Do You Support The "Gun Show Loophole?"

[bigrebnc1775]

"Gun show loophole" is simply a "term" used to describe the “private sales” of guns sold at gun shows, through classified newspaper ads, the Internet, and between individuals virtually anywhere. It ain't rocket science...

Gun Show Loophole - Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

In other words it's a made up liberal term?
A false claim of something that doesn't happen at gun shows.

 

[Lakhota]

"Gun show loophole" is simply a "term" used to describe the “private sales” of guns sold at gun shows, through classified newspaper ads, the Internet, and between individuals virtually anywhere. It ain't rocket science...

Gun Show Loophole - Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

In other words it's a made up liberal term?
A false claim of something that doesn't happen at gun shows.

That's right. I confess. I made it up...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"gun show loophole" is simply a "term" used to describe the “private sales” of guns sold at gun shows, through classified newspaper ads, the internet, and between individuals virtually anywhere. It ain't rocket science...

gun show loophole - coalition to stop gun violence

in other words it's a made up liberal term?
A false claim of something that doesn't happen at gun shows.

that's right. I confess. I made it up...

you lie you aren't that smart.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Is this possible?

An unlicensed private buyer attends a large gun show - and buys every gun at the show (after passing background check) - and then turns around and sells those same guns to private unlicensed buyers (criminals and/or mentally unstable) who couldn't pass background checks - for twice or more than he paid for them.

Give an example of when this happen, and not an assumption that it happen.

 

[Lakhota]

Is this possible?

An unlicensed private buyer attends a large gun show - and buys every gun at the show (after passing background check) - and then turns around and sells those same guns to private unlicensed buyers (criminals and/or mentally unstable) who couldn't pass background checks - for twice or more than he paid for them.

Give an example of when this happen, and not an assumption that it happen.

I said: Is this possible?

Answer: Of course it's possible - and happening to varying degrees! That's why UBC is necessary.

 

[Lakhota]

What the U.S. can learn from Brazil's epidemic of gun violence

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Is this possible?

An unlicensed private buyer attends a large gun show - and buys every gun at the show (after passing background check) - and then turns around and sells those same guns to private unlicensed buyers (criminals and/or mentally unstable) who couldn't pass background checks - for twice or more than he paid for them.

Give an example of when this happen, and not an assumption that it happen.

I said: Is this possible?

Answer: Of course it's possible - and happening to varying degrees! That's why UBC is necessary.

There are no possibles in your world stop acting as if you were asking a serious question. In your world this happens 24/7.

 

[Lakhota]

VIDEO: After Tragedies, Coloradans Unite Around Universal Background Checks

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=aEd4pvjr4mo]After Tragedies, Coloradans Unite Around Universal Background Checks - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Dubya]

VIDEO: After Tragedies, Coloradans Unite Around Universal Background Checks

After Tragedies, Coloradans Unite Around Universal Background Checks - YouTube

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoDY8ce_3zk]USA for Africa - We Are The World ( Original Music Video 1985 ) HD / HQ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Politico]

I didn't. But after 82 pages of Leftytoon nonsense you have converted me. I do now.

 

[Bigfoot]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVMoOLh92S4&feature=player_detailpage]Range Time with Cory & Erika - Erika shooting Serbu BFG-50A .50 BMG - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Bigfoot]

Ted Nugent's Comment About MTV Rappers: "Big Uneducated Greasy Black Mongrels"

Ted pretty much nailed it. A bunch of drugged out gangster wannabes.

 

[Bfgrn]

The gun show ‘loophole’ is an example of the complex question fallacy:

In this case the fallacy is conjoining gun shows and background checks, where Federal law not requiring background checks for private sales has nothing to do with gun shows.

Consequently there is no gun show 'loophole.'

Call it what you want - but that doesn't change the fact that private sellers aren't required to perform background checks - even at gun shows. A licensed dealer could sell umpteen guns to an unlicensed private person (contingent upon passing background check) - and that person could then sell those guns to other unlicensed private persons without being legally required to perform background checks. Personally - I call that a "loophole"... a big "loophole"...

