Universal background checks... really?

[Rigby5]

What kind of analogy is that? It don't make sense. Does Trump have people mailing bombs to people?

An effective one it seems.

You don't seem to understand too well. If zingers have to be explained, they aren't very effective.

Yet here you are playing defense...quite poorly

Are we even in the same conversation? If you make an analogy that has no relationship to whatever point you're trying to make, you haven't said anything I need to defend against. Try this for an analogy:

Pro gun lobby - Universal background checks don't stop crime
You - Well, at least the left isn't mailing bombs

There is no analogy to be made.

The analogy was the way you guys are characterizing the same transaction happening at different tables in the same bldg. it’s cute.

Wrong.
No tables have different transactions.
If you are claiming that there are tables at gun shows selling without a background check, you are lying.

 

[Rigby5]

I don't believe it.
I go to all the local gun show in what ever city and state I get sent to, and not in the last 20 years have I ever seen someone sell a gun without a background check, unless it was broken and just for parts..

So in that same 20 years that you've gone to countless gun shows, have you ever once participated in or started a rally to defend your 2nd Amendment rights ?
What have you ever done to proactively fight back against O'Rourke and the wave of gun grabbers?

Nope, and I am embarrassed to say that.
But mandatory background checks or an AR ban would be over the top and across the line in the sand.
I would be ready to start shooting.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Nope, and I am embarrassed to say that.
But mandatory background checks or an AR ban would be over the top and across the line in the sand.
I would be ready to start shooting.

When people are honest I can't help but respect them.

I agree it would be over the top, but so was Obamacare and they got it done.
No doubt they will do the same with revoking the 2nd. It's just a matter of time.

And that "time" is directly proportional to the lack of resistance they get.
While I appreciate your intent if it started, I also truly believe that saying it is one thing, but doing it when a heavily armed team of professionals comes to your door is a completely different animal. You and most Americans are most definitely NOT prepared for that.
Unless you are a highly trained and experienced ex military who's seen live combat.

We are waiting for our chance to pass. Waiting to be pushed to do something we should have been doing LONG ago.
I don't see the Right doing much more than macho Internet taking while the left is moving ahead full steam.

Unless we start putting ourselves in the streets, confronting the O'Rourke's where ever they go and showing we WILL resist, then it will not end well. Violence is not yet needed. But the longer we wait, the more necessary it will become. Why wait?

 

[Rigby5]

Nope, and I am embarrassed to say that.
But mandatory background checks or an AR ban would be over the top and across the line in the sand.
I would be ready to start shooting.

When people are honest I can't help but respect them.

I agree it would be over the top, but so was Obamacare and they got it done.
No doubt they will do the same with revoking the 2nd. It's just a matter of time.

And that "time" is directly proportional to the lack of resistance they get.
While I appreciate your intent if it started, I also truly believe that saying it is one thing, but doing it when a heavily armed team of professionals comes to your door is a completely different animal. You and most Americans are most definitely NOT prepared for that.
Unless you are a highly trained and experienced ex military who's seen live combat.

We are waiting for our chance to pass. Waiting to be pushed to do something we should have done been doing LONG ago.
I don't see the Right doing much more than macho Internet taking while the left is moving ahead full steam.

Unless we start putting ourselves in the streets, confronting the O'Rourke's where ever the go and showing we WILL resist, then it will not end well.

Agreed.
I was complacent because I never believed anyone would say what Beto said.
Confiscation would directly violate the Constitutional restriction on Ex Post Facto laws.
{...
Section 9
...
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
...}
Guide to the Constitution

What Beto said was just totally criminal.
I will march, vote, etc., as much as possible.
No sane person should want this to get to the point of actual shots fired.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Agreed.
I was complacent because I never believed anyone would say what Beto said.
Confiscation would directly violate the Constitutional restriction on Ex Post Facto laws.
{...
Section 9
...
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
...}
Guide to the Constitution

What Beto said was just totally criminal.
I will march, vote, etc., as much as possible.
No sane person should want this to get to the point of actual shots fired.

Likewise, forum talk is cheap.
I'm committed to joining any and every protest / public gathering (peaceful) that I can anywhere near me related to preserving my 2nd Amendment rights.
If I can't find one, I'll organize one.

So that makes two of us now out of 150 million self proclaimed "Patriots".

