Do You Support The "Gun Show Loophole?"

[Jarlaxle]

Since there is no gun show loophole what would you like to close?
the fact that a majority of people are ignorant is not proof of anything, except stupidity.

Blah, blah, talking point, talking point.

So, it is your considered opinion that private sellers are required to put their buyers through background checks, just like licensed dealers?

Because, that's the "Gun Show Loophole", genius.

Just because it doesn't only happen at gun shows doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Thanks for playing though.

private sellers can't sell through gun shows, so why the gun show loophole? and do you really want a private seller, who by the way could be a criminal looking of information to be used in identity theft doing a background check on you? I sure don't. but then I don't want reactionary liberals making unthought through legislation for me either

Private sellers can and do sell at gun shows, though in minuscule numbers compared to licensed dealers.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

I'd have to check the statute, but I highly doubt it's a strict liability offense. Meaning selling to a felon is fine as long as you don't know they're a felon.

Wouldnt have an issue making it strict liability, only mitigated by the felon presenting viable false identification.

The problem being: Viable false ID is easy enough to get. Heck, I can MAKE it on my laptop with stuff from Staples! I object to that because it could basically put the seller in the position of having to prove a negative.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Provide an actual example. not a story about someone who knows someone who saw it once.

Yeah, Dubya, gonna have to go with QW on this one. The other parts may be true, but surely there is always an ID required.

No. It's good practice and many people I know will only sell to someone with a carry permit. But Dumya scored here: no paperwork or ID required for a sale between two private individuals.

Thus proving that even a blind jackass finds a feedbag occasionally.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Are you knowledge averse? In many states, a criminal can walk into a gun show and buy any weapon he chooses from a 'so called' private seller. One of these private sellers that was caught on camera by investigators acknowledged selling 348 guns in less than a year.

Both are already illegal and felonies.

Both are not illegal. There is no definition of how many guns a 'private seller' can sell. According to federal law, they cannot be "engaged in the business" of selling firearms. But clearly some 'private sellers' ARE "engaged in the business" of selling firearms.

The only violation here occurred after the buyer (who was really an investigator with a hidden camera) told the seller they "probably couldn't pass a background check".

WHAT criminal would tell the seller they "probably couldn't pass a background check"?

If someone told me that, I would start making a big show of looking around, poking in potted plants, that sort of thing. When they asked me what I was doing, I would reply, "Looking for the camera. Come on, where'd you put it?"

 

[Jarlaxle]

There is no such thing as a gun show loophole. How fucking dense can you people be?

They are not being dense. They are being DISHONEST!

 

[Jarlaxle]

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???

Illegal!

 

[logical4u]

I just found this as another poster's sign..

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal Principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. Justice Robert H. Jackson, West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette, 1943

Jackson was a Huge Democrat.

Since when do we vote on our rights? Jackson, a Democrat says "Never"

Who gives a fuck? In the future, we're going to shut you down. Think about it!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwpb&v=oBftzMxDtIg&NR=1]Sync - Episode 1 (Directed by Corridor Digital) - YouTube[/ame]

It is very sad that the same people that want a dictator/tyrant/king to "rule", because they ARE against the Constitution that gave this country the best governing system in the history of the world, will be the first ones to be lined up and executed when their plan is put into place. You see, if you will support the usurpation for one dictator, you will support it for another (you have no loyalty).

Your plan will result in freedom for no one, less freedom in other countries (who will stand up for them, once this country's military is destroyed), and world wide misery. You will not examine what you are saying. You just repeat it, zombie-like. When some asks you to consider what you are doing, you attack the messenger, rather than use you "God" given ability to reason. Yes, it is very sad that one sixth of our population has chosen to be "zombies" over reasonable adults.

 

[logical4u]

Owning a firearm is a right, but selling firearms for profit is not. If a so called 'private seller' is burdened by too much records keeping etc, then he is NOT really Uncle Joe selling some of his collection, now is he? These so-called 'private sellers' are supposed to be making only occasional sales. According to federal law, they cannot be "engaged in the business" of selling firearms. But that's exactly what undercover investigators found. They found private sellers with large inventories doing a brisk business. In fact, one private seller acknowledged selling 348 guns in less than a year.

There are a few people selling any quantities with regularity, the majority of private sales are individuals selling their own guns. Seems like the easiest fix it to change the dealer requirements to gather in the folks operating on the fringes of the law. There is no reason to take a sledge hammer to a problem that a small ball ping could fix. Would that not make more sense?