If you mean it's not a "loophole" in the legal sense because the law was never designed to fill that void - I agree.

I consider you one of the smartest posters on this board, so please correct me if my general facts are wrong.

You want to know another reason it is not a loophole? Because it would violate the Constitution for the federal government to require background checks on all gun sales. Since we are talking about federal law here, not state law, there is no gun show loophole unless you think the constitution is a loophole.

You are getting throttled on this thread, and now you emote utter nonsense. Totally false. Requiring background checks does not violate the Constitution.

Your right wing robes, Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito ruled in:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit

No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008


2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Call it what you want - but that doesn't change the fact that private sellers aren't required to perform background checks - even at gun shows. A licensed dealer could sell umpteen guns to an unlicensed private person (contingent upon passing background check) - and that person could then sell those guns to other unlicensed private persons without being legally required to perform background checks. Personally - I call that a "loophole"... a big "loophole"...

If you mean it's not a "loophole" in the legal sense because the law was never designed to fill that void - I agree.

I consider you one of the smartest posters on this board, so please correct me if my general facts are wrong.

You want to know another reason it is not a loophole? Because it would violate the Constitution for the federal government to require background checks on all gun sales. Since we are talking about federal law here, not state law, there is no gun show loophole unless you think the constitution is a loophole.

You are getting throttled on this thread, and now you emote utter nonsense. Totally false. Requiring background checks does not violate the Constitution.

Your right wing robes, Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito ruled in:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit

No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008


2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

I think he's talking about the restraint of trade aspect there, Bfgrn, forcing a private citizen to perform some action to engage in trade with another private citizen. Of course, you folks don't give a **** about the Constitution anyway, so why would you care, right?

 

[Dubya]

You want to know another reason it is not a loophole? Because it would violate the Constitution for the federal government to require background checks on all gun sales. Since we are talking about federal law here, not state law, there is no gun show loophole unless you think the constitution is a loophole.

You are getting throttled on this thread, and now you emote utter nonsense. Totally false. Requiring background checks does not violate the Constitution.

Your right wing robes, Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito ruled in:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit

No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008


2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

I think he's talking about the restraint of trade aspect there, Bfgrn, forcing a private citizen to perform some action to engage in trade with another private citizen. Of course, you folks don't give a **** about the Constitution anyway, so why would you care, right?

We believe the Founders weren't stupid people and wrote the 2nd Amendment to prohibit disarming the populace and not prohibit disarming the village idiot, like you people. Of course, the village thought he had his constitutional rights, too and that's why we say: Tell it to the Judge!"

 

[Bfgrn]

California has a higher than average rate of gun crime despite the allegedly universal background checks the have.

I think that makes you wrong.

Are you C_Clayton_Jones? THAT is not even the question, but I am not surprised you don't understand.

But you are wrong about California...

Want a Better Gun Policy? Look at California

Griffin Dix, Ph.D.

After the recent mass shootings came mass confusion over how to prevent gun deaths. Calls for action ran to extremes. In despair some said murderers will always get weapons that are incredibly lethal; we are helpless against the gun lobby. Others called for banning all firearms. But there is a better way. California’s gun laws—while far from perfect—provide a model that works.

Since the peak firearm mortality rate in 1993 California has cut its firearm mortality rate by 53% — to a new low of 8.1 per 100,000 (according to the CDC’s latest 2009 data). That compares to a decline of only 30% in the rest of the nation, where the firearm mortality rate is 10.2 — far higher than California’s.

Before 1997 California’s firearm mortality rate was consistently higher than that of the rest of the nation. But as California’s gun laws took effect the state’s gun death rate dropped lower. Of course many factors besides gun laws affect firearm mortality rates. But gun laws help and California has passed more than forty of them since the 1989 assault weapon mass shooting in a Stockton schoolyard that led to the state’s assault weapons ban and a ten round limit on ammunition magazine capacity.

