America's Gun Violence

1250251253255256265

Comments

  • 09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 6,533
    The NRA will say that the 1 year old should have been carrying.
    Former BernieBro, turned Hillary rotten Clinton #1 Fanboy

    1998: Noblesville
    2003: Noblesville
    2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville
    2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago
    2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 6,533
    RYME said:
    CM189191 said:
    RYME said:
    CM189191 said:
    unsung said:
    unsung said:

    It used to be part of school curriculum.   Bring gun safety classes back, totally agree.
    So who best to regulate that other than the state?  Issue state licenses for gun owners that reflect basic competency.  

    If run through the DMV you wouldn't have much more admin cost since the brick and mortar already exists.
    Some States already do, Illinois being one, Chicago is just getting worse.  Guns can’t be blamed, that is just a cop-out.  Nothing will change until people value life.  How do we get that done?

    Yes, that's obviously the most reasonable explanation.  Other countries just value life more than the US does. 

    Fun fact: The Second Amendment was ratified to preserve slavery

    There is literally a direct line from the 2nd Amendment to devaluation of human life.
    https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/history/people/indian-killer-andrew-jackson-deserves-top-spot-on-list-of-worst-us-presidents/
    Read about the original founding days of the Democrat party.  Above
    That is wrong sir the second amendment was not to ratify slavery, rather it was a put in place to allow the citizenry to be able to fight back against a tyrannical government.  Please read what the second amendment was actually for.
    https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html

    Neither of the links you provide appear to be relevant to your point.

    Also, your point is wrong. 
    I can multitask.
    The second amendment was to give the citizenry the right to keep and bear arms, so that they could fight back against a tyrannical government if need be.  The Second Amendment had nothing to do with preserving slavery. That fun fact listed above is simply wrong and was made up.
    I mentioned Andrew Jackson simply because he was the founder of the Democrat Party, a big-time slave owner and a big-time Indian killer.
    He should never have been put on the $20 bill.  Just ask any Native American what they think of him, and any African Americans who know the true history about slavery, who was for it and who was against it at the time, and who implemented it.
    The "tyrannical government" argument is old and ridiculous.

    Back then the TG would come at you with similar weapons.  Now the TG has tanks...tactical nukes...drones, etc.

    Give that argument up.  Your pussy ass AR-15 isn't going to help you if the TG comes at you.
    Former BernieBro, turned Hillary rotten Clinton #1 Fanboy

    1998: Noblesville
    2003: Noblesville
    2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville
    2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago
    2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1
  • BentleyspopBentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, ColoradoPosts: 4,034
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 2,969
    RYME said:
    CM189191 said:
    RYME said:
    CM189191 said:
    unsung said:
    unsung said:

    It used to be part of school curriculum.   Bring gun safety classes back, totally agree.
    So who best to regulate that other than the state?  Issue state licenses for gun owners that reflect basic competency.  

    If run through the DMV you wouldn't have much more admin cost since the brick and mortar already exists.
    Some States already do, Illinois being one, Chicago is just getting worse.  Guns can’t be blamed, that is just a cop-out.  Nothing will change until people value life.  How do we get that done?

    Yes, that's obviously the most reasonable explanation.  Other countries just value life more than the US does. 

    Fun fact: The Second Amendment was ratified to preserve slavery

    There is literally a direct line from the 2nd Amendment to devaluation of human life.
    https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/history/people/indian-killer-andrew-jackson-deserves-top-spot-on-list-of-worst-us-presidents/
    Read about the original founding days of the Democrat party.  Above
    That is wrong sir the second amendment was not to ratify slavery, rather it was a put in place to allow the citizenry to be able to fight back against a tyrannical government.  Please read what the second amendment was actually for.
    https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html

    Neither of the links you provide appear to be relevant to your point.

    Also, your point is wrong. 
    I can multitask.
    The second amendment was to give the citizenry the right to keep and bear arms, so that they could fight back against a tyrannical government if need be.  The Second Amendment had nothing to do with preserving slavery. That fun fact listed above is simply wrong and was made up.
    I mentioned Andrew Jackson simply because he was the founder of the Democrat Party, a big-time slave owner and a big-time Indian killer.
    He should never have been put on the $20 bill.  Just ask any Native American what they think of him, and any African Americans who know the true history about slavery, who was for it and who was against it at the time, and who implemented it.
    The "tyrannical government" argument is old and ridiculous.

    Back then the TG would come at you with similar weapons.  Now the TG has tanks...tactical nukes...drones, etc.

    Give that argument up.  Your pussy ass AR-15 isn't going to help you if the TG comes at you.
    It is pretty stupid when you think about it. The odds that you even get a shot off before you are drone striked, MOAB'd, nuked, missile launched or hit with artillery from miles away is slim. But, having 20 AR-15s with 10000 rounds for yourself is necessary.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 6,533
    tbergs said:
    RYME said:
    CM189191 said:
    RYME said:
    CM189191 said:
    unsung said:
    unsung said:

    It used to be part of school curriculum.   Bring gun safety classes back, totally agree.
    So who best to regulate that other than the state?  Issue state licenses for gun owners that reflect basic competency.  

    If run through the DMV you wouldn't have much more admin cost since the brick and mortar already exists.
    Some States already do, Illinois being one, Chicago is just getting worse.  Guns can’t be blamed, that is just a cop-out.  Nothing will change until people value life.  How do we get that done?

    Yes, that's obviously the most reasonable explanation.  Other countries just value life more than the US does. 

    Fun fact: The Second Amendment was ratified to preserve slavery

    There is literally a direct line from the 2nd Amendment to devaluation of human life.
    https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/history/people/indian-killer-andrew-jackson-deserves-top-spot-on-list-of-worst-us-presidents/
    Read about the original founding days of the Democrat party.  Above
    That is wrong sir the second amendment was not to ratify slavery, rather it was a put in place to allow the citizenry to be able to fight back against a tyrannical government.  Please read what the second amendment was actually for.
    https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html

    Neither of the links you provide appear to be relevant to your point.

    Also, your point is wrong. 
    I can multitask.
    The second amendment was to give the citizenry the right to keep and bear arms, so that they could fight back against a tyrannical government if need be.  The Second Amendment had nothing to do with preserving slavery. That fun fact listed above is simply wrong and was made up.
    I mentioned Andrew Jackson simply because he was the founder of the Democrat Party, a big-time slave owner and a big-time Indian killer.
    He should never have been put on the $20 bill.  Just ask any Native American what they think of him, and any African Americans who know the true history about slavery, who was for it and who was against it at the time, and who implemented it.
    The "tyrannical government" argument is old and ridiculous.

    Back then the TG would come at you with similar weapons.  Now the TG has tanks...tactical nukes...drones, etc.

    Give that argument up.  Your pussy ass AR-15 isn't going to help you if the TG comes at you.
    It is pretty stupid when you think about it. The odds that you even get a shot off before you are drone striked, MOAB'd, nuked, missile launched or hit with artillery from miles away is slim. But, having 20 AR-15s with 10000 rounds for yourself is necessary.
    Beyond idiotic.  Waco and Ruby Ridge come to mind....which are the situations a lot of the gun nuts try to use as justification.  Timothy McVeigh cited both as a reason for him blowing up that building.

    Both were unfortunate but both could have been easily avoided had the gun nuts just obeyed the law.
    Former BernieBro, turned Hillary rotten Clinton #1 Fanboy

    1998: Noblesville
    2003: Noblesville
    2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville
    2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago
    2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1
  • Let's back it up to where it needs to be.

    Debating which weapons might best serve the citizens of the US against a tyrannical government is ridiculous. The government is not planning on enslaving its citizens.

    The pro gun side that trots this argument out would gain more respect from me if they maintained they needed these weapons in the event alien invaders were going to try and take over the world and they insist on being prepared for the martians.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,656
    There's a lot of bashing about gun shows, and its always a main point when politicians debate gun control.

    Can anyone explain to me the issue? I've been to lots of gun shows, and I have never seen a "loophole" for them, and never heard hard of it outside a political debate.
    Gun shows are required to follow state laws. If a state requires a dealer to complete the transfer and  waiting period, buying a gun at a gun show doesn't prevent that.
    If you can go to a gun show and walk out with a gun without any background check, then it is state law that permits private party transfers like that, and no loophole with the gun show. And that same "loop hole" would exist for any private party transfer whether at a gunshow or not.

    Sales at gun shows are very professional, at least in my experience. There's no guys selling guns out of the trunk of their cars, people selling guns illegally, its all by the books. If you have a problem then it is with the state law and not the gun show.

