Do You Support The "Gun Show Loophole?"

[Vast LWC]

"You" want the NRA/Pro-gun side to compromise and agree to give up someting trleated to the right to arms.
By defintion, there can be no compromise unless the other side - the anti-gun/pro-gun control side - gives something in return.

Oh, I'm afraid you misunderstand the situation here.

Since the majority of the population currently supports stricter gun legislation, the political power in this situation currently belongs to the Gun Control Supporters.

Since they want both assault weapon bans and registration/background checks, while the pro-gun folks want nothing, just having registration/background checks is in fact a compromise.

 

[GHook93]

Wow BL I actually agree with you on something. I don't agree with gun shows. Guns sales need to be managed better.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"You" want the NRA/Pro-gun side to compromise and agree to give up someting trleated to the right to arms.
By defintion, there can be no compromise unless the other side - the anti-gun/pro-gun control side - gives something in return.

Oh, I'm afraid you misunderstand the situation here.

Since the majority of the population currently supports stricter gun legislation, the political power in this situation currently belongs to the Gun Control Supporters.

Since they want both assault weapon bans and registration/background checks, while the pro-gun folks want nothing, just having registration/background checks is in fact a compromise.

You clearly do not understand the meaning of compromise.

 

[Coyote]

Compromise is a 2-way street.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/277676-so-you-want-the-nra-pro-gun-side-to-compromise.html

Is this about "compromise" or seeing that something might be mutually beneficial?

I don't see any need to "compromise" with the NRA any more than any political action group. We don't "compromise" with the alcohal industries on laws regarding drunk driving do we?

I think they make good points - for example I fully support their educational efforts and think those should be more widespread because are culture has moved far away from the original idea that a gun is a tool that should be used responsibly and with respect for what it can do. Most people today have never grown up with guns.

On the other hand - I see no reason not have a universal background check. I also see no reason why we should allow unrestricted access to fully automatic weapons, armor piercing ammunition, or high capacity magazines who's sole purpose is to kill cops or kill lots of people very quickly. To me, it falls in the same category as restricting pocket nukes or rocket launchers. Beyond that, I see no reason to restrict anything else.

Sorry, but other than age laws and few areas with Sunday blue Laws., I don't know of any laws that prevent a person from buying alcohol. Even a woman who is obviously pregnant can buy and consume if she wants.

Even the town drunk with 14 DUIs can still buy alcohol.

You missed the point - they can't keep driving. Legally.

 

[Dubya]

You understand that's illegal, right?

As usual you deflect to irrelevance when caught in a web of lies and deceit.

I understand you NRA gun nutters send the Mexican Drug Cartels invitations.

We understand that all your scaremongering lolberal memes and outright lies have been blown to shit, so all that's left for you is to demagogue and try to change the subject.

Happens a lot around here.

Wait until you start seeing the gun laws popping up in states and you gun nutters going down for crossing the state line. You can expect it on a national level once we clean out the scum in Congress.

 

[martybegan]

Is this about "compromise" or seeing that something might be mutually beneficial?

I don't see any need to "compromise" with the NRA any more than any political action group. We don't "compromise" with the alcohal industries on laws regarding drunk driving do we?

I think they make good points - for example I fully support their educational efforts and think those should be more widespread because are culture has moved far away from the original idea that a gun is a tool that should be used responsibly and with respect for what it can do. Most people today have never grown up with guns.

On the other hand - I see no reason not have a universal background check. I also see no reason why we should allow unrestricted access to fully automatic weapons, armor piercing ammunition, or high capacity magazines who's sole purpose is to kill cops or kill lots of people very quickly. To me, it falls in the same category as restricting pocket nukes or rocket launchers. Beyond that, I see no reason to restrict anything else.

Sorry, but other than age laws and few areas with Sunday blue Laws., I don't know of any laws that prevent a person from buying alcohol. Even a woman who is obviously pregnant can buy and consume if she wants.

Even the town drunk with 14 DUIs can still buy alcohol.

You missed the point - they can't keep driving. Legally.

And the felon can't own a gun, legally.

 

[Coyote]

I would take the phrase bear arms to mean any gun that I can physically carry. Magazines are specific to the guns they are designed for, thus I consider magazines part of that gun. Let me know when the issue of private citizens obtaining nukes, napalm, hand grenades, etc. become a rational argument in the case for gun control.

I would say that banning fully automatic weapons, certain types of ammo, and large capacity mags to be rational.

Is the line you are drawing then arbritrary?

Magazine size bans are cosmetic and silly. considering the newtown shooter had 10-20 minutes by himself, he could have used 10 round mags just as easy.

