Curiosity Question for the Gun Nuts

[M14 Shooter]

Yet we just saw a guy purchase an arsenal without so much as a pen to fill out paperwork for the background check.

Nothing here changes the fact you are lying, and you know you are lying, about a "loophole" in the federal laws regarding background checks.
Disagree?
Explain, with specifics, how he legally avoided the background check requirement of those laws.

And again:
You completely skipped over the part about needing to change the law. How do you propose to change the law to achieve the effect you desire? In your response, lease keep in mind the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments.

How? He simply showed up at a gunshow with a wad of cash. Several times. Heres the video once more:

In any of these instances, did he legally avoid the federal requirement for a background check?
No?
No loophole.
You're lying and you know it.

In his fake scenarios, the criminals are loose on the street and have no restrictions upon them. Which is typical of the lefty view of the way things should be.

In our world, people who are criminal and/or DANGEROUS get locked up, and thus forfeit their right to freedom, and therefore, weapons.

Should the goobers in the vid be locked up for selling without a fed background check?

Only if you can show they broke the law, which you know you cannot.
You're lying and you know it.

 

[westwall]

Are they under arrest?
Under indictment?
Are they fugitives from justice?
Have they been convicted of a felony or other disqualifying crime?
Incarcerated? Involuntarily committed?

If they answer is :no: to all of these things, they are then legally able to own a gun; if you have a problem with that, you then need to change the law.

FWIW, we do have a law that the NRA/Republicans insists on a loophole large enough to drive a truck through--much like he lobby of that hotel. Selling at gun shows by individuals....

First: the above is a lie. There is no loophole in the current federal laws regarding background checks as there is no legal way to avoid the background check prescribed by said law. None.
.

Yet we just saw a guy purchase an arsenal without so much as a pen to fill out paperwork for the background check.

Nothing here changes the fact you are lying, and you know you are lying, about a "loophole" in the federal laws regarding background checks.
Disagree?
Explain, with specifics, how he legally avoided the background check requirement of those laws.

And again:
You completely skipped over the part about needing to change the law. How do you propose to change the law to achieve the effect you desire? In your response, lease keep in mind the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments.

How? He simply showed up at a gunshow with a wad of cash. Several times. Heres the video once more:



Are you saying that the folks who run these shows do not know this is going on?

And this man committed a crime. Why is he not in jail? What he did IS ALREADY A CRIME! No gunshow loophole moron, a man doing an illegal transfer. Plain and simple.

 

[BULLDOG]

Do the gun nuts who frequent this forum think these 2 men should still be allowed to own weapons/be in the same house where weapons are?

Are they under arrest?
Under indictment?
Are they fugitives from justice?
Have they been convicted of a felony or other disqualifying crime?
Incarcerated? Involuntarily committed?

If they answer is :no: to all of these things, they are then legally able to own a gun; if you have a problem with that, you then need to change the law.

FWIW, we do have a law that the NRA/Republicans insists on a loophole large enough to drive a truck through--much like he lobby of that hotel. Selling at gun shows by individuals....

First: the above is a lie. There is no loophole in the current federal laws regarding background checks as there is no legal way to avoid the background check prescribed by said law. None.

Second: You completely skipped over the part about needing to change the law. How do you propose to change the law to achieve the effect you desire? In your response, lease keep in mind the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments.

As far as the law goes, there is no requirement for the guy to have a back ground check, so you are right. The purchases were strictly legal. Buying from a licensed dealer probably doesn't have a way to avoid background checks. Otherwise, there is nothing to stop unchecked sales.

 

[westwall]

Yet we just saw a guy purchase an arsenal without so much as a pen to fill out paperwork for the background check.

Nothing here changes the fact you are lying, and you know you are lying, about a "loophole" in the federal laws regarding background checks.
Disagree?
Explain, with specifics, how he legally avoided the background check requirement of those laws.

And again:
You completely skipped over the part about needing to change the law. How do you propose to change the law to achieve the effect you desire? In your response, lease keep in mind the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments.

How? He simply showed up at a gunshow with a wad of cash. Several times. Heres the video once more:

In any of these instances, did he legally avoid the federal requirement for a background check?
No?
No loophole.
You're lying and you know it.

In his fake scenarios, the criminals are loose on the street and have no restrictions upon them. Which is typical of the lefty view of the way things should be.

