Universal background checks... really?

[M14 Shooter]

The silly argument about the proven gun show loophole....

It is impossible to legally avoid the background checks mandated by federal law.
Thus, there is no loophole in that law.

 

[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.

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.

You talk about "gun nuts", but it's kind of hard to claim the moral high ground when Beto O'Rourke made the statement he did and the other candidates did not disavow his statements AND the crowd gave an almost standing ovation.

You cannot take sides and avoid being held to the same standard you've set for anyone who argues against gun control. The side you've chosen to stand on has a stated objective that sounds good on the surface, but is highly disingenuous. Their standard canard is "we want to make sure guns don't fall into the wrong hands." You try to sugar coat it a bit and say that you don't want firearms in the same house as someone with a mental illness.

Between the two objectives there, I'm not seeing an objective that says something like let's find the people with a mental illness and put them into protective custody and treat / rehabilitate them before we set them loose into society. All mental illnesses do not involve violent personalities.

Our society has become one in which there are very few mental health facilities and few resources for the poor to properly diagnose / treat mentally unstable people. We throw them out on the streets to become homeless OR maybe mommy tries to parent them with pills and police. You waste money on trying to ban weapons and require a background check which is about as worthless as raincoat in a hurricane. Neither will work. Your solution has to fit the problem at hand if it is to be effective.

I have put forth an idea that would reduce mass shootings by 90 percent. Period. There would be no tax increases; no new bureaucracies are necessary; there would be no gun control of any kind associated with the plan. The Democrats avoid it like the plague because it will reduce firearm deaths WITHOUT gun control. Gun owners, for whatever reason, are reactionaries. They won't get off their ass and lobby for countermeasures. They only blow money on the NRA - an organization working to bring about gun control on an incremental basis. Neither side wants to solve the problem, but you are struggling in vain to take the high ground.

 

[candycorn]

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.

You talk about "gun nuts", but it's kind of hard to claim the moral high ground when Beto O'Rourke made the statement he did and the other candidates did not disavow his statements AND the crowd gave an almost standing ovation.

You cannot take sides and avoid being held to the same standard you've set for anyone who argues against gun control. The side you've chosen to stand on has a stated objective that sounds good on the surface, but is highly disingenuous. Their standard canard is "we want to make sure guns don't fall into the wrong hands." You try to sugar coat it a bit and say that you don't want firearms in the same house as someone with a mental illness.

Between the two objectives there, I'm not seeing an objective that says something like let's find the people with a mental illness and put them into protective custody and treat / rehabilitate them before we set them loose into society. All mental illnesses do not involve violent personalities.

Our society has become one in which there are very few mental health facilities and few resources for the poor to properly diagnose / treat mentally unstable people. We throw them out on the streets to become homeless OR maybe mommy tries to parent them with pills and police. You waste money on trying to ban weapons and require a background check which is about as worthless as raincoat in a hurricane. Neither will work. Your solution has to fit the problem at hand if it is to be effective.

I have put forth an idea that would reduce mass shootings by 90 percent. Period. There would be no tax increases; no new bureaucracies are necessary; there would be no gun control of any kind associated with the plan. The Democrats avoid it like the plague because it will reduce firearm deaths WITHOUT gun control. Gun owners, for whatever reason, are reactionaries. They won't get off their ass and lobby for countermeasures. They only blow money on the NRA - an organization working to bring about gun control on an incremental basis. Neither side wants to solve the problem, but you are struggling in vain to take the high ground.

Beto is a gun nut in the other direction.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

You talk about "gun nuts", but it's kind of hard to claim the moral high ground when Beto O'Rourke made the statement he did and the other candidates did not disavow his statements AND the crowd gave an almost standing ovation.

You cannot take sides and avoid being held to the same standard you've set for anyone who argues against gun control. The side you've chosen to stand on has a stated objective that sounds good on the surface, but is highly disingenuous. Their standard canard is "we want to make sure guns don't fall into the wrong hands." You try to sugar coat it a bit and say that you don't want firearms in the same house as someone with a mental illness.

