Do You Support The "Gun Show Loophole?"

[Quantum Windbag]

So it would require every gun to be registered then, right?

You failed to bring that up in your previous posts.

Gun registration is a no go. You dont need to be registered to practice free speech, or your freedom of travel, or your right to a trial by jury.

Go an hero yourself.

See this is why I think we should go the route of a Gun Owners license. If they are going to have a list. I want it to be just a general list of people licensed to own a gun, not a list of what fucking guns I OWN lol.

I'm not interested in the guns you own. I'm interesting in the person who doesn't have the guns he owned and I want to know what happened to the guns.

It is none of your business.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A spin off of the other thread where I have asked numerous times and not a single right winger has answered, is if you support the gun show loophole.

For those that may not know, under current federal law if you wish to purchases a firearm, you have to be run in a background check to make sure you are not a felon, been convicted of a violent crime, been in a mental institution, etc,..before they give the go ahead to sell that person a weapon. However under the "gun show loophole", there are not background checks at all.

That's right, absoutly nothing. A violent thug fresh out of the penitentiary, a terrorist, or a nutcases ready to commit the next sandy hook could go down to their local gun show, or find a classified ad selling a firearm and they could purchase deadly weapons, with no questions asked.

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.

You can't sell a house or a car to just anyone without filling out the proper paperwork and registering it with government agencies. You even need to carry insurance with both. The same rules should apply to gun-ownership. You should have to pass a written test and demonstrate you are able to handle a gun in order to obtain a gun license.

Sure I can.

 

[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.

How is any proposal stopping a law abiding citizen from purchasing a gun? If we had good laws, the world wouldn't be such a dangerous place.

That was funny, thanks for the laugh.

Now to the serious part, laws do not make the world safe. In fact, laws are so bad at making the world safe that any law that attempts to is, by definition, a bad law.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is no gun show ‘loophole.’

If one purchases a firearm from a licensed dealer at gun show, a background check is completed, just as if the firearm was purchased at the dealer’s shop.

Federal law allows residents of the same state to conduct an intrastate transaction absent a background check, as such a check is utterly unfeasible in the context of a private sale.

And should such a private sale be conducted at a gun show, no background check is conducted in accordance with the law; that the sale occurs at a gun show venue is coincidental and irrelevant, hence no ‘loophole.’

There certainly is a gun show ‘loophole’, because it was written into the 'law' that you reference. The 'loophole' was a concession to gun lobbyists to pass the legislation. It is a textbook example of the corrosive influence of special interests whose agenda is not the well being and safety of We, the People. Their agenda is selling guns. PERIOD. The more guns the better, irregardless of WHO the buyer is. That is not in the best interest of the citizens of our nation.

If you can't discern this fact, you need to do some research or search your conscience.

It is not what a lawyer tells me I may do; but what humanity, reason, and justice tell me I ought to do.
Edmund Burke

If it was actually written into the law you should have no problem proving that. The simple fact is that the law, as originally written, prohibited dealers from selling guns anywhere except at the address listed on their FFL. Since the law never applied to private sellers, because it couldn't have and been constitutional, they fact that private sellers made gun sales was ignored by the federal government. When the technology improved, and it was actually possible to run instant background checks, the law was rewritten to allow dealers to sell anywhere they were, including gun shows, as long as they ran a background check.

Care to point out how that made a loophole for gun shows when it only applies to FFL holders?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You can't sell a house or a car to just anyone without filling out the proper paperwork and registering it with government agencies. You even need to carry insurance with both. The same rules should apply to gun-ownership. You should have to pass a written test and demonstrate you are able to handle a gun in order to obtain a gun license.

What government agency do you have to register a house sale with?

You do not need homeowners insurance if you buy cash its a requirement for a mortgage, which is a private contractural requirement. For car insurance its only to use public roads.

Also home ownership and car ownership are not rights.

You need to register the deed with the local government when you buy a house regardless whether you pay cash or take out a mortgage. There are also state and local fees required on closing.

Most states require proof of car insurance simply to register the car. You can be fined for not having a car registered even if it sitting unused on your own property. I know this because a tenant of mine received such a fine in PA.