  • mace1229 said:
    There's a lot of bashing about gun shows, and its always a main point when politicians debate gun control.

    Can anyone explain to me the issue? I've been to lots of gun shows, and I have never seen a "loophole" for them, and never heard hard of it outside a political debate.
    Gun shows are required to follow state laws. If a state requires a dealer to complete the transfer and  waiting period, buying a gun at a gun show doesn't prevent that.
    If you can go to a gun show and walk out with a gun without any background check, then it is state law that permits private party transfers like that, and no loophole with the gun show. And that same "loop hole" would exist for any private party transfer whether at a gunshow or not.

    Sales at gun shows are very professional, at least in my experience. There's no guys selling guns out of the trunk of their cars, people selling guns illegally, its all by the books. If you have a problem then it is with the state law and not the gun show.

    Yup, not a problem, those gun shows. 6 states have required background checks. Those other 44? Not an issue because, well, we all know everyone dealing in guns is by golly honest and not motivated by greed.

    https://www.csgv.org/issues-archive/gun-show-loophole-faq/
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 6,331
    mace1229 said:
    There's a lot of bashing about gun shows, and its always a main point when politicians debate gun control.

    Can anyone explain to me the issue? I've been to lots of gun shows, and I have never seen a "loophole" for them, and never heard hard of it outside a political debate.
    Gun shows are required to follow state laws. If a state requires a dealer to complete the transfer and  waiting period, buying a gun at a gun show doesn't prevent that.
    If you can go to a gun show and walk out with a gun without any background check, then it is state law that permits private party transfers like that, and no loophole with the gun show. And that same "loop hole" would exist for any private party transfer whether at a gunshow or not.

    Sales at gun shows are very professional, at least in my experience. There's no guys selling guns out of the trunk of their cars, people selling guns illegally, its all by the books. If you have a problem then it is with the state law and not the gun show.

    No one is arguing that they are breaking state laws; in fact, exactly the opposite - they are following state laws that are far too lax. The concern is that private sellers without a federal license don't need to follow the usual background check rules. This applies at gun shows but also other venues, yes; it's just more visible and blatant at gun shows.

    Would it make you feel better if we simply called it the "private sale loophole"? Because that's what it is. It's still ridiculous.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,656
    mace1229 said:
    There's a lot of bashing about gun shows, and its always a main point when politicians debate gun control.

    Can anyone explain to me the issue? I've been to lots of gun shows, and I have never seen a "loophole" for them, and never heard hard of it outside a political debate.
    Gun shows are required to follow state laws. If a state requires a dealer to complete the transfer and  waiting period, buying a gun at a gun show doesn't prevent that.
    If you can go to a gun show and walk out with a gun without any background check, then it is state law that permits private party transfers like that, and no loophole with the gun show. And that same "loop hole" would exist for any private party transfer whether at a gunshow or not.

    Sales at gun shows are very professional, at least in my experience. There's no guys selling guns out of the trunk of their cars, people selling guns illegally, its all by the books. If you have a problem then it is with the state law and not the gun show.

    Yup, not a problem, those gun shows. 6 states have required background checks. Those other 44? Not an issue because, well, we all know everyone dealing in guns is by golly honest and not motivated by greed.

    https://www.csgv.org/issues-archive/gun-show-loophole-faq/
    The term "gun show loophole" implies that by selling/buying at a gun show they are exempt from certain rules. Its the state law that doesn't require a background check for ALL private party sales in those cases. Federal government doesn't even require it.
    I'm for background checks and I've said so many times. I'd be for requiring a federal background check for all guns.
    Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but you never answered my question. Why is your beef (and anyone else who doesn't like gun shows) with the gun show, when it is stale law that allows them to do it?
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,656
    edited November 13
    mace1229 said:
    There's a lot of bashing about gun shows, and its always a main point when politicians debate gun control.

    Can anyone explain to me the issue? I've been to lots of gun shows, and I have never seen a "loophole" for them, and never heard hard of it outside a political debate.
    Gun shows are required to follow state laws. If a state requires a dealer to complete the transfer and  waiting period, buying a gun at a gun show doesn't prevent that.
    If you can go to a gun show and walk out with a gun without any background check, then it is state law that permits private party transfers like that, and no loophole with the gun show. And that same "loop hole" would exist for any private party transfer whether at a gunshow or not.

    Sales at gun shows are very professional, at least in my experience. There's no guys selling guns out of the trunk of their cars, people selling guns illegally, its all by the books. If you have a problem then it is with the state law and not the gun show.

    No one is arguing that they are breaking state laws; in fact, exactly the opposite - they are following state laws that are far too lax. The concern is that private sellers without a federal license don't need to follow the usual background check rules. This applies at gun shows but also other venues, yes; it's just more visible and blatant at gun shows.

    Would it make you feel better if we simply called it the "private sale loophole"? Because that's what it is. It's still ridiculous.
    actually, yes. It seems more accurate.
    But there are some who do accuse gun shows of breaking law. I think it was Halifax who made the comment guns are sold out of the trunk of their car at a gun show.
    The only 2 states I've ever lived in do require background checks for all sales. I've been to lots of gun shows and never once been offered to buy a gun without a check, or seen people selling guns under the table/out of the trunk of their car.
    I agree it is ridiculous, but blame and target state law, not the gun shows.
    I don;t know if there's been any studies, but it seems like having gun shows would prevent that illegal activity, if people have a convenient way to buy and sell guns legally, they will be less inclined to do it illegally. Make it too much of a hassle and I bet you'll see more going around the law. I would not consider background checks too much of a hassle, but banning gun shows might be. I know you didnt say it, but I also know there would be a lot of people who would be very happy to ban gun shows.
    Post edited by mace1229 on
  • mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    There's a lot of bashing about gun shows, and its always a main point when politicians debate gun control.

    Can anyone explain to me the issue? I've been to lots of gun shows, and I have never seen a "loophole" for them, and never heard hard of it outside a political debate.
    Gun shows are required to follow state laws. If a state requires a dealer to complete the transfer and  waiting period, buying a gun at a gun show doesn't prevent that.
    If you can go to a gun show and walk out with a gun without any background check, then it is state law that permits private party transfers like that, and no loophole with the gun show. And that same "loop hole" would exist for any private party transfer whether at a gunshow or not.

    Sales at gun shows are very professional, at least in my experience. There's no guys selling guns out of the trunk of their cars, people selling guns illegally, its all by the books. If you have a problem then it is with the state law and not the gun show.

    Yup, not a problem, those gun shows. 6 states have required background checks. Those other 44? Not an issue because, well, we all know everyone dealing in guns is by golly honest and not motivated by greed.

    https://www.csgv.org/issues-archive/gun-show-loophole-faq/
    The term "gun show loophole" implies that by selling/buying at a gun show they are exempt from certain rules. Its the state law that doesn't require a background check for ALL private party sales in those cases. Federal government doesn't even require it.
    I'm for background checks and I've said so many times. I'd be for requiring a federal background check for all guns.
    Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but you never answered my question. Why is your beef (and anyone else who doesn't like gun shows) with the gun show, when it is stale law that allows them to do it?
    the beef is that the states won't close the "loophole." The states, and the Congress, are hostage to the NRA and the gun lobby. Everyone rails against Chicago as having the strictest gun control measures but the highest rates of gun crime. Because the shangrala of Indianer has some of the most lax gun sale laws in the nation. There needs to be a minimum federal standard. 

    In 1998, over 4,400 gun shows were conducted around the country. 478 were held in Texas alone.1  The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) estimates on average 2,500 – 5,000 gun shows are held annually. In general, between 25% to 50% of sellers are not licensed dealers.2  The access to anonymous sales and the availability of large numbers of secondhand guns makes gun shows attractive to criminals and other prohibited purchasers. A federal study found that 10% of guns used in crime by juveniles were sold either at a gun show or a flea market, and in 1999, gun shows were associated with approximately 26,000 firearms used in crime.3, 4

    But State's rights! There's the beef.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    There's a lot of bashing about gun shows, and its always a main point when politicians debate gun control.

    Can anyone explain to me the issue? I've been to lots of gun shows, and I have never seen a "loophole" for them, and never heard hard of it outside a political debate.
    Gun shows are required to follow state laws. If a state requires a dealer to complete the transfer and  waiting period, buying a gun at a gun show doesn't prevent that.
    If you can go to a gun show and walk out with a gun without any background check, then it is state law that permits private party transfers like that, and no loophole with the gun show. And that same "loop hole" would exist for any private party transfer whether at a gunshow or not.

