• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NYC Mayor Conducts Gun-Sale Sting in Arizona

AdamT said:
So what's the objection to registering all guns? Don't tell me -- you're afraid that the big bad gubment is going to confiscate all the guns.
Click to expand...

It's an unconstitutional and immoral precondition placed upon the exercise of an inalienable right.

As a practical matter, it will cost a lot of money, increase the size and scope of government power over free individuals, and undermine one of the primary purposes of an armed citizenry, i.e., retaining the means and ability to more effectively resist a tyrannical government. And all this will be done despite the fact that there is no reason to believe that comprehensive firearm registrations will actually prevent crime to an appreciable degree.

Brian
 
TurtleDude said:
1) I don't believe you

2) the ATF is all over those shows ( I know the ATF officers in town and I see them, DEA, FBI, and all sorts of locals at those shows)

3) if some guy constantly is selling guns "from his private collection" that is going to draw serious attention. Plus ATF especially under DEM administrations-are constantly trying to catch people. I worked for a client at a gun show years ago and one guy asked me if I would take 600 dollars for a 400 dollar gun "without and papers". I told him I was a city prosecutor and that was illegal. I later found out he was a TFO trying to bust dealers
Click to expand...

1) I don't believe you. I think you are making **** up as you go along, and simply regurgiting that **** you read in your NRA flyers.
 
Free_Radical said:
It's an unconstitutional and immoral precondition placed upon the exercise of an inalienable right.

As a practical matter, it will cost a lot of money, increase the size and scope of government power over free individuals, and undermine one of the primary purposes of an armed citizenry, i.e., retaining the means and ability to more effectively resist a tyrannical government. And all this will be done despite the fact that there is no reason to believe that comprehensive firearm registrations will actually prevent crime to an appreciable degree.

Brian
Click to expand...

Oh horse****. It is not unconstitutional to place reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, and there's certainly nothing immoral about it. At the end of the day it's just gun nut paranoia.
 
AdamT said:
Oh horse****. It is not unconstitutional to place reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, and there's certainly nothing immoral about it. At the end of the day it's just gun nut paranoia.
Click to expand...

If you were just going to throw a temper tantrum, then why did you ask the question? So you could disagree with me and mash your keyboard?

Brian
 
Free_Radical said:
If you were just going to throw a temper tantrum, then why did you ask the question? So you could disagree with me and mash your keyboard?

Brian
Click to expand...

I was hoping that you might have a response other than the typical right wing craziness. IMO gun advocates only hurt their cause when they reject perfectly reasonable regulations. I mean, let's be real. You have to register a car, a boat, a trailer, and in most states, even your frickin dog or cat. But not a deadly weapon? How does that make sense?
 
AdamT said:
I was hoping that you might have a response other than the typical right wing craziness. IMO gun advocates only hurt their cause when they reject perfectly reasonable regulations. I mean, let's be real. You have to register a car, a boat, a trailer, and in most states, even your frickin dog or cat. But not a deadly weapon? How does that make sense?
Click to expand...

Okay, let's be "real". You asked a question and I answered it sincerely and straightforwardly. You've responded with the intellectual equivalent of "NUH-UH!" and "THAT'S CRAZY!"

If you're incapable of substantively and politely addressing my argument, then don't bother responding to me.

Brian
 
AdamT said:
So you cited the 1% figure in support of your argument, and now you want to attack me because I assumed that what you posted was true? You can't make this **** up. :2rofll:
Click to expand...
So he provides figures that clearly demonstrate LESS than 1% of the illegal guns come from gun shows (and the fact is MOST gun sales at gun shows ARE done by legal vendors requiring background checks) and you cling to the notion that the REAL solution in all this is by golly...background checks! never mind the other 99+%...

Tell me...are you FOR criminals being hit with mandatory minimum sentences...like...MAJOR sentences...for the commission of a crime using a firearm? Cuz...NOW we are talking a REAL solution. Right?
 
AdamT said:
Again, it is not as clear as you want to pretend it is. What is "the business" of selling guns? Obviously it's not selling one gun. What about two? What about 10? What about 10 per month? What about 12 or 20 per month? Maybe you're just a "collector" who actively trades in guns? And does it matter? The fact is that any felon can walk into a gun show and purchase a gun, and no one is going to say boo. In other words, whether you call it a "dealer" loophole or not, it's still a problem ... IF you think that felons ought not to buy guns.

