I am deranged for being right?
THAT is your argument? Seriously?
Look, Jack. (per Si)......FFL dealers at Gun Shows have to do background checks on all sales done there, already. Individuals do not. So where is the loophole?
I am not deranged for being right, no matter how much you ostrich.
WARNING - Due to the rising costs of ammunition, warning shots will no longer be given.
You are deranged. I stand by my comment.
so read carefully. ANYONE who sells a gun at a gun show needs to have a FFL and needs to perform said checks. ANYONE. that's the GD loophole.
Go try to sell hamburgers at a gun show without a food service license. Try it. You'll get thrown out on your ear.
BKB
You have no clue how Gun Shows work, and your argument seems to be to simply call me names for not agreeing with your incorrect belief.
YOU CAN HAVE a private booth at a gun show. You do NOT have to have an FFL to have one. And if you do have an FFL, those guys already have to do the same paperwork that they would do at their gun store. What part of this are you just refusing to see?
Get over it.
But from now on, you can either choose to discuss things with me or not. But stop calling me names, especially for being correct.
WARNING - Due to the rising costs of ammunition, warning shots will no longer be given.
I didn't call you a name. I called you an adjective. If I'd called you a name I'd have called you a moron (only an example).
And closing the loophole means the individual sellers, private booths, whatever, at a gun show would all have to be licensed and o a check on whatever they sell. that seems easy enough to comprehend.
BKB
A) Yes you did.
B) The ATF will not accept inquiries for background checks from individuals.
C) Since you apparently haven't read, or haven't comprehended, anything I've said here, I'm done with this one here. Pearls before swine, and all that.
Thanks.
WARNING - Due to the rising costs of ammunition, warning shots will no longer be given.
Quite an interesting discussion boys. I have always wondered what this "gun show loophole" thingie was. So, BBP, what you are saying is that the "loophole" is that someone INSIDE the gun show that has purchased table space from the promoters are the source of this alleged "loophole"? If I am reading you right, you are saying that everyone who sells/buys a gun at a table INSIDE a show needs to have a NICS check done on them? If that is what you are saying, then I have no problem with that. But I imagine "they" would need to modify the laws so that (I guess) the promoters are the ones required to file the "yellow forms"? OR since it is basically a FTF sale maybe no "yellow forms"? Maybe they should run a NICS check on folks as they come into the show? Maybe the ATF needs to make it a whole lot easier to get an FFL than it is now???
ONE thing that the FFL dealers do here, and I assume in (some) other states, is if you have a CCW permit, then they do not have to run a NICS on you. That's at a show or in their store. NOW....Face To Face sales between two individuals, say at my house, or in a parking lot, or wherever...that a whole nuther story. I don't want the camel putting his nose under that tent. Also, there's a couple of forums here that have a For Sale section, most folks that list stuff on there won't sell to an individual who doesn't have a CCW. Of course here a CCW is very easy to obtain, because our we are a "shall issue" state. What that means is that you go down to the courthouse, fill out the form, go to the police station and they take your finger prints. The prints are sent of to either the GBI or FBI...I forget which. And in a few weeks your CCW arrives in the mail.
I don't know how the gun shows work in other parts of the country, and I have not been to one around here in prolly 15 years. The last time I was at a show was when I bought my 1911, and that was through a dealer.....and was before (I think) the NICS went into effect. I do remember filling out a "yellow form" though.
Down here the gun shows have mostly morphed into dealers pulling stuff that's not moving off of their shelves and hauling it down to the show and trying to sell it for more than its worth. From what I understand there are very few "private sellers" at gun shows around here any more.
The only way to stop this "loophole" as it's called would be to ban all individual sales of firearms and require that all sales go through a FFL. We all know that isn't practical and won't ever happen. It may happen, but it won't stop private sales. No one would ever know if and to whom I sold any gun I own to.
Doing a trace on a gun through the ATF usually only shows which distributor it went to from the factory, which store or dealer they sold it to, and then the first sale of that gun through the dealer. If the original purchaser of that gun sold it to a private individual, the trace ends there. I've ran traces on numerous guns in my career and rarely if ever have it show more than the original purchaser.
"Never try to fight an Old Dude. If you win, there's no glory; if you lose, your reputation is shot."
Niner, those are great ideas. closing the gun show loophole doesn't do anything for private sales. That ain't it. Its is redefining 'private' sales from some guy at a gun show though and forcing anyone who's selling at one to have an FFL. And I agree also that any sale at a gun show or gun shop have a NICS check ran on the purchaser.
I think this would also do a lot to discourage the sale of stolen guns. There's no teeth whatsoever in gun traces, like DD said. that needs to be enforced at pawn shops, guns shows, everywhere. Its really as simple as finding ways to enforce the laws we have to degree.
As we've discussed on here before, there also needs to be enforcement of laws on shipping guns across state lines so they are FFL to FFL whether its a private purchase or not.
BKB
When people refer to the "loophole" they're talking about preventing private gun owners from selling to other private citizens without a background check. I don't care if that is prevented at gun shows. It seems a very wasteful thing to focus on to help people feel better.
The only thing that will occur as a result is citizens finding other ways to buy and sell guns to one another. It's not illegal, should never have to be recorded or tracked in any way, and will do nothing to help anyone actually be safer or control guns more "responsibly".
The reason we're allowed to buy and sell guns as citizens of this country is because the 2nd Amendment was created to arm civilians and allow them to shoot at a Tyrannical government, if needed. So, allowing the government to involve itself in the middle of a private gun purchase is not something we should be allowing. Sort of defeats the purpose of keeping the citizenry armed if you track who has all the guns. Poopooing any opinion concerned about that fact is pretty shortsighted.