    Sales at gun shows are very professional, at least in my experience. There's no guys selling guns out of the trunk of their cars, people selling guns illegally, its all by the books. If you have a problem then it is with the state law and not the gun show.

    No one is arguing that they are breaking state laws; in fact, exactly the opposite - they are following state laws that are far too lax. The concern is that private sellers without a federal license don't need to follow the usual background check rules. This applies at gun shows but also other venues, yes; it's just more visible and blatant at gun shows.

    Would it make you feel better if we simply called it the "private sale loophole"? Because that's what it is. It's still ridiculous.
    actually, yes. It seems more accurate.
    But there are some who do accuse gun shows of breaking law. I think it was Halifax who made the comment guns are sold out of the trunk of their car at a gun show.
    The only 2 states I've ever lived in do require background checks for all sales. I've been to lots of gun shows and never once been offered to buy a gun without a check, or seen people selling guns under the table/out of the trunk of their car.
    I agree it is ridiculous, but blame and target state law, not the gun shows.
    I don;t know if there's been any studies, but it seems like having gun shows would prevent that illegal activity, if people have a convenient way to buy and sell guns legally, they will be less inclined to do it illegally. Make it too much of a hassle and I bet you'll see more going around the law. I would not consider background checks too much of a hassle, but banning gun shows might be. I know you didnt say it, but I also know there would be a lot of people who would be very happy to ban gun shows.
    There you go again loosely throwing out that term "ban" again. I don't believe I've heard anyone arguing to "ban" gun shows. Gun show sales seem to be contributing to a lot of guns being used in crime. 4,400 gun shows = how many gun sales? = how many were all legal?
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 6,331
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    There's a lot of bashing about gun shows, and its always a main point when politicians debate gun control.

    Can anyone explain to me the issue? I've been to lots of gun shows, and I have never seen a "loophole" for them, and never heard hard of it outside a political debate.
    Gun shows are required to follow state laws. If a state requires a dealer to complete the transfer and  waiting period, buying a gun at a gun show doesn't prevent that.
    If you can go to a gun show and walk out with a gun without any background check, then it is state law that permits private party transfers like that, and no loophole with the gun show. And that same "loop hole" would exist for any private party transfer whether at a gunshow or not.

    Sales at gun shows are very professional, at least in my experience. There's no guys selling guns out of the trunk of their cars, people selling guns illegally, its all by the books. If you have a problem then it is with the state law and not the gun show.

    No one is arguing that they are breaking state laws; in fact, exactly the opposite - they are following state laws that are far too lax. The concern is that private sellers without a federal license don't need to follow the usual background check rules. This applies at gun shows but also other venues, yes; it's just more visible and blatant at gun shows.

    Would it make you feel better if we simply called it the "private sale loophole"? Because that's what it is. It's still ridiculous.
    actually, yes. It seems more accurate.
    But there are some who do accuse gun shows of breaking law. I think it was Halifax who made the comment guns are sold out of the trunk of their car at a gun show.
    The only 2 states I've ever lived in do require background checks for all sales. I've been to lots of gun shows and never once been offered to buy a gun without a check, or seen people selling guns under the table/out of the trunk of their car.
    I agree it is ridiculous, but blame and target state law, not the gun shows.
    I don;t know if there's been any studies, but it seems like having gun shows would prevent that illegal activity, if people have a convenient way to buy and sell guns legally, they will be less inclined to do it illegally. Make it too much of a hassle and I bet you'll see more going around the law. I would not consider background checks too much of a hassle, but banning gun shows might be. I know you didnt say it, but I also know there would be a lot of people who would be very happy to ban gun shows.

    It's hard to reconcile all the endless insistence on "law abiding gun owners" with the comment "make it too much of a hassle and I bet you'll see more people going around the law".

    And honestly, I'm a lot more concerned about appropriately regulating and managing guns and a lot less concerned about the convenience of people who want to buy more guns but don't want to put up with a background check. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,656
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    There's a lot of bashing about gun shows, and its always a main point when politicians debate gun control.

    Can anyone explain to me the issue? I've been to lots of gun shows, and I have never seen a "loophole" for them, and never heard hard of it outside a political debate.
    Gun shows are required to follow state laws. If a state requires a dealer to complete the transfer and  waiting period, buying a gun at a gun show doesn't prevent that.
    If you can go to a gun show and walk out with a gun without any background check, then it is state law that permits private party transfers like that, and no loophole with the gun show. And that same "loop hole" would exist for any private party transfer whether at a gunshow or not.

    Sales at gun shows are very professional, at least in my experience. There's no guys selling guns out of the trunk of their cars, people selling guns illegally, its all by the books. If you have a problem then it is with the state law and not the gun show.

    Yup, not a problem, those gun shows. 6 states have required background checks. Those other 44? Not an issue because, well, we all know everyone dealing in guns is by golly honest and not motivated by greed.

    https://www.csgv.org/issues-archive/gun-show-loophole-faq/
    The term "gun show loophole" implies that by selling/buying at a gun show they are exempt from certain rules. Its the state law that doesn't require a background check for ALL private party sales in those cases. Federal government doesn't even require it.
    I'm for background checks and I've said so many times. I'd be for requiring a federal background check for all guns.
    Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but you never answered my question. Why is your beef (and anyone else who doesn't like gun shows) with the gun show, when it is stale law that allows them to do it?
    the beef is that the states won't close the "loophole." The states, and the Congress, are hostage to the NRA and the gun lobby. Everyone rails against Chicago as having the strictest gun control measures but the highest rates of gun crime. Because the shangrala of Indianer has some of the most lax gun sale laws in the nation. There needs to be a minimum federal standard. 

    In 1998, over 4,400 gun shows were conducted around the country. 478 were held in Texas alone.1  The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) estimates on average 2,500 – 5,000 gun shows are held annually. In general, between 25% to 50% of sellers are not licensed dealers.2  The access to anonymous sales and the availability of large numbers of secondhand guns makes gun shows attractive to criminals and other prohibited purchasers. A federal study found that 10% of guns used in crime by juveniles were sold either at a gun show or a flea market, and in 1999, gun shows were associated with approximately 26,000 firearms used in crime.3, 4

    But State's rights! There's the beef.
    I would welcome background checks on all sale, but would not like to see gun shows go away. California does it very well, every gun show at a gun show in California requires a dealer and a check.
    I only brought this up because it seems like so many accuse gun shows as being evil, when the problem isn't the gun show, its the state law. The term "gun show loophole" even implies the "loophole" only applies to gun shows, when in fact it applies to all private sales.
    I have no issue changing state law.
    I wouldn't want to see gun shows go away because think of a coin collector.
    You may want a specific coin and go to 100 coin shops without finding one. And when you do, its probably grossly over priced. Or you can go to a coin show that has 500 vendors, find 4 or 5 of the coins you want at a much better price.
    That's what a gun show is to me and most people I know who attend them.
  • Coins don’t kill people. Coin owners kill people.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • mace1229 said:
    There's a lot of bashing about gun shows, and its always a main point when politicians debate gun control.

    Can anyone explain to me the issue? I've been to lots of gun shows, and I have never seen a "loophole" for them, and never heard hard of it outside a political debate.
    Gun shows are required to follow state laws. If a state requires a dealer to complete the transfer and  waiting period, buying a gun at a gun show doesn't prevent that.
    If you can go to a gun show and walk out with a gun without any background check, then it is state law that permits private party transfers like that, and no loophole with the gun show. And that same "loop hole" would exist for any private party transfer whether at a gunshow or not.

    Sales at gun shows are very professional, at least in my experience. There's no guys selling guns out of the trunk of their cars, people selling guns illegally, its all by the books. If you have a problem then it is with the state law and not the gun show.

    No one is arguing that they are breaking state laws; in fact, exactly the opposite - they are following state laws that are far too lax. The concern is that private sellers without a federal license don't need to follow the usual background check rules. This applies at gun shows but also other venues, yes; it's just more visible and blatant at gun shows.

    Would it make you feel better if we simply called it the "private sale loophole"? Because that's what it is. It's still ridiculous.

    Flea markets. You can buy a gun at a flea market for gawds sakes.

    "I came across this beauty at the flea market by the Trump rally!" bragged Cletus brandishing his new gun to Jethro. "It was only $50."

    "She's a peach" replied Jethro admiring the weapon while kicking at a turd.

    Normally obtuse to non verbal cues, Cletus noted Jethro's admiration: "You wanna shoot that turd with my new gun?" he asked. 

    "Could I?" Jethro asked in disbelief at his exceptional stroke of great fortune.

