#BoycottNRA

#176
#176
luthervol said:
Didn't we just establish that they were being sold/purchased through the "legal" loophole at gun shows?
Click to expand...

Not all of them no. It felt good to type it that way tho Im sure.

Speaking of the black market, if a ban on a type of gun in demand does happen do we pass a law that these guns be registered when sold "illegally?
 
#177
#177
luthervol said:
The teacher's rights do not trump society's.

How can you justify being forced to give up your gun in order to enter the state capital, or the White House?
Click to expand...

I agreed with you on the basis that laws can prevent a person from being armed in certain places. I disagree with those laws but they are there none-the-less.

If teachers were permitted to carry and a parent had a problem with it, that parent or student can kick rocks.
 
#178
#178
Grand Vol said:
So, legally purchased, then illegally sold. Which makes them...illegal weapons.

Still unsure of where you are trying to go with this. Additionally, I did offer to give your side universal background checks with conditions and trades. You decided to decline.
Click to expand...

Yes...if that was intended as a question.

Ease of legal purchase results in greater numbers of illegal guns in the hands of people who should not have a gun.
 
#179
#179
luthervol said:
Most guns confiscated in Chicago do not originate in Illinois. (I think, someone double check)
Click to expand...

So are you claiming it was a violation of the trafficking rules since individuals from different states did a peer to peer transaction? Or did I give you too much credit and now you’ll just claim yes to this statement. Because you’re being way more obtuse than usual this morning Luth.
 
#180
#180
luthervol said:
Yes...if that was intended as a question.

Ease of legal purchase results in greater numbers of illegal guns in the hands of people who should not have a gun.
Click to expand...

They are not legal purchases if the intent is to sell them illegally.
 
#181
#181
hog88 said:
I agreed with you on the basis that laws can prevent a person from being armed in certain places. I disagree with those laws but they are there none-the-less.

If teachers were permitted to carry and a parent had a problem with it, that parent or student can kick rocks.
Click to expand...

And I agree with you on that. That's why I hope we do not allow ourselves to get to a point of having teachers legally carry. The identity of the teacher will evidently remain secret, so a parent will not know if their child has that teacher or not. If you extrapolate further, you would have schools where teachers can carry and schools where teachers can not. You would then presumably give the child the right to pick which of the schools to attend. That is lunacy. You would have more kids die in automobile accidents in route to and from the schools to which they were not districted (because bus service could not be provided) than would be saved by the law.
 
#182
#182
luthervol said:
And I agree with you on that. That's why I hope we do not allow ourselves to get to a point of having teachers legally carry. The identity of the teacher will evidently remain secret, so a parent will not know if their child has that teacher or not. If you extrapolate further, you would have schools where teachers can carry and schools where teachers can not. You would then presumably give the child the right to pick which of the schools to attend. That is lunacy. You would have more kids die in automobile accidents in route to and from the schools to which they were not districted (because bus service could not be provided) than would be saved by the law.
Click to expand...
Stealth is the best security of all. The kids might know a teacher is carrying, but not WHICH one. That will give pause to even the psychos. So it is probably likely that they will assume the young small female teacher is the one that would be afraid of guns. It would be an awesome surprise when she draws down on him and shoots him in the eye.


I'll put the oh em gee back because I think that got a like before my edit.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#183
#183
NorthDallas40 said:
It’s called an example.

My distaste for disrespecting the American flag does not give me the right to violate another individuals right of free speech for my convenience. It’s in a document somewhere....🤔
Click to expand...

But your distaste for being libeled does give you the right to violate another individuals right of free speech for your convenience. That's in some court case somewhere.
 
#184
#184
hog88 said:
They are not legal purchases if the intent is to sell them illegally.
Click to expand...

would the seller know?

Is someone a criminal when they commit a crime or when they are convicted of committing a crime? We have lots of criminals (yet to be convicted) buying guns with the intent to resale.
 
#185
#185
luthervol said:
And I agree with you on that. That's why I hope we do not allow ourselves to get to a point of having teachers legally carry. The identity of the teacher will evidently remain secret, so a parent will not know if their child has that teacher or not. If you extrapolate further, you would have schools where teachers can carry and schools where teachers can not. You would then presumably give the child the right to pick which of the schools to attend. That is lunacy. You would have more kids die in automobile accidents in route to and from the schools to which they were not districted (because bus service could not be provided) than would be saved by the law.
Click to expand...

Give me the choice. I ll decide what's in my kids best interest.
 
#187
#187
luthervol said:
Most guns confiscated in Chicago do not originate in Illinois. (I think, someone double check)
Click to expand...

Hrm. Well let’s see, does current law address this problem?

It’s a federal felony to sell a handgun across state lines without an FFL.

It’s a federal felony to buy a gun for another person who isn’t eligible.

