Gun Show Loophole

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, it's not an inherent right. When someone can legally say no and stop you it's not an inherent right......unless of course, there's a "loophole" :banghead:



Yes, yes it is! - I may have to find a owner, provide the local my self, but it is absolutely a right. And yes, more so due to the fact we would be exercising protected rights. I dont have the right to force the location on someone, but It is absultely my right with a willing property owner or myself!
 
Deanimator, I don't mind arguing (I mean, this is NY) but honestly, this is getting old.
The National Alliance types thought that my debunking their Holocaust denial in usenet was getting old too. It's why they ran away, just as you will.

Can we agree to never agree and move on?
What you want is to lie without refutation.

We can "agree" that that's NEVER going to happen.

Doubtless, like the rest of the AHSA shills you will indeed "move on". It's what you always do when nobody will believe your lies.
 
Hey, sorry to offend you Mr. Tenure for my recent joining of THR. Those stats are on the left side of the page for everyone, it took you 9 pages to see it?

So how many of your "whopping" 257 post are in here?



StarDust1
Member

Join Date: June 3, 2009
Location: Northwest Wisconsin
Posts: 257
You forgot my "daily average post total," which is .098....And if I might be so bold, a year in June is significantly longer than 9-days, half of which you've dedicated to spewing decidedly anti-gun propaganda.
 
I offer the following (to be ignored.)

CSKNY - No, it's not an inherent right. When someone can legally say no and stop you it's not an inherent right......unless of course, there's a "loophole

Freedom of assembly, sometimes used interchangeably with the freedom of association, is the individual right to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests.[1] The right to freedom of association is recognized as a human right, a political freedom and a civil liberty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_assembly

The First Amendment: - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Second Amendment: - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
 
Seriously, you need to stop with the holocaust references, it's bizarre. Not every post needs a comparison to the holocaust denial. I firmly believe the holocaust happened, and I take GREAT personal offense to the categorization.

No, I'm tired of posting with basically you, stardust, and ah...can't think of his name. Anyway, we won't change each other's minds. I'm not leaving, just leaving this thread.

You can continue with your conspiracy theory with Stardust and the like.

But know, there's a time bow out of a discussion with grace and respect. I've offered, you declined. That's fine.


Quote:
Deanimator, I don't mind arguing (I mean, this is NY) but honestly, this is getting old.
The National Alliance types thought that my debunking their Holocaust denial in usenet was getting old too. It's why they ran away, just as you will.

Quote:
Can we agree to never agree and move on?
What you want is to lie without refutation.

We can "agree" that that's NEVER going to happen.

Doubtless, like the rest of the AHSA shills you will indeed "move on". It's what you always do when nobody will believe your lies.
 
Oh man, how can I resist

I am so sorry, I can see now. You ARE more important. Roughly 8 months and 125ish post more important. My mistake.

What's was that?......yikes.......stones......glass houses.....cuts and abrasions....ahhhhhhhhhh


Quote:
Originally Posted by cskny
Hey, sorry to offend you Mr. Tenure for my recent joining of THR. Those stats are on the left side of the page for everyone, it took you 9 pages to see it?

So how many of your "whopping" 257 post are in here?



StarDust1
Member

Join Date: June 3, 2009
Location: Northwest Wisconsin
Posts: 257
You forgot my "daily average post total," which is .098....And if I might be so bold, a year in June is significantly longer than 9-days, half of which you've dedicated to spewing decidedly anti-gun propaganda.
 
Seriously, you need to stop with the holocaust references,
Seriously, you need to stop denying your own motivations and their historical antecedents.

You have a malicious goal you wish to achieve.

You invent a nonexistent or trivial "problem" for which your malicious goal is the ONLY "solution".

You search out the ignorant and the gullible whom you can deceive into supporting this pernicious "solution" which is VASTLY worse than the alleged "problem" (if it even exists).

People call you a liar for... LYING, and warn others that you're lying.

You complain that people who see through your hoax offer no "alternative" to your deceptive "solution" to the nonexistent "problem" you invented.

I'd bet the whole thing would verge on poetry if you described it in German...
 
I notice there's no mention of "commerce" in your quote. That's interesting, no?

I think it might be because it's governed by commerce law.

See, the circus, the dog show, the gun show....they are all EVENTS put on to make money, not do the things listed below. Because one simply involves guns does not make it "different" or "exempt"


CSKNY - No, it's not an inherent right. When someone can legally say no and stop you it's not an inherent right......unless of course, there's a "loophole

Freedom of assembly, sometimes used interchangeably with the freedom of association, is the individual right to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests.[1] The right to freedom of association is recognized as a human right, a political freedom and a civil liberty.
 