    Cletus smiled- betraying tooth decay- and handed Jethro the gun. Jethro felt a stirring in his pants as he reached for the gun. Once it was in his hands, he felt three feet taller and 50 pounds of muscle heavier. "Prepare to die, turd" he exulted and took aim. 
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,656
    mace1229 said:
    There's a lot of bashing about gun shows, and its always a main point when politicians debate gun control.

    Can anyone explain to me the issue? I've been to lots of gun shows, and I have never seen a "loophole" for them, and never heard hard of it outside a political debate.
    Gun shows are required to follow state laws. If a state requires a dealer to complete the transfer and  waiting period, buying a gun at a gun show doesn't prevent that.
    If you can go to a gun show and walk out with a gun without any background check, then it is state law that permits private party transfers like that, and no loophole with the gun show. And that same "loop hole" would exist for any private party transfer whether at a gunshow or not.

    Sales at gun shows are very professional, at least in my experience. There's no guys selling guns out of the trunk of their cars, people selling guns illegally, its all by the books. If you have a problem then it is with the state law and not the gun show.

    No one is arguing that they are breaking state laws; in fact, exactly the opposite - they are following state laws that are far too lax. The concern is that private sellers without a federal license don't need to follow the usual background check rules. This applies at gun shows but also other venues, yes; it's just more visible and blatant at gun shows.

    Would it make you feel better if we simply called it the "private sale loophole"? Because that's what it is. It's still ridiculous.

    Flea markets. You can buy a gun at a flea market for gawds sakes.

    "I came across this beauty at the flea market by the Trump rally!" bragged Cletus brandishing his new gun to Jethro. "It was only $50."

    "She's a peach" replied Jethro admiring the weapon while kicking at a turd.

    Normally obtuse to non verbal cues, Cletus noted Jethro's admiration: "You wanna shoot that turd with my new gun?" he asked. 

    "Could I?" Jethro asked in disbelief at his exceptional stroke of great fortune.

    Cletus smiled- betraying tooth decay- and handed Jethro the gun. Jethro felt a stirring in his pants as he reached for the gun. Once it was in his hands, he felt three feet taller and 50 pounds of muscle heavier. "Prepare to die, turd" he exulted and took aim. 

    Not in every state. I agree guns should not be sold at flea markets, and that is a law states should pass. Or even federal law to enter a federal data base.

    And the rest is a good example of why little ever changes. 
    When one group insults another, they become more protective. When gun owners are compared to simple-minded rednecks, it strengthens their belief that the second amendment will go away.
    For the record I don't believe that will happen. But when reading through these posts with the anti-gun comments I can justify why some do.
    And if that is your interpretation of a typical gun owner, why wouldn't you want to ban guns? Fortunately, that is not very accurate.
  • mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    There's a lot of bashing about gun shows, and its always a main point when politicians debate gun control.

    Can anyone explain to me the issue? I've been to lots of gun shows, and I have never seen a "loophole" for them, and never heard hard of it outside a political debate.
    Gun shows are required to follow state laws. If a state requires a dealer to complete the transfer and  waiting period, buying a gun at a gun show doesn't prevent that.
    If you can go to a gun show and walk out with a gun without any background check, then it is state law that permits private party transfers like that, and no loophole with the gun show. And that same "loop hole" would exist for any private party transfer whether at a gunshow or not.

    Sales at gun shows are very professional, at least in my experience. There's no guys selling guns out of the trunk of their cars, people selling guns illegally, its all by the books. If you have a problem then it is with the state law and not the gun show.

    No one is arguing that they are breaking state laws; in fact, exactly the opposite - they are following state laws that are far too lax. The concern is that private sellers without a federal license don't need to follow the usual background check rules. This applies at gun shows but also other venues, yes; it's just more visible and blatant at gun shows.

    Would it make you feel better if we simply called it the "private sale loophole"? Because that's what it is. It's still ridiculous.

    Flea markets. You can buy a gun at a flea market for gawds sakes.

    "I came across this beauty at the flea market by the Trump rally!" bragged Cletus brandishing his new gun to Jethro. "It was only $50."

    "She's a peach" replied Jethro admiring the weapon while kicking at a turd.

    Normally obtuse to non verbal cues, Cletus noted Jethro's admiration: "You wanna shoot that turd with my new gun?" he asked. 

    "Could I?" Jethro asked in disbelief at his exceptional stroke of great fortune.

    Cletus smiled- betraying tooth decay- and handed Jethro the gun. Jethro felt a stirring in his pants as he reached for the gun. Once it was in his hands, he felt three feet taller and 50 pounds of muscle heavier. "Prepare to die, turd" he exulted and took aim. 

    Not in every state. I agree guns should not be sold at flea markets, and that is a law states should pass. Or even federal law to enter a federal data base.

    And the rest is a good example of why little ever changes. 
    When one group insults another, they become more protective. When gun owners are compared to simple-minded rednecks, it strengthens their belief that the second amendment will go away.
    For the record I don't believe that will happen. But when reading through these posts with the anti-gun comments I can justify why some do.
    And if that is your interpretation of a typical gun owner, why wouldn't you want to ban guns? Fortunately, that is not very accurate.
    Just keep throwing out that irrational fear that guns will be "banned" en mass. Only 6 states require background checks at gun shows and you still claim its the State's fault and not a "loophole" while trying to make a comparison with coin shops. Meanwhile, comparing your personal experience with gun shows as if that is somehow the norm, despite evidence to the contrary. I think you reside in California, one of the 6 states with background checks for gun shows. This is why nothing changes, not because of a post on a band's message board poking fun at gun owners. Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    There's a lot of bashing about gun shows, and its always a main point when politicians debate gun control.

    Can anyone explain to me the issue? I've been to lots of gun shows, and I have never seen a "loophole" for them, and never heard hard of it outside a political debate.
    Gun shows are required to follow state laws. If a state requires a dealer to complete the transfer and  waiting period, buying a gun at a gun show doesn't prevent that.
    If you can go to a gun show and walk out with a gun without any background check, then it is state law that permits private party transfers like that, and no loophole with the gun show. And that same "loop hole" would exist for any private party transfer whether at a gunshow or not.

    Sales at gun shows are very professional, at least in my experience. There's no guys selling guns out of the trunk of their cars, people selling guns illegally, its all by the books. If you have a problem then it is with the state law and not the gun show.

    No one is arguing that they are breaking state laws; in fact, exactly the opposite - they are following state laws that are far too lax. The concern is that private sellers without a federal license don't need to follow the usual background check rules. This applies at gun shows but also other venues, yes; it's just more visible and blatant at gun shows.

    Would it make you feel better if we simply called it the "private sale loophole"? Because that's what it is. It's still ridiculous.

    Flea markets. You can buy a gun at a flea market for gawds sakes.

    "I came across this beauty at the flea market by the Trump rally!" bragged Cletus brandishing his new gun to Jethro. "It was only $50."

    "She's a peach" replied Jethro admiring the weapon while kicking at a turd.

    Normally obtuse to non verbal cues, Cletus noted Jethro's admiration: "You wanna shoot that turd with my new gun?" he asked. 

    "Could I?" Jethro asked in disbelief at his exceptional stroke of great fortune.

    Cletus smiled- betraying tooth decay- and handed Jethro the gun. Jethro felt a stirring in his pants as he reached for the gun. Once it was in his hands, he felt three feet taller and 50 pounds of muscle heavier. "Prepare to die, turd" he exulted and took aim. 

    Not in every state. I agree guns should not be sold at flea markets, and that is a law states should pass. Or even federal law to enter a federal data base.

    And the rest is a good example of why little ever changes. 
    When one group insults another, they become more protective. When gun owners are compared to simple-minded rednecks, it strengthens their belief that the second amendment will go away.
    For the record I don't believe that will happen. But when reading through these posts with the anti-gun comments I can justify why some do.
    And if that is your interpretation of a typical gun owner, why wouldn't you want to ban guns? Fortunately, that is not very accurate.

    I'm just having some fun (at your expense I guess... sorry).

    But in all seriousness... the 'rest' is not why little changes. Little changes because there is a mindset that seeks to preserve the status quo regardless of incident. All sorts of feeble defences are tossed out their to explain why gun reform is not necessary, but these excuses fail to hold up to reason and not only that... they fail to hold up to evidence (see other developed countries and the success they have experienced since undertaking sweeping gun reform).

    The mentality is mind-numbing, but in fairness... there are worse ways to think (eg. Nazis, Westboro Baptist, etc.).