Do you think that restriction should be eliminated? If not, what would be your objection to requiring private sellers to use the same electronic check system that dealers use?
Click to expand...

Sorry but a felon, attempting to purchase a weapon is also a illegal, regardless of place of purchase or the person they are purchasing from.
A person, who willfully sells a firearm to a known felon, is breaking the law.

It doesn't matter how many guns they sell or if they're in business to sell guns.
If anything, them buying through public markets, leaves some sort of paper trail, rather than black market sales.
 
AdamT said:
Oh horse****. It is not unconstitutional to place reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, and there's certainly nothing immoral about it. At the end of the day it's just gun nut paranoia.
Click to expand...

What part of “…shall not be infringed” do you not understand?

The Second Amendment clearly establishes that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. Not a privilege, a right.

This means that it is none of government's business who chooses to exercise this right in what manner, and it is certainly not within government's legitimate authority to interfere in any way with the legitimate exercise of this right.
 
AdamT said:
Stop lying. The purpose of eliminating the gun show loophole is not to stop gun shows -- period. The purpose is to eliminate the loophole.
Click to expand...
you are lying when you claim there is a loophole

and we all know of the incremental nature of the scum known as the anti gun movement
 
AdamT said:
Wow, could you be any more deceptive? No one is proposing that gun shows be shut down. It is simply a question of requiring everyone to pass a background check, whether they are buying from a dealer or a private seller.
Click to expand...


I will await for your apology for your prevarication

Anti-Violence Groups Push To Ban Gun Shows At Fairgrounds - Indiana News Story - WRTV Indianapolis

Constitutional Law Prof Blog: Gun Show Bans Don't Violate Second Amendment, Ninth Circuit Rules


http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/let...llows-texas-in-banning-private-gun-shows.html

that was the first pAGE OF "BAN GUN SHOWS" google search in part

when you make idiotic claims that NO ONE is proposing____________ you pretty much set yourself up to get schooled
 
j-mac said:
Absolutely. Bloomberg should clean up his own damned cess pool before attacking another.


j-mac
Click to expand...
Who says he isn't. This isn't 1700. The are ways other than horse-and-buggy to get guns from Arizona to NYC.
 
Krhazy said:
Who says he isn't. This isn't 1700. The are ways other than horse-and-buggy to get guns from Arizona to NYC.
Click to expand...


the problem is that Bloomberg is a turd. He has no legal right to send people with no authority to other states to violate gun laws and he should be in jail secondly what it shows is that his city's idiotic gun laws are a failure and he should deal with that fact
 
AdamT said:
Okay, so I guess I'm missing something then. If the gun was sold legally, then it had to be registered by someone, correct? The purpose is to aid in tracing the gun. So what's the objection to registering all guns? Don't tell me -- you're afraid that the big bad gubment is going to confiscate all the guns.
Click to expand...


Guments in the past have used registrations to confiscate firearms,that is the only reason for them.So it is a damn lie to say the government wouldn't use gun registries to aid in confiscation.Besides that how many crimes have been solved or prevented with the use of a gun registration databases? I know I can find a story of someone using their firearm to stop a crime,so surely there should be some stories of law enforcement using gun registries to solve or prevent crimes.Surely the liberal media should have plenty of stories of law enforcement using gun registrations to solve or prevent crimes.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
Guments in the past have used registrations to confiscate firearms,that is the only reason for them.So it is a damn lie to say the government wouldn't use gun registries to aid in confiscation.Besides that how many crimes have been solved or prevented with the use of a gun registration databases? I know I can find a story of someone using their firearm to stop a crime,so surely there should be some stories of law enforcement using gun registries to solve or prevent crimes.Surely the liberal media should have plenty of stories of law enforcement using gun registrations to solve or prevent crimes.
Click to expand...

Can we have some cites for those goverment gun roundups that relied on registrations? :popcorn2:

Obviously there is a legitimate purpose for gun registrations. Police departments use them every day to solve crimes.
 
TurtleDude said:
I will await for your apology for your prevarication

Anti-Violence Groups Push To Ban Gun Shows At Fairgrounds - Indiana News Story - WRTV Indianapolis

Constitutional Law Prof Blog: Gun Show Bans Don't Violate Second Amendment, Ninth Circuit Rules


http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/let...llows-texas-in-banning-private-gun-shows.html

that was the first pAGE OF "BAN GUN SHOWS" google search in part

when you make idiotic claims that NO ONE is proposing____________ you pretty much set yourself up to get schooled
Click to expand...