Between the two objectives there, I'm not seeing an objective that says something like let's find the people with a mental illness and put them into protective custody and treat / rehabilitate them before we set them loose into society. All mental illnesses do not involve violent personalities.

Our society has become one in which there are very few mental health facilities and few resources for the poor to properly diagnose / treat mentally unstable people. We throw them out on the streets to become homeless OR maybe mommy tries to parent them with pills and police. You waste money on trying to ban weapons and require a background check which is about as worthless as raincoat in a hurricane. Neither will work. Your solution has to fit the problem at hand if it is to be effective.

I have put forth an idea that would reduce mass shootings by 90 percent. Period. There would be no tax increases; no new bureaucracies are necessary; there would be no gun control of any kind associated with the plan. The Democrats avoid it like the plague because it will reduce firearm deaths WITHOUT gun control. Gun owners, for whatever reason, are reactionaries. They won't get off their ass and lobby for countermeasures. They only blow money on the NRA - an organization working to bring about gun control on an incremental basis. Neither side wants to solve the problem, but you are struggling in vain to take the high ground.

Beto is a gun nut in the other direction.

Beto exposed the anti- gun agenda to the delight of Democrats who cheered for that faux pas.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

You talk about "gun nuts", but it's kind of hard to claim the moral high ground when Beto O'Rourke made the statement he did and the other candidates did not disavow his statements AND the crowd gave an almost standing ovation.

You cannot take sides and avoid being held to the same standard you've set for anyone who argues against gun control. The side you've chosen to stand on has a stated objective that sounds good on the surface, but is highly disingenuous. Their standard canard is "we want to make sure guns don't fall into the wrong hands." You try to sugar coat it a bit and say that you don't want firearms in the same house as someone with a mental illness.

Between the two objectives there, I'm not seeing an objective that says something like let's find the people with a mental illness and put them into protective custody and treat / rehabilitate them before we set them loose into society. All mental illnesses do not involve violent personalities.

Our society has become one in which there are very few mental health facilities and few resources for the poor to properly diagnose / treat mentally unstable people. We throw them out on the streets to become homeless OR maybe mommy tries to parent them with pills and police. You waste money on trying to ban weapons and require a background check which is about as worthless as raincoat in a hurricane. Neither will work. Your solution has to fit the problem at hand if it is to be effective.

I have put forth an idea that would reduce mass shootings by 90 percent. Period. There would be no tax increases; no new bureaucracies are necessary; there would be no gun control of any kind associated with the plan. The Democrats avoid it like the plague because it will reduce firearm deaths WITHOUT gun control. Gun owners, for whatever reason, are reactionaries. They won't get off their ass and lobby for countermeasures. They only blow money on the NRA - an organization working to bring about gun control on an incremental basis. Neither side wants to solve the problem, but you are struggling in vain to take the high ground.

Beto is a gun nut in the other direction.

Beto exposed the anti- gun agenda to the delight of Democrats who cheered for that faux pas.

You all know I am am not a Rump Rump Rump Rump fan by any stretch of the imagination. But I was thrilled when Beto did that. It eliminated any chance he had to fill any office of any kind.

 

[Rustic]

 

[candycorn]

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.

You talk about "gun nuts", but it's kind of hard to claim the moral high ground when Beto O'Rourke made the statement he did and the other candidates did not disavow his statements AND the crowd gave an almost standing ovation.

You cannot take sides and avoid being held to the same standard you've set for anyone who argues against gun control. The side you've chosen to stand on has a stated objective that sounds good on the surface, but is highly disingenuous. Their standard canard is "we want to make sure guns don't fall into the wrong hands." You try to sugar coat it a bit and say that you don't want firearms in the same house as someone with a mental illness.

Between the two objectives there, I'm not seeing an objective that says something like let's find the people with a mental illness and put them into protective custody and treat / rehabilitate them before we set them loose into society. All mental illnesses do not involve violent personalities.

