Do You Support The "Gun Show Loophole?"

[Dubya]

If you buy a gun from ANYONE, you should be required to undergo a background check.

I mean.................you have to liscence your car to run it on the roads, right?

Actually, you don't. There are all kinds of farm vehicles that aren't licensed because they are not used on public roads.

Schools, the last time I checked, are in loco parentis. They have the same duties as parents to protect the children in their care.

Why aren't the schools protecting our children? Why are they not taking precautions to prevent the cold-blooded murder of those in their charge?

While lame-brained liberals are running around trying to pass more restrictive laws on law-abiding citizens, our children remain at risk and the schools do nothing.

At least 18 states allow guns in schools, because that's how many there were before states started changing their laws and allowing guns in schools. Most states leave it up to the school to decide and it's a local issue and shouldn't even be a state issue.

Connecticut allowed guns in their schools, so if the people there want protection all they have to do is hire it and get the school to approve it. It might cost a few extra dollars per year in property taxes and it should be the schools choice. If a state doesn't allow guns in schools, then they can hire cops, because the gun comes with them or they could change their states laws and allow private security. It's not a good idea to have the weapons on teachers who could lose control of that weapon.

 

[Dubya]

I can read it just fine, you just choose to ignore it.

I researched it and you didn't. You want it to say what you want it to say and not what it says.

Nah, thats you. I am now leaning towards the "lack of cognative function" for your current viewpoints.

You're ADHD on guns.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's not oppressive to make a gun owner show up once a year to prove he still has his weapons and allowing him to live in a safer world. It's oppressive when someone gets caught violating the law and gets their ass burnt for doing it. I support losing gun rights if the person is caught with an unregistered weapon and prosecuting the person for a weapons offense with more severe penalties from that point on.

It is an INFRINGMENT, and will not make the world ANY safer. It will just get us closer to becoming government run lemmings, a state you seem to love.

Gun rights should only be lost for a felony or a judge related mental defect ruling. Anything else is banning by small cuts, and you know it.

I did a thread on the word infringed and it meant destroyed in those days. Broken in the sense of shattering a cup on the floor. It doesn't mean making gun control laws are infringing your rights. They aren't your rights, they are the right to not have the populace disarmed, period. That doesn't mean you can't disarm an individual.

Care to link to the thread so I can mock you properly? The practice of using infringe to mean encroach, which is how we use it today, actually predates the Declaration of Independence.

infringe (v.) mid-15c., enfrangen, "to violate," from Latin infringere "to damage, break off, break, bruise," from in- "in" (see in- (2)) + frangere "to break" (see fraction). Meaning of "encroach" first recorded c.1760. Related: Infringed; infringing.

Online Etymology Dictionary

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's not oppressive to make a gun owner show up once a year to prove he still has his weapons and allowing him to live in a safer world. It's oppressive when someone gets caught violating the law and gets their ass burnt for doing it. I support losing gun rights if the person is caught with an unregistered weapon and prosecuting the person for a weapons offense with more severe penalties from that point on.

But it is oppressive to make him prove he is eligible to cast his vote on ellection day.... Got it.

ID has always been required in my state, fool!

No it has not.

 

[Dubya]

Registration is infringement, no matter how you try to spin it.

Tell it to the Supreme Court, they know how to read!

Just like they knew how to read Plessey V. Fergueson? And for some people, Citizen's United?

The law is based on case law and the constitutionality in question has been determined. They can't say all pistols or rifles are banned, but they can pick out particular weapons and you have been told that is the law. You don't have to like the law to know what the law is and who would like every law?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I've only brought it up dozens of time.

You have the right to not have the populace disarmed, so figure it out, fool!

Registration is infringement, no matter how you try to spin it.

Tell it to the Supreme Court, they know how to read!

Haynes v US says that requiring a person to register a gun violates the 5th Amendment because it forces people to testify against themselves.

Freed reinforced that by ruling that any law requiring registration cannot be used as a means of prosecuting people who comply with it for violating the law by being in possession of a weapon.

