Gun show loophole a compromise

[OriginalShroom]

I'll repeat the question. Why would you want loopholes/exceptions?

What about the person who can't afford to pay for a background check?

You really are determined that no one take you seriously, aren't you?

You want everyone to have a background check.. What about the person who can't afford one? Should they be denied the right to own a firearm?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'd be fine with it. A gun show is a "sanctioned event" by ATF rulings. They could simply require background checks at all sanctioned events. of course two guys could meet down the street later and conduct business. So what? Most criminals do not get guns at gun shows, despite what the media would have you believe.
To me the advantage is that it would cut out the unlicensed dealer.

I don't get it I thought the pro second amendment people would agree with this, but for some reason they think they are loosing a right. And what few anti second amendment people have responded want more.
But anyway if we aren't careful and police ourself we're going to be the biggest loser's of all.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'll repeat the question. Why would you want loopholes/exceptions?

What about the person who can't afford to pay for a background check?

You really are determined that no one take you seriously, aren't you?

we already know about you.

 

[OriginalShroom]

I'd be fine with it. A gun show is a "sanctioned event" by ATF rulings. They could simply require background checks at all sanctioned events. of course two guys could meet down the street later and conduct business. So what? Most criminals do not get guns at gun shows, despite what the media would have you believe.
To me the advantage is that it would cut out the unlicensed dealer.

I don't get it I thought the pro second amendment people would agree with this, but for some reason they think they are loosing a right. And what few anti second amendment people have responded want more.
But anyway if we aren't careful and police ourself we're going to be the biggest loser's of all.

I don't want to give a millimeter to the gun grabbers.

We already gave up an entire class of guns in 1934.

We compromised with them when we agreed to the three day waiting period.

We compromised with them when we accepted that a person convicted of a misdeamnor crime can lose their 2nd Amendment rights, even retro-actively, in the case of domestic abuse.

Now they want everyone to undergo background checks for every weapon, even gifts and guns passed from family member to family member.

No more I say. We've given enough.

 

[Luissa]

WOW compromise something I thought I never would be suggesting to anti gun people, but here it goes.

Being that Gun shows are privately run and held on private property. Those who manage these gun shows and those who own the property could place restrictions on the property site too private sales. The gun community would police itself by doing this.
In other words,no private sales allowed.
Would this compromise be sufficient to end this argument?

Advisory: Pro Second Amendment Supporters think about your answer before you respond. My proposal doesn't take any rights away, nor does the government have any involvement.
1. No law will be created from doing this
2. It will be impimented only by the operators of the gun show
3 It will remove a argument from the anti gun crowd.
4. In my opinion is the only workable solution that anyone has offered.
5. You will not lose any rights

Why do you keep saying anti gun? Are 70 to 90% of this country anti gun?
The overwhelming majority want back ground checks, which includes gun owners.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'd be fine with it. A gun show is a "sanctioned event" by ATF rulings. They could simply require background checks at all sanctioned events. of course two guys could meet down the street later and conduct business. So what? Most criminals do not get guns at gun shows, despite what the media would have you believe.
To me the advantage is that it would cut out the unlicensed dealer.

I don't get it I thought the pro second amendment people would agree with this, but for some reason they think they are loosing a right. And what few anti second amendment people have responded want more.
But anyway if we aren't careful and police ourself we're going to be the biggest loser's of all.

I don't want to give a millimeter to the gun grabbers.

We already gave up an entire class of guns in 1934.

We compromised with them when we agreed to the three day waiting period.

We compromised with them when we accepted that a person convicted of a misdeamnor crime can lose their 2nd Amendment rights, even retro-actively, in the case of domestic abuse.

Now they want everyone to undergo background checks for every weapon, even gifts and guns passed from family member to family member.

No more I say. We've given enough.

You aren't giving anything or loosing anything.
If the organizers of gun shows made the restriction's of private sales you wouldn't have a choice in the matter.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

WOW compromise something I thought I never would be suggesting to anti gun people, but here it goes.

Being that Gun shows are privately run and held on private property. Those who manage these gun shows and those who own the property could place restrictions on the property site too private sales. The gun community would police itself by doing this.
In other words,no private sales allowed.
Would this compromise be sufficient to end this argument?

Advisory: Pro Second Amendment Supporters think about your answer before you respond. My proposal doesn't take any rights away, nor does the government have any involvement.
1. No law will be created from doing this
2. It will be impimented only by the operators of the gun show
3 It will remove a argument from the anti gun crowd.
4. In my opinion is the only workable solution that anyone has offered.
5. You will not lose any rights

Why do you keep saying anti gun? Are 70 to 90% of this country anti gun?
The overwhelming majority want back ground checks, which includes gun owners.