Then eliminate 'private sellers' at gun shows. If you are not a licensed dealer, no booth. No one should be allowed to buy a gun without passing a background check...NO ONE. Even though it is impossible to enforce in every circumstance, it should be the law. If you sell a gun to someone without that person passing a background check, and that gun is used in a crime, YOU are liable.

Do the same for cars, houses, boats, RVs, etc (and the rights to own any of those are not in our Constitution). You sir, are an idiot. Why do you want to pass even more laws that cannot be enforced. Why don't you insist that the laws pertaining to gun crimes and theft are actually enforced, instead of trying to hurt law abiding citizens, by taking away their rights to protect themselves?

 

[logical4u]

Then eliminate 'private sellers' at gun shows. If you are not a licensed dealer, no booth. No one should be allowed to buy a gun without passing a background check...NO ONE. Even though it is impossible to enforce in every circumstance, it should be the law. If you sell a gun to someone without that person passing a background check, and that gun is used in a crime, YOU are liable.

Ok, your not interested in trying to tweak the system to gather in the pseudo dealers, you want to hold everyone responsible for every possibility. So let's extend your logic on out a ways, how about we hold you responsible for selling your car to someone with a record of drunk driving if they crash it while drinking. Or how about if you decide to sell your tools and some idiot uses the hammer to kill someone, should we send you to jail for selling a tool to an unstable person? After all hammers and other blunt objects kill more people than rifles. The point is, where does it stop? When do we concentrate on the criminal and keep repeat offenders out of society, either by killing their worthless asses or locking them up forever?

Nice childish whine. Then just tell us how many murderers, felons, wife beaters and mentally ill people should be allowed to buy a gun without a background check?

Unlike the items you mentioned, a gun has a sole purpose.

A hammer has a sole purpose. A chain saw has a sole purpose. A rope has a sole purpose. If the "tool" is in responsible (I know, that is a bad word for liberals) hands, it can be used to do "good". If the "tool" is in "evil" hands, it will not be used to do "good".

 

[logical4u]

Nice childish whine. Then just tell us how many murderers, felons, wife beaters and mentally ill people should be allowed to buy a gun without a background check?

Unlike the items you mentioned, a gun has a sole purpose.

The sole purpose of a gun is to fire a projectile from point A to point B, a person determines what those points are. Just like a person decides if a hammer hits the head of a nail or a persons head. It's the person with the tool that determines if the use is legal or illegal, not the tool. Why don't you want to deal with the criminals?

Just tell us how many murderers, felons, wife beaters and mentally ill people should be allowed to buy a gun without a background check?

It is a straight forward question that deserves a straight forward answer.

When you can point them out walking down the street, I will tell you how many should be able to purchase a gun "without a background check". How many people lie on "background checks"? How many people can buy guns, illegally? How many "illegal" aliens have guns and are comitting crimes, using them?
Why do you IDIOTS always want to punish people that are trying to be good citizens, and ignore the criminals? Why will you not hold your "gov't" (the one you want to be responsible for your health care) responsible for the laws that are already in place?

 

[OriginalShroom]

Justice Robert H. Jackson said it perfectly well.

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

 

[logical4u]

This is only true if, as I said, you can show that universal registration is an effective means to affect a compelling state iinterest, and is the least restrictive means to that end.

If for no other reason that felons and others legally unable to own a gun cannot, according to currenlt jurisprudence, be forced to register their guns, it cannot be shown that runiversal registration is an "effective means".

Thus, it is not just an infringement, but one that violates the constitution.

Which is clearly why the NRA, and their pet congressmen, pushed through legislation to attempt to ban federal government studies that would provide said proof.

There are many studies that have shown conclusively that around 85% of weapons used in crimes have been sold privately, without documentation.

Which is a clear indication that private undocumented sales of said weapons is a contributing factor to them being used in criminal activity, and thus a threat to public safety.

And, of course, the only sure way to find out is to do it.

Good for them,. The fact is that there are plenty of studies already in existence, many of them sponsored by pro registration groups, that admit that there is no evidence that registration would prevent crime. Why should we have the government spending money to prove something when other people already have?

I guess the leftists have never seen an exuse to spend money or expand gov't as a "bad thing".

 

[logical4u]

An "excellent idea" that creates a infringement on the exercise of the right to armd by laying a prcndition to the exercise of said right not inherent to same.