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Nope, and I am embarrassed to say that.
But mandatory background checks or an AR ban would be over the top and across the line in the sand.
I would be ready to start shooting.

When people are honest I can't help but respect them.

I agree it would be over the top, but so was Obamacare and they got it done.
No doubt they will do the same with revoking the 2nd. It's just a matter of time.

And that "time" is directly proportional to the lack of resistance they get.
While I appreciate your intent if it started, I also truly believe that saying it is one thing, but doing it when a heavily armed team of professionals comes to your door is a completely different animal. You and most Americans are most definitely NOT prepared for that.
Unless you are a highly trained and experienced ex military who's seen live combat.

We are waiting for our chance to pass. Waiting to be pushed to do something we should have been doing LONG ago.
I don't see the Right doing much more than macho Internet taking while the left is moving ahead full steam.

Unless we start putting ourselves in the streets, confronting the O'Rourke's where ever they go and showing we WILL resist, then it will not end well. Violence is not yet needed. But the longer we wait, the more necessary it will become. Why wait?

You should reread post # 838

 

[Rigby5]

Agreed.
I was complacent because I never believed anyone would say what Beto said.
Confiscation would directly violate the Constitutional restriction on Ex Post Facto laws.
{...
Section 9
...
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
...}
Guide to the Constitution

What Beto said was just totally criminal.
I will march, vote, etc., as much as possible.
No sane person should want this to get to the point of actual shots fired.

Likewise, forum talk is cheap.
I'm committed to joining any and every protest / public gathering (peaceful) that I can anywhere near me related to preserving my 2nd Amendment rights.
If I can't find one, I'll organize one.

So that makes two of us now out of 150 million self proclaimed "Patriots".

Two basic problems I can guess.
One is that people have the false impression that the police can and will always take care of them.
And clearly that is false, not only because they have too long of a response time, but because ultimately police or any paid mercenary force, always becomes corrupted by the person signing their paycheck.
Two is that without familiarity, most people have come to fear firearms out of ignorance.

But I think the odds are better than that.
I don't think any of the 150 million gun owners are going to allow confiscations after the first person gets shot.
I think they all will literally be up in arms.
There will be no stopping it.
Even the police and military will mutiny if it comes to that.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

You should reread post # 838

I read it.
Mostly agree.
Have YOU written your Congress"people" ?

I have.
But we have to remember that Congress no longer represents We The People (isn't that obvious?), they represent deep pockets for the most part and their own special interests over the best interests of the nation for the most part.

My assertion is a question....'Can we trust government to protect our best interests or is it time we begin to realize we must gt off the couches and take to the streets in protest (peacefully) if necessary?

Since we (The Right collectively) have never really done that in any significant numbers, we are VERY easy to ignore.
If we seem not to care about our rights, why should they?

 

[Rigby5]

A trained monkey above the age of 21 can have a table at a gun show without a FFL license. In order to be a Dealer, you must have a FFL License. Otherwise, you are nothing but a trained monkey with a table selling guns at a gun show.

Aka a gun dealer

I have not been to a gun show in 20 years that allowed anyone to sell a gun without a background check.
It is not that it is required by law if you are not a licensed dealer, but all gun show demand it as a requirement for getting a table.

Ahh yet somehow a guy in the video was able to go to a gun show and buy a gun from a seller (aka dealer) no questions asked.

I don't believe it.
I go to all the local gun show in what ever city and state I get sent to, and not in the last 20 years have I ever seen someone sell a gun without a background check, unless it was broken and just for parts.
The closest to an exception is the guy walking around with a gun that has a for sale sign on it.
He is not part of the gun show, and while he is not required to do a background check since he is not renting a table, he also is not a dealer, but just selling a single personal possession.

Can I say something and then switch gears?

All of us with any common sense realize that a gun dealer, according to the BATFE, is someone who is engaged in the business of selling weapons. According to the BATFE:

"Under federal law, a person engaged in the business of dealing in firearms is a person who “devotes time, attention and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms.”

https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download

IF your motive is to make a profit as described above, then you are a dealer. If, however, you are a dealer and you do not have an FFL, you are committing a crime. So yeah, you can set up at a gun show and go through all the right "legal" motions, but if you are a dealer and you don't have a license, you are committing a felony. I've set up at gun shows - once to sell off some guns after my wife left and I was stuck having to raise money to pay property taxes after she raided the bank account on here way out of town. The other times I'd sell off a couple of guns in order to buy a more expensive one or maybe optics. So, I was not a dealer because I'm not trying to make a profit. I was a vendor. If someone wants to cop to being an unlicensed dealer, they are admitting to a felony.

Switching gears, yesterday some man ran into a synagogue with what the newscaster called an "AR style rifle." He killed a receptionist and wounded a rabbi. The newscaster also reported that he did so with a "legally purchased firearm." IF that man had gotten the weapon under any circumstance other than with a background check, that would have been the entire broadcast. ABC will use the whole half hour of news reporting to sell the background check idea, but they simply told this news story and quickly went to the next news story.

The main takeaway here is, if you take the time to check, virtually all mass shootings (and this one was intended to be a mass shooting) are committed with legally purchased weapons. That means the buyer did the background check thing. BACKGROUND CHECKS DO NOT WORK. The left doesn't give a rat's ass about saving lives. The left only cares about one thing and one thing only: CONTROL. If the left wanted to prove anything related to this issue they would have an important statistic, but that statistic does not exist. Virtually all mass shooters (as well a most other shootings) are done with weapons purchased from FFL dealers and involved going through the process.

This constant argument is silly and stupid. Background checks are ineffective and I think if you are pro-gun, your time would be better spent focusing on WHY people are committing those crimes, deal with those (and we know who they are before they act) so as to reduce the instances of gun violence and dismantle the left's argument. For pro gun posters, your time would have been more effectively spent calling and writing your congresscritters and getting my proposals on the table. If you put a counter-proposal on the table, the left will quit calling for measures that are aimed at taking your weapons. They will have to use their resources to fight proposals that will deal with the real problem. The real problem is that Socialists, National Socialists, and Communists want control. If you are not supporting my ideas and contacting your congresscritters, you're merely wasting time.

The problem is that you ended on an note grouping socialists, national socialists, and communists together.
And socialism and national socialism are direct opposites since national socialism is fascism by the wealthy elite.
And communism should not even be discussed because the real world mostly has had to deal with Stalinism for the last hundred years, so has no idea what communism could even mean.

The only way to evaluate socialism is to look at places it was done successfully, like WI, with many socialist governors and mayors, and it is not centralized at all. Socialism is like where employees buy out a company to make it employee owned, and it works best when decentralized as much as possible, like all things.

 

[Rigby5]

You should reread post # 838

I read it.
Mostly agree.
Have YOU written your Congress"people" ?

I have.
But we have to remember that Congress no longer represents We The People (isn't that obvious?), they represent deep pockets for the most part and their own special interests over the best interests of the nation for the most part.

My assertion is a question....'Can we trust government to protect our best interests or is it time we begin to realize we must gt off the couches and take to the streets in protest (peacefully) if necessary?

Since we (The Right collectively) have never really done that in any significant numbers, we are VERY easy to ignore.
If we seem not to care about our rights, why should they?

Not only am I an extreme leftist, but it is leftists who promote a democratic republic, so it would be foolish to discount the left.
The democratic party has only gone fascist for no more than the last 20 years, and many leftist are still against fascist things like gun control.
Pick your issues, not party labels, if you want to maximize support.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Two basic problems I can guess.
One is that people have the false impression that the police can and will always take care of them.
And clearly that is false, not only because they have too long of a response time, but because ultimately police or any paid mercenary force, always becomes corrupted by the person signing their paycheck.
Two is that without familiarity, most people have come to fear firearms out of ignorance.

But I think the odds are better than that.
I don't think any of the 150 million gun owners are going to allow confiscations after the first person gets shot.
I think they all will literally be up in arms.
There will be no stopping it.
Even the police and military will mutiny if it comes to that.

I understand. And I agree it is wrong to clump all Leftists together. My apologies.

Recall that during the Revolutionary War, MOST Americans stayed home trusting someone else would do their fighting for them.
Only like 8% of Americans got involved at all. Yet they enjoyed the spoils of the victory just the same.

Today we have a similar (if not worse) situation. People are afraid of government. YES they are.
They know that the IRS can come after them for political reasons. So we are mice backed into submission in a quiet corner while the Cat closes in.

There have been ZERO significant protests by the Right. None.
Again, that tells the radical Left and Congress that we don't even care about our rights so why should they.
Or more significantly, if we don't care, it's very easy for them to make laws and decisions that affect all Americans that are not in their best interests.

The longer we remain timid and silent, the worse our predicament will become until eventually the Cat has us in it's mouth.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Aka a gun dealer

I have not been to a gun show in 20 years that allowed anyone to sell a gun without a background check.
It is not that it is required by law if you are not a licensed dealer, but all gun show demand it as a requirement for getting a table.

Ahh yet somehow a guy in the video was able to go to a gun show and buy a gun from a seller (aka dealer) no questions asked.

I don't believe it.
I go to all the local gun show in what ever city and state I get sent to, and not in the last 20 years have I ever seen someone sell a gun without a background check, unless it was broken and just for parts.
The closest to an exception is the guy walking around with a gun that has a for sale sign on it.
He is not part of the gun show, and while he is not required to do a background check since he is not renting a table, he also is not a dealer, but just selling a single personal possession.

Can I say something and then switch gears?

All of us with any common sense realize that a gun dealer, according to the BATFE, is someone who is engaged in the business of selling weapons. According to the BATFE:

"Under federal law, a person engaged in the business of dealing in firearms is a person who “devotes time, attention and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms.”

https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download

IF your motive is to make a profit as described above, then you are a dealer. If, however, you are a dealer and you do not have an FFL, you are committing a crime. So yeah, you can set up at a gun show and go through all the right "legal" motions, but if you are a dealer and you don't have a license, you are committing a felony. I've set up at gun shows - once to sell off some guns after my wife left and I was stuck having to raise money to pay property taxes after she raided the bank account on here way out of town. The other times I'd sell off a couple of guns in order to buy a more expensive one or maybe optics. So, I was not a dealer because I'm not trying to make a profit. I was a vendor. If someone wants to cop to being an unlicensed dealer, they are admitting to a felony.

Switching gears, yesterday some man ran into a synagogue with what the newscaster called an "AR style rifle." He killed a receptionist and wounded a rabbi. The newscaster also reported that he did so with a "legally purchased firearm." IF that man had gotten the weapon under any circumstance other than with a background check, that would have been the entire broadcast. ABC will use the whole half hour of news reporting to sell the background check idea, but they simply told this news story and quickly went to the next news story.

The main takeaway here is, if you take the time to check, virtually all mass shootings (and this one was intended to be a mass shooting) are committed with legally purchased weapons. That means the buyer did the background check thing. BACKGROUND CHECKS DO NOT WORK. The left doesn't give a rat's ass about saving lives. The left only cares about one thing and one thing only: CONTROL. If the left wanted to prove anything related to this issue they would have an important statistic, but that statistic does not exist. Virtually all mass shooters (as well a most other shootings) are done with weapons purchased from FFL dealers and involved going through the process.

This constant argument is silly and stupid. Background checks are ineffective and I think if you are pro-gun, your time would be better spent focusing on WHY people are committing those crimes, deal with those (and we know who they are before they act) so as to reduce the instances of gun violence and dismantle the left's argument. For pro gun posters, your time would have been more effectively spent calling and writing your congresscritters and getting my proposals on the table. If you put a counter-proposal on the table, the left will quit calling for measures that are aimed at taking your weapons. They will have to use their resources to fight proposals that will deal with the real problem. The real problem is that Socialists, National Socialists, and Communists want control. If you are not supporting my ideas and contacting your congresscritters, you're merely wasting time.

The problem is that you ended on an note grouping socialists, national socialists, and communists together.
And socialism and national socialism are direct opposites since national socialism is fascism by the wealthy elite.
And communism should not even be discussed because the real world mostly has had to deal with Stalinism for the last hundred years, so has no idea what communism could even mean.

The only way to evaluate socialism is to look at places it was done successfully, like WI, with many socialist governors and mayors, and it is not centralized at all. Socialism is like where employees buy out a company to make it employee owned, and it works best when decentralized as much as possible, like all things.

We are still dealing with remnants of communism - the 16th Amendment

The talking points to Trump supporters are socialist - "they're stealing our jobs"

Trump hangs with National Socialists for many of his talking points (though not one himself.) Trump is an opportunist and is using what works to set us up for a global government.

People are too worried about the labels they have chosen to identify with rather than the problems that face us and the right strategies it would take to avert tyranny and oppression.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

The only way to evaluate socialism is to look at places it was done successfully, like WI, with many socialist governors and mayors, and it is not centralized at all. Socialism is like where employees buy out a company to make it employee owned, and it works best when decentralized as much as possible, like all things.

This is where we part company.
Socialism is not "like where employees buy out a company to make it employee owned", that is capitalism still.

PLEASE understand the true definition of something before you fight for it.

Socialism is when GOVERNMENT OWNS the means of production.

GOVERNMENT OWNS.

The Left has bent the definition in modern times to try and soften the definition by saying 'Community Owns" but that is a lie.
When Socialists take power the first order of business is relieving private individuals of the means of production and putting it all under government control.
THEY become the "community" It is a lie and a deceptive way of making Socialism more palatable to malleable minds.

If you don't think GOVERNMENT should control all business and all farming etc, then you are not a Socialist.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You should reread post # 838

I read it.
Mostly agree.
Have YOU written your Congress"people" ?

I have.
But we have to remember that Congress no longer represents We The People (isn't that obvious?), they represent deep pockets for the most part and their own special interests over the best interests of the nation for the most part.

My assertion is a question....'Can we trust government to protect our best interests or is it time we begin to realize we must gt off the couches and take to the streets in protest (peacefully) if necessary?

Since we (The Right collectively) have never really done that in any significant numbers, we are VERY easy to ignore.
If we seem not to care about our rights, why should they?

I write to at least one congresscritter on a weekly basis
I sent constant e mails
I call the staff on the phone

About once a month I try to take one of our local politicians (state reps, senators, county commissioner) out to lunch and put a bug in their ear.

The thing about the "right" is that they've adopted so many planks of Communism, Socialism and National Socialism, they no longer have an autonomous identity, so it makes it near impossible to get legislators to support what they bring to the table.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Seller...dealer....merchant....all mean the same thing. Sorry to confuse you with facts

There;s no fact at all in your statement.

Gun nuts seem to not have access to a thesaurus

And you, the ability to demonstrate the necessity for and the efficacy of the restrictions you seek to lay on the law abiding.

 

[candycorn]

Distinction with zero difference

Australia is becoming quite violent. Gun murders on the rise.
Americans don't give up their rights to defend themselves like Aussie Puzzies did.

When China invades you....try throwing rocks at them.

Lol...thanks for the advice?

 

[candycorn]

A trained monkey above the age of 21 can have a table at a gun show without a FFL license. In order to be a Dealer, you must have a FFL License. Otherwise, you are nothing but a trained monkey with a table selling guns at a gun show.

Aka a gun dealer

I have not been to a gun show in 20 years that allowed anyone to sell a gun without a background check.
It is not that it is required by law if you are not a licensed dealer, but all gun show demand it as a requirement for getting a table.

Ahh yet somehow a guy in the video was able to go to a gun show and buy a gun from a seller (aka dealer) no questions asked.

I don't believe it.
I go to all the local gun show in what ever city and state I get sent to, and not in the last 20 years have I ever seen someone sell a gun without a background check, unless it was broken and just for parts.
The closest to an exception is the guy walking around with a gun that has a for sale sign on it.
He is not part of the gun show, and while he is not required to do a background check since he is not renting a table, he also is not a dealer, but just selling a single personal possession.

Can I say something and then switch gears?

All of us with any common sense realize that a gun dealer, according to the BATFE, is someone who is engaged in the business of selling weapons. According to the BATFE:

"Under federal law, a person engaged in the business of dealing in firearms is a person who “devotes time, attention and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms.”

https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download

IF your motive is to make a profit as described above, then you are a dealer. If, however, you are a dealer and you do not have an FFL, you are committing a crime. So yeah, you can set up at a gun show and go through all the right "legal" motions, but if you are a dealer and you don't have a license, you are committing a felony. I've set up at gun shows - once to sell off some guns after my wife left and I was stuck having to raise money to pay property taxes after she raided the bank account on here way out of town. The other times I'd sell off a couple of guns in order to buy a more expensive one or maybe optics. So, I was not a dealer because I'm not trying to make a profit. I was a vendor. If someone wants to cop to being an unlicensed dealer, they are admitting to a felony.

