Do You Support The "Gun Show Loophole?"

[nodoginnafight]

That is in large part because they haven't defined what those background checks look like or who has access to the information and what is stored. they assume it will be a simple as look up a database that shows if a person has ever been convicted of a felony. But most proposals on the table aren't that vanilla. I think when the final reccomendations come to light people will start getting concerned with rights being violated and what else this information will effect.

As it is today, the only sales that do not require a background check are person to person sales. and this is an extremely small percentage. now what happens when an individual seller starts having access to your private data?

They don't have to.
All they have to do is take the basics to a gun dealer and get a thumbs up or thumbs down.

for a cost. and what if thsi person is disabled or doesn't drive? The argument is we can't have a voter id because it inconveniences people and violates their rights. but that is just what we are doing here.

You have a Constitutional right to sell a gun?
To anyone?

A guy comes up to you screaming "I'll give you $50 for that gun in your hand. That lying wife of mine has cheated on me for the last time."

Can you legally deny him? Afterall, it is his "Constitutional" right, huh????

You have a right to vote. But that right can be denied to certain people. How do they know? You have to REGISTER to vote.

Background check every gun sale. Database every gun sale (so we can prosecute the 1% of gun sellers who account for about 95% of all the illegal gun sales), and require gun dealers to maintain inventories. In short, just put the teeth back into the laws we do have.

 

[Spoonman]

They don't have to.
All they have to do is take the basics to a gun dealer and get a thumbs up or thumbs down.

for a cost. and what if thsi person is disabled or doesn't drive? The argument is we can't have a voter id because it inconveniences people and violates their rights. but that is just what we are doing here.

You have a Constitutional right to sell a gun?
To anyone?

A guy comes up to you screaming "I'll give you $50 for that gun in your hand. That lying wife of mine has cheated on me for the last time."

Can you legally deny him? Afterall, it is his "Constitutional" right, huh????

You have a right to vote. But that right can be denied to certain people. How do they know? You have to REGISTER to vote.

Background check every gun sale. Database every gun sale (so we can prosecute the 1% of gun sellers who account for about 95% of all the illegal gun sales), and require gun dealers to maintain inventories. In short, just put the teeth back into the laws we do have.

you have to register to vote, there is no background check. there is no record kept of how you vote. the right to vote is not denied to anyone.

and yes, in a private sale you can decline form selling a gun to someone if you chose not to. just like a car. no when you sell a car you have no way of knowing if he is a drinker, or would be inclined to road rage.

Now what is this background check going to include? like it does today? just a criminal record? Adam Lanza would have passed, same with the colorado shooter. The california cop did pass, so did the ft hood shooter. and those two went through some real intensive background screenings.

 

[nodoginnafight]

you have to register to vote, there is no background check. there is no record kept of how you vote. the right to vote is not denied to anyone.

The United States maintains a shortsighted and punitive set of laws, some of them dating back to Reconstruction, denying the vote to people who have committed felonies. They will bar about 5.85 million people from voting in this year’s (2012) election. In the states with the most draconian policies — including Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi and Virginia — more than 7 percent of the adult population is barred from the polls, sometimes for life. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/opinion/sunday/voting-rights-former-felons.html?_r=0

Now what is this background check going to include? like it does today? just a criminal record? Adam Lanza would have passed, same with the colorado shooter. The california cop did pass, so did the ft hood shooter. and those two went through some real intensive background screenings.

Criminal history. Perhaps some types of disqualifying mental health issues. I certainly don't believe it will wipe out all the problems, but when you couple it with a sales database and dealer inventories, law enforcement officials will have much better tools at their disposal.

 

[The Rabbi]

When was the last time mass murder in a school was done with a blunt object?

So now only people who die in mass shootings only matter to the argument, is that what you're saying? Seems to me, tunnel vision, when considering policy for a country of 320 million people is a bit of an asinine way to approach it. You have clearly demonstrated no real knowledge of the subject yet you think you have an informed opinion just because of what you hear on the MSM. Trust me, you don't.