In our world, people who are criminal and/or DANGEROUS get locked up, and thus forfeit their right to freedom, and therefore, weapons.

Should the goobers in the vid be locked up for selling without a fed background check?

No, but he should be locked up for not verifying ID. THAT is a crime.

 

[koshergrl]

Yet we just saw a guy purchase an arsenal without so much as a pen to fill out paperwork for the background check.

Nothing here changes the fact you are lying, and you know you are lying, about a "loophole" in the federal laws regarding background checks.
Disagree?
Explain, with specifics, how he legally avoided the background check requirement of those laws.

And again:
You completely skipped over the part about needing to change the law. How do you propose to change the law to achieve the effect you desire? In your response, lease keep in mind the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments.

How? He simply showed up at a gunshow with a wad of cash. Several times. Heres the video once more:

In any of these instances, did he legally avoid the federal requirement for a background check?
No?
No loophole.
You're lying and you know it.

In his fake scenarios, the criminals are loose on the street and have no restrictions upon them. Which is typical of the lefty view of the way things should be.

In our world, people who are criminal and/or DANGEROUS get locked up, and thus forfeit their right to freedom, and therefore, weapons.

Should the goobers in the vid be locked up for selling without a fed background check?

Nope. Put criminals in prison, and we don't have to worry about who buys guns.

I don't worry about it now.

 

[westwall]

Do the gun nuts who frequent this forum think these 2 men should still be allowed to own weapons/be in the same house where weapons are?

Are they under arrest?
Under indictment?
Are they fugitives from justice?
Have they been convicted of a felony or other disqualifying crime?
Incarcerated? Involuntarily committed?

If they answer is :no: to all of these things, they are then legally able to own a gun; if you have a problem with that, you then need to change the law.

FWIW, we do have a law that the NRA/Republicans insists on a loophole large enough to drive a truck through--much like he lobby of that hotel. Selling at gun shows by individuals....

First: the above is a lie. There is no loophole in the current federal laws regarding background checks as there is no legal way to avoid the background check prescribed by said law. None.

Second: You completely skipped over the part about needing to change the law. How do you propose to change the law to achieve the effect you desire? In your response, lease keep in mind the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments.

As far as the law goes, there is no requirement for the guy to have a back ground check, so you are right. The purchases were strictly legal. Buying from a licensed dealer probably doesn't have a way to avoid background checks. Otherwise, there is nothing to stop unchecked sales.

Shit, you know absolutely nothing about what you are speaking. The seller violated the law by not verifying the ID of the purchaser. Dead stop. A FFL MUST fill out a 4473 and a variety of other paperwork depending on locality. Further, if the FFL is from another state he must deliver the weapon to a FFL in the state where the purchaser resides, so that a transfer can be concluded.

 

[Auld Phart]

Yet we just saw a guy purchase an arsenal without so much as a pen to fill out paperwork for the background check.

Nothing here changes the fact you are lying, and you know you are lying, about a "loophole" in the federal laws regarding background checks.
Disagree?
Explain, with specifics, how he legally avoided the background check requirement of those laws.

And again:
You completely skipped over the part about needing to change the law. How do you propose to change the law to achieve the effect you desire? In your response, lease keep in mind the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments.

How? He simply showed up at a gunshow with a wad of cash. Several times. Heres the video once more:

In any of these instances, did he legally avoid the federal requirement for a background check?
No?
No loophole.
You're lying and you know it.

In his fake scenarios, the criminals are loose on the street and have no restrictions upon them. Which is typical of the lefty view of the way things should be.

In our world, people who are criminal and/or DANGEROUS get locked up, and thus forfeit their right to freedom, and therefore, weapons.

Should the goobers in the vid be locked up for selling without a fed background check?

Were they dealers, or private sales?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do the gun nuts who frequent this forum think these 2 men should still be allowed to own weapons/be in the same house where weapons are?

Are they under arrest?
Under indictment?
Are they fugitives from justice?
Have they been convicted of a felony or other disqualifying crime?
Incarcerated? Involuntarily committed?

If they answer is :no: to all of these things, they are then legally able to own a gun; if you have a problem with that, you then need to change the law.

FWIW, we do have a law that the NRA/Republicans insists on a loophole large enough to drive a truck through--much like he lobby of that hotel. Selling at gun shows by individuals....

First: the above is a lie. There is no loophole in the current federal laws regarding background checks as there is no legal way to avoid the background check prescribed by said law. None.