The second amendment is either you are for it and support what it means or you're anti gun. There is no gray area.
OH and we already have back ground checks.

 

[OriginalShroom]

WOW compromise something I thought I never would be suggesting to anti gun people, but here it goes.

Being that Gun shows are privately run and held on private property. Those who manage these gun shows and those who own the property could place restrictions on the property site too private sales. The gun community would police itself by doing this.
In other words,no private sales allowed.
Would this compromise be sufficient to end this argument?

Advisory: Pro Second Amendment Supporters think about your answer before you respond. My proposal doesn't take any rights away, nor does the government have any involvement.
1. No law will be created from doing this
2. It will be impimented only by the operators of the gun show
3 It will remove a argument from the anti gun crowd.
4. In my opinion is the only workable solution that anyone has offered.
5. You will not lose any rights

Why do you keep saying anti gun? Are 70 to 90% of this country anti gun?
The overwhelming majority want back ground checks, which includes gun owners.

I will ask this question again...

Maybe you will answer it.

What other Constitutionally Enumerated Right(s) should we put up for a Popular Vote?

Let me remind you again of what Justice Robert Jackson, a Democrat, said...

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.

 

[Redbone]

WOW a simple workable solution and so far no one will agree.
One refuses to give an inch even though it doesn't infringe on their right
and the other side is asking for more. I say hell ******* no too the other side. You get what I suggested and that's all

Give an inch and eventually you will give a mile. Best to stick with your, "hell ******* no to the other side". At least then you can stand on firm ground and not have to retreat further.
They are in full attack mode upon the one right that we have and was fully embraced/safeguarded by the Founders because it was to be the last defense against tyranny. They are beguiled into supporting the coming tyranny. Lost souls crying in the wilderness, "come join us in our ignorance"!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

WOW a simple workable solution and so far no one will agree.
One refuses to give an inch even though it doesn't infringe on their right
and the other side is asking for more. I say hell ******* no too the other side. You get what I suggested and that's all

Give an inch and eventually you will give a mile. Best to stick with your, "hell ******* no to the other side". At least then you can stand on firm ground and not have to retreat further.
They are in full attack mode upon the one right that we have and was fully embraced/safeguarded by the Founders because it was to be the last defense against tyranny. They are beguiled into supporting the coming tyranny. Lost souls crying in the wilderness, "come join us in our ignorance"!

You wouldn't be giving anything away.

 

[Redbone]

WOW a simple workable solution and so far no one will agree.
One refuses to give an inch even though it doesn't infringe on their right
and the other side is asking for more. I say hell ******* no too the other side. You get what I suggested and that's all

Give an inch and eventually you will give a mile. Best to stick with your, "hell ******* no to the other side". At least then you can stand on firm ground and not have to retreat further.
They are in full attack mode upon the one right that we have and was fully embraced/safeguarded by the Founders because it was to be the last defense against tyranny. They are beguiled into supporting the coming tyranny. Lost souls crying in the wilderness, "come join us in our ignorance"!

You wouldn't be giving anything away.

If giving them nothing they will never accept it. They are dead wrong but not complete fools. A man demanding some of your water is hardly going to be happy to accept you giving him an empty cup!

Some things we should be like a block of granite on. The 2nd Amendment has already been chipped at too much.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Give an inch and eventually you will give a mile. Best to stick with your, "hell ******* no to the other side". At least then you can stand on firm ground and not have to retreat further.
They are in full attack mode upon the one right that we have and was fully embraced/safeguarded by the Founders because it was to be the last defense against tyranny. They are beguiled into supporting the coming tyranny. Lost souls crying in the wilderness, "come join us in our ignorance"!

You wouldn't be giving anything away.

If giving them nothing they will never accept it. They are dead wrong but not complete fools. A man demanding some of your water is hardly going to be happy to accept you giving him an empty cup!

Some things we should be like a block of granite on. The 2nd Amendment has already been chipped at too much.

You aren't giving up anything why can't you understand this?
If the gun show event coordinator says no private sale during a gun show you would't have a choice. And the gun grabbers would have one less argument too use, because there would be no private sales at a gun show, and the government would have too leave gun shows alone. Do you understand now?

 

[tjvh]

Shut up

I'll repeat the question. Why would you want loopholes/exceptions?

What about the person who can't afford to pay for a background check?

Disenfranchising the poor only matters when voter ID cards are concerned, anything else... The poor get thrown under the Liberal Bus.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'll repeat the question. Why would you want loopholes/exceptions?

What about the person who can't afford to pay for a background check?

Disenfranchising the poor only matters when voter ID cards are concerned, anything else... The poor get thrown under the Liberal Bus.

Good point
Poor only count when they cast their vote for democrats.

 

[Luissa]

WOW compromise something I thought I never would be suggesting to anti gun people, but here it goes.