Care to explain how any of this is going to magically prevent disasters?

 

[Dubya]

There will be no need, this dips pipe dreams will never be realized. Congress especially the senate don't want this fight. I just like giving the baby boy a hard time.

Congress will make a few changes and some states will make major changes. As time goes by more disasters from our gun laws will happen. Cities and states will notice how gun laws prevent killings and they will change their gun laws. The Republican Party will continue to decline and so will the influence of the NRA. The issue of gun control isn't going to go away.

CT already had most of those laws, how that work out. Do you have a learning disability, I wouldn't want to be picking on the handicapped.

CT had a situation involving someone who was mentally ill getting a weapon, but generally that isn't the case for homicide by gun. CT just woke people up to the violence that has been plaguing America, so you learn to deal with it for a change. If the people want to make laws to protect society and those laws are deemed constitutional by the courts, we aren't going to put up with idiots of the right-wing threatening this country with violence. We aren't going to play games with you. You get out of line and we're going to take your ass down. You don't have to live in this country and you don't have to live. We aren't going to put up with right-wing scum telling us how we have to live and if you think that's unfair that's just too bad.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's a great rule, like they just can't set the parameters to not allow it. I guess changing that 24 hours to 48 is too hard to figure out.

It is 48, although some can't even wait 24, I heard of that recently.

They told me about it and I stayed away for what I thought was 48 hours, but somehow the 6:18 was changed to 9:18 around the time I negged my 14th. I don't know if it was a time zone thing or what and I informed the admin about it.

My policy was to just neg the post and it isn't hard to find them, but you can't neg within 24 hours, because the setting prevent it. You are told to spread some rep around, so why can't they just change the 24 to 48 and either keep it at 20 reps or increase it to 40? Then no one could break the rule. It took me two and a half hours trying to find who to give 20 negs by using the person instead of the post. I'm glad they turned it off, because the PMs were a pain in the ass. I only did it because I gave my word.

You can neg a person twice within 3 hours if you work at it. Your CP also has a complete list of every rep you handed out in the last 48 hours, The software didn't screw up, you did.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We want laws for society and not for you. If don't like it, move!

No worries, your pipe dreams will never come to pass, if I thought it would I'd be organizing the militia instead of playing with you.

You're militia really has a chance against the Air Force or one Abrams tank. You people are a joke. What makes a man grow up and think he's big and bad enough to take on our military? The military will make sure a tyrant never gains power, so why are you idiots worried about it?

Tanks are pretty easy for individuals who know what they are doing to take out, which is why they are never used in cities unless they have infantry guarding them. Planes have to land.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I did a thread on the word infringed and it meant destroyed in those days. Broken in the sense of shattering a cup on the floor. It doesn't mean making gun control laws are infringing your rights. They aren't your rights, they are the right to not have the populace disarmed, period. That doesn't mean you can't disarm an individual.

I did a thread on the word "W" (Dubya) one time and it meant "without" as meaning has nothing to offer worth reading. That doesn't mean you can't post here...just that your posts are completely and utterly meaningless!

There's a category of posters that you, Truthmatters, rdean and a few others belong to. It's called "Wasted Energy"!

The posts are useless to a gun nut who believes they are right about the 2nd meaning infringed like an infraction and it just doesn't mean that. This isn't like the civil rights days where you rights were violated. The 2nd Amendment only means you can't disarm the populace and that's why I don't confuse you and say public. It's the general public they are talking about when they say people and that doesn't mean person. A person can be disarmed without violating a constititutional right.

Consider Zimmerman! The cop took his gun as soon as he found him. It's only reasonable to surrender a firearm when you are a suspect in an investigation. When Zimmerman was released, he had death threats against him, but was forbidden to have a gun. He wasn't prosecuted or a convicted felon, but no one claimed his constitutional rights were violated. You people need to get your heads out of your asses.

You are as good at history as your are etymology.

 

[Dubya]

It is an INFRINGMENT, and will not make the world ANY safer. It will just get us closer to becoming government run lemmings, a state you seem to love.