Second: You completely skipped over the part about needing to change the law. How do you propose to change the law to achieve the effect you desire? In your response, lease keep in mind the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments.

As far as the law goes, there is no requirement for the guy to have a back ground check, so you are right. The purchases were strictly legal. Buying from a licensed dealer probably doesn't have a way to avoid background checks. Otherwise, there is nothing to stop unchecked sales.

And so, no loophole.
Good to see you have more intellectual honesty than CC.

 

[BULLDOG]

FWIW, we do have a law that the NRA/Republicans insists on a loophole large enough to drive a truck through--much like he lobby of that hotel. Selling at gun shows by individuals....

First: the above is a lie. There is no loophole in the current federal laws regarding background checks as there is no legal way to avoid the background check prescribed by said law. None.
.

Yet we just saw a guy purchase an arsenal without so much as a pen to fill out paperwork for the background check.

Nothing here changes the fact you are lying, and you know you are lying, about a "loophole" in the federal laws regarding background checks.
Disagree?
Explain, with specifics, how he legally avoided the background check requirement of those laws.

And again:
You completely skipped over the part about needing to change the law. How do you propose to change the law to achieve the effect you desire? In your response, lease keep in mind the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments.

How? He simply showed up at a gunshow with a wad of cash. Several times. Heres the video once more:



Are you saying that the folks who run these shows do not know this is going on?

And this man committed a crime. Why is he not in jail? What he did IS ALREADY A CRIME! No gunshow loophole moron, a man doing an illegal transfer. Plain and simple.

If the seller wasn't a licensed dealer. Which law or laws were broken?

 

[BULLDOG]

Nothing here changes the fact you are lying, and you know you are lying, about a "loophole" in the federal laws regarding background checks.
Disagree?
Explain, with specifics, how he legally avoided the background check requirement of those laws.

And again:
You completely skipped over the part about needing to change the law. How do you propose to change the law to achieve the effect you desire? In your response, lease keep in mind the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments.

How? He simply showed up at a gunshow with a wad of cash. Several times. Heres the video once more:

In any of these instances, did he legally avoid the federal requirement for a background check?
No?
No loophole.
You're lying and you know it.

In his fake scenarios, the criminals are loose on the street and have no restrictions upon them. Which is typical of the lefty view of the way things should be.

In our world, people who are criminal and/or DANGEROUS get locked up, and thus forfeit their right to freedom, and therefore, weapons.

Should the goobers in the vid be locked up for selling without a fed background check?

No, but he should be locked up for not verifying ID. THAT is a crime.

Which FEDERAL law requires him to verify ID, and with no record keeping or reporting of the sale, how would anybody know?

 

[BULLDOG]

Do the gun nuts who frequent this forum think these 2 men should still be allowed to own weapons/be in the same house where weapons are?

Are they under arrest?
Under indictment?
Are they fugitives from justice?
Have they been convicted of a felony or other disqualifying crime?
Incarcerated? Involuntarily committed?

If they answer is :no: to all of these things, they are then legally able to own a gun; if you have a problem with that, you then need to change the law.

FWIW, we do have a law that the NRA/Republicans insists on a loophole large enough to drive a truck through--much like he lobby of that hotel. Selling at gun shows by individuals....

First: the above is a lie. There is no loophole in the current federal laws regarding background checks as there is no legal way to avoid the background check prescribed by said law. None.

Second: You completely skipped over the part about needing to change the law. How do you propose to change the law to achieve the effect you desire? In your response, lease keep in mind the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments.

As far as the law goes, there is no requirement for the guy to have a back ground check, so you are right. The purchases were strictly legal. Buying from a licensed dealer probably doesn't have a way to avoid background checks. Otherwise, there is nothing to stop unchecked sales.

Shit, you know absolutely nothing about what you are speaking. The seller violated the law by not verifying the ID of the purchaser. Dead stop. A FFL MUST fill out a 4473 and a variety of other paperwork depending on locality. Further, if the FFL is from another state he must deliver the weapon to a FFL in the state where the purchaser resides, so that a transfer can be concluded.

That's only if he has an FFL. Individual sales have no such requirement.

 

[BULLDOG]

Do the gun nuts who frequent this forum think these 2 men should still be allowed to own weapons/be in the same house where weapons are?

