Do You Support The "Gun Show Loophole?"

[Vast LWC]

And, for the record, I am against things like assault weapon bans, etc.

I don't think that will help the situation at all.

However, I do believe that the ability to track all sales of weapons to their point of origin, and then providing laws to require that sellers take some responsibility for their actions, when weapons are sold to criminals, would do a hell of a lot to get the guns that criminals use off the street.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And, for the record, I am against things like assault weapon bans, etc.

I don't think that will help the situation at all.

However, I do believe that the ability to track all sales of weapons to their point of origin, and then providing laws to require that sellers take some responsibility for their actions, when weapons are sold to criminals, would do a hell of a lot to get the guns that criminals use off the street.

Which came first gun registration or gun confiscation?

 

[Gadawg73]

For the 1001th time there is no gun show loophole.

 

[Dubya]

I want to ask a question here of the people pushing the "Gun Show Loophole" stuff.


Just how many people do you think shows up at the average Gun Show as a Private seller instead of a Licensed Vender?

What do you think the Ratio is? 1:1? 1:20? 20:1?


At today's gunshow, as I said earlier, there was 4 rooms of venders. Each room had at least 10 Licensed Venders.

The area for the "Private Sales" was a single row of benches, no tables, about 10 feet long.

That's it.

What prevents a private vender buying a gun at a gun show and reselling it without a background check and don't tell me the law stops it?

Why didn't you answer the question I asked?

Just how many of these "Private Sellers" do you think show up at gun shows? What's the ratio to Licensed Dealers?



And to answer your question.. Unless the person had a CCW/CCP, they would be waiting the full three business days before they were able to get the gun, which would be Thursday.

And yes, if he was buying the gun to resell it, that would be considered a "Straw Purchase" which is illegal.

Are you trying to say that your gun laws you want pushed don't work?

Hell, we've been saying that for years.

You claim to have recently went to a gun show and now you act like you know it all. Here are some of the things you have said that are dishonest. You claim there is a waiting period, so be specific about your state, it's laws and whether other states have waiting periods! Be specific whether it involves all guns or certain types of guns! Let's start with just a few specific points and not hide behind the generalities. Is there a federal law about gun shows and what they can and can't do, or are those you mention state laws that vary greatly from place to place?

You can have a major city near many different states and many different laws. For the situation to change in that major city, it has to change in those nearby areas.

 

[Dubya]

Restrictions on abortions don't violate anyone's rights either. If you don't want the restrictions, don't get an abortion.

Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it?

Don't you people have a forum on abortion or threads somewhere? Why don't you go there and speak your mind?

Typical Left Wing Response.. You are all too willing to discuss restricting rights you don't like, but don't even mention restricting rights that you do.

The 2nd Amendment only means the populace can't be disarmed and making rules about guns are not restricting your rights, fool!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Don't you people have a forum on abortion or threads somewhere? Why don't you go there and speak your mind?

Typical Left Wing Response.. You are all too willing to discuss restricting rights you don't like, but don't even mention restricting rights that you do.

The 2nd Amendment only means the populace can't be disarmed and making rules about guns are not restricting your rights, fool!

Restricting firearms that would some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, would be unconstitutional.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Everyone, even the private sales undergo a background check? Do explain

Most private sales are completed between friends, if you don't know your friends background you're a stupid son of a bitch.,

Which don't require any kind of background check, correct bigreb?

Also I'd love to see the link proving that most sales are between friends, otherwise I'd hate to think you are a lying sack of shit,...

Why do you need a back ground check from the government when you already know the person your selling the firearm too?

Also I'd love to see the link proving that most sales are between friends, otherwise I'd hate to think you are a lying sack of shit

I would love to see a link to support the claim 40% of gun sales are done without a back ground check?

 

[OriginalShroom]

What prevents a private vender buying a gun at a gun show and reselling it without a background check and don't tell me the law stops it?

Why didn't you answer the question I asked?

Just how many of these "Private Sellers" do you think show up at gun shows? What's the ratio to Licensed Dealers?