No, that was an example. "Semantics, the last bastion of a loser" - OKTexas

Question: if a right isn't based on need as you said in an earlier post, shouldn't it be ok then for civilians to possess grenades, Stinger missiles, land mines, nukes and anything else?

You prove yourself more idiotic with every post.
Scalia detailed what was covered by the 2A in his Heller decision. Go read it and get back to us.

 

[nodoginnafight]

So now only people who die in mass shootings only matter to the argument, is that what you're saying? Seems to me, tunnel vision, when considering policy for a country of 320 million people is a bit of an asinine way to approach it. You have clearly demonstrated no real knowledge of the subject yet you think you have an informed opinion just because of what you hear on the MSM. Trust me, you don't.

No, that was an example. "Semantics, the last bastion of a loser" - OKTexas

Question: if a right isn't based on need as you said in an earlier post, shouldn't it be ok then for civilians to possess grenades, Stinger missiles, land mines, nukes and anything else?

You prove yourself more idiotic with every post.
Scalia detailed what was covered by the 2A in his Heller decision. Go read it and get back to us.

Blind lash out.
The post never said these items were legal. He was asking for a logical extension of the previously stated argument.

If you can't follow the conversation, why not butt out and keep your personal insults to yourself?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Founding Fathers had gun laws so restrictive that today’s NRA leaders would never support them



The Founding Fathers had gun laws so restrictive that today’s NRA leaders would never support them.



more

What a bullshit article.

I just read it and while it makes the claim, it does nothing to support it. Just like most liberals, they expect us to believe what they say is true without supporting evidence that can be verified.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

The author is a constitutional law professor. He has done extensive research on the subject for his [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Gunfight-Battle-over-Right-America/dp/0393077411"]book[/ame].

But you are free to emote.

Where this book is most interesting and useful is in the sections in which Mr. Winkler examines the early history of gun rights and gun control in the United States. Of the founding fathers, he argues that they “understood that gun rights had to be balanced with public safety needs.” He writes that “they supported forcible disarmament of slaves, free blacks, and people of mixed race out of fear that these groups would use guns to revolt against slave masters.” He says that before the Revolution, “at least one colony, Maryland, passed a law barring Catholics from possessing firearms”

Imagine that, the expert on Constitutional law knows of a colony that passed a blatantly unconstitutional law, and he somehow thinks that supports his position that gun control is constitutional.

I dare you to pass a law that makes it illegal for Catholics to own guns and see how long it stands up in any court.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

More than 90 percent of all US voters support background checks for all gun purchases.

Even the NRA can't get around those numbers.

I didn't think you could get a 90% mandate on anything.

We already have background checks. Those poll numbers come from the insistent lie from the left that anyone who buys a gun at a gun show does not have to go through a background check.

 

[Spoonman]

you have to register to vote, there is no background check. there is no record kept of how you vote. the right to vote is not denied to anyone.

The United States maintains a shortsighted and punitive set of laws, some of them dating back to Reconstruction, denying the vote to people who have committed felonies. They will bar about 5.85 million people from voting in this year’s (2012) election. In the states with the most draconian policies — including Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi and Virginia — more than 7 percent of the adult population is barred from the polls, sometimes for life. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/opinion/sunday/voting-rights-former-felons.html?_r=0

Now what is this background check going to include? like it does today? just a criminal record? Adam Lanza would have passed, same with the colorado shooter. The california cop did pass, so did the ft hood shooter. and those two went through some real intensive background screenings.

Criminal history. Perhaps some types of disqualifying mental health issues. I certainly don't believe it will wipe out all the problems, but when you couple it with a sales database and dealer inventories, law enforcement officials will have much better tools at their disposal.

really, mental health issues? ok , watch how fast that 90% number drops. all of a sudden we are ok with labeling and documenting that someone has mental health issues. this should be good. you know this guy will never get a job either now. the ACLU is going to love this one

 

[Quantum Windbag]

More than 90 percent of all US voters support background checks for all gun purchases.