Are they under arrest?
Under indictment?
Are they fugitives from justice?
Have they been convicted of a felony or other disqualifying crime?
Incarcerated? Involuntarily committed?

If they answer is :no: to all of these things, they are then legally able to own a gun; if you have a problem with that, you then need to change the law.

FWIW, we do have a law that the NRA/Republicans insists on a loophole large enough to drive a truck through--much like he lobby of that hotel. Selling at gun shows by individuals....

First: the above is a lie. There is no loophole in the current federal laws regarding background checks as there is no legal way to avoid the background check prescribed by said law. None.

Second: You completely skipped over the part about needing to change the law. How do you propose to change the law to achieve the effect you desire? In your response, lease keep in mind the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments.

As far as the law goes, there is no requirement for the guy to have a back ground check, so you are right. The purchases were strictly legal. Buying from a licensed dealer probably doesn't have a way to avoid background checks. Otherwise, there is nothing to stop unchecked sales.

And so, no loophole.
Good to see you have more intellectual honesty than CC.

What doyou think a loophole is dumbass? It's a poorly written part of a law that allows someone to avoid following the intent that law but still be legal.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Are they under arrest?
Under indictment?
Are they fugitives from justice?
Have they been convicted of a felony or other disqualifying crime?
Incarcerated? Involuntarily committed?

If they answer is :no: to all of these things, they are then legally able to own a gun; if you have a problem with that, you then need to change the law.

FWIW, we do have a law that the NRA/Republicans insists on a loophole large enough to drive a truck through--much like he lobby of that hotel. Selling at gun shows by individuals....

First: the above is a lie. There is no loophole in the current federal laws regarding background checks as there is no legal way to avoid the background check prescribed by said law. None.

Second: You completely skipped over the part about needing to change the law. How do you propose to change the law to achieve the effect you desire? In your response, lease keep in mind the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments.

As far as the law goes, there is no requirement for the guy to have a back ground check, so you are right. The purchases were strictly legal. Buying from a licensed dealer probably doesn't have a way to avoid background checks. Otherwise, there is nothing to stop unchecked sales.

And so, no loophole.
Good to see you have more intellectual honesty than CC.

What doyou think a loophole is dumbass?

An error in the law that allows you to legally avoid the requirements of the law.
There is nothing in the federal law requiring background checks that allows anyone to legally avoid those background checks.
Thus, there is no loophole.
Dumbass.

 

[BULLDOG]

FWIW, we do have a law that the NRA/Republicans insists on a loophole large enough to drive a truck through--much like he lobby of that hotel. Selling at gun shows by individuals....

First: the above is a lie. There is no loophole in the current federal laws regarding background checks as there is no legal way to avoid the background check prescribed by said law. None.

Second: You completely skipped over the part about needing to change the law. How do you propose to change the law to achieve the effect you desire? In your response, lease keep in mind the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments.

As far as the law goes, there is no requirement for the guy to have a back ground check, so you are right. The purchases were strictly legal. Buying from a licensed dealer probably doesn't have a way to avoid background checks. Otherwise, there is nothing to stop unchecked sales.

And so, no loophole.
Good to see you have more intellectual honesty than CC.

What doyou think a loophole is dumbass?

An error in the law that allows you to legally avoid the requirements of the law.
There is nothing in the federal law requiring background checks that allows anyone to legally avoid those background checks.
Thus, there is no loophole.
Dumbass.

A background check law that allows purchase of guns without background checks does have a loophole.

 

[M14 Shooter]

First: the above is a lie. There is no loophole in the current federal laws regarding background checks as there is no legal way to avoid the background check prescribed by said law. None.

Second: You completely skipped over the part about needing to change the law. How do you propose to change the law to achieve the effect you desire? In your response, lease keep in mind the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments.

As far as the law goes, there is no requirement for the guy to have a back ground check, so you are right. The purchases were strictly legal. Buying from a licensed dealer probably doesn't have a way to avoid background checks. Otherwise, there is nothing to stop unchecked sales.

And so, no loophole.
Good to see you have more intellectual honesty than CC.

What doyou think a loophole is dumbass?

An error in the law that allows you to legally avoid the requirements of the law.
There is nothing in the federal law requiring background checks that allows anyone to legally avoid those background checks.
Thus, there is no loophole.
Dumbass.

A background check law that allows purchase of guns without background checks does have a loophole.

There is nothing in the federal law requiring background checks that allows anyone to legally avoid those background checks.
Thus, there is no loophole.
Are you going to lie about this as well?

 

[BULLDOG]

As far as the law goes, there is no requirement for the guy to have a back ground check, so you are right. The purchases were strictly legal. Buying from a licensed dealer probably doesn't have a way to avoid background checks. Otherwise, there is nothing to stop unchecked sales.

And so, no loophole.
Good to see you have more intellectual honesty than CC.

What doyou think a loophole is dumbass?

An error in the law that allows you to legally avoid the requirements of the law.
There is nothing in the federal law requiring background checks that allows anyone to legally avoid those background checks.
Thus, there is no loophole.
Dumbass.

A background check law that allows purchase of guns without background checks does have a loophole.

There is nothing in the federal law requiring background checks that allows anyone to legally avoid those background checks.
Thus, there is no loophole.
Are you going to lie about this as well?

There are no verifiable federal requirements for individual gun sales. You say that isn't a loop hole? Obviously facts on this subject mean nothing to you so good day.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And so, no loophole.
Good to see you have more intellectual honesty than CC.

What doyou think a loophole is dumbass?

An error in the law that allows you to legally avoid the requirements of the law.
There is nothing in the federal law requiring background checks that allows anyone to legally avoid those background checks.
Thus, there is no loophole.
Dumbass.

A background check law that allows purchase of guns without background checks does have a loophole.

There is nothing in the federal law requiring background checks that allows anyone to legally avoid those background checks.
Thus, there is no loophole.
Are you going to lie about this as well?

There are no verifiable federal requirements for individual gun sales. You say that isn't a loop hole? Obviously facts on this subject mean nothing to you so good day.

There is nothing in the federal law requiring background checks that allows anyone to legally avoid those background checks.
Thus, there is no loophole.
You are lying, and you know it.

 

[easyt65]

Here's a question...or a couple of questions...for the 'gun-grabber nuts':

Let's say all 'assault weapons' - AR15s, etc - are banned...let's say that people are forced to one day turn them and can no longer have them...

HOW are they going to ensure criminals and terrorists follow this law?

The police say they can not be everywhere and can not arrive on time to save people if they are attacked by home invaders. Many cops encourage people to own guns....HOW are Liberals going to protect people in their homes?

When all the assault rifles are gone and people start shooting each other with hand guns...are they then going to outlaw hand guns?

If and when all the hand guns are gone and people start killing each other with hammers and knives...
- Will there be a 30 day waiting period for hammers and knives? Background checks for a hammer? Will they eventually be outlawed, too?

What about Rice Cookers?

If we regressed all the way back to eliminating all tools and props that can be used to hurt each other, are the Liberals going to try to legislate ROCKS?

Where exactly does it stop?

If people actually thing MORE LAWS are the answer they are morons...

 

[BULLDOG]

Here's a question...or a couple of questions...for the 'gun-grabber nuts':

Let's say all 'assault weapons' - AR15s, etc - are banned...let's say that people are forced to one day turn them and can no longer have them...

HOW are they going to ensure criminals and terrorists follow this law?

The police say they can not be everywhere and can not arrive on time to save people if they are attacked by home invaders. Many cops encourage people to own guns....HOW are Liberals going to protect people in their homes?

When all the assault rifles are gone and people start shooting each other with hand guns...are they then going to outlaw hand guns?

If and when all the hand guns are gone and people start killing each other with hammers and knives...
- Will there be a 30 day waiting period for hammers and knives? Background checks for a hammer? Will they eventually be outlawed, too?

What about Rice Cookers?

If we regressed all the way back to eliminating all tools and props that can be used to hurt each other, are the Liberals going to try to legislate ROCKS?

Where exactly does it stop?

If people actually thing MORE LAWS are the answer they are morons...

I know that sounds really profound at a tea person meeting, or a KKK rally, but it really isn't. Do you advocate removing every law that isn't 100% effective?

 

[easyt65]

I know that sounds really profound at a tea person meeting, or a KKK rally, but it really isn't. Do you advocate removing every law that isn't 100% effective?

1. You didn't answer any of my questions.

2. No, but I do not advocating the trampling of more of our Constitutional Rights to impose something that will never, ever be effective or solve the problem. When you create laws the only ones who obey them are the people you never have to worry about to begin with...the people who will never break them (which is why Congress exempts itself from the laws they pass).