And to answer your question.. Unless the person had a CCW/CCP, they would be waiting the full three business days before they were able to get the gun, which would be Thursday.

And yes, if he was buying the gun to resell it, that would be considered a "Straw Purchase" which is illegal.

Are you trying to say that your gun laws you want pushed don't work?

Hell, we've been saying that for years.

You claim to have recently went to a gun show and now you act like you know it all. Here are some of the things you have said that are dishonest. You claim there is a waiting period, so be specific about your state, it's laws and whether other states have waiting periods! Be specific whether it involves all guns or certain types of guns! Let's start with just a few specific points and not hide behind the generalities. Is there a federal law about gun shows and what they can and can't do, or are those you mention state laws that vary greatly from place to place?

You can have a major city near many different states and many different laws. For the situation to change in that major city, it has to change in those nearby areas.

You had not better be calling me a liar.

I go to the gunshow every time it comes to town which is about every 90 days.

I will not tell you where the gun show was, as that may give you some information as to where I live and I will not have another Left Wing Loon stalking me in RL.

If you don't believe the facts as I have presented them, that is your problem, not mine.

I will say that this State has a 3 business day waiting period for handguns that are sold to people who do not have a CWP/CCP. Business days. So if you buy on a Friday, Saturday, or Sunday, the 3 days does not start until Monday and it is not until the 4th day, Thursday, that you can actually pick up your gun.

And Yes, I do know the gun laws of this State fairly well. I better. I have a CWP/CCP.

And btw, the gun show is continuing today, but since I had to be at work early, I didn't make it today, even though I normally go both days.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I have never negged anyone for their opinion. I also do not neg simply because I am negged. I only neg extremely annoying people who are so stupid they should be sterilized to protect the gene pool.

You, on the other hand, are an arrogant pussy who thinks he knows everything, loves to ignore facts, and refuses to ever learn from his mistakes.

The data you have about gun sales is based on a 20 year old survey with 231 respondents. That leads anyone who is honest to be a tad skeptical about the numbers.

The poll, as I have already pointed out, also has massive majorities that oppose the very policies you propose, yet you use it to claim you are in the majority. That makes you a lying sack of shit, and one of the people that deserve neg rep. This is further proven by you being so stupid you can't wait 48 hours to neg someone.

On top of that you whine about the fact you cannot tell time. If they take pity on your stupidity and turn your rep back on I will neg you until your negs add to people's rep.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

What makes you dumb enough to think the military wouldn't uphold their oath to the Constitution over you milk chocolate dear leader, hell most of them can't stand the sob.

I've been in the military and they aren't going to agree with you.

That was funny. You think that retired SEALs are going to let a bunch of pussies take their weapons away because they have PTSD? You think the active duty military is going to enforce laws that will end up disarming them when they retire? Do you actually expect me to believe you are this fucking stupid?

 

[Bfgrn]

Selling a firearm to a felon is already illegal, even if you are NOT a federal firearms dealer.

and what is the difference between a craiglist ad and some guy arranging a street buy for you?

More restrictions on legal gunowners, and no effect on the illegal gun trade.

• Without a gun registration process, there is no way to know who sold what weapon to whom.
  
  
• Without mandatory background checks, private gun sellers can always claim ignorance of the fact that a person is a felon.
  
  
• And Republicans have effectively hamstrung enforcement of existing gun laws.

If we could track where the criminal were getting their guns, and actually hold them responsible, then said illegal gun sales would decrease exponentially, as private gun sellers would actually pay attention to who they were selling their guns to, or face jail time.

I continuously hear people talking about how gun control would be ineffective because criminals will get weapons anyway...

And they're right. I agree that stopping the sale of guns is not the answer.

But where do you think the criminals are getting them from?

How do background checks of law abiding people impede thieves and black marketers?

It should be simple to understand. But that is a reach for you Jethro.

