Do You Support The "Gun Show Loophole?"

[Quantum Windbag]

Interestingly enough, LaPierre was FOR background checks back in the 90's.

Now? He's firmly against them.

Interesting enough, I see that as a point of maturity. It makes more sense to change your mind when presented with data that proves you wrong than to insist that making more laws will fix everything.

 

[Vast LWC]

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".

 

[MikeK]

Who here is so naive and/or pointedly ignorant as to believe restrictive laws are capable of preventing acquisition of anything one wants (e.g., recreational drugs) and has the cash to pay for? The only things these political crusades manage to achieve are creation of black markets and suppression of enjoyable recreation by law-abiding adults.

 

[Dubya]

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.

That's hard to say because 19 states have additional restrictions on gun shows.

 

[KissMy]

Interestingly enough, LaPierre was FOR background checks back in the 90's.

Now? He's firmly against them.

Thats because the results are in proving they don't work! You faith based ideologues can't accept the facts.

 

[KissMy]

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?

He has no proof. He is just a reactionary douche-bag who denies reality facts to keep the faith with his retarded baseless ideology.

 

[Lakhota]

Gun Homicides Increased 25 Percent After Missouri Repealed Background Check Law

 

[Lakhota]

GOP Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) Peddles Debunked Misinformation On Gun Violence

 

[KissMy]

Gun Homicides Increased 25 Percent After Missouri Repealed Background Check Law

That increase in homicides is because Missouri ranks atop U.S. in meth labs.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It’s 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, it’s inappropriate to attempt to vilify gun shows and their attendees as some sort of nefarious conspiracy intended to allow criminals access to firearms.

 

[The Rabbi]

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???

A crime? You understand he is already committing a crime merely by handling the weapon, right?
And he doesnt need to go to a gunshow to do it. He can meet a guy in the parking lot at Denny's.

So I think you are both obtuse and stupid as this has been explained many times before and you persist with your fallacy.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Interestingly enough, LaPierre was FOR background checks back in the 90's.

Now? He's firmly against them.

This is a lie.
LaP and the NRA supports the NICS today, just as it did in 1993 when it was written into the Brady Act.
The NRA is the reason the NICS exists.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Gun Homicides Increased 25 Percent After Missouri Repealed Background Check Law

As Federal law requires background checks, this is proof that background checks do not work.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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".

Have you ever been in the wilderness? I own multiple knives, and consider myself a knife nut. I know lats more about knife laws that attempt to restrict my right to own a knife than I do about gun laws, and don't have any ******* idea who Frank Luntz is. Despite all of that, if I had my druthers, I would take a gun into a survival situation any day of the week, especially in an urban situation.

By the way, I have never even seen a freedom fry.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It’s 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, it’s inappropriate to attempt to vilify gun shows and their attendees as some sort of nefarious conspiracy intended to allow criminals access to firearms.

This is how bad this thread is, I just pos repped a guy that has said that SCOTUS writes the Constitution.

 

[Bfgrn]

It’s 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, it’s inappropriate to attempt to vilify gun shows and their attendees as some sort of nefarious conspiracy intended to allow criminals access to firearms.

Provide the 'wording' of the law?

Explain how states like California are able to require and execute background checks on all gun show sales including 'private' sellers?

I respect you, but you are wrong on this topic.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"I want better background checks too. ON PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES!!!"

 

[ABikerSailor]

"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?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"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?

Lack of comprehension?

 

[ABikerSailor]

BTW..........................the same thing for that asshole who was denounced by his own religion known as Paul Ryan?

Even the Catholics thought he was an evil man.