Home ownership and car ownership are not rights but the Constitution guarantees my right to drink alcohol and that is regulated and carries limitations. My right to vote is guaranteed at age 18 but I still need to register with the local government in order to do so. If Republicans had their way, my right to vote would be even more regulated. Amendments are not untouchable. Rights may be guaranteed but stipulations can and will be imposed.

The government cannot fine you for not registering a car if you use it on your property, even in PA. To prove you are wrong all I need to point out is your tenant had the car on your property, not his.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And tell us Einstein...HOW would a seller know if a buyer is a felon? By looks? Smell??

It is illegal, standing in court and blithering that you didn't know only works on really bad TV shows.

So...felons wear signs now? I work with a felon. If I asked 10,000 people to pick out the felon I work with, I would bet than not more than two would be correct. Most would probably pick the dude with arms covered with tattoos (he's actually former US Army Airborne, retired after 22 years) or the guy that looks like he spent the last 10 years pumping iron (because he DID spend the last 10 years pumping iron, and was a gym manager and personal trainer until the economy went south & the place closed). No, other than riding a motorcycle (a little Yamaha), the felon I work with looks like a normal guy.

Try standing in court and blithering about how felons don't look any different if you ever get charged with doing something like that, then come back and rell me what the judge says.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It doesn't matter. The hole is to be closed and with additional legislation.

Bipartisan committee vote advances legislation

Updated: Saturday, 09 Feb 2013, 6:11 PM MST
Published : Saturday, 09 Feb 2013, 4:58 PM MST

Kayla Ayers
SANTA FE (KRQE) - Gun-control advocates scored a victory in a legislative committee at the roundhouse Friday night.

A bill requiring background checks at gun shows passed the House Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support.

The amended bill, however, does not require background checks for private sales as its sponsor originally proposed.

It does include a component Gov. Susana Martinez was pushing for: making it easier for a person's mental health issues to show up during checks.

Bill ending 'gun show loophole' gets OK

ROFLMAO

The amended bill, however, does not require background checks for private sales as its sponsor originally proposed. [/quote}

That IS the Gun Show Loophole

They wrote a bill to close a loophole that doesn't exist, and then didn't even apply it to something that everyone insists is the loophole.

Amazing.

 

[Vast LWC]

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

There is in fact a "Gun Show Loophole".

However, it applies to any situation where a private, unlicensed owner, is selling a small number of weapons to another person.

Private sales via people who are not licensed dealers do not require a background check, whether said sale happens at a Gun Show or not.

They are simply more common at Gun Shows, and are thus referred to as the "Gun Show Loophole".

In other words, If I went and purchased 3 guns from a dealer, and then went home and sold them to some random guy up the road, there would be no paperwork necessary for the sale of said weapons.

Which is why straw buyers were able to go and purchase a bunch of weapons at gun shops and then turn around and hand them to the Mexican Mafia.

All you people that screamed and moaned about "Fast and Furious" should already know that.

And I am very sure that you were one of those people Gadawg.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

What makes you think the government doesn't know?

 

[Vast LWC]

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.

And, in addition, if said weapon were resold from the trunk of a car in said alley, the original buyer of the weapon could be held responsible for selling the gun to a criminal in the first place.

 

[Jarlaxle]

You can't sell a house or a car to just anyone without filling out the proper paperwork and registering it with government agencies. You even need to carry insurance with both. The same rules should apply to gun-ownership. You should have to pass a written test and demonstrate you are able to handle a gun in order to obtain a gun license.

I can sell a car to anyone I choose to. I do not need to file any paperwork (aside from the bill of sale, a contract between buyer & seller). I do not need any licence of any sort to own a car. You fail.

When you buy a car, you need to notify the DMV about the transfer of title and I don't know where you get the idea that you don't need a drivers license to operate a vehicle but if you've been driving without one then you are an idiot.

Owning a car does not require a licence. Owning a car requires no "transfer of title". You fail. Again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You need to register the deed with the local government when you buy a house regardless whether you pay cash or take out a mortgage. There are also state and local fees required on closing.

Most states require proof of car insurance simply to register the car. You can be fined for not having a car registered even if it sitting unused on your own property. I know this because a tenant of mine received such a fine in PA.

Home ownership and car ownership are not rights but the Constitution guarantees my right to drink alcohol and that is regulated and carries limitations. My right to vote is guaranteed at age 18 but I still need to register with the local government in order to do so. If Republicans had their way, my right to vote would be even more regulated. Amendments are not untouchable. Rights may be guaranteed but stipulations can and will be imposed.