It’s a federal felony to sell a gun to someone who cannot legally possess it (like a felon).

It’s a state felony to sell a gun to someone in Illinois without a valid FOID. That would cover interstate sales of long guns into Illinois.

It’s illegal to possess a handgun in Chicago.

I can see some glaring issues there. Lots of wiggle room to subvert the current law. So we desperately need another law to address the issue. What do you propose?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#188
#188
luthervol said:
would the seller know?

Is someone a criminal when they commit a crime or when they are convicted of committing a crime? We have lots of criminals (yet to be convicted) buying guns with the intent to resale.
Click to expand...

Which part of "doesn't matter, it's Illinois and there are no person to person sales in that state" didn't click with you?

IL Concealed Carry License
 
#190
#190
DancingOutlaw said:
Hrm. Well let’s see, does current law address this problem?

It’s a federal felony to sell a handgun across state lines without an FFL.

It’s a federal felony to buy a gun for another person who isn’t eligible.

It’s a federal felony to sell a gun to someone who cannot legally possess it (like a felon).

It’s a state felony to sell a gun to someone in Illinois without a valid FOID. That would cover interstate sales of long guns into Illinois.

It’s illegal to possess a handgun in Chicago.

I can see some glaring issues there. Lots of wiggle room to subvert the current law. So we desperately need another law to address the issue. What do you propose?
Click to expand...
Those are all great laws and obviously still not sufficient.

That why the loophole should be closed and I would cap the number of guns that could be purchased in a given time frame.

I'm pretty sure the NRA insured that the loopholes were embedded in the laws in order to maximize total gun sales. Which is their only objective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#191
#191
It’s amazing that the cities with the strictest gun laws tend to have the most deaths associated with gun violence.
 
#192
#192
luthervol said:
Those are all great laws and obviously still not sufficient.

That why the loophole should be closed and I would cap the number of guns that could be purchased in a given time frame.

I'm pretty sure the NRA insured that the loopholes were embedded in the laws in order to maximize total gun sales. Which is their only objective.
Click to expand...

Fast Facts

1.The Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 requires federal firearms licensees (FFLs) to report multiple sales or other dispositions of handguns to the same purchaser.

2.The sale or disposition of two or more handguns must be reported if they occur at the same time, or within five consecutive business days of each other.

3. ATF views the recovery of one or more firearms used in crimes that were part of a multiple purchase as an indicator of firearms traffickin
Click to expand...

Fact Sheet - Multiple Firearms Sales or Other Disposition Reporting | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
 
#193
#193
Grand Vol said:
Which part of "doesn't matter, it's Illinois and there are no person to person sales in that state" didn't click with you?

IL Concealed Carry License
Click to expand...

For the life of me I cannot see the point you are trying to make.

Are you insinuation that since the law already forbids person to person sales and the law is obviously being broken, that no other laws would reduce the problem?

If so, that's horrible logic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#194
#194
DancingOutlaw said:
Hrm. Well let’s see, does current law address this problem?

It’s a federal felony to sell a handgun across state lines without an FFL.

It’s a federal felony to buy a gun for another person who isn’t eligible.

It’s a federal felony to sell a gun to someone who cannot legally possess it (like a felon).

It’s a state felony to sell a gun to someone in Illinois without a valid FOID. That would cover interstate sales of long guns into Illinois.

It’s illegal to possess a handgun in Chicago.

I can see some glaring issues there. Lots of wiggle room to subvert the current law. So we desperately need another law to address the issue. What do you propose?
Click to expand...

“The we really mean it this time guys” law
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#197
#197
luthervol said:
For the life of me I cannot see the point you are trying to make.

Are you insinuation that since the law already forbids person to person sales and the law is obviously being broken, that no other laws would reduce the problem?

If so, that's horrible logic.
Click to expand...

Have the numerous drug laws slowed the drug trade? More people die from drugs than guns.
 
#198
#198
luthervol said:
For the life of me I cannot see the point you are trying to make.

Are you insinuation that since the law already forbids person to person sales and the law is obviously being broken, that no other laws would reduce the problem?

If so, that's horrible logic.
Click to expand...

Omfg. Luther. Criminals do not care about laws and yes are already breaking the current law and thus will break any new law you put in effect.
 
#199
#199
luthervol said:
Those are all great laws and obviously still not sufficient.

That why the loophole should be closed and I would cap the number of guns that could be purchased in a given time frame.

I'm pretty sure the NRA insured that the loopholes were embedded in the laws in order to maximize total gun sales. Which is their only objective.
Click to expand...

What. F-ing. Loophole?

Do me a favor, draw a flowchart with the laws I stated above in the middle. On one side put an out of state gun. On the other side put a gangbanger. See if you can find a LEGAL way to get from gun to banger.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top