“AO – “I do find it annoying to be lectured by our cousins to the north about matters of ours.”

Glad you’re annoyed. We will keep talking.”

Good. I hope you do.

I’ve been chewing over AO’s idiocy through the day, and wondering why it annoys me as much as it does.

It occurs to me that most democracies have individual rights rights enshrined in their constitutions. (As does runtish and chickenshit Canada, AO, for the record.) We are no longer unique in that regard, nor have we been for a long, long time. 235 years ago we (and I say “we” in the most inclusive sense, as my ancestors came here about a hundred years ago — how about you AO, was your Mom a member of the DAR, or is your provenance a tad more recent like most everyone else?) were at the forefront of a watershed in political evolution that most developed nations followed. However, these innovations of constitutionally enshrined individual liberties are no longer exclusive to us. Resting on 235 year old laurels, and thinking we are still exceptional because of the revolution is hubris and a profound error that will lead to complacency and stagnation. We can continue to innovate, to learn, to take what is best from the experience of others, or we can die, wallowing in our own myopia. (Insert better metaphor, sorry).

So when a braying ass like AO condemns a country like Canada for remaining loyal to the Queen 235 years ago, and beats his breast on the accomplishments of his ancestors (if, indeed, he can even claim ancestry that far back — I, for one, cannot) I think this is someone who is living in the past and who basks in the weakest of reflected glories. Worse, though he wants to claim ownership of the triumph of the founding fathers, he does nothing to live by their spirit. The founding fathers were not conservative in nature. They were looking forward, not back. They expected the enshrining of personal liberties to provide for a more egalitarian, freer and more prosperous nation. Implemented well, they were right. Implemented poorly, we get pointless handgun deaths and charity health clinics in horse stalls and a government that tortures.

Every other developed nation has done things like regulate gun use (no one bans them outright!) or provide health care for its citizens better than us. The outcomes are better, they are more prosperous, economic mobility is better, metrics of quality of life are better. To say we were first to the revolution (and the french may quibble about even that) is not a response to what we should do NOW to make a freer and more prosperous society living up to the ideals of our nation’s founders. It’s not enough to say you won the Superbowl 40 years ago. I want to know what we are going to do to win again in my lifetime.

Like I said in the other thread. No. So what’s your point?

Now, Jay, maybe you’d like to answer my question now?

Self righteous wingnut blog commenters: so awesome.

You don’t have a criminal record. You purchase a firearm from a private dealer at a gun show. No background check was performed.

Were any laws broken?

YES OR NO?

This is interesting phrasing, Jay. Because anyone that sold me a gun with a background check at a gun show, right now, could only assume that was legally able to purchase that gun. They’d have no way of knowing otherwise and, if your above comment reflects the current state of affairs a gun seller at a gun actually has an incentive NOT to ask any questions of the person their selling a gun to.

I believe the question before us now Jay is whether the seller of the gun could be held legally accountable for unknowingly selling a gun to a felon at a gun show.

Yes or no.

Assuming you don’t have a criminal record, if you were to attend a gun show and purchased a firearm from a private seller, and no background checks were performed, were any laws broken, yes or no?

Yes. Or. No.

I love this part “worked your way around a background check.”

In others do you mean, attend a gun show and buy a gun?

Let me fix this for you:

The politicians and people who refer to it as a “loophole” want people to think that there are people out there LEGALLY acquiring firearms at gun shows despite having a criminal record or being a terrorist.

Jay, who said that’s what’s being implied?

I’ve always taken it to mean that a person who is not legally allowed to buy a gun and can still buy one at anytime at a gun show.

The intent of using the term loophole is to emphasize exactly that point: People who are not legally allowed to buy guns, still can from private sellers who, if I understand you correctly, actually benefit from NOT knowing anything about who they are selling guns to.

None. And you’re right. I misread what you wrote.

But if you sold beer to a minor, whether or not you carded that person, or whether or not you knew or cared if they were a minor, would have committed a crime by selling that minor alcohol. In other words, it doesn’t matter if you knew or did know that the person was a minor. The simple fact of selling alcohol to a minor is against the law, regardless of your knowledge of the kids age.

In your post above you wrote:

If the person selling the gun knows the person he is selling to is prohibited from purchasing or possessing a weapon, then he too is guilty of a federal felony.

Forgive my ignorance, but are you suggesting that if a private seller at a gun show does not know anything about the person he’s selling too, they are not guilty of a crime?

It’s not semantics Fafaroo when the intent of using the term “loophole” is to make it appear as though A PERFECTLY LEGAL TRANSACTION is taking place. That is the bottom line. The politicians and people who refer to it as a “loophole” want people to think that there are people out there LEGALLY acquiring firearms at gun shows despite having a criminal record or being a terrorist. That’s not semantics. It’s BULLSHIT.

Why is it so frigging difficult for you to comprehend this? If you are not legally allowed to purchase a weapon and happen to work your way around the background check, YOU HAVE STILL BROKEN THE LAW whether you buy the gun at a gun show, garage sale, crack house, or gumball machine.

Good grief.

Oh Jesus, Jay. You’d rather play semantics than accept the fact that someone who can’t legally purchase a gun and still get a gun without anyone knowing they shouldn’t have it.

If the purpose of the law is to keep guns out of the hands of those who can’t have them, then the purpose of the law is being undermined by allowing private sellers to sell guns to anyone who wants one.

It’s a fucking loophole.

Not true. Check the law in Texas:

§ 106.05 Possession of Alcohol by a Minor
(a) A minor commits an offense if they posses an alcoholic beverage.x
x
(b) A minor may possess an alcoholic beverage:
• while in the course and scope of the minor’s employment if the minor is an employee of a licensee or permitted and the employment is not prohibited by this code
• if the minor is in the visible presence of his adult parent, guardian, or spouse, or other adult to whom the minor has been committed by a court
• if the minor is under the immediate supervision of a commissioned peace officer engaged in enforcing the provisions of this code.x
x
(c) An offense under this section is punishable as provided by §106.071.

§ 106.06 Purchase / Furnishing of Alcohol to a Minor
(a) A person commits an offense if they provide an alcoholic beverage to a minor.x
x
(b) An alcoholic beverage may be provided to a minor by that minor’s adult parent, legal guardian, or spouse if they are visibly present when the minor possesses or consumes the alcoholic beverage.x
x
(c) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090608062606AANpZzg

The only person who can legally provide alcohol to a minor in Texas is that persons legal guardian and only if the guardian is visibly present when the minor consumes the alcohol.

You know why that is, Jay? Because the state didn’t want to give teenagers a loophole.

Now, I don’t now what the law is in your state Jay, but why don’t you find out by selling alcohol to your neighbors kids. See how long it takes before the cops show up your door.

Glad you’re annoyed. We will keep talking.

This is the definition of a loophole as it applies to the law:

A technicality that allows a person or business to avoid the scope of a law without directly violating the law.

Actually use the correct definition of loophole?