Other important California laws curb illegal gun trafficking by requiring background checks on all gun sales or transfers (including at gun shows) and limiting handgun purchases to one per month, prohibit gun purchases by persons guilty of certain violent misdemeanors, and facilitate crime gun tracing and recovery of illegally owned weapons.

Additional laws require licensing of gun dealers. In California handgun buyers must pass a written safety test and hands-on demonstration. Laws that encourage safe gun storage help reduce gun suicide, a major component of firearm mortality. New handgun models sold in California must meet state safety standards.

Americans overwhelmingly support measures like these, which do not interfere with the rights of law-abiding citizens. Gun violence is a complex, multi-faceted problem with no easy fix. No wonder many are confused about how we can cut our gun death rate and protect our families. California’s gun laws are a model the rest of the country should look to in this hour of sorrow, confusion and much-needed discussion.

I live in San Francisco, idiot, you can't tell me anything about California. There were three different shootings in this area today, one a double homicide that occurred during the news. Pretending that murder is the only possible gun crime in order to insist that gun laws work just helps me win the argument.

I just did...

Can you tell me what California Governor had one of the strictest gun-control regimes in the nation? And said this to reporters?

This California Governor told reporters that he saw “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.” He called guns a “ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.” In a later press conference, this California Governor said he didn't “know of any sportsman who leaves his home with a gun to go out into the field to hunt or for target shooting who carries that gun loaded.” The Mulford Act, he said, “would work no hardship on the honest citizen.”

Can you tell me what California Governor signed the Mulford Act, ‘prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street’...???

 

[Bfgrn]

You want to know another reason it is not a loophole? Because it would violate the Constitution for the federal government to require background checks on all gun sales. Since we are talking about federal law here, not state law, there is no gun show loophole unless you think the constitution is a loophole.

You are getting throttled on this thread, and now you emote utter nonsense. Totally false. Requiring background checks does not violate the Constitution.

Your right wing robes, Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito ruled in:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit

No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008


2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

I think he's talking about the restraint of trade aspect there, Bfgrn, forcing a private citizen to perform some action to engage in trade with another private citizen. Of course, you folks don't give a **** about the Constitution anyway, so why would you care, right?

Hey Einstein, if 'The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill', HOW do we know WHO is a felon or mentally ill? By looks? Smell??

 

[OODA_Loop]

This California Governor told reporters that he saw “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.” He called guns a “ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.” In a later press conference, this California Governor said he didn't “know of any sportsman who leaves his home with a gun to go out into the field to hunt or for target shooting who carries that gun loaded.” The Mulford Act, he said, “would work no hardship on the honest citizen.”

Can you tell me what California Governor signed the Mulford Act, ‘prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street’...???

Concealed prohibition is Constitutionally lawful.

Ridiculous way to solve problems unless that problem is someone trying to kill you.

I think most hunters unload their hunting rifles for transportation is pretty accurate.

Mulford Act is a ban on carry outside home = lawful

**** Reagan.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Hey Einstein, if 'The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill', HOW do we know WHO is a felon or mentally ill? By looks? Smell??

Fast track the mentally ill into NICS.

Why do none of Obama's 25 Executive Orders or decrees do this ?

Answer: Need more Sandy Hooks to drive the disarmament agenda.

 

[Bfgrn]

Hey Einstein, if 'The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill', HOW do we know WHO is a felon or mentally ill? By looks? Smell??

Fast track the mentally ill into NICS.

Why do none of Obama's 25 Executive Orders or decrees do this ?

Answer: Need more Sandy Hooks to drive the disarmament agenda.

You people are such ******* ASSHOLES. I have no problem with law abiding citizens owning firearms. But you pieces of right wing scum want to shield felons and the mentally ill from background checks so they too can own guns. WHAT THE **** is wrong with your brain? I can understand why the gun manufacturers who make MILLIONS of $$$$ when guns are sold to anyone would block common sense laws. WHAT is your piece of the action you turd brained moron?