NationStates

Telconi wrote:

Chan Island wrote:
Must have been a cheap car. And were you driving on the roads?

It was, and no.

Cool. Fair.

Learn something new every day.

Major-Tom wrote:

Grinning Dragon wrote:What gun show loophole?
Any and all FFL dealers that attended gun shows and sell firearms at said show, have to conduct a bgc.

The loophole in many states wherein regulations are loose and limited if someone buys a gun from either;

(A. A private dealer.
(B. A gun show run by an assortment of private dealers.

It's pretty straightforward. The argument that we can't budge even a little bit on expanding background checks and the like is bizarre to me. People will be able to keep their guns, people with a relatively clean record will be able to purchase guns, the only losers will be those with malicious intentions.

If that's the sound of "government overreach," then I'd have to wonder what your ideal system of gun control is, or if you'd rather scrap background checks and the like altogether for some bizarre reason.

A) private dealers at a gun show that are selling firearms are a very, small percentage so small that they don't even bother renting booth space. The other issue is if they sell x amount in a given year, they must apply for an FFL.
B) I've never seen such a thing. I've gone to gun shows since I was young going back to the 70's and its always FFLs, the private sellers that are there sell jewelry, ammo/reloading supplies, camping gear, books, crafts.
I find it odd that when it comes to firearms, and no other type of arms, we treat this portion of an enumerated right as a privilege, let alone the insane restrictions, hoops and rigamarole that no other right is subjected to.
To me it is govt overreach, and my ideal system of gun control is using both hands. Other than that, I'm against all gun control laws.

Grinning Dragon wrote:

Major-Tom wrote:
The loophole in many states wherein regulations are loose and limited if someone buys a gun from either;

(A. A private dealer.
(B. A gun show run by an assortment of private dealers.

It's pretty straightforward. The argument that we can't budge even a little bit on expanding background checks and the like is bizarre to me. People will be able to keep their guns, people with a relatively clean record will be able to purchase guns, the only losers will be those with malicious intentions.

If that's the sound of "government overreach," then I'd have to wonder what your ideal system of gun control is, or if you'd rather scrap background checks and the like altogether for some bizarre reason.

A) private dealers at a gun show that are selling firearms are a very, small percentage so small that they don't even bother renting booth space. The other issue is if they sell x amount in a given year, they must apply for an FFL.
B) I've never seen such a thing. I've gone to gun shows since I was young going back to the 70's and its always FFLs, the private sellers that are there sell jewelry, ammo, camping gear, books, crafts.
I find it odd that when it comes to firearms, and no other type of arms, we treat this portion of an enumerated right as a privilege, let alone the insane restrictions, hoops and rigamarole that no other right is subjected to.
To me it is govt overreach, and my ideal system of gun control is using both hands. Other than that, I'm against all gun control laws.

*Cough* FTFY

Alright so new Gun Control thread is up since this is one is at 499 pages

Do you think it's okay that somebody considered safe enough to walk the streets loses a constitutional right because of a crime many many years ago?

Crime deserves fine $100 dollars: they must wait one month to get a gun. Crime deserves one year's jail, they must wait 6 more months to get a gun. Crime deserves 10 years' jail, they must wait 5 more years.

What numbers do you think are fair for each crime?

Auristania wrote:

Do you think it's okay that somebody considered safe enough to walk the streets loses a constitutional right because of a crime many many years ago?

Crime deserves fine $100 dollars: they must wait one month to get a gun. Crime deserves one year's jail, they must wait 6 more months to get a gun. Crime deserves 10 years' jail, they must wait 5 more years.

What numbers do you think are fair for each crime?

None. Once you've served your sentence, full rights should be restored.

Auristania wrote:

Do you think it's okay that somebody considered safe enough to walk the streets loses a constitutional right because of a crime many many years ago?

Crime deserves fine $100 dollars: they must wait one month to get a gun. Crime deserves one year's jail, they must wait 6 more months to get a gun. Crime deserves 10 years' jail, they must wait 5 more years.

What numbers do you think are fair for each crime?

It's worth note I knew a guy that spent a bit of time in prison for a felony.

Improper paint disposal - felony EPA violation.

Still can't buy a gun.

Galloism wrote:

Auristania wrote:Crime deserves fine $100 dollars: they must wait one month to get a gun. Crime deserves one year's jail, they must wait 6 more months to get a gun. Crime deserves 10 years' jail, they must wait 5 more years.

What numbers do you think are fair for each crime?

It's worth note I knew a guy that spent a bit of time in prison for a felony.

Improper paint disposal - felony EPA violation.

Still can't buy a gun.

Wouldn't he be barred from voting in certain states also?

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Galloism wrote:It's worth note I knew a guy that spent a bit of time in prison for a felony.

Improper paint disposal - felony EPA violation.

Still can't buy a gun.

Wouldn't he be barred from voting in certain states also?

Yes, including the one we live in (or he used to live in anyway, not sure if he still does or not).

Galloism wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Wouldn't he be barred from voting in certain states also?

Yes, including the one we live in (or he used to live in anyway, not sure if he still does or not).

How in the name of fuckitty-fuck is that constitutional?

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Galloism wrote:Yes, including the one we live in (or he used to live in anyway, not sure if he still does or not).

How in the name of fuckitty-fuck is that constitutional?

Because he committed a felony.

Galloism wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:How in the name of fuckitty-fuck is that constitutional?

Because he committed a felony.

I'm aware. I'm asking how imposing extra punishments beyond the sentence is constitutional.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Galloism wrote:Because he committed a felony.

I'm aware. I'm asking how imposing extra punishments beyond the sentence is constitutional.

Oh.

The 14th amendment has a flaw.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Well, two, actually, but the other one we've corrected.

Galloism wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:I'm aware. I'm asking how imposing extra punishments beyond the sentence is constitutional.

Oh.

The 14th amendment has a flaw.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Well, two, actually, but the other one we've corrected.

That's pretty ridiculous. Couldn't the SC just call it cruel and unusual though?

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Galloism wrote:Oh.

The 14th amendment has a flaw.



Well, two, actually, but the other one we've corrected.

That's pretty ridiculous. Couldn't the SC just call it cruel and unusual though?

No, as it's explicitly allowed by an amendment to the constitution that took place after the cruel and unusual one. Even if it was cruel and unusual, the explicit allowance in the 14th would probably supercede it.

Auristania wrote:

Do you think it's okay that somebody considered safe enough to walk the streets loses a constitutional right because of a crime many many years ago?

Crime deserves fine $100 dollars: they must wait one month to get a gun. Crime deserves one year's jail, they must wait 6 more months to get a gun. Crime deserves 10 years' jail, they must wait 5 more years.

What numbers do you think are fair for each crime?

So because I decided 3 ounces of weed in my back pocket I should have to wait 6 months?

Galloism wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:That's pretty ridiculous. Couldn't the SC just call it cruel and unusual though?

No, as it's explicitly allowed by an amendment to the constitution that took place after the cruel and unusual one. Even if it was cruel and unusual, the explicit allowance in the 14th would probably supercede it.

courts can read bad writing in very gymnastic ways though.

'It only refers to a rebellion or crime that is being committed now.'