America's Gun Violence
Comments
-
mace1229 said:Thirty Bills Unpaid said:oftenreading said:
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.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.
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!"0 -
That is what it was for.oftenreading said:CM189191 said:
Typical conservative Knows they're wrong, proceeds to double down on their stupidity anyways.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.
Overthrow any tyrannical governments lately?
No silly, the debate (struggle) continues.RYME said:
Yep, unfortunately as long as we're here, the struggle continues.mcgruff10 said:
Have you seen Feinstein s proposed legislation? And that s why there is always a rush to buy.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.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.
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.
I don't need anymore guns. I have plenty.0 -
RYME said:
That is what it was for.oftenreading said:CM189191 said:
Typical conservative Knows they're wrong, proceeds to double down on their stupidity anyways.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.
Overthrow any tyrannical governments lately?
No silly, the debate (struggle) continues.RYME said:
Yep, unfortunately as long as we're here, the struggle continues.mcgruff10 said:
Have you seen Feinstein s proposed legislation? And that s why there is always a rush to buy.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.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.
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.
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 shelf0 -
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.mace1229 said:Thirty Bills Unpaid said:oftenreading said:
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.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.
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.
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.0 -
26 dead in sandy hook elementary has got me worked up.mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.mace1229 said:Thirty Bills Unpaid said:oftenreading said:
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.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.
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.
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.
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 & 09/16/1998, 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; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, 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; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
My opinion on what?Halifax2TheMax said:
26 dead in sandy hook elementary has got me worked up.mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.mace1229 said:Thirty Bills Unpaid said:oftenreading said:
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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?0 -
This makes you a moderate and part of the solution in my mind.mace1229 said:
My opinion on what?Halifax2TheMax said:
26 dead in sandy hook elementary has got me worked up.mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.mace1229 said:Thirty Bills Unpaid said:oftenreading said:
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!"0 -
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?mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.mace1229 said:Thirty Bills Unpaid said:oftenreading said:
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.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.
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.
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.
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]
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt20 -
it's because many of them actually believe they can Rambo their way to victory.Gern Blansten said:
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.tbergs said:
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.Gern Blansten said:
The "tyrannical government" argument is old and ridiculous.RYME said:
I can multitask.CM189191 said:RYME said:
https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/history/people/indian-killer-andrew-jackson-deserves-top-spot-on-list-of-worst-us-presidents/CM189191 said:unsung said:
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?Gern Blansten said:
So who best to regulate that other than the state? Issue state licenses for gun owners that reflect basic competency.unsung said:
It used to be part of school curriculum. Bring gun safety classes back, totally agree.
If run through the DMV you wouldn't have much more admin cost since the brick and mortar already exists.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Both were unfortunate but both could have been easily avoided had the gun nuts just obeyed the law.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
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).Gern Blansten said:
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?mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.mace1229 said:Thirty Bills Unpaid said:oftenreading said:
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.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.
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.
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.
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 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.0 -
Shark attacks on the rise...
Australia: Let's put up nets to protect citizens at the beach.
USA: Everyone buy a shark to protect you from the other sharks.
Star Lake 00 / Pittsburgh 03 / State College 03 / Bristow 03 / Cleveland 06 / Camden II 06 / DC 08 / Pittsburgh 13 / Baltimore 13 / Charlottesville 13 / Cincinnati 14 / St. Paul 14 / Hampton 16 / Wrigley I 16 / Wrigley II 16 / Baltimore 20 / Camden 22 / Baltimore 24 / Raleigh I 25 / Raleigh II 25 / Pittsburgh I 250 -
HesCalledDyer said:Shark attacks on the rise...
Australia: Let's put up nets to protect citizens at the beach.
USA: Everyone buy a shark to protect you from the other sharks.
By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
I have switched, but that was before coming on these forums. I really didn't start participating until last election when there was non-stop entertainment on here, coming to try and figure out who got banned the night beforeThirty Bills Unpaid said:
This makes you a moderate and part of the solution in my mind.mace1229 said:
My opinion on what?Halifax2TheMax said:
26 dead in sandy hook elementary has got me worked up.mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.mace1229 said:Thirty Bills Unpaid said:oftenreading said:
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 parents are very conservative, my dad is a retired cop so I grew up knowing and respecting guns.
My dad is the type that will talk about the stats, and that out of the 30,000 gun deaths a year, over half are suicides, and only about 5,000 are murder victims. And tell you if you really want to save lives, start a program informing people to not eat fast food 3 times a week and add 20 years to your life, or that second hand smoke kills more than guns.
For several years now I've believed in stronger gun control. I can have a conversation like that, and I will completely agree. They are societal factors that kill more than guns and go completely ignored. Its okay to kill your kids with second hand smoke in this country, or slowly fatten them to death by McDonalds.
That can all be true, but that doesn't change the fact there are still things we can do to lessen gun violence. I can agree there is no practical need for an assault rifle with a 30 round magazine. So if making you reload every 5 shots can save just 10 lives a year, to me that's still worth it.
I have, and still do, criticize some of the existing gun laws. Ones that I feel don't reduce the risk of danger at all and are in my opinion there to just limit the number of guns available in some states as another form of gun control.Post edited by mace1229 on0 -
Counterpoint:HesCalledDyer said:Shark attacks on the rise...
Australia: Let's put up nets to protect citizens at the beach.