    In the meantime... another earth shattering mass killing with an AR15 as the primary weapon is brewing.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • RYMERYME Wisconsin Posts: 725
    CM189191 said:
    RYME said:
    Fake fun facts about the second amendment being implemented to preserve slavery has no legs to stand on.
    The truth stings sometimes don't it, CM189,****,
    That fake fun fact that you linked is designed to confuse people even more than they already are.  It's to bad that gullible people lap it up like thirsty dogs.
    Typical conservative  Knows they're wrong, proceeds to double down on their stupidity anyways.  

    Overthrow any tyrannical governments lately? 
    That is what it was for.oftenreading said:
    RYME said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    RYME said:
    The Slinky guy above with the fake fun facts about the second amendment being implemented to preserve slavery has no gas left in his tank.
    The truth stings sometimes don't it, CM189191.
    That fake fun fact that you linked is designed to confuse people even more than they already are.  It's to bad that gullible people lap it up like thirsty dogs.
    No worse than those gullible enough to go out and buy more guns and ammo based on an irrational fear that the big bad gubment is going to seize their guns or ban them. Suckers to the gun manufacturers and the NRA. A fool and their money are soon parted.
    Have you seen Feinstein s proposed legislation?  And that s why there is always a rush to buy.  
    Yep,  unfortunately as long as we're here, the struggle continues.


    You're struggling to buy guns? You must be doing it wrong. Everyone else seems to be able to do it without too much trouble. 
    No silly, the debate (struggle) continues.
    I don't need anymore guns.  I have plenty.
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 6,331
    RYME said:
    CM189191 said:
    RYME said:
    Fake fun facts about the second amendment being implemented to preserve slavery has no legs to stand on.
    The truth stings sometimes don't it, CM189,****,
    That fake fun fact that you linked is designed to confuse people even more than they already are.  It's to bad that gullible people lap it up like thirsty dogs.
    Typical conservative  Knows they're wrong, proceeds to double down on their stupidity anyways.  

    Overthrow any tyrannical governments lately? 
    That is what it was for.oftenreading said:
    RYME said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    RYME said:
    The Slinky guy above with the fake fun facts about the second amendment being implemented to preserve slavery has no gas left in his tank.
    The truth stings sometimes don't it, CM189191.
    That fake fun fact that you linked is designed to confuse people even more than they already are.  It's to bad that gullible people lap it up like thirsty dogs.
    No worse than those gullible enough to go out and buy more guns and ammo based on an irrational fear that the big bad gubment is going to seize their guns or ban them. Suckers to the gun manufacturers and the NRA. A fool and their money are soon parted.
    Have you seen Feinstein s proposed legislation?  And that s why there is always a rush to buy.  
    Yep,  unfortunately as long as we're here, the struggle continues.


    You're struggling to buy guns? You must be doing it wrong. Everyone else seems to be able to do it without too much trouble. 
    No silly, the debate (struggle) continues.
    I don't need anymore guns.  I have plenty.

    If you think it's a "struggle" to debate gun policy in the US from the point of view of someone who already has "plenty" of guns that, realistically, are never going to be taken away, you have never experienced struggle. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,656
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    There's a lot of bashing about gun shows, and its always a main point when politicians debate gun control.

    Can anyone explain to me the issue? I've been to lots of gun shows, and I have never seen a "loophole" for them, and never heard hard of it outside a political debate.
    Gun shows are required to follow state laws. If a state requires a dealer to complete the transfer and  waiting period, buying a gun at a gun show doesn't prevent that.
    If you can go to a gun show and walk out with a gun without any background check, then it is state law that permits private party transfers like that, and no loophole with the gun show. And that same "loop hole" would exist for any private party transfer whether at a gunshow or not.

    Sales at gun shows are very professional, at least in my experience. There's no guys selling guns out of the trunk of their cars, people selling guns illegally, its all by the books. If you have a problem then it is with the state law and not the gun show.

    No one is arguing that they are breaking state laws; in fact, exactly the opposite - they are following state laws that are far too lax. The concern is that private sellers without a federal license don't need to follow the usual background check rules. This applies at gun shows but also other venues, yes; it's just more visible and blatant at gun shows.

    Would it make you feel better if we simply called it the "private sale loophole"? Because that's what it is. It's still ridiculous.

    Flea markets. You can buy a gun at a flea market for gawds sakes.

    "I came across this beauty at the flea market by the Trump rally!" bragged Cletus brandishing his new gun to Jethro. "It was only $50."

    "She's a peach" replied Jethro admiring the weapon while kicking at a turd.

    Normally obtuse to non verbal cues, Cletus noted Jethro's admiration: "You wanna shoot that turd with my new gun?" he asked. 

    "Could I?" Jethro asked in disbelief at his exceptional stroke of great fortune.

    Cletus smiled- betraying tooth decay- and handed Jethro the gun. Jethro felt a stirring in his pants as he reached for the gun. Once it was in his hands, he felt three feet taller and 50 pounds of muscle heavier. "Prepare to die, turd" he exulted and took aim. 

    Not in every state. I agree guns should not be sold at flea markets, and that is a law states should pass. Or even federal law to enter a federal data base.

    And the rest is a good example of why little ever changes. 
    When one group insults another, they become more protective. When gun owners are compared to simple-minded rednecks, it strengthens their belief that the second amendment will go away.
    For the record I don't believe that will happen. But when reading through these posts with the anti-gun comments I can justify why some do.
    And if that is your interpretation of a typical gun owner, why wouldn't you want to ban guns? Fortunately, that is not very accurate.
    Just keep throwing out that irrational fear that guns will be "banned" en mass. Only 6 states require background checks at gun shows and you still claim its the State's fault and not a "loophole" while trying to make a comparison with coin shops. Meanwhile, comparing your personal experience with gun shows as if that is somehow the norm, despite evidence to the contrary. I think you reside in California, one of the 6 states with background checks for gun shows. This is why nothing changes, not because of a post on a band's message board poking fun at gun owners. Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.
    If the states allow it, how is it not the state's fault? Whose fault is it that background checks are not required if it is not the state that makes the laws? You can't blame a gun show for the state's laws, or lack of.
    And all i said about the loophole was calling it a "gun show loophole" simply implies its a loophole that only applies to gun shows. Its not. Its not even a loophole in my opinion, because you're not going around anything. In most of those other states background checks are not required for private party transfers.  A "loophole" would be if all private party transfers require a background check, unless the purchase is at a gun show. That's a loophole. 
    Geez, I even agree with you for the most part and you argue back. The only thing i don;t agree on is the technicality of referring to a gun show when talking about the "loophole" because that gives the false impression all you have to do to avoid a background check is attend a gun show, when in fact it is much easier than that in some states. 
    I would be all for background checks ona ll purchases, I really have no clue what about my stance has got you so worked up.
  • mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    There's a lot of bashing about gun shows, and its always a main point when politicians debate gun control.

    Can anyone explain to me the issue? I've been to lots of gun shows, and I have never seen a "loophole" for them, and never heard hard of it outside a political debate.
    Gun shows are required to follow state laws. If a state requires a dealer to complete the transfer and  waiting period, buying a gun at a gun show doesn't prevent that.
    If you can go to a gun show and walk out with a gun without any background check, then it is state law that permits private party transfers like that, and no loophole with the gun show. And that same "loop hole" would exist for any private party transfer whether at a gunshow or not.

    Sales at gun shows are very professional, at least in my experience. There's no guys selling guns out of the trunk of their cars, people selling guns illegally, its all by the books. If you have a problem then it is with the state law and not the gun show.

    No one is arguing that they are breaking state laws; in fact, exactly the opposite - they are following state laws that are far too lax. The concern is that private sellers without a federal license don't need to follow the usual background check rules. This applies at gun shows but also other venues, yes; it's just more visible and blatant at gun shows.

    Would it make you feel better if we simply called it the "private sale loophole"? Because that's what it is. It's still ridiculous.

    Flea markets. You can buy a gun at a flea market for gawds sakes.

    "I came across this beauty at the flea market by the Trump rally!" bragged Cletus brandishing his new gun to Jethro. "It was only $50."

    "She's a peach" replied Jethro admiring the weapon while kicking at a turd.

    Normally obtuse to non verbal cues, Cletus noted Jethro's admiration: "You wanna shoot that turd with my new gun?" he asked. 

    "Could I?" Jethro asked in disbelief at his exceptional stroke of great fortune.

    Cletus smiled- betraying tooth decay- and handed Jethro the gun. Jethro felt a stirring in his pants as he reached for the gun. Once it was in his hands, he felt three feet taller and 50 pounds of muscle heavier. "Prepare to die, turd" he exulted and took aim. 

