Random thought of the day

The anti-gun side uses the word “loophole”, as in “gun show loophole” to great advantage. I think we should adopt their tactic.

We don’t have a regulatory agency for speech, religion, assembly, or association so why do we have one for arms? The “F” in “ATF” exists only because of a loophole in U.S. law. We need to plug the loophole by unplugging the ATF from Federal funding.

If the states want their own regulatory agency then let them fund them and we will battle their existence and scope as needed in the courts.

12 thoughts on “Random thought of the day

  1. Due to a loophole in federal law, bigoted organizations like the Brady Campaign, the KKK, Westboro Baptist Church and other similar hate groups are allowed to spew their vile messages whenever and where ever they choose.

    That “loophole” of course, is that pesky First Amendment. How dare they exercise free speech and religious freedom.

  2. Not all “arms” are regulated. All firearms are regulated. Who regulates archery equipment?

  3. Not all “arms” are regulated. All firearms are regulated. Who regulates archery equipment?

    ubu52, do you really want to go down that road? It has become so bad in the UK with thinking like that, that you are no longer to own certain cooking knives, and if a “Bobby” happens to see you with a cricket bat on the street you may get the “shake down” as to why you have one.

  4. One of these days the Brady Bunch is going to tell us what in heck the “LOOP HOLE” is.
    Please, next time you are around a Brady Buncher and they spout LOOP HOLE ask them for their legal proof. (Please have them cite the chapter of law that leads to and includes the LOOP HOLE.)…I just gotta know what they know.

  5. Actually, when I think of the ATF and the Brady Bunch, I am more likely to think of the word “bunghole” rather than “loophole”…

  6. Not that I expect and answer, but I’ve been known to be wrong.

    Why do you feel its fine that Archery Equipment is unregulated and firearms are?

  7. Can we stop using the term “regulate” when what we really mean is “restrict”? Seriously. The explanatory clause in the 2A uses the term “well regulated militia”. It does not use “well restricted militia”.

    And who says archery equipment is unrestricted? It would be pretty hard to prove such a negative. My bet is that there are restrictions in some localities. Anyway; the 2A doesn’t specify any “arms” types, and “arms” can mean just about any type of (especially military) weapon.

    I agree that the “loopholes” started forming at least as far back as 1934, but then there were loopholes designed to keep black people from bearing arms right after the War Between the States. Then there are loopholes government uses to restrict vise. Our grandparents opened a gaping loophole when they gave Congress the 16th amendment. They were promised it would never exceed something like 4 percent. Suckers! We’re so full of loopholes now there’s hardly anything left.

  8. Once again, Weer’d misses my point.

    I’m not arguing for/against anything. I’m pointing out that Joe’s post doesn’t make a very good argument for the point he is trying to make (regarding loopholes).

  9. So you’d like to see him do a better job making the point? Or are you being coy again? The point is; there are far too many loopholes being used by government, as they get in our way time and time again, in contradiction to the principles, if not the letter, of the constitution. In a country that was founded on the principle of liberty, especially, this behavior is egregious, but it’s wrong no matter where it’s practiced.

    To illustrate, how about we add the power to restrict religion to the BATFE, etc? How would that go over? How about adding speech? We’ll call it the BATFERS. They’d start breaking down the doors of journalists’ houses and ransacking them if there’s any unseemly or divisive speech going on, or putting people in jail for having too many domain names registered to them, or too much bandwidth, and so on.

    First amendment/second amendment. Have a de-facto federal police agency in charge of enforcing restrictions on both. If it’s good for one constitutionally protected, fundamental right, it’s good for all of them. Get it?

    Did I make the point well enough for you, or do you just not want to get it? I already know the answer, so the next question is; why do you not want to get it?

    There are two tracks from which to answer– the emotional and the logical.
    E; What is it about human liberty that pisses you off or scares you so much?
    L; Cite the terrible history of liberty verses the glorious history of central control that bolsters your position.

    See; the latter is Joe’s “Just One Question”, really, and you haven’t been able to come up with an answer other than to pick these little nits here and there. Picking, poking, scratching, searching for weakness, prowling, prodding, irritating….that’s the methodology of I’ve come to know very well. It’s all the left has, really, it’s purely emotional and in spite of the regular assertions to the contrary, there’s nothing good about it.

  10. “Firearms” are only one type of “arms.” This is akin to pornography being only one type of speech.

    ” The “F” in “ATF” exists only because of a loophole in U.S. law.” Is pornography a loophole too? Should we try to close the pornography loophole?

    “First amendment/second amendment. Have a de-facto federal police agency in charge of enforcing restrictions on both. If it’s good for one constitutionally protected, fundamental right, it’s good for all of them. Get it?”

    Just because the ATF isn’t the ATFP (P for Pornography) doesn’t mean that some forms of free speech aren’t regulated too — but my point is that, just like pornography isn’t ALL of speech, firearms aren’t ALL of arms. Pornography and firearms are subsets of larger classes.

  11. So just because not all ‘arms’ are regulated, that makes the BATFE regulation of firearms somehow ok?

    No, seriously, what the hell is your point?

  12. “Congress shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”

    “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    How hard to does one have to work to misunderstand those words?

    Yes, they violate the First Amendment too. This is not a positive argument that violating the Second Amendment is therefore acceptable.

Comments are closed.