USA: Everyone buy a shark to protect you from the other sharks.
0 -
Suicide rate also will lower along with the gun homicide rate if it’s more difficult to get a gun.mace1229 said:
I have switched, but that was before coming on these forums. I really didn't start participating until last election when there was non-stop entertainment on here, coming to try and figure out who got banned the night beforeThirty Bills Unpaid said:
This makes you a moderate and part of the solution in my mind.mace1229 said:
My opinion on what?Halifax2TheMax said:
26 dead in sandy hook elementary has got me worked up.mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.mace1229 said:Thirty Bills Unpaid said:oftenreading said:
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 parents are very conservative, my dad is a retired cop so I grew up knowing and respecting guns.
My dad is the type that will talk about the stats, and that out of the 30,000 gun deaths a year, over half are suicides, and only about 5,000 are murder victims. And tell you if you really want to save lives, start a program informing people to not eat fast food 3 times a week and add 20 years to your life, or that second hand smoke kills more than guns.
For several years now I've believed in stronger gun control. I can have a conversation like that, and I will completely agree. They are societal factors that kill more than guns and go completely ignored. Its okay to kill your kids with second hand smoke in this country, or slowly fatten them to death by McDonalds.
That can all be true, but that doesn't change the fact there are still things we can do to lessen gun violence. I can agree there is no practical need for an assault rifle with a 30 round magazine. So if making you reload every 5 shots can save just 10 lives a year, to me that's still worth it.
I have, and still do, criticize some of the existing gun laws. Ones that I feel don't reduce the risk of danger at all and are in my opinion there to just limit the number of guns available in some states as another form of gun control.
0 -
Cheers.mace1229 said:
I have switched, but that was before coming on these forums. I really didn't start participating until last election when there was non-stop entertainment on here, coming to try and figure out who got banned the night beforeThirty Bills Unpaid said:
This makes you a moderate and part of the solution in my mind.mace1229 said:
My opinion on what?Halifax2TheMax said:
26 dead in sandy hook elementary has got me worked up.mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.mace1229 said:Thirty Bills Unpaid said:oftenreading said:
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 parents are very conservative, my dad is a retired cop so I grew up knowing and respecting guns.
My dad is the type that will talk about the stats, and that out of the 30,000 gun deaths a year, over half are suicides, and only about 5,000 are murder victims. And tell you if you really want to save lives, start a program informing people to not eat fast food 3 times a week and add 20 years to your life, or that second hand smoke kills more than guns.
For several years now I've believed in stronger gun control. I can have a conversation like that, and I will completely agree. They are societal factors that kill more than guns and go completely ignored. Its okay to kill your kids with second hand smoke in this country, or slowly fatten them to death by McDonalds.
That can all be true, but that doesn't change the fact there are still things we can do to lessen gun violence. I can agree there is no practical need for an assault rifle with a 30 round magazine. So if making you reload every 5 shots can save just 10 lives a year, to me that's still worth it.
I have, and still do, criticize some of the existing gun laws. Ones that I feel don't reduce the risk of danger at all and are in my opinion there to just limit the number of guns available in some states as another form of gun control.
"My brain's a good brain!"0 -
I will note I applaud your swinging more to the middle. we need more like you. the problem with your equivalencies listed, there, however, are mostly personal accountability. you can't kill someone else with a big mac. you only kill yourself. and second hand smoke laws have been made in recent years. it's illegal here to smoke in your car with a kid underage. and in restaurants and bars, etc. yes, they are issues, but they don't take away from the fact that needless gun ownership kills a LOT of people.mace1229 said:I have switched, but that was before coming on these forums. I really didn't start participating until last election when there was non-stop entertainment on here, coming to try and figure out who got banned the night before
My parents are very conservative, my dad is a retired cop so I grew up knowing and respecting guns.
My dad is the type that will talk about the stats, and that out of the 30,000 gun deaths a year, over half are suicides, and only about 5,000 are murder victims. And tell you if you really want to save lives, start a program informing people to not eat fast food 3 times a week and add 20 years to your life, or that second hand smoke kills more than guns.
For several years now I've believed in stronger gun control. I can have a conversation like that, and I will completely agree. They are societal factors that kill more than guns and go completely ignored. Its okay to kill your kids with second hand smoke in this country, or slowly fatten them to death by McDonalds.
That can all be true, but that doesn't change the fact there are still things we can do to lessen gun violence. I can agree there is no practical need for an assault rifle with a 30 round magazine. So if making you reload every 5 shots can save just 10 lives a year, to me that's still worth it.
I have, and still do, criticize some of the existing gun laws. Ones that I feel don't reduce the risk of danger at all and are in my opinion there to just limit the number of guns available in some states as another form of gun control.
it's like having a discussion about vehicle safety and an anti-seat belter jump up and say "well, but what about your icy sidewalk!". it has nothing to do with it.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
not saying you're wrong...but I never viewed the "gun show loophole" that way. I think most of us realize that there are a lack of reasonable regulations nationwide.mace1229 said:
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).Gern Blansten said:
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?mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.mace1229 said:Thirty Bills Unpaid said:oftenreading said:
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.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.
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.
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.
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 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.Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt20 -
-
Guns don't kill people....
At Least 3 Reported Dead After Shooting At School, Other Locations In California http://n.pr/2mreBZF0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help