Mass shooting on campus in Oregon

The gun control discussed in most circles would NOT violate the Second Amendment, which doesn't guarantee unfettered access for everyone to whatever weaponry they see fit.

"Stop, Question and Frisk" is a clear violation of the Fourth, as is the PATRIOT Act.

I'll phrase the question differently: If the only way to guarantee one right is to violate another, why do you choose guns over legal due process?

 

I think it probably depends on how stop-and-frisk is implemented.

 

You're wrong. There is no such thing as a "gun show" loophole.

The fact that a gun is for sale at a gun show does not determine whether or not a background check is required:

In the same vein, there’s no Internet gun sale loophole, either. You can’t legally buy a gun off the Internet from some random guy ten states away and have it show up on your doorstep the next morning. It’s against the law for a private individual to ship a gun across state lines to a non-FFL. Any firearm purchased from another state must be processed through an FFL in the state in which the buyer resides. That FFL is required to process a background check before providing the gun to you.

The only federal background check exemption that exists is for transactions between private, non-FFL individuals who reside in the same state. That’s it. There’s no Internet exemption. There’s no gun show exemption. The only exemption is for transactions with zero federal nexus: no federal firearms license, and no purchase or sale across state lines.

Hillary's 'Gun Show Loophole' Proposal Is A Joke

I don't even know what this means. It the seller isn't required to hold an FFL, and sale meets the legal requirements, he's not taking any chance. If the seller is required to hold an FFL, he's not going to risk that by selling a gun without confirming the purchaser has passed a background test.

This is so wrong that the Washington Post gave it two Pinocchios:

Update: Obama claim on background checks moved from ‘verdict pending' to 2 Pinocchios

Existing gun laws are enforced at gun shows.

Some sales at gun shows don't require a background check. Some sales not made at gun shows don't require a background check.

Gun show sales make up a fraction of these private sales not requiring background checks:

In fact, the survey indicated that only 3.9 percent of respondents obtained their firearms from gun shows.

All the Things Hillary Clinton Got Wrong in Her Gun Speech

 

MC, we've specifically seen gun laws in places like DC and Chicago found to be unconstitutional.

Plenty of other ideas tossed around are unconstitutional.

So, let's not pretend that gun control advocates are worried about implementing unconstitutional measures, They've already done it.

Also, as Cran says, courts have found that when done correctly, Stop, Question, and Frisk can be implemented in a constitutional manner.

Now, do I advocate Stop, Question, or Frisk? Well, I know it works. I know it saved lives in the most crime ridden neighborhoods of New York City. It saved thousands of African-American lives.

You think it's a bad thing. Fine. End it. It's not really going to effect affect impact me.

This kind of street/drug/gang violence is largely limited to certain urban areas, where neither you nor I live.

The views of the residents of those neighborhoods means more to me than your opinion, or even my own.

But, when the white liberals here clutch their pearls, and tell me they want to do everything necessary to reduce gun violence, and that they are willing to support any measure, even if it will save just one life, and then they reject out of hand a measure that has proven to save thousands of lives, and instead support closing a "gun show loophole" which would do nothing, I know they're not serious.

 

BDC99 likes this.

I love this.

JayFarrar posts a mess of misinformation taken directly from the talking points of gun control advocates, and liberal politicians, and BDC, the guy who rejects talking points "likes" it.

 

Again, it depends on the location but in most parts of the country private sales are not regulated.

What regulations do exist have limited enforcement because of a lack of resources.

Sellers are aware of this and can sell as many unregulated guns as they want by calling them private sales.

So, I go to estate sales and buy guns. Then I turn around and sell those guns at gun shows on the weekends.

It isn't my primary source of employment and I call it a "hobby" as my sales fund my shopping trips to buy more guns.

I could literally sell thousands of guns at shows a year because the ATF hasn't defined a hard number, it is based on "intent."

I have no license to sell. I perform no background checks. I don't even have to ask for ID.

 

I'm not really talking about any specific laws, just the reaction among some gun rights advocates that ANY attempt to to do ANYTHING is unconstitutional, because the Constitution, yet our rights have been not so quietly taken away from us for years with 1/1000 the resistance.

I'm not suggesting any specific gun control measures, because I know there's no point in doing so. I'm just pointing out that, technically, constitutional rights have been violated pretty much since the Constitution was ratified.

 

Four people shot at Northern Arizona University. One dead.

Suspect in custody after four people shot — one fatally — at Northern Arizona University

"One person has been killed and three others wounded in a fight that escalated into a shooting near a Greek-life dorm at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, Ariz.

According to Fowler, the police chief, “two separate student groups got into a confrontation” shortly after 1 a.m. on Friday. “The confrontation turned physical,” Fowler said, and Jones “produced a handgun and shot four other students.”

 

It has nothing to do with location. It has to do with the specifics of the seller, and of the sale.

What do you base this statement on. Do you have some evidence that sales that should require a background check are being made without one.

I'd be interested in seeing this evidence.

I'm also unsure how new laws would improve this situation that you think already exists.

No, they can't.

It has nothing to do with what "you" call it. It not being your "primary source of income" does not exempt you from holding an FFL. You're only exempt if you "makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms."

But, in your example, the repetitive nature of your activities and the time and attention paid to it would require you to obtain an FFL and verify background checks. Failure to do so would be a violation of current law:

Dealer in firearms — a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms (18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(21)(C));

Hillary's 'Gun Show Loophole' Proposal Is A Joke

 

Yeah, and by not talking about specific laws, you are able to ignore the actual laws passed by liberal democrats that were in violation of the Constitution.

It allows you to paint gun rights advocates as paranoid, and unwilling to consent to "reasonable" measures, when we know that gun control advocates would resort to unconstitutional measures if they weren't being fought at every step.