Keith Nuttle wrote:
In most states those who have guns
have passed back ground checks, so have been "validated".


In some states, there are ways around the "validation" because of the
gun show loophole, which must be closed.

H the K wrote:
Keith Nuttle wrote:
In most states those who have guns
have passed back ground checks, so have been "validated".


In some states, there are ways around the "validation" because of the
gun show loophole, which must be closed.

Why? The 1st amendment isn't limited to those who pass a background check?

BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
Keith Nuttle wrote:
In most states those who have guns
have passed back ground checks, so have been "validated".


In some states, there are ways around the "validation" because of the
gun show loophole, which must be closed.

Why? The 1st amendment isn't limited to those who pass a background check?


Moron.

H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
Keith Nuttle wrote:
In most states those who have guns
have passed back ground checks, so have been "validated".


In some states, there are ways around the "validation" because of the
gun show loophole, which must be closed.

Why? The 1st amendment isn't limited to those who pass a background
check?


Moron.

Is there a background check for those who house soldiers under the 3rd
amendment?

The forth amendment puts the onus on the government to prove that it has
probable cause for the search or seizure.

The fifth amendment doesn't say you have to have a background check to
"plead the fifth."

The sixth amendment doesn't say you have to have a background check to
be tried in jurisdiction of your crime.

The seventh amendment doesn't say you have to have a background check to
be tried by a jury.

The eight amendment doesn't say your bail, fine or punishment is
dependent upon a background check.

The ninth amendment doesn't say that you need a background check for
your rights.

The tenth amendment doesn't say you need a background check either.

BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
Keith Nuttle wrote:
In most states those who have guns
have passed back ground checks, so have been "validated".


In some states, there are ways around the "validation" because of the
gun show loophole, which must be closed.

Why? The 1st amendment isn't limited to those who pass a background check?

The validation process isn't stringent enough if card carrying loonies
like Krause can get themselves validated. But sadly, closing the gun
show loophole won't prevent professional murderers and other armed crime
doers from obtaining the tools of their trade.

J i m wrote:
BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
Keith Nuttle wrote:
In most states those who have guns
have passed back ground checks, so have been "validated".


In some states, there are ways around the "validation" because of the
gun show loophole, which must be closed.

Why? The 1st amendment isn't limited to those who pass a background
check?

The validation process isn't stringent enough if card carrying loonies
like Krause can get themselves validated. But sadly, closing the gun
show loophole won't prevent professional murderers and other armed crime
doers from obtaining the tools of their trade.

If we stopped law abiding citizens from owning guns then it will just be
the criminals and government with guns.

BAR wrote:
J i m wrote:
BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
Keith Nuttle wrote:
In most states those who have guns
have passed back ground checks, so have been "validated".


In some states, there are ways around the "validation" because of
the gun show loophole, which must be closed.

Why? The 1st amendment isn't limited to those who pass a background
check?

The validation process isn't stringent enough if card carrying loonies
like Krause can get themselves validated. But sadly, closing the gun
show loophole won't prevent professional murderers and other armed
crime doers from obtaining the tools of their trade.

If we stopped law abiding citizens from owning guns then it will just be
the criminals and government with guns.


It was the gun show loophole being discussed, moron.

H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:
J i m wrote:
BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
Keith Nuttle wrote:
In most states those who have guns
have passed back ground checks, so have been "validated".


In some states, there are ways around the "validation" because of
the gun show loophole, which must be closed.

Why? The 1st amendment isn't limited to those who pass a background
check?

The validation process isn't stringent enough if card carrying
loonies like Krause can get themselves validated. But sadly, closing
the gun show loophole won't prevent professional murderers and other
armed crime doers from obtaining the tools of their trade.

If we stopped law abiding citizens from owning guns then it will just
be the criminals and government with guns.


It was the gun show loophole being discussed, moron.

Show me where in the 2nd amendment it states that you are required to
have a background check? In fact which of the first 10 amendments, the
bill of rights, requires that a person have a background check?

I am waiting for you to put forth the well regulated militia argument.
Because if you do you will have to turn in all of your firearms.

BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:
J i m wrote:
BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
Keith Nuttle wrote:
In most states those who have guns
have passed back ground checks, so have been "validated".


In some states, there are ways around the "validation" because of
the gun show loophole, which must be closed.

Why? The 1st amendment isn't limited to those who pass a background
check?

The validation process isn't stringent enough if card carrying
loonies like Krause can get themselves validated. But sadly, closing
the gun show loophole won't prevent professional murderers and other
armed crime doers from obtaining the tools of their trade.

If we stopped law abiding citizens from owning guns then it will just
be the criminals and government with guns.


It was the gun show loophole being discussed, moron.

Show me where in the 2nd amendment it states that you are required to
have a background check? In fact which of the first 10 amendments, the
bill of rights, requires that a person have a background check?

I am waiting for you to put forth the well regulated militia argument.
Because if you do you will have to turn in all of your firearms.


We have by law background checks. If you think the federal and state
laws on that matter are non-Constitutional, well, go fight them. I
accept them as necessary.

Whenever I buy a firearm, I go through the instant federal check for a
long gun, and the additional state check if it is a pistol. The "gun
show loophole" only facilitates gun trafficking by criminals.

"BAR" wrote in message
...
J i m wrote:
BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
Keith Nuttle wrote:
In most states those who have guns
have passed back ground checks, so have been "validated".


In some states, there are ways around the "validation" because of the
gun show loophole, which must be closed.

Why? The 1st amendment isn't limited to those who pass a background
check?

The validation process isn't stringent enough if card carrying loonies
like Krause can get themselves validated. But sadly, closing the gun show
loophole won't prevent professional murderers and other armed crime doers
from obtaining the tools of their trade.

If we stopped law abiding citizens from owning guns then it will just be
the criminals and government with guns.

We'd have a fighting chance against the criminals, but not the government.
ACORN people retrained to be snitch police, and with guns. Now that's
lunacy.

Steve