As citizens, we can't stop a criminal from buying an illegal firearm from the trunk of another criminal in some dark alley. But we CAN stop criminals from buying weapons in the light of day in the safe, secure setting of a public gun show.

In some dark alley IS WHERE a 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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The only constitutional right is that the populace won't be disarmed. You had to bring a gun of a certain quality to be in the militia, so they have had gun laws since the beginning. They weren't given their choice of the weapons they could bring.

It's really simple dealing with your kind. Get caught breaking the gun laws and see if you have a gun in jail to protect your ass! I want strict gun control laws in America and our present gun control laws are what's going to make it happen. The laws are so lax that another disaster is just a matter of time. See if the Judge buys your bullshit when it's time for sentencing!

You claim there were laws telling the militia what type of gun to buy? Seriously? Do you understand that at the period of history you are expounding there was nothing that you would recognize as a manufacturing base? In fact, at the time, to manufacture something actually meant that it was made by hand.

It would have been impossible for a law that required militia members to buy a certain weapon to be enforced. They were actually smarter back then, so no one would have written such a ridiculous law.

What is with idiots like you? The world isn't all about your limited understanding, nor is it based on just what you know. I've read problems encountered in training those militia. One of the big problems was supplying shot to various kinds of rifles requiring different shot. Having uniform weapons prevented problems with getting the right shot in the heat of battle. Another major problem was a bayonet. The weapons were very lethal at short ranges, but slow to fire, requiring the rifles to be equipped with a bayonet, so the troops could just keep advancing until they could use their bayonets. There was basically three kinds of forces in those battles. You have your cannon, your cavalry and your infantry riflemen. If your riflemen weren't equipped with bayonets they can't stand against a cavalry charge, that can swoop in quickly against them after they fire and are reloading. With a bayonet the rifle can serve as a pike preventing a cavalry charge. When the lines of infantry approached to the point of hand to hand combat, the bayonet came in much more handy than using a rifle as a club. If a line ran in retreat, they exposed their backside to the enemy and again were subject to a cavalry charge or being shot in the back.

Uniform weapons allowed a militia to have all kinds of advantages. Besides consistent shot and bayonets, identical weapons allowed damaged weapons to exchange parts. The line rifles were different than sharpshooter rifles designed to snipe and pick off officers often on horseback. A well regulated militia required having all the components of their modern army, but the line soldier was needed in sufficient numbers to command the field of battle and avoid being flanked.

Men of a certain age were required to train with the militia and provide their own weapons. That meant they had to work and pay for a specific weapon and gear. That's why there was so much disagreement over allowing religious exemptions in Congress and they finally just remove all that wording in the 2nd Amendment and allowed the states to decide what to do about it. The dispute was over the fairness issue, because there was a significant expense involved in serving in a militia. Some thought the person getting a religious exemption should pay and it was pointed out that such payments were the same as participation to certain religious sects. Congress couldn't come to a consensus about what to do so they dropped it and allowed the states to figure it out.

We were manufacturing rifles then and were manufacturing rifles long before the revolutionary war. What the hell do you think Daniel Boone was using?

The longrifle developed on the American frontier in south eastern Pennsylvania, in the early 1700's. It continued to be developed technically and artistically until it passed out of fashion in the 19th century. Strong pockets of longrifle use and manufacture continued in the Appalachian Mountains of Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio and North Carolina well into the 20th century as a practical and efficient firearm for those rural segments of the nation. Longrifles could be made entirely by hand and hand-operated tooling, in a frontier setting.

.....By the 1750s it was common to see frontiersmen carrying the new and distinctive style of rifle.

Source: Long rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That was exactly my fucking point, aswswipe.

Guns were made by hand, it is impossible to get thousands, or even hundreds, of guns that are all the same caliber when every single gun is made by hand, even if the same guy makes every single one of them.

As I already pointed out, at the time we are speaking of manufacture meant that it was hand crafted by an artisan, not put together by a bunch of unskilled workers along an assembly line. Feel free to keep agreeing with me every time you post, it amuses me to watch you pretend to understand etymology because you read that infringe did not mean encroach upon 2000 years before the 2nd Amendment was written.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What prevents a private vender buying a gun at a gun show and reselling it without a background check and don't tell me the law stops it?