There have been other shootings besides Newtown where, perhaps that might have made a small difference or - reloading could have allowed someone a chance to get at the shooter.

Fully automatic weapons have been used in how many crimes recently? Explosive ammuntion has been used in how many crimes recently?

I don't have stats on that but, again they are something that could add a margin of safety without drastically impacting legitimate gun owners.

And before you go all nutty on "hollow points" remember these are actually the preferred type of round in an urban setting, as FMJ tends to go through drywall rather easily.

I wasn't going to go all "nutty" on hollow points, but thanks for the info

 

[Coyote]

Sorry, but other than age laws and few areas with Sunday blue Laws., I don't know of any laws that prevent a person from buying alcohol. Even a woman who is obviously pregnant can buy and consume if she wants.

Even the town drunk with 14 DUIs can still buy alcohol.

You missed the point - they can't keep driving. Legally.

And the felon can't own a gun, legally.

And without background checks, how are you going to prevent that?

 

[martybegan]

I understand you NRA gun nutters send the Mexican Drug Cartels invitations.

We understand that all your scaremongering lolberal memes and outright lies have been blown to shit, so all that's left for you is to demagogue and try to change the subject.

Happens a lot around here.

Wait until you start seeing the gun laws popping up in states and you gun nutters going down for crossing the state line. You can expect it on a national level once we clean out the scum in Congress.

The majority of the scum I see in congress are progressive democrats, so good if you want to get rid of them!

I just love how you applaud the march of unconstitutional law across the more gullible parts of our nation.

Now dance my little tutu wearing ballerina.

 

[martybegan]

You missed the point - they can't keep driving. Legally.

And the felon can't own a gun, legally.

And without background checks, how are you going to prevent that?

WITH background checks, how are you going to prevent that?

 

[Dubya]

And the felon can't own a gun, legally.

And without background checks, how are you going to prevent that?

WITH background checks, how are you going to prevent that?

You have been told, background checks are just a beginning.

 

[Coyote]

I understand you NRA gun nutters send the Mexican Drug Cartels invitations.

We understand that all your scaremongering lolberal memes and outright lies have been blown to shit, so all that's left for you is to demagogue and try to change the subject.

Happens a lot around here.

Wait until you start seeing the gun laws popping up in states and you gun nutters going down for crossing the state line. You can expect it on a national level once we clean out the scum in Congress.

I seriously doubt you'll see anything significant in terms of gun control for several reasons: one, the public doesn't support strict gun control and two, the Supreme Court rendered a landmark decision over the 2nd Amendment that brought down a host of gun control measures.

The public does, however, support certain modest measures - universal background check being one of them and the NRA and it's supporters comes off looking pretty extreme for balking at that.

 

[Coyote]

And the felon can't own a gun, legally.

And without background checks, how are you going to prevent that?

WITH background checks, how are you going to prevent that?

Nothing is 100%. Drunk drivers still manage to drive, but fewer of them.

Same with guns in the hands of felons.

Now are you going to keep answering a question with a question?

 

[Dubya]

We understand that all your scaremongering lolberal memes and outright lies have been blown to shit, so all that's left for you is to demagogue and try to change the subject.

Happens a lot around here.

Wait until you start seeing the gun laws popping up in states and you gun nutters going down for crossing the state line. You can expect it on a national level once we clean out the scum in Congress.

I seriously doubt you'll see anything significant in terms of gun control for several reasons: one, the public doesn't support strict gun control and two, the Supreme Court rendered a landmark decision over the 2nd Amendment that brought down a host of gun control measures.

The public does, however, support certain modest measures - universal background check being one of them and the NRA and it's supporters comes off looking pretty extreme for balking at that.

Getting someone to register their gun is not a strict gun control measure. You will find many states requiring it and eventually it will be done nationally.

 

[Vast LWC]

You clearly do not understand the meaning of compromise.

One side wants 2 things.

The other side wants none.

Having one of those things would, by definition, be compromise.

Of course, for me, it's perfect, as I personally am a supporter of background checks and a registry, but I am NOT a supporter of assault weapon bans.

 

[Coyote]

Wait until you start seeing the gun laws popping up in states and you gun nutters going down for crossing the state line. You can expect it on a national level once we clean out the scum in Congress.

I seriously doubt you'll see anything significant in terms of gun control for several reasons: one, the public doesn't support strict gun control and two, the Supreme Court rendered a landmark decision over the 2nd Amendment that brought down a host of gun control measures.

The public does, however, support certain modest measures - universal background check being one of them and the NRA and it's supporters comes off looking pretty extreme for balking at that.