Even the NRA can't get around those numbers.

I didn't think you could get a 90% mandate on anything.

That is in large part because they haven't defined what those background checks look like or who has access to the information and what is stored. they assume it will be a simple as look up a database that shows if a person has ever been convicted of a felony. But most proposals on the table aren't that vanilla. I think when the final reccomendations come to light people will start getting concerned with rights being violated and what else this information will effect.

As it is today, the only sales that do not require a background check are person to person sales. and this is an extremely small percentage. now what happens when an individual seller starts having access to your private data?

They don't have to.
All they have to do is take the basics to a gun dealer and get a thumbs up or thumbs down.

I do not the the governments approval to sell anything I legally own.

 

[nodoginnafight]

More than 90 percent of all US voters support background checks for all gun purchases.

Even the NRA can't get around those numbers.

I didn't think you could get a 90% mandate on anything.

We already have background checks. Those poll numbers come from the insistent lie from the left that anyone who buys a gun at a gun show does not have to go through a background check.

Those numbers are based on the fact that 100% of gun sales are not subject to background checks and more than 90% of US Voters think that they should be.

Try to spin out of that.

 

[nodoginnafight]

you have to register to vote, there is no background check. there is no record kept of how you vote. the right to vote is not denied to anyone.

The United States maintains a shortsighted and punitive set of laws, some of them dating back to Reconstruction, denying the vote to people who have committed felonies. They will bar about 5.85 million people from voting in this year’s (2012) election. In the states with the most draconian policies — including Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi and Virginia — more than 7 percent of the adult population is barred from the polls, sometimes for life. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/opinion/sunday/voting-rights-former-felons.html?_r=0

Now what is this background check going to include? like it does today? just a criminal record? Adam Lanza would have passed, same with the colorado shooter. The california cop did pass, so did the ft hood shooter. and those two went through some real intensive background screenings.

Criminal history. Perhaps some types of disqualifying mental health issues. I certainly don't believe it will wipe out all the problems, but when you couple it with a sales database and dealer inventories, law enforcement officials will have much better tools at their disposal.

really, mental health issues? ok , watch how fast that 90% number drops. all of a sudden we are ok with labeling and documenting that someone has mental health issues. this should be good. you know this guy will never get a job either now. the ACLU is going to love this one

Ahh... the old slippery slope argument.

I didn't say ALL mental health issues.
It's dishonest to pretend I did.

 

[Spoonman]

More than 90 percent of all US voters support background checks for all gun purchases.

Even the NRA can't get around those numbers.

I didn't think you could get a 90% mandate on anything.

We already have background checks. Those poll numbers come from the insistent lie from the left that anyone who buys a gun at a gun show does not have to go through a background check.

i know, this is laughable. the minute percentage of sales that do not get a background check is inconsequential. another thing the paranoid left has blown way out of proportion

 

[nodoginnafight]

That is in large part because they haven't defined what those background checks look like or who has access to the information and what is stored. they assume it will be a simple as look up a database that shows if a person has ever been convicted of a felony. But most proposals on the table aren't that vanilla. I think when the final reccomendations come to light people will start getting concerned with rights being violated and what else this information will effect.

As it is today, the only sales that do not require a background check are person to person sales. and this is an extremely small percentage. now what happens when an individual seller starts having access to your private data?

They don't have to.
All they have to do is take the basics to a gun dealer and get a thumbs up or thumbs down.

I do not the the governments approval to sell anything I legally own.

And 90% of Americans think you should. We will see if that results in legislation.
(and btw - you have to register the sale of your home with the registrar of deeds and the property tax assessor)

 

[tjvh]

More than 90 percent of all US voters support background checks for all gun purchases.

Even the NRA can't get around those numbers.

I didn't think you could get a 90% mandate on anything.

We already have background checks. Those poll numbers come from the insistent lie from the left that anyone who buys a gun at a gun show does not have to go through a background check.