Not seeing your point, but here it is. Is there another straw you would like me to chase. Or Is my right to assemble and my right to keep and bear arms safe yet?
So the game is, you make a point, I disprove it with historical precident, fact (With sources) and you get a one liner, based on............NOTHING. I noticed a lack of a lot in your post......WOW, just wow!

As you noted the First and Second amendments do not address this, therefore I included the Ninth.

The Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

I suppose that since is doesnt say you have the right to breath, the government can put a bag over your head. If you want to play semantics.

I'm going to go have a productive conversation with my shoe.........



The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States

Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress. It is common to see the Commerce Clause referred to as "the Foreign Commerce Clause," "the Interstate Commerce Clause," and "the Indian Commerce Clause," each of which refers to a different application of the same single sentence in the Constitution.

Dispute exists as to the range of powers granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause. As noted below, the clause is often paired with the Necessary and Proper Clause, the combination used to take a broad, expansive perspective of these powers. Many strict constructionists deny that this is the proper application of the Commerce Clause.
 
Last edited:
No, you missed the elitist point. It'll come to you in the shower. (or do I need to frame in the context of the holocaust for it to make sense?)
I always love it when somebody's willing to tapdance through a minefield to prove what I've been saying about them all along.
 
Ohio Gun Guy - I'm not trying to be a pain in your butt, a gun "show" is just not protected because guns are. You're right to bear arms is. Your right to assemble is (well...), etc.

A gun show is a commerce activity that is put on and intended to make money for those involved. It's not anything more and consequently is not subject to any more (or less) generalized restriction or protection as any other commercial event. It's not a statement about guns or gun control, it's simply what a gun show is.





Not seeing your point, but here it is. Is there another straw you would like me to chase. Or Is my right to assemble and my right to keep and bear arms safe yet?
So the game is, you make a point, I disprove it with historical precident, fact (With sources) and you get a one liner, based on............NOTHING. WOW!

I'm going to go have a productive conversation with my shoe.........



The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States

Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress. It is common to see the Commerce Clause referred to as "the Foreign Commerce Clause," "the Interstate Commerce Clause," and "the Indian Commerce Clause," each of which refers to a different application of the same single sentence in the Constitution.

Dispute exists as to the range of powers granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause. As noted below, the clause is often paired with the Necessary and Proper Clause, the combination used to take a broad, expansive perspective of these powers. Many strict constructionists deny that this is the proper application of the Commerce Clause.
 
Through out our history, activities that involve protected rights are protected. It's called scrutiny. Things that are regulated that involve fundimental rights have to pass strict scrutiny, otherwise the right is hollow and meaningless. If you make it so a person can not obtain a firearm, ammunition, etc. you are infact infringing on that right. This is currently a legal question that will be answered in the courts soon (McDonald). Part of this question was answered in Heller VS DC. MANY of your arguments were put down in that case. Other fundimental rights have been found to be protected in this way.

Therefore, I say again, that I fundimentally have a right to keep and bear arms, assemble peacfully, and engage in commerce to fufill my God Given, Constitutionally protected rights. (BTW: Multiple states have recently passed legislation questioning the validity of the Federal Government's use of the commerse clause in firearm regulation)

My trump card in this, no matter what you or anyone else says, me and others like me will fight for this right if it is not recognized.

(Takes stick, draws line in sand)
 
Last edited:
Deanimator - I asked you to please stop comparing me to holocaust deniers.

You're response appears to be implying I'm a Nazi.

"
I'd bet the whole thing would verge on poetry if you described it in German..."


I think it's time to close this thread.
 
If you make it so a person can not obtain a firearm, ammunition, etc. you are infact infringing on that right.
His argument is essentially that you have not infringed upon somebody's 1st Amendment rights if you enact a law specifying that all political speech must be phrased as an anagram in Turkish and delivered no closer than 20 miles from a school, courthouse or daycare center.

In an earlier time, they would have (and possibly still would) argue that a "literacy" test given (ONLY to Blacks) in Aramaic wasn't an infringement on voting rights.

Hatred of individual liberty is a "fill in the blanks" sort of thing. It doesn't matter if the victims are Jews, Catholics, Blacks, homosexuals or gun owners. The intent and the boilerplate that enables it is mostly the same, as are the rhetorical "tricks" used to con the unwary.
 
Deanimator - I asked you to please stop comparing me to holocaust deniers.
Why don't you stop doing what they do?

You're like OJ Simpson asking me to stop comparing him to Scott Peterson.

I don't think Josef Goebbels ever murdered anybody. You still play the same rhetorical games.

If I denied that, then I'd be a liar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dbz77
Seeing no signs of resolving differences in viewpoints, by the powers vested in me I hereby declare that 240 posts or thereabouts is sufficient.

Well, actually, that's wrong. It's way too many.

Go shoot. Go watch Nascar at Fontana. Something...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.