Gun rights should only be lost for a felony or a judge related mental defect ruling. Anything else is banning by small cuts, and you know it.

I did a thread on the word infringed and it meant destroyed in those days. Broken in the sense of shattering a cup on the floor. It doesn't mean making gun control laws are infringing your rights. They aren't your rights, they are the right to not have the populace disarmed, period. That doesn't mean you can't disarm an individual.

Who tells you these things? Infringe means the same thing today that it meant then.

Go back to school.

The dictionary tells me, fool, and guess what, they had dictionaries back then.

in·fringe (n-frnj)
v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es
v.tr.
1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.

Source: infringe - definition of infringe by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

What does the word obsolete mean? This is a modern dictionary telling you the word infringe had a different meaning in the past. You can't know things by just making things up to support what you want it to be.

 

[OKTexas]

Congress will make a few changes and some states will make major changes. As time goes by more disasters from our gun laws will happen. Cities and states will notice how gun laws prevent killings and they will change their gun laws. The Republican Party will continue to decline and so will the influence of the NRA. The issue of gun control isn't going to go away.

CT already had most of those laws, how that work out. Do you have a learning disability, I wouldn't want to be picking on the handicapped.

CT had a situation involving someone who was mentally ill getting a weapon, but generally that isn't the case for homicide by gun. CT just woke people up to the violence that has been plaguing America, so you learn to deal with it for a change. If the people want to make laws to protect society and those laws are deemed constitutional by the courts, we aren't going to put up with idiots of the right-wing threatening this country with violence. We aren't going to play games with you. You get out of line and we're going to take your ass down. You don't have to live in this country and you don't have to live. We aren't going to put up with right-wing scum telling us how we have to live and if you think that's unfair that's just too bad.

Baby boy, you didn't answer my question. And if you were really worried about gun violence you would be going after the people that are committing it, so don't sit there and lie your ass off. I'm beginning to think you are learning disabled.

 

[Dubya]

Your solution wont do crap to prevent anything and you know it, or you dont because you lack the cognative function to figure it out.

Then it should bother you, should it!

Yes, proposing things that do nothing to prevent crime and everything to infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens bothers me.

I dont think you meant to write it that way... PIYF.

Do nothing is what you gun nuts stand for and we know that doesn't work.

I saw the figure that 92% of Americans support universal background checks, but none of you gun nuts support it and now neither does Wayne LaPierre. He is on record supporting it in the past, so why the change? What makes you think that 8% of our people are going to have control over our laws? Do you think the criminals want universal background checks? Gun nuts are part of the problem and they won't be part of the solution. You can find a group on the internet, but you aren't going to find many in society, so you have no power like your fantasies claim.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then it should bother you, should it!

Yes, proposing things that do nothing to prevent crime and everything to infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens bothers me.

I dont think you meant to write it that way... PIYF.

Do nothing is what you gun nuts stand for and we know that doesn't work.

I saw the figure that 92% of Americans support universal background checks, but none of you gun nuts support it and now neither does Wayne LaPierre. He is on record supporting it in the past, so why the change? What makes you think that 8% of our people are going to have control over our laws? Do you think the criminals want universal background checks? Gun nuts are part of the problem and they won't be part of the solution. You can find a group on the internet, but you aren't going to find many in society, so you have no power like your fantasies claim.

Did you miss the figure in the same poll that shows over 80% of Americans oppose registration?

 

[MeBelle]

Did you check out Bfgrn's link? [iii]Dep’t of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, “Following the Gun: Enforcing Federal Laws Against Firearms Traffickers” (June 2000), (documents criminal investigations started July 1996 through December 1998).

Got any current stats?

"How strict would gun laws have to be to prevent massacres?"

Strict enough to prevent a criminal from buying guns in the safety, comfort and sanction of a gun show without having a background check run on him. There IS a loophole in the gun show law that allows a big gun dealer to pose as little uncle Joe selling a gun or two, and circumvent doing a background check.