Our society has become one in which there are very few mental health facilities and few resources for the poor to properly diagnose / treat mentally unstable people. We throw them out on the streets to become homeless OR maybe mommy tries to parent them with pills and police. You waste money on trying to ban weapons and require a background check which is about as worthless as raincoat in a hurricane. Neither will work. Your solution has to fit the problem at hand if it is to be effective.

I have put forth an idea that would reduce mass shootings by 90 percent. Period. There would be no tax increases; no new bureaucracies are necessary; there would be no gun control of any kind associated with the plan. The Democrats avoid it like the plague because it will reduce firearm deaths WITHOUT gun control. Gun owners, for whatever reason, are reactionaries. They won't get off their ass and lobby for countermeasures. They only blow money on the NRA - an organization working to bring about gun control on an incremental basis. Neither side wants to solve the problem, but you are struggling in vain to take the high ground.

Beto is a gun nut in the other direction.

Beto exposed the anti- gun agenda to the delight of Democrats who cheered for that faux pas.

You all know I am am not a Rump Rump Rump Rump fan by any stretch of the imagination. But I was thrilled when Beto did that. It eliminated any chance he had to fill any office of any kind.

To quote one of my favorite TV writers…

“Superbly really stepped in it, didn’t he?”

 

[hunarcy]

You think Findlaw is propaganda? You think having a table at a gun show makes you a dealer?

You're ignorance is too grand for me to take you seriously. And as for your conspiracy theory fantasy about the Twin Towers, that's just pathetic. You have nothing further to offer to this discussion.

Having a table at a gun show does make you a dealer. No difference at all.

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.

AKA dealer? Your blind ignorance is overwhelming. Why would I take you seriously if you don't know what a firearms dealer is?

 

[hunarcy]

You think Findlaw is propaganda? You think having a table at a gun show makes you a dealer?

You're ignorance is too grand for me to take you seriously. And as for your conspiracy theory fantasy about the Twin Towers, that's just pathetic. You have nothing further to offer to this discussion.

Having a table at a gun show does make you a dealer. No difference at all.

You've already proven you don't know what you're talking about...you can stop now.

A guy selling you something is a dealer. Sorry to break that to you.

You're not this stupid. Why try to defend the indefensible? You are wrong and just proving your ignorance.

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

No, the fact that you don't know that you don't know the difference between a vendor and a firearms dealer disqualifies you from being taken seriously.

 

[hunarcy]

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

Your pejorative aside, it's amusing to see a person who can't comprehend a definition talk about thesauruses.

 

[candycorn]

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

Your pejorative aside, it's amusing to see a person who can't comprehend a definition talk about thesauruses.

Sellers, merchants, dealers, brokers, etc... your arguing that a deranged lunatic going to a gun show and buying a weapon no questions asked is fine if the one selling the firearm is called a different name that means the same thing is hilarious. It’s the same tactics the Catholic Church used to excuse priests who raped kids.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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

Your pejorative aside, it's amusing to see a person who can't comprehend a definition talk about thesauruses.

Sellers, merchants, dealers, brokers, etc... your arguing that a deranged lunatic going to a gun show and buying a weapon no questions asked is fine if the one selling the firearm is called a different name that means the same thing is hilarious. It’s the same tactics the Catholic Church used to excuse priests who raped kids.

I got fifty bucks that says NOBODY on this board can beat that deflection.

 

[candycorn]

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

Your pejorative aside, it's amusing to see a person who can't comprehend a definition talk about thesauruses.

Sellers, merchants, dealers, brokers, etc... your arguing that a deranged lunatic going to a gun show and buying a weapon no questions asked is fine if the one selling the firearm is called a different name that means the same thing is hilarious. It’s the same tactics the Catholic Church used to excuse priests who raped kids.

I got fifty bucks that says NOBODY on this board can beat that deflection.

They wouldn’t have to. It’s true.

 

[hunarcy]

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

Your pejorative aside, it's amusing to see a person who can't comprehend a definition talk about thesauruses.