    Not in every state. I agree guns should not be sold at flea markets, and that is a law states should pass. Or even federal law to enter a federal data base.

    And the rest is a good example of why little ever changes. 
    When one group insults another, they become more protective. When gun owners are compared to simple-minded rednecks, it strengthens their belief that the second amendment will go away.
    For the record I don't believe that will happen. But when reading through these posts with the anti-gun comments I can justify why some do.
    And if that is your interpretation of a typical gun owner, why wouldn't you want to ban guns? Fortunately, that is not very accurate.
    Just keep throwing out that irrational fear that guns will be "banned" en mass. Only 6 states require background checks at gun shows and you still claim its the State's fault and not a "loophole" while trying to make a comparison with coin shops. Meanwhile, comparing your personal experience with gun shows as if that is somehow the norm, despite evidence to the contrary. I think you reside in California, one of the 6 states with background checks for gun shows. This is why nothing changes, not because of a post on a band's message board poking fun at gun owners. Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.
    If the states allow it, how is it not the state's fault? Whose fault is it that background checks are not required if it is not the state that makes the laws? You can't blame a gun show for the state's laws, or lack of.
    And all i said about the loophole was calling it a "gun show loophole" simply implies its a loophole that only applies to gun shows. Its not. Its not even a loophole in my opinion, because you're not going around anything. In most of those other states background checks are not required for private party transfers.  A "loophole" would be if all private party transfers require a background check, unless the purchase is at a gun show. That's a loophole. 
    Geez, I even agree with you for the most part and you argue back. The only thing i don;t agree on is the technicality of referring to a gun show when talking about the "loophole" because that gives the false impression all you have to do to avoid a background check is attend a gun show, when in fact it is much easier than that in some states. 
    I would be all for background checks ona ll purchases, I really have no clue what about my stance has got you so worked up.
    26 dead in sandy hook elementary has got me worked up. 
     32 dead at Virginia Tech has got me worked up. 48 dead at the pulse nightclub has got me worked up. 58 dead and 546 injured, 546 injured, 546 injured in Las Vegas has got me worked up. 13 dead at Columbine High School has me worked up. 12 dead at the Aurora movie theater has me worked up. 26 dead in a church in Texas has got me worked up. 
     9 dead in a church in South Carolina has got me worked up. Never mind the daily carnage that occurs because every gun starts out “legal” and every gun owner is “responsible” until they’re not and “responsible” gun owners like yourself throw out the term “ban” , make excuses and compare shopping for guns to coin collecting. I wonder if it was your family member(s) or friend(s) who were gunned down going about their day, if your opinion would change? I somehow doubt it.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,656
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    There's a lot of bashing about gun shows, and its always a main point when politicians debate gun control.

    Can anyone explain to me the issue? I've been to lots of gun shows, and I have never seen a "loophole" for them, and never heard hard of it outside a political debate.
    Gun shows are required to follow state laws. If a state requires a dealer to complete the transfer and  waiting period, buying a gun at a gun show doesn't prevent that.
    If you can go to a gun show and walk out with a gun without any background check, then it is state law that permits private party transfers like that, and no loophole with the gun show. And that same "loop hole" would exist for any private party transfer whether at a gunshow or not.

    Sales at gun shows are very professional, at least in my experience. There's no guys selling guns out of the trunk of their cars, people selling guns illegally, its all by the books. If you have a problem then it is with the state law and not the gun show.

    No one is arguing that they are breaking state laws; in fact, exactly the opposite - they are following state laws that are far too lax. The concern is that private sellers without a federal license don't need to follow the usual background check rules. This applies at gun shows but also other venues, yes; it's just more visible and blatant at gun shows.

    Would it make you feel better if we simply called it the "private sale loophole"? Because that's what it is. It's still ridiculous.

    Flea markets. You can buy a gun at a flea market for gawds sakes.

    "I came across this beauty at the flea market by the Trump rally!" bragged Cletus brandishing his new gun to Jethro. "It was only $50."

    "She's a peach" replied Jethro admiring the weapon while kicking at a turd.

    Normally obtuse to non verbal cues, Cletus noted Jethro's admiration: "You wanna shoot that turd with my new gun?" he asked. 

    "Could I?" Jethro asked in disbelief at his exceptional stroke of great fortune.

    Cletus smiled- betraying tooth decay- and handed Jethro the gun. Jethro felt a stirring in his pants as he reached for the gun. Once it was in his hands, he felt three feet taller and 50 pounds of muscle heavier. "Prepare to die, turd" he exulted and took aim. 

    Not in every state. I agree guns should not be sold at flea markets, and that is a law states should pass. Or even federal law to enter a federal data base.

    And the rest is a good example of why little ever changes. 
    When one group insults another, they become more protective. When gun owners are compared to simple-minded rednecks, it strengthens their belief that the second amendment will go away.
    For the record I don't believe that will happen. But when reading through these posts with the anti-gun comments I can justify why some do.
    And if that is your interpretation of a typical gun owner, why wouldn't you want to ban guns? Fortunately, that is not very accurate.
    Just keep throwing out that irrational fear that guns will be "banned" en mass. Only 6 states require background checks at gun shows and you still claim its the State's fault and not a "loophole" while trying to make a comparison with coin shops. Meanwhile, comparing your personal experience with gun shows as if that is somehow the norm, despite evidence to the contrary. I think you reside in California, one of the 6 states with background checks for gun shows. This is why nothing changes, not because of a post on a band's message board poking fun at gun owners. Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.
    If the states allow it, how is it not the state's fault? Whose fault is it that background checks are not required if it is not the state that makes the laws? You can't blame a gun show for the state's laws, or lack of.
    And all i said about the loophole was calling it a "gun show loophole" simply implies its a loophole that only applies to gun shows. Its not. Its not even a loophole in my opinion, because you're not going around anything. In most of those other states background checks are not required for private party transfers.  A "loophole" would be if all private party transfers require a background check, unless the purchase is at a gun show. That's a loophole. 
    Geez, I even agree with you for the most part and you argue back. The only thing i don;t agree on is the technicality of referring to a gun show when talking about the "loophole" because that gives the false impression all you have to do to avoid a background check is attend a gun show, when in fact it is much easier than that in some states. 
    I would be all for background checks ona ll purchases, I really have no clue what about my stance has got you so worked up.
    26 dead in sandy hook elementary has got me worked up. 
     32 dead at Virginia Tech has got me worked up. 48 dead at the pulse nightclub has got me worked up. 58 dead and 546 injured, 546 injured, 546 injured in Las Vegas has got me worked up. 13 dead at Columbine High School has me worked up. 12 dead at the Aurora movie theater has me worked up. 26 dead in a church in Texas has got me worked up. 
     9 dead in a church in South Carolina has got me worked up. Never mind the daily carnage that occurs because every gun starts out “legal” and every gun owner is “responsible” until they’re not and “responsible” gun owners like yourself throw out the term “ban” , make excuses and compare shopping for guns to coin collecting. I wonder if it was your family member(s) or friend(s) who were gunned down going about their day, if your opinion would change? I somehow doubt it.
    My opinion on what?
    Do you even read anything I write, or do you just lump me in some group because I said I am a gun owner?
    I have said I would like background checks, agree with safety regulations, agree with magazine limits and regulating (even essentially banning) assault rifles. That all guns should be registered, even private party transfers need to go through a licensed dealer and be registered. I have said I don't believe I will ever see a ban on guns in my lifetime and that fear has zero influence on me (but you keep bring it up....?). 
    So what is it exactly that you would like my opinion to change on?
    I didn't compare coin collecting to buying guns. I compared a coin show to a gun show (and I've been to both) in terms of number of vendors and simply that the reason a person goes to a gun show is the same reason one would go to a coin show, and not that they are some gun nut trying to get some illegal guns or trying to avoid registration or something like that. But i never said collecting coins and guns are the same.
    So I'm willing to listen. What gun stance do I have that you disagree with?  Which of my opinions would you like to change?
    I'm still trying to figure out why you blame the "gun show loophole" on the gun show and don't hold the state, that makes the laws, responsible at all?
  • mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    There's a lot of bashing about gun shows, and its always a main point when politicians debate gun control.

    Can anyone explain to me the issue? I've been to lots of gun shows, and I have never seen a "loophole" for them, and never heard hard of it outside a political debate.
    Gun shows are required to follow state laws. If a state requires a dealer to complete the transfer and  waiting period, buying a gun at a gun show doesn't prevent that.
    If you can go to a gun show and walk out with a gun without any background check, then it is state law that permits private party transfers like that, and no loophole with the gun show. And that same "loop hole" would exist for any private party transfer whether at a gunshow or not.