FACT: Gun sellers who claim to be “occasional sellers” are not required by current federal law to conduct background checks on their customers. Furthermore, there is no clear definition of how many guns a person can sell as an “occasional seller” – it could be dozens, or even hundreds.

The Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA) states: 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(21)(D), (22). Those not “engaged in the business” of dealing guns are exempt from the licensure requirement.

So, closing the gun show loophole would not punish any law abiding gun owner.

And, as citizens, we can't stop a criminal from buying an illegal firearm from the trunk of another criminal in some dark alley.

But, that's where the criminal should be forced to buy a gun. In a totally illegal setting, with all the inherent dangers that come with it. BUT, our current laws sanction criminals being able to walk into a gun show, receive expert advice, discounts, then buy whatever weapon(s) they desire without a background check or having to pay black market prices or risk the dangers of buying a weapon from another criminal in a dark alley.

Here is some info on the loophole...

What is the gun show loophole?

Federal law allows people who sell guns to avoid running background checks or keeping records by calling themselves occasional sellers, and these sellers often congregate at gun shows. The loophole provides criminals with easy access to firearms without having to worry about any background checks.

• Current law requires licensed gun dealers to conduct background checks, because that is the only way to determine whether a person is eligible to buy a gun. Licensed dealers must also keep records about the buyer so ATF can trace the gun if it is recovered at a crime scene.
  

• The law does not, however, require so-called occasional sellers to do these checks – and there’s no clear definition of what qualifies as an occasional seller.[ii]

• Many sellers at gun shows abuse that loophole by calling themselves occasional sellers. Because they concentrate at gun shows, it is easy for felons and other prohibited possessors to find someone who will sell to them without a background check.

...........*ATF concluded that “gun shows and flea markets are a major venue for illegal trafficking.”[iii]

• Gun shows linked to the Pentagon Shooting: In March 2010, John Bedell – who was prohibited by law from possessing guns – shot two Pentagon police officers with a gun purchased from a private seller at a Las Vegas gun show.

• Gun shows were tied to a broad range of violations, including straw purchases and the sale of kits to convert legal guns into illegal machine guns.

Solution: Require occasional sellers to run instant background checks.

You know claiming to be an occasional seller and then not being one is illegal and a violation of the law, right?

Why not let government crack down on this and leave the rest of us alone?

Let's see you define what an occasional seller is and what makes a person qualified to become an occasional seller!

Let's see you describe how the government closing the gun show loophole is bothering you to the point where you have to respond "and leave the rest of us alone." You are left alone with closing the gun show loophole, unless you are an occasional seller or buying a gun from them, aren't you? Is it that big of a deal to get a background check? Is it that big of a deal to make these occasional sellers run background checks at a gun show with many licensed gun dealers running background checks? If the gun show wants to have occasional sellers present, can't they work out a way to easily run background checks?

This is a minor change compared to all that should be done. You NRA types better get off your lazy asses and start supporting common sense changes to gun laws or it's time for us to declare war against your interests and we'll see if the majority of Americans can take away even more of your so-called gun rights. You better start figuring out, we aren't playing with you psychos. Keep pissing us off with your hard line NRA stance and see what you get for doing it! Your New York experience is only the beginning of what you can expect and I could care less how it will inconvenience you. When a group proves itself to be uncooperative with our nation's problems, they lose any consideration for what they desire in society. As far as I'm concerned, they can make the laws as strict as possible just to punish you clowns for being so stubborn. That is the reaction you are creating amongst citizens who have just as much say in what the law will be as you do. Your days of getting away with this bullshit are over and if you don't cooperate, you aren't going to have the political power in the future to maintain your beloved status quo. You are making enemies who are more powerful than you are.

 

[Dubya]

Your dear leader is the only one acting irresponsibly, gun prosecutions are way down. And by rational people you mean the lemming easily swayed by the MSM that lack the ability to get the facts for themselves, right?

I don't watch TV, so your bullshit MSM argument is your fabrication. I got my facts by reading the personal letters of the Founders.