Switching gears, yesterday some man ran into a synagogue with what the newscaster called an "AR style rifle." He killed a receptionist and wounded a rabbi. The newscaster also reported that he did so with a "legally purchased firearm." IF that man had gotten the weapon under any circumstance other than with a background check, that would have been the entire broadcast. ABC will use the whole half hour of news reporting to sell the background check idea, but they simply told this news story and quickly went to the next news story.

The main takeaway here is, if you take the time to check, virtually all mass shootings (and this one was intended to be a mass shooting) are committed with legally purchased weapons. That means the buyer did the background check thing. BACKGROUND CHECKS DO NOT WORK. The left doesn't give a rat's ass about saving lives. The left only cares about one thing and one thing only: CONTROL. If the left wanted to prove anything related to this issue they would have an important statistic, but that statistic does not exist. Virtually all mass shooters (as well a most other shootings) are done with weapons purchased from FFL dealers and involved going through the process.

This constant argument is silly and stupid. Background checks are ineffective and I think if you are pro-gun, your time would be better spent focusing on WHY people are committing those crimes, deal with those (and we know who they are before they act) so as to reduce the instances of gun violence and dismantle the left's argument. For pro gun posters, your time would have been more effectively spent calling and writing your congresscritters and getting my proposals on the table. If you put a counter-proposal on the table, the left will quit calling for measures that are aimed at taking your weapons. They will have to use their resources to fight proposals that will deal with the real problem. The real problem is that Socialists, National Socialists, and Communists want control. If you are not supporting my ideas and contacting your congresscritters, you're merely wasting time.

Good to get back to the point.

We need to ensure firearms are not in the same house as those diagnosed with mental illness.

The entire moronic distinction the gun nuts are drawing between sellers and buyers is what interrupts the improvements we. An make toward public safety.

 

[candycorn]

Aka a gun dealer

I have not been to a gun show in 20 years that allowed anyone to sell a gun without a background check.
It is not that it is required by law if you are not a licensed dealer, but all gun show demand it as a requirement for getting a table.

Ahh yet somehow a guy in the video was able to go to a gun show and buy a gun from a seller (aka dealer) no questions asked.

I don't believe it.
I go to all the local gun show in what ever city and state I get sent to, and not in the last 20 years have I ever seen someone sell a gun without a background check, unless it was broken and just for parts.
The closest to an exception is the guy walking around with a gun that has a for sale sign on it.
He is not part of the gun show, and while he is not required to do a background check since he is not renting a table, he also is not a dealer, but just selling a single personal possession.

Another example of why more regulation is needed

How is that an example of why more regulation is needed?
If a person has inherited an old relic he wants to get rid of, why should he have to spend $300 to get a license to sell it?
That makes no sense.
The government is not authorized to require that, anywhere in the Constitution.
That would be like you deciding to sell your old car, and the state requiring you to get a dealer's license to be able to do that.
That which you legally own, you can legally sell as you wish, and there is nothing government can do about it.
If the person is not supposed to legally own what you are selling, that is not supposed to be your fault or concern.
If they want all gun sales to have background checks, then all they have to do is allow everyone to do a background check.
But they don't.
They only allow dealers to do background checks.
So it is entirely the fault of the government, and wrong to blame anyone else.

Never argued they had to get a license. I argued that the seller and buyer go to the court house or some other designee set up to officiate the sale and check the buyer’s background.

The silly argument about the proven gun show loophole not existing is something you guys created

 

[M14 Shooter]

We need to ensure firearms are not in the same house as those diagnosed with mental illness.

Why do you hate due process?
Why don't you understand federal law already provides for this?

The entire moronic distinction the gun nuts are drawing between sellers and buyers...

You don't understand the inherent difference between sellers and buyers?

 

[candycorn]

An effective one it seems.

You don't seem to understand too well. If zingers have to be explained, they aren't very effective.

Yet here you are playing defense...quite poorly

Are we even in the same conversation? If you make an analogy that has no relationship to whatever point you're trying to make, you haven't said anything I need to defend against. Try this for an analogy:

Pro gun lobby - Universal background checks don't stop crime
You - Well, at least the left isn't mailing bombs

There is no analogy to be made.

The analogy was the way you guys are characterizing the same transaction happening at different tables in the same bldg. it’s cute.

Wrong.
No tables have different transactions.
If you are claiming that there are tables at gun shows selling without a background check, you are lying.

Except for the video showing it happening above.