Sellers, merchants, dealers, brokers, etc... your arguing that a deranged lunatic going to a gun show and buying a weapon no questions asked is fine if the one selling the firearm is called a different name that means the same thing is hilarious. It’s the same tactics the Catholic Church used to excuse priests who raped kids.

What a stupid thing to say. I accept your surrender.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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

Your pejorative aside, it's amusing to see a person who can't comprehend a definition talk about thesauruses.

Sellers, merchants, dealers, brokers, etc... your arguing that a deranged lunatic going to a gun show and buying a weapon no questions asked is fine if the one selling the firearm is called a different name that means the same thing is hilarious. It’s the same tactics the Catholic Church used to excuse priests who raped kids.

How come a background check didn't stop Adam Lanza, Nicholas Cruz, the San Bernadino shooters, Omar Mateen, etc., etc.? Shouldn't a proposed solution be related to addressing the problem at hand?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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

Your pejorative aside, it's amusing to see a person who can't comprehend a definition talk about thesauruses.

Sellers, merchants, dealers, brokers, etc... your arguing that a deranged lunatic going to a gun show and buying a weapon no questions asked is fine if the one selling the firearm is called a different name that means the same thing is hilarious. It’s the same tactics the Catholic Church used to excuse priests who raped kids.

How come a background check didn't stop Adam Lanza, Nicholas Cruz, the San Bernadino shooters, Omar Mateen, etc., etc.? Shouldn't a proposed solution be related to addressing the problem at hand?

Making Murders illegal doesn't stop all murders either. But putting extreme penalties on them along with extreme social pressures against it certainly has an affect in minimizing them.

 

[candycorn]

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

Your pejorative aside, it's amusing to see a person who can't comprehend a definition talk about thesauruses.

Sellers, merchants, dealers, brokers, etc... your arguing that a deranged lunatic going to a gun show and buying a weapon no questions asked is fine if the one selling the firearm is called a different name that means the same thing is hilarious. It’s the same tactics the Catholic Church used to excuse priests who raped kids.

How come a background check didn't stop Adam Lanza, Nicholas Cruz, the San Bernadino shooters, Omar Mateen, etc., etc.? Shouldn't a proposed solution be related to addressing the problem at hand?

Because the background checks were not invasive enough in some cases.

In other cases like Lanza….his mother had the arsenal in the house with a diagnosed mentally ill individual and the result was 26 people were killed.

It is good to see that you guys have given up on blaming Hollywood and Video Games (for the time being).

 

[candycorn]

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

Your pejorative aside, it's amusing to see a person who can't comprehend a definition talk about thesauruses.

Sellers, merchants, dealers, brokers, etc... your arguing that a deranged lunatic going to a gun show and buying a weapon no questions asked is fine if the one selling the firearm is called a different name that means the same thing is hilarious. It’s the same tactics the Catholic Church used to excuse priests who raped kids.

What a stupid thing to say. I accept your surrender.

You just keep getting more and more side sportingly hilarious.

 

[Flash]

Looks like cooler heads are prevailing in the White House and we aren't going to get Trump's support for oppressive gun laws. MAGA Baby. God bless Don Trump Jr.

White House infighting thwarts movement on guns

White House infighting thwarts movement on guns

The president remains noncommittal on a gun proposal as groups around him press their agendas.

Competing factions inside the White House have stymied efforts to unite behind gun legislation, further delaying President Donald Trump from getting behind any plan.

On one side is Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter and adviser, and Attorney General William Barr. Both are urging the president to back new firearms restrictions — including expanded background checks for gun sales — insisting he can be the leader who succeeds on an intractable issue that has bedeviled his predecessors and that he can win back moderate suburban voters in the process, according to people involved in the discussions.


On the other side, a group that includes Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son and an avid hunter, and a top aide to acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, is telling Trump he risks losing support from his conservative base if he pushes too aggressively on new gun control legislation, they say.

 

[Lesh]

Universal background checks...yes really...and NOW