Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Interestingly enough, LaPierre was FOR background checks back in the 90's.
Now? He's firmly against them.
Do you want to hold a person who sells a car responsible if the person that buys it kills someone?
How about if I sell my knife and the person that buys it uses it to kill someone, should I have made sure that they were not going to kill someone first? Should I be held liable?
It is not a loophole because no law anywhere makes a private individual responsible for the actions of a person he has no control over. Calling it a loophole just makes you look incredibly stupid, something you usually manage to avoid.
There is no gun show loophole in the context of some lawless venue where criminals can acquire firearms without fear of punitive regulatory policies.
State and Federal laws apply to gun shows as anywhere else, including background checks for a criminal record.
Said state and federal laws only apply to licensed dealers who sell guns for a living, as per the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.
Therefore, while the laws do in fact apply, they are specifically written to allow private sellers to sell without background checks. Thus the loophole.
Repeatedly stating that something doesn't exist, doesn't make it so, no matter how many times it's repeated.
Interestingly enough, LaPierre was FOR background checks back in the 90's.
Now? He's firmly against them.
How will registering guns, good guys with guns or bad guys who should not own them work if registering sex offenders does not work????????????????????
Why would you believe knowing who the sex offenders are in an area hasn't worked?
Why would you believe it has?
Then they are either not criminal enough to be disqualified, or they lied on the application, thus committing a crime.
We are on page 77 of this thread. The gun show loophole is so simple to understand, a small child could comprehend what it is and how it is abused. Yet you bunch of right wing pea brains either can't digest it, or are so dogmatic and parrots of the gun lobby that you are willing to aid and abet murderers to protect your doctrinaire. You are UN-American scum.
You are right about one thing, the gun show loophole is easy to understand.
There Is No Gun Show Loophole.
Thank you for proving my point. So now all we need to determine is if you are obtuse or a lying sack of shit. I vote for BOTH.
If a felon can walk into a gun show, choose a private seller and buy weapons without being required to submit to a background check...WHAT WOULD YOU CALL IT???
This is a lie.Interestingly enough, LaPierre was FOR background checks back in the 90's.
Now? He's firmly against them.
As Federal law requires background checks, this is proof that background checks do not work.
Do you want to hold a person who sells a car responsible if the person that buys it kills someone?
How about if I sell my knife and the person that buys it uses it to kill someone, should I have made sure that they were not going to kill someone first? Should I be held liable?
It is not a loophole because no law anywhere makes a private individual responsible for the actions of a person he has no control over. Calling it a loophole just makes you look incredibly stupid, something you usually manage to avoid.
Cars and knives, in most cases, are necessary to survival. One must drive to work, and cut their bread with something.
Unless your only source of food is to hunt your own game, guns are not necessary to survival.
And just because Frank Luntz has handed down word that the word "Loophole" should now be changed to a nicer, more gun-friendly term, doesn't mean I have to use it.
Both of us can speak truthfully, and say different things, it is simply a matter of perspective.
My "Loophole" is your "Gawd-Given Right". Your "Freedom Fry" is my "French Fry".
Its not a loophole because there is no way for a background check to be conducted in the context of a private, intrastate sale between residents of the same state, regardless the venue, hence the wording of the law.
A loophole exists either unintentionally, due to the poor drafting of a law, or intentionally, were a remedy is at hand but rejected, creating the loophole to benefit a special interest.
Since there was no way for the authors of the legislation to contrive the mechanics necessary for background checks for private sales, there was no remedy available, and consequently no loophole.
Again, and at the very least, its inappropriate to attempt to vilify gun shows and their attendees as some sort of nefarious conspiracy intended to allow criminals access to firearms.
Its not a loophole because there is no way for a background check to be conducted in the context of a private, intrastate sale between residents of the same state, regardless the venue, hence the wording of the law.
A loophole exists either unintentionally, due to the poor drafting of a law, or intentionally, were a remedy is at hand but rejected, creating the loophole to benefit a special interest.
Since there was no way for the authors of the legislation to contrive the mechanics necessary for background checks for private sales, there was no remedy available, and consequently no loophole.
Again, and at the very least, its inappropriate to attempt to vilify gun shows and their attendees as some sort of nefarious conspiracy intended to allow criminals access to firearms.
"I want better background checks too. ON PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES!!!"
"I want better background checks too. ON PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES!!!"
So...................would you feel the same way about McCain and Palin?
They didn't have background checks.
What about Mittens and his severe refusal for the same checks?