The registration is for tax purposes, not to determine if you own one or not. Also the "registrstration" is not limited in any way. Anyone can own a house. If you were to treat gun ownership like house ownership in some states only the police and government officals would be able to own houses without a waiting period or onerous requirements.

For the cars, if you have enough property you dont need to register a car. The cases you talk about are probably when parked in a driveway with ACESSS ONLY to public roads. There is a difference.

The purpose of registration is irrelevant. The fact is, you must register houses, cars and guns with the government in some fashion for different reasons. Since they are different objects used for different purposes, it stands to reason the purpose for registration would be different as well.

Who buys a car to drive around ONLY on all their acreage? A tractor maybe or a 4-wheel drive to wrangle cattle or something but regardless of all that, you still have to take a written test and a driving test to obtain a license to operate a vehicle whether you drive on your property or on the roads. And don't tell me that tractor or cattle-wrangling 4-wheel isn't going to drive down a public road at some point.

No comment on alcohol or voting requirements even though they are guaranteed by the Constitution? That's the real argument here.

Not true.

As long as the property taxes are paid the government does not care who actually owns the house. This can easily be proven by the fact that the government quite often has no idea where to send the bill when the taxes are unpaid.

As for cars, if I never use them on public roads, the government has no reason to tax it, or care who actually owns them. this si why, if you buy a car from a junkyard, it is often still registered to the original owner rather than the junkyard.

Since your false equivalence doesn't even work for your examples, i have no need to point out how absurd it is to apply it to guns.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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?

I think he truly might be THAT stupid!

 

[Vast LWC]

What makes you think the government doesn't know?

All the more reason to make effective legislation to prevent it from happening.

That way, if members of the government break the law, they can be held accountable by the law.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You can't sell a house or a car to just anyone without filling out the proper paperwork and registering it with government agencies. You even need to carry insurance with both. The same rules should apply to gun-ownership. You should have to pass a written test and demonstrate you are able to handle a gun in order to obtain a gun license.

I can sell a car to anyone I choose to. I do not need to file any paperwork (aside from the bill of sale, a contract between buyer & seller). I do not need any licence of any sort to own a car. You fail.

When you buy a car, you need to notify the DMV about the transfer of title and I don't know where you get the idea that you don't need a drivers license to operate a vehicle but if you've been driving without one then you are an idiot.

Even in California you don not need a license to drive a car unless you drive it on public roads. That is why it is legal for farmers children to operate farm machinery even though they are not old enough to get a license.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Ask for one that is based on a sample larger than 231 respondents and is less than 20 years old.

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

Irrelevant and a false equivalency. The only way to know how effective background checks are, is to totally eliminate them. You can't measure the criminals who went elsewhere because they would be required to TAKE a background check. But that doesn't negate the need to close the gun show loophole and require every gun sold at a gun show to include a background check. The ATF could set up a booth to handle background checks for private sellers.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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).

Misusing a quote does not prove anything other than your inability to comprehend English.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

There is in fact a "Gun Show Loophole".

However, it applies to any situation where a private, unlicensed owner, is selling a small number of weapons to another person.

Private sales via people who are not licensed dealers do not require a background check, whether said sale happens at a Gun Show or not.

They are simply more common at Gun Shows, and are thus referred to as the "Gun Show Loophole".

In other words, If I went and purchased 3 guns from a dealer, and then went home and sold them to some random guy up the road, there would be no paperwork necessary for the sale of said weapons.

Which is why straw buyers were able to go and purchase a bunch of weapons at gun shops and then turn around and hand them to the Mexican Mafia.

All you people that screamed and moaned about "Fast and Furious" should already know that.

And I am very sure that you were one of those people Gadawg.

You made a fairly decent point, then you blew it by arguing that Fast and Furious happened because the dealers allowed straw purchases. What actually happened is the dealers reported the attempted purchases, and was told by the government to allow them even though they were illegal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What makes you think the government doesn't know?

All the more reason to make effective legislation to prevent it from happening.

That way, if members of the government break the law, they can be held accountable by the law.

The government goes out of its way to allow it, how will writing more laws stop it?