You're just a lying ass gun nut.

Damn you flatter yourself, I would never refer to you as anything close to rational, were you only referring to yourself when you used the plural term people? I wasn't referring to you at all.

You have a minority point of view that is irrational, so of course, all those rational people are irrational to you. In your little world, you are right and everyone else is wrong. I would say you flatter yourself. It's the old everyone is crazy, but you and no wonder you worry about your guns.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Did you check out Bfgrn's link? [iii]Dep’t of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, “Following the Gun: Enforcing Federal Laws Against Firearms Traffickers” (June 2000), (documents criminal investigations started July 1996 through December 1998).

Got any current stats?

For some strange reason, no one has any current stats. This makes me a tad suspicious, why are we constantly relying on data that is almost 20 years old? Since gun violence has gone down since then, is it possible that the entire problem exists only in the imagination of gun control nuts?

 

[OKTexas]

Then it should bother you, should it!

Yes, proposing things that do nothing to prevent crime and everything to infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens bothers me.

I dont think you meant to write it that way... PIYF.

Do nothing is what you gun nuts stand for and we know that doesn't work.

I saw the figure that 92% of Americans support universal background checks, but none of you gun nuts support it and now neither does Wayne LaPierre. He is on record supporting it in the past, so why the change? What makes you think that 8% of our people are going to have control over our laws? Do you think the criminals want universal background checks? Gun nuts are part of the problem and they won't be part of the solution. You can find a group on the internet, but you aren't going to find many in society, so you have no power like your fantasies claim.

It's easy to poll bumper sticker bull like "Universal Background Check", how many do you think would support it if you told them what would be required to accomplish that? You fucking commies are always great on slogans and very short on details. And it works on sheep like you.

 

[OKTexas]

I don't watch TV, so your bullshit MSM argument is your fabrication. I got my facts by reading the personal letters of the Founders.

You're just a lying ass gun nut.

Damn you flatter yourself, I would never refer to you as anything close to rational, were you only referring to yourself when you used the plural term people? I wasn't referring to you at all.

You have a minority point of view that is irrational, so of course, all those rational people are irrational to you. In your little world, you are right and everyone else is wrong. I would say you flatter yourself. It's the old everyone is crazy, but you and no wonder you worry about your guns.

So far you're the only person I've talked to that agrees with you, so you might reconsider who is in the minority.

 

[Dubya]

It is 48, although some can't even wait 24, I heard of that recently.

They told me about it and I stayed away for what I thought was 48 hours, but somehow the 6:18 was changed to 9:18 around the time I negged my 14th. I don't know if it was a time zone thing or what and I informed the admin about it.

My policy was to just neg the post and it isn't hard to find them, but you can't neg within 24 hours, because the setting prevent it. You are told to spread some rep around, so why can't they just change the 24 to 48 and either keep it at 20 reps or increase it to 40? Then no one could break the rule. It took me two and a half hours trying to find who to give 20 negs by using the person instead of the post. I'm glad they turned it off, because the PMs were a pain in the ass. I only did it because I gave my word.

I'm not going to say by who but I was negged twice in less than 24 hours in a period that ended yesterday, so yes it can be done. Like I say in my sig, I have never negged anyone who didn't neg me first. I don't need the negative energy (pun intended). I'd rather spar with words than get childish.

I don't give a shit about the person and only the post. When right-wingers are going to neg me for not having the same opinion as they do and troll threads instead of discuss the issues, then they get negged back. I oppose the ideology and it isn't hard to find 20 bad posts. There could be some kind of clock allowing the next round of negs to begin at a certain time of day. Maybe the settings involve having at least 20 others before you can neg the person again, so if a person is negged at a certain time, it's possible negs could be available within 24 hours to do it again. Regardless, it's something the admins should deal with by setting up the system right to prevent it from happening. I'm sure they can change the time parameters for the rep. It's stupid to expect people to watch over 20 people per day that they negged and make sure they don't neg them again in 48 hours.