Those numbers are based on the fact that 100% of gun sales are not subject to background checks and more than 90% of US Voters think that they should be.

Try to spin out of that.

Criminal Background checks are one thing, registering what you buy is something else altogether. Sadly, there are some who do not seem to understand the difference.

 

[Spoonman]

The United States maintains a shortsighted and punitive set of laws, some of them dating back to Reconstruction, denying the vote to people who have committed felonies. They will bar about 5.85 million people from voting in this year’s (2012) election. In the states with the most draconian policies — including Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi and Virginia — more than 7 percent of the adult population is barred from the polls, sometimes for life. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/opinion/sunday/voting-rights-former-felons.html?_r=0




Criminal history. Perhaps some types of disqualifying mental health issues. I certainly don't believe it will wipe out all the problems, but when you couple it with a sales database and dealer inventories, law enforcement officials will have much better tools at their disposal.

really, mental health issues? ok , watch how fast that 90% number drops. all of a sudden we are ok with labeling and documenting that someone has mental health issues. this should be good. you know this guy will never get a job either now. the ACLU is going to love this one

Ahh... the old slippery slope argument.

I didn't say ALL mental health issues.
It's dishonest to pretend I did.

so now we will be categorizing mental health issues. this should be interesting. there is no slippery slope. but you start to categorize mental health issues as you suggest, there will be. so tell me, what is ok and what isn't? this should be good

 

[ima]

We already have background checks. Those poll numbers come from the insistent lie from the left that anyone who buys a gun at a gun show does not have to go through a background check.

Those numbers are based on the fact that 100% of gun sales are not subject to background checks and more than 90% of US Voters think that they should be.

Try to spin out of that.

Criminal Background checks are one thing, registering what you buy is something else altogether. Sadly, there are some who do not seem to understand the difference.

I just bought a car and had to register it to get a plate. THOSE BASTARDS!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[nodoginnafight]

We already have background checks. Those poll numbers come from the insistent lie from the left that anyone who buys a gun at a gun show does not have to go through a background check.

Those numbers are based on the fact that 100% of gun sales are not subject to background checks and more than 90% of US Voters think that they should be.

Try to spin out of that.

Criminal Background checks are one thing, registering what you buy is something else altogether. Sadly, there are some who do not seem to understand the difference.

As for me - I understand the difference and I personally favor both.

 

[Spoonman]

They don't have to.
All they have to do is take the basics to a gun dealer and get a thumbs up or thumbs down.

I do not the the governments approval to sell anything I legally own.

And 90% of Americans think you should. We will see if that results in legislation.
(and btw - you have to register the sale of your home with the registrar of deeds and the property tax assessor)

90% of americans don't realize that criminal background checks occur in 99% of all gun sales already. again, if they realized all of this smoke and mirrors only addressed a fraction and really doesn't change anything and that it is only more feel good legislation, they are going ot think differently

 

[nodoginnafight]

really, mental health issues? ok , watch how fast that 90% number drops. all of a sudden we are ok with labeling and documenting that someone has mental health issues. this should be good. you know this guy will never get a job either now. the ACLU is going to love this one

Ahh... the old slippery slope argument.

I didn't say ALL mental health issues.
It's dishonest to pretend I did.

so now we will be categorizing mental health issues. this should be interesting. there is no slippery slope. but you start to categorize mental health issues as you suggest, there will be. so tell me, what is ok and what isn't? this should be good

No real categorizing. If you are incompetent to stand trial, you are incompetent to own a gun.

 

[Spoonman]

Those numbers are based on the fact that 100% of gun sales are not subject to background checks and more than 90% of US Voters think that they should be.

Try to spin out of that.

Criminal Background checks are one thing, registering what you buy is something else altogether. Sadly, there are some who do not seem to understand the difference.

I just bought a car and had to register it to get a plate. THOSE BASTARDS!!!!!!!!!!!!

how long did it take to get your background check?