Getting someone to register their gun is not a strict gun control measure. You will find many states requiring it and eventually it will be done nationally.

I'll admit I haven't explored both sides of the gun registration issue yet. The arguments I've heard against a national registry of firearms is it could/would lead to the Federal Government keeping tabs on who owns what weaponry and possible abuse of that information. Also, it would be very incomplete given the vast numbers of firerarms that are passed on privately anyway.

I'm not sure about that issue.

 

[martybegan]

And without background checks, how are you going to prevent that?

WITH background checks, how are you going to prevent that?

Nothing is 100%. Drunk drivers still manage to drive, but fewer of them.

Same with guns in the hands of felons.

Now are you going to keep answering a question with a question?

I doubt fewer felons will get guns if they want them if you strengthen background check laws. They already go underground for thier guns, where are they gonna go underground-ier?

 

[Gadawg73]

The gun show loophole exists, because violent feolons are people too, and they have human rights!

Liberals say that all the time. What they lose are certain consitutional rights, such as the right to bear arms, and the right to vote (depending on the state).

Its progressives that usually try to prevent us from executing the bastards based on "human rights"

But, of course, if law enforcement actually is given a tool (such as required registration) to enforce the law forbidding gun sales without background checks that would prevent violent criminals from walking into the civic center gun show and walking out with an AR-15, the NRA and others begin wringing their hands and screaming, "They are going to come in the middle of the night and take our guns away!"

An AR 15 that is bought and sold now is not an assault weapon.
I agree that we need to give law enforcement "more weapons" to fight illegal guns.
This would be a start:
1. Over 50% of all guns used in crimes are tracked now to 1% of the licensed dealers and straw man purchases are the problem. Corrupt dealers now have a large amount of "missing" guns as there are not enough ATF agents to keep track of them. More on that later.
2. We now keep crime gun trace information secret. Amazing but liberals pushed this for privacy reasons of convicted felons. But even with those laws on the books ATF routinely released aggregate gun crime trace reports, spotty as they were, to local law enforcement jurisdictions and public safety professionals. Then the gun lobby twisted it and forced the Tiahart Amendments barring the government from releasing most of that data, restricting it and cutting off public access to it altogether. Public safety and law enforcement agencies nationwide oppose the Tiafart amendment believing them to be a threat to public safety.
3. ATF is THE SOLE government agency charged with enforcing gun laws. They have NO LEADERSHIP as they have not had a director since the Bush administration. ATF has 1700 agents to monitor 77,000 gun dealers. Even if the ATF had the men to do the job they are handcuffed to only 1 unannounced visit to any dealer per yer BY LAW. Bad law. Current law makes it almost impossible to take the license away from crooked gun dealers.
4. Record keeping of dealers is terrible and unenforceable. See above. Federal law bars any accounting of retail sales of firearms. Absurd. Background checks used to be kept for 6 months and are now destroyed within 24 hours of approval or denial per John Ashcroft of the Bush administration under pressure from the gun lobby.

I support the 2nd Amendment but the issues listed above need to be addressed immediately and do not restrict my rights to own the weapons I need to hunt, self defend myself OR JUST DAMN LOOK AT MY GUNS.

 

[martybegan]

Wait until you start seeing the gun laws popping up in states and you gun nutters going down for crossing the state line. You can expect it on a national level once we clean out the scum in Congress.

I seriously doubt you'll see anything significant in terms of gun control for several reasons: one, the public doesn't support strict gun control and two, the Supreme Court rendered a landmark decision over the 2nd Amendment that brought down a host of gun control measures.

The public does, however, support certain modest measures - universal background check being one of them and the NRA and it's supporters comes off looking pretty extreme for balking at that.

Getting someone to register their gun is not a strict gun control measure. You will find many states requiring it and eventually it will be done nationally.

and the states would (and are) violating the consitution, just like you violate rational thought and non-pink tutu wearing when you wake up in the morning.

 

[Coyote]

WITH background checks, how are you going to prevent that?

Nothing is 100%. Drunk drivers still manage to drive, but fewer of them.

Same with guns in the hands of felons.

Now are you going to keep answering a question with a question?

I doubt fewer felons will get guns if they want them if you strengthen background check laws. They already go underground for thier guns, where are they gonna go underground-ier?

They get them at gun shows - publicly. It would at least close that loophole. Those that go underground will, others just won't bother to get a gun because it's too much trouble.

The argument you make though, pretty much rationalizes the idea that no law is worth it because criminals are going to bypass it anyway - with it is guns, alcohal, drugs, speeding, fraud, etc. Is that what you believe?