Why not tell you that? You expect us to believe that the laws you support will stop it.

How many times do I have to tell you I don't give a fuck what you believe? You're a gun nut, shouldn't that explain it all?

This is going to be fun.

I do not own a gun, and happen to be a really lousy shot. I am not a gun nut, I am a freedom nut, and I understand that my freedom requires other people to be just as free as I am.

Since you can't even get what I am correct, why should I believe that you understand something as complicated as law?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Don't you people have a forum on abortion or threads somewhere? Why don't you go there and speak your mind?

Let me try to answer that in a way you will actually comprehend.

The simple fact is that I am free to say whatever I want, wherever I want. I know that bothers you, and you will work to take away that once you take away the guns.

I just won't let you take away the guns.

Say what you want, fool, but I'm not discussing abortion on a thread about gun control. You're an idiot if you think society can't ban assault weapons.

I know society can ban anything it wants, which is why I oppose society in all its forms. Society is anti freedom, and no one who puts freedom above everything ever agrees with society. That is why, in the end, society always loses to the gun nuts.

 

[Bfgrn]

Why not tell you that? You expect us to believe that the laws you support will stop it.

How many times do I have to tell you I don't give a fuck what you believe? You're a gun nut, shouldn't that explain it all?

This is going to be fun.

I do not own a gun, and happen to be a really lousy shot. I am not a gun nut, I am a freedom nut, and I understand that my freedom requires other people to be just as free as I am.

Since you can't even get what I am correct, why should I believe that you understand something as complicated as law?

And those 20 first graders and 6 teachers from Connecticut are 'free'...you moron.

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."
Thomas Jefferson to the Republican Citizens of Washington County, Maryland" (March 31, 1809).

 

[OriginalShroom]

What prevents a private vender buying a gun at a gun show and reselling it without a background check and don't tell me the law stops it?

Why didn't you answer the question I asked?

Just how many of these "Private Sellers" do you think show up at gun shows? What's the ratio to Licensed Dealers?



And to answer your question.. Unless the person had a CCW/CCP, they would be waiting the full three business days before they were able to get the gun, which would be Thursday.

And yes, if he was buying the gun to resell it, that would be considered a "Straw Purchase" which is illegal.

Are you trying to say that your gun laws you want pushed don't work?

Hell, we've been saying that for years.

You claim to have recently went to a gun show and now you act like you know it all. Here are some of the things you have said that are dishonest. You claim there is a waiting period, so be specific about your state, it's laws and whether other states have waiting periods! Be specific whether it involves all guns or certain types of guns! Let's start with just a few specific points and not hide behind the generalities. Is there a federal law about gun shows and what they can and can't do, or are those you mention state laws that vary greatly from place to place?

You can have a major city near many different states and many different laws. For the situation to change in that major city, it has to change in those nearby areas.

So now for a second time I am going to ask why you won't answer the question I asked you....

Just how many people, private sellers, do you think show up to sell guns at a gun show versus the number of Licensed Dealers?

Do you think the ratio is 1:1? 10:1? 1:10? 1:20? Something different? You are throwing all kinds of numbers out there, making all kinds of proclaimations.. Demanding answers to your questions.. So how about answering one for a change?

This is the third time that I have asked the question. Are you going to ignore it again?

 

[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.

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

You don't have a clue what infringe means because you have never looked it up in a contemporary dictionary of that time or understood the Latin, which was it's root. When a modern dictionary tells you a word has an obsolete meaning, you don't look for a modern meaning to explain what was meant in the past. You have windbagged all these posts to express your stupid ideas. Why is a fool like you telling people you don't know about abortion and assault weapons and what weapons really means to you instead of what they are saying, Windbag? You don't have a clue of what my position is on abortion or assault weapons, so why waste the posts like you do? You are just a fool running his fool mouth about all kinds of things you don't understand and you usually have some kind of conspiracy theme incorporated in your point of view, like all those scientists and governments lying about warmer temperatures.