It is impossoible to show that universal registration is an effective means to affect a compelling state iinterest, and is the least restrictive means to that end, if for no other reason that felons and others legally unable to own a gun cannot, according to currenlt jurisprudence, be forced to register their guns.

Registering your weapon may be a precondition, but it's not one that infringes the right.

Simply informing the authorities that you have a weapon does not stop you from having said weapon.

However, if there was a charge for weapon registration, then that would qualify as a precondition. So registration would have to be free to the owner to be legal.

Since the public seems to be behind registration and background checks, the cost would be covered by the taxpayers as a public service.

So, you wouldn't have a problem with the federal gov't having a current inventory of "everything" you own, your bank accounts, your insurance, your retirement accounts, etc. It would just be a "pre-condition" for citizenship.

"Trust the gov't" not to lose that information, or the databases where it is contained. Oh, and if you are not "current", you can be prosecuted for a made up crime, by the gov't (enforced only when your political oponents are in office).

 

[Jarlaxle]

I support any loophole that allows mass killers with access to the weapons of their choice.

You cannot shoot up a classroom or movie theater without appropriate firepower. Our Second Amendment ensures your right to the weapon of destruction of your choosing

You're an idiot and a troll. Please kill yourself immediately and put us out of your misery.

 

[logical4u]

This is only true if, as I said, you can show that universal registration is an effective means to affect a compelling state iinterest, and is the least restrictive means to that end.

If for no other reason that felons and others legally unable to own a gun cannot, according to currenlt jurisprudence, be forced to register their guns, it cannot be shown that runiversal registration is an "effective means".

Thus, it is not just an infringement, but one that violates the constitution.

Which is clearly why the NRA, and their pet congressmen, pushed through legislation to attempt to ban federal government studies that would provide said proof.

There are many studies that have shown conclusively that around 85% of weapons used in crimes have been sold privately, without documentation.

Which is a clear indication that private undocumented sales of said weapons is a contributing factor to them being used in criminal activity, and thus a threat to public safety.

And, of course, the only sure way to find out is to do it.

Do you mean to say that criminals that steal weapons do not, DO NOT do a background check when they sell those stolen guns?? Say it isn't so.

 

[logical4u]

Not one word as to how you could verify people are using the system, care to try again?

As soon as the gun is used in a crime, the seller becomes liable for contributing to said crime. Thus, sellers will want to use the system, to cover their ass.

In combination with a national registry, it works.

Lets do this! Right after we have a national registry to vote that requires identification be shown at the time you vote/request and absentee ballot.

 

[ima]

We should just ban bullets. Nothing in the constitution about the right to bear bullets.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Not one word as to how you could verify people are using the system, care to try again?

As soon as the gun is used in a crime, the seller becomes liable for contributing to said crime. Thus, sellers will want to use the system, to cover their ass.

In combination with a national registry, it works.

Lets do this! Right after we have a national registry to vote that requires identification be shown at the time you vote/request and absentee ballot.

Let's also require a background check every time they cast their vote, a 3 day waiting period to cast a vote, and if they have even a misdemeanor crime on their record, they lose their right to vote forever.

 

[logical4u]

Personally, I would think any logical person would want universal background checks. Wouldn't it make more sense to suggest ways to best make the system work rather than saying it won't work?



More: Gun Show Loophole - Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

Actually I would have no problem if they would make NICS available to the public where a seller could do a name and dob check. But if you start forcing records keeping requirements on non-dealers or other bureaucratic crap, then I would have objections.

Owning a firearm is a right, but selling firearms for profit is not. If a so called 'private seller' is burdened by too much records keeping etc, then he is NOT really Uncle Joe selling some of his collection, now is he? These so-called 'private sellers' are supposed to be making only occasional sales. According to federal law, they cannot be "engaged in the business" of selling firearms. But that's exactly what undercover investigators found. They found private sellers with large inventories doing a brisk business. In fact, one private seller acknowledged selling 348 guns in less than a year.

Yo, idiot, if you make gun selling even more "burdensome", people that want to "sell" a gun will simply "give" it away. The person that wants the gun will buy a soda, or chips for whatever cost the gun is worth. See, that is how you make a "black market" and the gov't ignores it (or takes bribes). You are corrupting the gov't by making laws that cannot be enforced effectively.

 

[Jarlaxle]

We should just ban bullets. Nothing in the constitution about the right to bear bullets.

Go for it. I make my own anyway!