    Sales at gun shows are very professional, at least in my experience. There's no guys selling guns out of the trunk of their cars, people selling guns illegally, its all by the books. If you have a problem then it is with the state law and not the gun show.

    No one is arguing that they are breaking state laws; in fact, exactly the opposite - they are following state laws that are far too lax. The concern is that private sellers without a federal license don't need to follow the usual background check rules. This applies at gun shows but also other venues, yes; it's just more visible and blatant at gun shows.

    Would it make you feel better if we simply called it the "private sale loophole"? Because that's what it is. It's still ridiculous.

    Flea markets. You can buy a gun at a flea market for gawds sakes.

    "I came across this beauty at the flea market by the Trump rally!" bragged Cletus brandishing his new gun to Jethro. "It was only $50."

    "She's a peach" replied Jethro admiring the weapon while kicking at a turd.

    Normally obtuse to non verbal cues, Cletus noted Jethro's admiration: "You wanna shoot that turd with my new gun?" he asked. 

    "Could I?" Jethro asked in disbelief at his exceptional stroke of great fortune.

    Cletus smiled- betraying tooth decay- and handed Jethro the gun. Jethro felt a stirring in his pants as he reached for the gun. Once it was in his hands, he felt three feet taller and 50 pounds of muscle heavier. "Prepare to die, turd" he exulted and took aim. 

    Not in every state. I agree guns should not be sold at flea markets, and that is a law states should pass. Or even federal law to enter a federal data base.

    And the rest is a good example of why little ever changes. 
    When one group insults another, they become more protective. When gun owners are compared to simple-minded rednecks, it strengthens their belief that the second amendment will go away.
    For the record I don't believe that will happen. But when reading through these posts with the anti-gun comments I can justify why some do.
    And if that is your interpretation of a typical gun owner, why wouldn't you want to ban guns? Fortunately, that is not very accurate.
    Just keep throwing out that irrational fear that guns will be "banned" en mass. Only 6 states require background checks at gun shows and you still claim its the State's fault and not a "loophole" while trying to make a comparison with coin shops. Meanwhile, comparing your personal experience with gun shows as if that is somehow the norm, despite evidence to the contrary. I think you reside in California, one of the 6 states with background checks for gun shows. This is why nothing changes, not because of a post on a band's message board poking fun at gun owners. Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.
    If the states allow it, how is it not the state's fault? Whose fault is it that background checks are not required if it is not the state that makes the laws? You can't blame a gun show for the state's laws, or lack of.
    And all i said about the loophole was calling it a "gun show loophole" simply implies its a loophole that only applies to gun shows. Its not. Its not even a loophole in my opinion, because you're not going around anything. In most of those other states background checks are not required for private party transfers.  A "loophole" would be if all private party transfers require a background check, unless the purchase is at a gun show. That's a loophole. 
    Geez, I even agree with you for the most part and you argue back. The only thing i don;t agree on is the technicality of referring to a gun show when talking about the "loophole" because that gives the false impression all you have to do to avoid a background check is attend a gun show, when in fact it is much easier than that in some states. 
    I would be all for background checks ona ll purchases, I really have no clue what about my stance has got you so worked up.
    26 dead in sandy hook elementary has got me worked up. 
     32 dead at Virginia Tech has got me worked up. 48 dead at the pulse nightclub has got me worked up. 58 dead and 546 injured, 546 injured, 546 injured in Las Vegas has got me worked up. 13 dead at Columbine High School has me worked up. 12 dead at the Aurora movie theater has me worked up. 26 dead in a church in Texas has got me worked up. 
     9 dead in a church in South Carolina has got me worked up. Never mind the daily carnage that occurs because every gun starts out “legal” and every gun owner is “responsible” until they’re not and “responsible” gun owners like yourself throw out the term “ban” , make excuses and compare shopping for guns to coin collecting. I wonder if it was your family member(s) or friend(s) who were gunned down going about their day, if your opinion would change? I somehow doubt it.
    My opinion on what?
    Do you even read anything I write, or do you just lump me in some group because I said I am a gun owner?
    I have said I would like background checks, agree with safety regulations, agree with magazine limits and regulating (even essentially banning) assault rifles. That all guns should be registered, even private party transfers need to go through a licensed dealer and be registered. I have said I don't believe I will ever see a ban on guns in my lifetime and that fear has zero influence on me (but you keep bring it up....?). 
    So what is it exactly that you would like my opinion to change on?
    I didn't compare coin collecting to buying guns. I compared a coin show to a gun show (and I've been to both) in terms of number of vendors and simply that the reason a person goes to a gun show is the same reason one would go to a coin show, and not that they are some gun nut trying to get some illegal guns or trying to avoid registration or something like that. But i never said collecting coins and guns are the same.
    So I'm willing to listen. What gun stance do I have that you disagree with?  Which of my opinions would you like to change?
    I'm still trying to figure out why you blame the "gun show loophole" on the gun show and don't hold the state, that makes the laws, responsible at all?
    This makes you a moderate and part of the solution in my mind.

    Is it fair to say you have swung further to the need for these items in recent times given the magnitude of the developing problem? I don't recall you always holding these opinions (although I could be wrong). Either way is fine though provided you're sincere.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 6,533
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    There's a lot of bashing about gun shows, and its always a main point when politicians debate gun control.

    Can anyone explain to me the issue? I've been to lots of gun shows, and I have never seen a "loophole" for them, and never heard hard of it outside a political debate.
    Gun shows are required to follow state laws. If a state requires a dealer to complete the transfer and  waiting period, buying a gun at a gun show doesn't prevent that.
    If you can go to a gun show and walk out with a gun without any background check, then it is state law that permits private party transfers like that, and no loophole with the gun show. And that same "loop hole" would exist for any private party transfer whether at a gunshow or not.

    Sales at gun shows are very professional, at least in my experience. There's no guys selling guns out of the trunk of their cars, people selling guns illegally, its all by the books. If you have a problem then it is with the state law and not the gun show.

    No one is arguing that they are breaking state laws; in fact, exactly the opposite - they are following state laws that are far too lax. The concern is that private sellers without a federal license don't need to follow the usual background check rules. This applies at gun shows but also other venues, yes; it's just more visible and blatant at gun shows.

    Would it make you feel better if we simply called it the "private sale loophole"? Because that's what it is. It's still ridiculous.

    Flea markets. You can buy a gun at a flea market for gawds sakes.

    "I came across this beauty at the flea market by the Trump rally!" bragged Cletus brandishing his new gun to Jethro. "It was only $50."

    "She's a peach" replied Jethro admiring the weapon while kicking at a turd.

    Normally obtuse to non verbal cues, Cletus noted Jethro's admiration: "You wanna shoot that turd with my new gun?" he asked. 

    "Could I?" Jethro asked in disbelief at his exceptional stroke of great fortune.

    Cletus smiled- betraying tooth decay- and handed Jethro the gun. Jethro felt a stirring in his pants as he reached for the gun. Once it was in his hands, he felt three feet taller and 50 pounds of muscle heavier. "Prepare to die, turd" he exulted and took aim. 

    Not in every state. I agree guns should not be sold at flea markets, and that is a law states should pass. Or even federal law to enter a federal data base.

    And the rest is a good example of why little ever changes. 
    When one group insults another, they become more protective. When gun owners are compared to simple-minded rednecks, it strengthens their belief that the second amendment will go away.
    For the record I don't believe that will happen. But when reading through these posts with the anti-gun comments I can justify why some do.
    And if that is your interpretation of a typical gun owner, why wouldn't you want to ban guns? Fortunately, that is not very accurate.
    Just keep throwing out that irrational fear that guns will be "banned" en mass. Only 6 states require background checks at gun shows and you still claim its the State's fault and not a "loophole" while trying to make a comparison with coin shops. Meanwhile, comparing your personal experience with gun shows as if that is somehow the norm, despite evidence to the contrary. I think you reside in California, one of the 6 states with background checks for gun shows. This is why nothing changes, not because of a post on a band's message board poking fun at gun owners. Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.
    If the states allow it, how is it not the state's fault? Whose fault is it that background checks are not required if it is not the state that makes the laws? You can't blame a gun show for the state's laws, or lack of.
    And all i said about the loophole was calling it a "gun show loophole" simply implies its a loophole that only applies to gun shows. Its not. Its not even a loophole in my opinion, because you're not going around anything. In most of those other states background checks are not required for private party transfers.  A "loophole" would be if all private party transfers require a background check, unless the purchase is at a gun show. That's a loophole. 
    Geez, I even agree with you for the most part and you argue back. The only thing i don;t agree on is the technicality of referring to a gun show when talking about the "loophole" because that gives the false impression all you have to do to avoid a background check is attend a gun show, when in fact it is much easier than that in some states. 
    I would be all for background checks ona ll purchases, I really have no clue what about my stance has got you so worked up.
    So we have switched from arguing over whether or not an assault rifle is an assault rifle to whether there is a gun show loophole?