More abject dishonesty form the Terrapin. None of your links (the ones that actually work) cite to anyone seeking a general ban on gun shows. They show two examples where some individiduals sought to keep them from being able to use municipal property. That's it.
 
TurtleDude said:
the problem is that Bloomberg is a turd. He has no legal right to send people with no authority to other states to violate gun laws and he should be in jail secondly what it shows is that his city's idiotic gun laws are a failure and he should deal with that fact
Click to expand...
Why do I feel like if this conversation were about a Republican politician from Arizona or Nevada or wherever sending people into blue California to investigate whether California was allowing illegal immigrants to flock through that state into others, the response would be totally different?

Was anybody arrested in this "sting" operation? Or was it just an investigation to see whether gun salesman at this show are acting responsibly? I honestly don't see the harm in anyone conducting that kind of study, no matter where they are from. Might even fall under the 1st Amendment. It's when people are hauled out of their home state and put in prison in another for violating that state's laws without ever having any contact with that state that you run into real serious issues.
 
Krhazy said:
Why do I feel like if this conversation were about a Republican politician from Arizona or Nevada or wherever sending people into blue California to investigate whether California was allowing illegal immigrants to flock through that state into others, the response would be totally different?

Was anybody arrested in this "sting" operation? Or was it just an investigation to see whether gun salesman at this show are acting responsibly? I honestly don't see the harm in anyone conducting that kind of study, no matter where they are from. Might even fall under the 1st Amendment. It's when people are hauled out of their home state and put in prison in another for violating that state's laws without ever having any contact with that state that you run into real serious issues.
Click to expand...
1) Why do people assume this is about holding ideological polarity into account. If an authority oversteps their granted jurisdiction or powers they are out of line and in violation of proper law period. 2) Bloomberg, or as I like to call him Bloomingidiot is a Republican, he converted from the Democrat party in 2001 so your theory of partisanship is null and void, let me repeat, he broke the law of Arizona and the federal laws of the United States of America. 3) If a Republican crossed from Arizona into California in an attempt to uphold immigration laws he would be in violation of jurisdiction and the law, the proper course of action in that case would be to go to the feds and file a grievance, of course this example is irrelevant as there is a duty to uphold immigration law versus a right to bear arms. This analogy failed on multiple levels. 4) Arrests are not the only consideration here, there was falsification in an unauthorized sting operation(basically spying, there is a privacy violation right there), and of course there was conducting a "police action" outside of jurisdiction, they don't even have the defense that they lost the line because of the distance between NYC and Az. The police had no ****ing right to do this and Bloomberg had no authority to issue that action, it's ridiculous to assert that there had to be some kind of legal consequences for this action by Bloomberg to be illegal. That is incorrect.
 
AdamT said:
I was hoping that you might have a response other than the typical right wing craziness. IMO gun advocates only hurt their cause when they reject perfectly reasonable regulations. I mean, let's be real. You have to register a car, a boat, a trailer, and in most states, even your frickin dog or cat. But not a deadly weapon? How does that make sense?
Click to expand...

Are they protected by the Bill of Rights?
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060192807 said:
Are they protected by the Bill of Rights?
Click to expand...


It always amuses me when anti-2nd amendment loons make comparisons to vehicles and animals.I guess when people do not see firearm ownership as a protected right in the constitution it is easy for those people to make comparisons to things that are not constitutional rights.
 
jamesrage said:
It always amuses me when anti-2nd amendment loons make comparisons to vehicles and animals.I guess when people do not see firearm ownership as a protected right in the constitution it is easy for those people to make comparisons to things that are not constitutional rights.
Click to expand...


They have to first believe that the constitution is relevant.


j-mac
 
jamesrage said:
It always amuses me when anti-2nd amendment loons make comparisons to vehicles and animals.I guess when people do not see firearm ownership as a protected right in the constitution it is easy for those people to make comparisons to things that are not constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

Don't knwo about animals, but an auto, which wasn't around then, is as needed as a gun used to be.

BTW, I'm not anti-2nd amendment. I know this wasn't addressed to me, but wanted to be clear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom