing. Banger s are never going to give up their illegal firearms by the way. You want stuff that works, stop and frisk works. except the felons dont like it.

 

[ll74]

Dipshit your self. That miserable mother fucker in the white house needs to check his fucking kid out. We know he lied about his drug usage on the 4473 federal form. No that shit doesnt work but it makes you feel good. So go feel good for a while but it doesnt change a damned thing. Banger s are never going to give up their illegal firearms by the way. You want stuff that works, stop and frisk works. except the felons dont like it.

This incoherent ramble was an interesting deflection of nothing about the topic.

The policy isn't about people having an illegal firearm. The policy is to ensure people who shouldn't have a firearm cannot obtain one through the back door.

 

[Chobham]

This incoherent ramble was an interesting deflection of nothing about the topic.

The policy isn't about people having an illegal firearm. The policy is to ensure people who shouldn't have a firearm cannot obtain one through the back door.

The proposed reg. change does nothing of the sort. It's bullshit.