Being that Gun shows are privately run and held on private property. Those who manage these gun shows and those who own the property could place restrictions on the property site too private sales. The gun community would police itself by doing this.
In other words,no private sales allowed.
Would this compromise be sufficient to end this argument?

Advisory: Pro Second Amendment Supporters think about your answer before you respond. My proposal doesn't take any rights away, nor does the government have any involvement.
1. No law will be created from doing this
2. It will be impimented only by the operators of the gun show
3 It will remove a argument from the anti gun crowd.
4. In my opinion is the only workable solution that anyone has offered.
5. You will not lose any rights

Why do you keep saying anti gun? Are 70 to 90% of this country anti gun?
The overwhelming majority want back ground checks, which includes gun owners.

The second amendment is either you are for it and support what it means or you're anti gun. There is no gray area.
OH and we already have back ground checks.

I support your right to carry a gun, I do not support the right of a criminal to carry a gun... Which is why I and 70 to 90% of Americans support back ground checks. If you continue to say I and other are anti guy for supporting back ground checks you will continue to look stupid.
I can own a car but I have to have a licenses, insurance, and register it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why do you keep saying anti gun? Are 70 to 90% of this country anti gun?
The overwhelming majority want back ground checks, which includes gun owners.

The second amendment is either you are for it and support what it means or you're anti gun. There is no gray area.
OH and we already have back ground checks.

I support your right to carry a gun, I do not support the right of a criminal to carry a gun... Which is why I and 70 to 90% of Americans support back ground checks. If you continue to say I and other are anti guy for supporting back ground checks you will continue to look stupid.
I can own a car but I have to have a licenses, insurance, and register it.

Only criminals will take the chance of 10 years in prison for selling a firearm too someone who shouldn't have one. I don't know any gun owner that would take that chance on a complete stranger.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I can own a car but I have to have a licenses, insurance, and register it.

-You do not need a license to buy or own a car, or to use it on private property.
-If you lose your license, you do not lose your car, and you are able to buy other cars.
-You do not need to register a car that keep in your garage, or to use it on private property
-You do not need to insure a car that you keep in your garage or use on private property.
So.... what's your point?

 

[The Rabbi]

Why do you keep saying anti gun? Are 70 to 90% of this country anti gun?
The overwhelming majority want back ground checks, which includes gun owners.

The second amendment is either you are for it and support what it means or you're anti gun. There is no gray area.
OH and we already have back ground checks.

I support your right to carry a gun, I do not support the right of a criminal to carry a gun... Which is why I and 70 to 90% of Americans support back ground checks. If you continue to say I and other are anti guy for supporting back ground checks you will continue to look stupid.
I can own a car but I have to have a licenses, insurance, and register it.

We've already dispelled the car analogy many times here.
Why is a background check going to stop a criminal from carrying a gun, when the criminals is already prohibited from owning one? Libs can never quite explain this one.

 

[Erand7899]

WOW compromise something I thought I never would be suggesting to anti gun people, but here it goes.

Being that Gun shows are privately run and held on private property. Those who manage these gun shows and those who own the property could place restrictions on the property site too private sales. The gun community would police itself by doing this.
In other words,no private sales allowed.
Would this compromise be sufficient to end this argument?

Advisory: Pro Second Amendment Supporters think about your answer before you respond. My proposal doesn't take any rights away, nor does the government have any involvement.
1. No law will be created from doing this
2. It will be impimented only by the operators of the gun show
3 It will remove a argument from the anti gun crowd.
4. In my opinion is the only workable solution that anyone has offered.
5. You will not lose any rights

You are not too far off the mark. Gun show organizers could specify that private sales made at the gun shows must include background checks, and provide the services needed to obtain those background checks. Of course, compliance would not be guaranteed because noone can control a private deal made between two people.

 

[The Rabbi]

WOW compromise something I thought I never would be suggesting to anti gun people, but here it goes.

Being that Gun shows are privately run and held on private property. Those who manage these gun shows and those who own the property could place restrictions on the property site too private sales. The gun community would police itself by doing this.
In other words,no private sales allowed.
Would this compromise be sufficient to end this argument?

Advisory: Pro Second Amendment Supporters think about your answer before you respond. My proposal doesn't take any rights away, nor does the government have any involvement.
1. No law will be created from doing this
2. It will be impimented only by the operators of the gun show
3 It will remove a argument from the anti gun crowd.
4. In my opinion is the only workable solution that anyone has offered.
5. You will not lose any rights

You are not too far off the mark. Gun show organizers could specify that private sales made at the gun shows must include background checks, and provide the services needed to obtain those background checks. Of course, compliance would not be guaranteed because noone can control a private deal made between two people.

Which is why universal background checks are a policy fail.