The most extensive dictionary of the English language at that time was compiled by Noah Webster in 1806. There were dictionaries before that time, but they were no where near as complete as his. Care to inform me which dictionary you allegedly read that makes you right and all the etymologists, who actually make their living doing this kind of thing, wrong? Or did you expect me to sputter in defeat because I am as ignorant as you are about dictionaries?

By the way, I won an unabridged desktop version of the Oxford English Dictionary, the one that comes with a magnifying glass because the type is impossible for most people to read without it. It defines encroach as intrude on (a person's territory, rights, personal life. etc.) and dates that usage to late Middle English.

That, in case you want to sputter about it being something else, began in the time of Chaucer, which was the latter part of the 15th century. The earliest English dictionary I know of was written 200 years after that point in time, so any dictionary you ever read, if it included encroach, would have used that definition.

I would still like a link to the thread so I can properly mock you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

It's been explained to all you idiots that controlling the guns on the city streets will stop most gun violence and having ballistics tests on file will make a person not want to use that gun. Unregistered firearms will leave America. It's more than going after a criminal, it's making it so someone doesn't become a criminal. Maybe the gun nuts can take their place and we can get rid of your raunchy hides.

Controlling the guns on city streets worked so well in Chicago and Washington DC. I am absolutely amazed that anyone can look at those two examples and argue against gun control.

As for ballistics, I know you have already challenged me to prove that it is junk science, and ignored me after I did so, so I won't bother to prove it again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A felon can be someone who committed a non-violent crime. Once they pay their debt to society, do they still have a right to defend themselves? I say yes.

And who will decide which people are not mentally capable of being responsible with a weapon? Clearly, there are sociopaths and psychopaths who are dangerous no matter what. Other people might have other mental illnesses, like a fear of heights or flying. Should they be denied the right to protect themselves?

Thing is, the criminals will always find a way to obtain weapons, like they always have. Crazy people hellbent on harming others will always find a way to do that.

When people are clearly dangerous, such as diagnosed psychopaths or those convicted of violent crimes, then don't allow them to legally purchase a weapon. Not that it will stop them from illegally purchasing a weapon.

The worst thing we could do is stop law abiding people from purchasing them. It's a right we have and it's a dangerous world.

The neat thing is that federal law leaves the discretion about gun rights up to the individual states. That means that federal law doesn't actually prevent felons from owning guns, it just extends the provisions of whatever state a person was convicted under nationwide, which prevents a felon from moving to another state and owning a gun.

For example, Texas allows anyone with a non violent conviction to own a gun as soon as they finish their sentence, and allows violent felons to own a gun 5 years after they serve their sentence. Thus federal law does not prohibit anyone convicted in Texas from owning a gun because the state restores their rights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

OK, then it should be easy for you to explain how it is a false dichotomy?

So, you don't believe anyone should have to have a background check to buy guns?

Easy...I said that background checks are idiotic and ineffective (which they are) and you launched off into the all-too-typical progressive/socialist/commie douchebag "why have any laws at all?....ANARCHY!" rant...That's a textbook false dichotomy.

And your idiotic and completely ineffective background checks are still idiotic and completely ineffective, so, yes, they should be ended altogether.

Then let's check a textbook...

false dichotomy

Noun

false dichotomy (plural false dichotomies)

(logical fallacy) A situation in which two alternative points of views are presented as the only options, whereas others are available.

Now, ask the butler where you went wrong Jethro.

Let me see if you can understand something here.

You say background checks are effective, he says they are not. You accuse him of the logical fallacy of a false dichotomy because he disagrees with you.

Here comes the part that you might have trouble with, in order for their to be a false dichotomy their actually has to be more than two possible options. Care to explain what other alternatives apply here? We have background checks work, or they are ineffective, or...

This is your chance to show how smart you are.