    The gun show loophole refers to secondary market sales.  Gun shows allow like minded gun worshippers an easy place to buy on that market.  

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole

    The term refers to the concept that a loophole in federal law exists, under which "[a]ny person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the state where they reside, as long as they do not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms".[2][3][4]

    Former BernieBro, turned Hillary rotten Clinton #1 Fanboy

    1998: Noblesville
    2003: Noblesville
    2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville
    2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago
    2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 12,019
    tbergs said:
    RYME said:
    CM189191 said:
    RYME said:
    CM189191 said:
    unsung said:
    unsung said:

    It used to be part of school curriculum.   Bring gun safety classes back, totally agree.
    So who best to regulate that other than the state?  Issue state licenses for gun owners that reflect basic competency.  

    If run through the DMV you wouldn't have much more admin cost since the brick and mortar already exists.
    Some States already do, Illinois being one, Chicago is just getting worse.  Guns can’t be blamed, that is just a cop-out.  Nothing will change until people value life.  How do we get that done?

    Yes, that's obviously the most reasonable explanation.  Other countries just value life more than the US does. 

    Fun fact: The Second Amendment was ratified to preserve slavery

    There is literally a direct line from the 2nd Amendment to devaluation of human life.
    https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/history/people/indian-killer-andrew-jackson-deserves-top-spot-on-list-of-worst-us-presidents/
    Read about the original founding days of the Democrat party.  Above
    That is wrong sir the second amendment was not to ratify slavery, rather it was a put in place to allow the citizenry to be able to fight back against a tyrannical government.  Please read what the second amendment was actually for.
    https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html

    Neither of the links you provide appear to be relevant to your point.

    Also, your point is wrong. 
    I can multitask.
    The second amendment was to give the citizenry the right to keep and bear arms, so that they could fight back against a tyrannical government if need be.  The Second Amendment had nothing to do with preserving slavery. That fun fact listed above is simply wrong and was made up.
    I mentioned Andrew Jackson simply because he was the founder of the Democrat Party, a big-time slave owner and a big-time Indian killer.
    He should never have been put on the $20 bill.  Just ask any Native American what they think of him, and any African Americans who know the true history about slavery, who was for it and who was against it at the time, and who implemented it.
    The "tyrannical government" argument is old and ridiculous.

    Back then the TG would come at you with similar weapons.  Now the TG has tanks...tactical nukes...drones, etc.

    Give that argument up.  Your pussy ass AR-15 isn't going to help you if the TG comes at you.
    It is pretty stupid when you think about it. The odds that you even get a shot off before you are drone striked, MOAB'd, nuked, missile launched or hit with artillery from miles away is slim. But, having 20 AR-15s with 10000 rounds for yourself is necessary.
    Beyond idiotic.  Waco and Ruby Ridge come to mind....which are the situations a lot of the gun nuts try to use as justification.  Timothy McVeigh cited both as a reason for him blowing up that building.

    Both were unfortunate but both could have been easily avoided had the gun nuts just obeyed the law.
    it's because many of them actually believe they can Rambo their way to victory. 
    1 day.......
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,656
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    There's a lot of bashing about gun shows, and its always a main point when politicians debate gun control.

    Can anyone explain to me the issue? I've been to lots of gun shows, and I have never seen a "loophole" for them, and never heard hard of it outside a political debate.
    Gun shows are required to follow state laws. If a state requires a dealer to complete the transfer and  waiting period, buying a gun at a gun show doesn't prevent that.
    If you can go to a gun show and walk out with a gun without any background check, then it is state law that permits private party transfers like that, and no loophole with the gun show. And that same "loop hole" would exist for any private party transfer whether at a gunshow or not.

    Sales at gun shows are very professional, at least in my experience. There's no guys selling guns out of the trunk of their cars, people selling guns illegally, its all by the books. If you have a problem then it is with the state law and not the gun show.

    No one is arguing that they are breaking state laws; in fact, exactly the opposite - they are following state laws that are far too lax. The concern is that private sellers without a federal license don't need to follow the usual background check rules. This applies at gun shows but also other venues, yes; it's just more visible and blatant at gun shows.

    Would it make you feel better if we simply called it the "private sale loophole"? Because that's what it is. It's still ridiculous.

    Flea markets. You can buy a gun at a flea market for gawds sakes.

    "I came across this beauty at the flea market by the Trump rally!" bragged Cletus brandishing his new gun to Jethro. "It was only $50."

    "She's a peach" replied Jethro admiring the weapon while kicking at a turd.

    Normally obtuse to non verbal cues, Cletus noted Jethro's admiration: "You wanna shoot that turd with my new gun?" he asked. 

    "Could I?" Jethro asked in disbelief at his exceptional stroke of great fortune.

    Cletus smiled- betraying tooth decay- and handed Jethro the gun. Jethro felt a stirring in his pants as he reached for the gun. Once it was in his hands, he felt three feet taller and 50 pounds of muscle heavier. "Prepare to die, turd" he exulted and took aim. 

    Not in every state. I agree guns should not be sold at flea markets, and that is a law states should pass. Or even federal law to enter a federal data base.

    And the rest is a good example of why little ever changes. 
    When one group insults another, they become more protective. When gun owners are compared to simple-minded rednecks, it strengthens their belief that the second amendment will go away.
    For the record I don't believe that will happen. But when reading through these posts with the anti-gun comments I can justify why some do.
    And if that is your interpretation of a typical gun owner, why wouldn't you want to ban guns? Fortunately, that is not very accurate.
    Just keep throwing out that irrational fear that guns will be "banned" en mass. Only 6 states require background checks at gun shows and you still claim its the State's fault and not a "loophole" while trying to make a comparison with coin shops. Meanwhile, comparing your personal experience with gun shows as if that is somehow the norm, despite evidence to the contrary. I think you reside in California, one of the 6 states with background checks for gun shows. This is why nothing changes, not because of a post on a band's message board poking fun at gun owners. Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.
    If the states allow it, how is it not the state's fault? Whose fault is it that background checks are not required if it is not the state that makes the laws? You can't blame a gun show for the state's laws, or lack of.
    And all i said about the loophole was calling it a "gun show loophole" simply implies its a loophole that only applies to gun shows. Its not. Its not even a loophole in my opinion, because you're not going around anything. In most of those other states background checks are not required for private party transfers.  A "loophole" would be if all private party transfers require a background check, unless the purchase is at a gun show. That's a loophole. 
    Geez, I even agree with you for the most part and you argue back. The only thing i don;t agree on is the technicality of referring to a gun show when talking about the "loophole" because that gives the false impression all you have to do to avoid a background check is attend a gun show, when in fact it is much easier than that in some states. 
    I would be all for background checks ona ll purchases, I really have no clue what about my stance has got you so worked up.
    So we have switched from arguing over whether or not an assault rifle is an assault rifle to whether there is a gun show loophole?

    The gun show loophole refers to secondary market sales.  Gun shows allow like minded gun worshippers an easy place to buy on that market.  

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole

    The term refers to the concept that a loophole in federal law exists, under which "[a]ny person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the state where they reside, as long as they do not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms".[2][3][4]

    I agree that's what it is. My point was just that I don't think the average person who doesn't follow this topic closely realizes that. They see Clinton or anyone else talking about the gunshow loophole in a debate, and I don't think they realize its a flaw in the federal and/or state law. They just inherently think that gunshows are therefore bad, and are some magical place where the gun laws don't apply. They hear news reports about guns purchased at a gunshow and believe it would not have been a legal purchase if gunshows were banned. I don't even care that we call it a "gun show loophole," I only said that doesn't seem correct to me because that term doesn't address the issue and seems to mislead as to what the issue really is (federal and/or state law).
    I no longer live in California, but did most of my life. The LA county gunshow, probably the country's largest, was dismantled about 10 years ago. Many others are struggling to continue because of all the pushback they have. And when you talk to some of those people, some believe that anyone can walk into a gunshow and walk out with an arsenal of weapons at the end of the day. That isn't true in California, and the states where it is true, it has nothing to do with the fact it is a gun show.
Sign In or Register to comment.