Just my opinion.
If we all threw our problems in a pile, and you saw everyone else's problems-- you'd take yours back.
From Wiki..
In 2000, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) published the "Following the Gun" report.[18] The ATF analyzed more than 1,530 trafficking investigations over a two-and-a-half-year period and found gun shows to be the second leading source of illegally diverted guns in the nation. "Straw purchasing was the most common channel in trafficking investigations."[19] These investigations involved a total of 84,128 firearms that had been diverted from legal to illegal commerce. All told, the report identified more than 26,000 firearms that had been illegally trafficked through gun shows in 212 separate investigations. The report stated that: "A prior review of ATF gun show investigations shows that prohibited persons, such as convicted felons and juveniles, do personally buy firearms at gun shows and gun shows are sources of firearms that are trafficked to such prohibited persons. The gun show review found that firearms were diverted at and through gun shows by straw purchasers, unregulated private sellers, and licensed dealers. Felons were associated with selling or purchasing firearms in 46 percent of the gun show investigations. Firearms that were illegally diverted at or through gun shows were recovered in subsequent crimes, including homicide and robbery, in more than a third of the gun show investigations."
A gun show is a venue. Close it to private sales if that's what will make people think a huge loophole has been rectified and no more shootings will occur.
Private gun sales can't be regulated.
If we all threw our problems in a pile, and you saw everyone else's problems-- you'd take yours back.
I'm not advocating shutting down private sales. I'm advocating closing the damned gun show loophole where 'private citizens' sell tables full of guns to make a lot of money and could give a shit about their stewardship of the transaction is more than just a fucking check. Its no different than if they did the exact same thing on the corner of fifth and main with a table full of guns. you think that would be good? Is it 'unregulatable' because its in a civic center?
Sorry, I just don't get the obtuseness on this topic.
BKB
I'd be interested to see the conviction rate from those investigations of the gun shows that you posted Barry. I've had ATF agents refuse to take a case of a felon possessing a gun, because it wasn't a big enough case. Just a simple felony conviction for assault on a police officer and the guy had been waling around town with a rifle scaring the hell out of people. Not because he was pointing it at anyone, just because they knew who he was and didn't think he needed to have a gun. I don't think it would reduce the rate of felons or other "undesirable" people from buying guns. If they really wanted a gun from a gun show, they would just use a straw purchaser.
Didn't you ever give a guy a few bucks to buy you beer before you were legal to buy it yourself. Probably didn't have a problem finding anyone willing to do it for you either?
He didn't meet the state statute of a serious violent felon, so there were no state charges we could arrest him for. The agents said that the AUSA (Assistant US Attorney) wouldn't file the case because it "wasn't splash enough" to get any attention from anyone above him to forward his career. The case for them was simple, I'd confiscated the gun from the guy and called them. All they needed was my report and his criminal history and the case was done.
They current laws need to be enforced before new ones are passed that won't be enforced either. Just a waste of time but it makes everyone think something is being done. "Fast and Furious" is a classic example of doing investigations and then not making arrests. Makes for good stats that they can show how US gun dealers are responsible for the Mexican Cartel violence.
"Never try to fight an Old Dude. If you win, there's no glory; if you lose, your reputation is shot."
No one is apparently interested in hearing the truth about this stuff, DD.
WARNING - Due to the rising costs of ammunition, warning shots will no longer be given.
Oh bite me. Don't act as if I'm misinformed and you aren't. I think I've said plenty of times that we need to enforce our current laws.
BKB
I don't disagree with you, BBP. I'm just saying that if private, unregulated gun sales are banned from gun shows (I honestly don't care if they are) it isn't going to change anything, just shift private gun sales back to how they were conducted before gun shows were popular. I do feel strongly that private gun sales between two citizens should always be allowed. And to me, that seems to be more in line with the thinking behind "closing the gun show loophole", they just haven't thought thru to the next step.
When the next mass shooting by some sick fuck is investigated, it's determined the sick fuck bought the gun from me that I advertised on a bulletin board somewhere, and the hand wringing begins again until someone finally stands up and says "the government should regulate all private gun sales, period. And hey, while we're at it, record their address, gun type, and other information. At least they'd have to speak an honest intent at that point.
If we all threw our problems in a pile, and you saw everyone else's problems-- you'd take yours back.
I just think that instead of findingten reasons why we shouldn't do something that we could for once find some ways to do something real that makes it harder for the wrong people to get access to guns. The easy way out is to lie in the friggin weeds and say 'I told you so when your sole contribution to the thing was to just sit back and moan.
It creates the perception that you accept the deaths in these incidents as the cost of gun ownership and liberty. If that were the case, I'd give them all up in a heartbeat.
BKB
Admittedly, I have no better ideas. But I really would not care if gun shows could only host licensed FFL dealers. It may make it less easy for a crazed fuck to get a gun quickly. Most of the crazy fucks seem to have laid out quite the plan for their suicide though. Not sure anything would stop the determined crazy fuck.
If we all threw our problems in a pile, and you saw everyone else's problems-- you'd take yours back.
Well, and so we part.
I'm not willing to give up any of my blood-paid freedoms so you can decide who is the 'wrong' person to own a gun. Even if you're great at making that decision, your follower might not be. Safety is wonderful. But it's not as great as Freedom.
That's not accepting of these deaths, as much as I'm sure you will deem it so. It's accepting of the reality that says doing something in name only is not the same as doing something worthy. How can I argue about the rights and wrongs of owning an assault rifle with those who don't know what one is? How can I argue the merits of gun show rules with those who don't know what they are to begin with? How can I argue my core beliefs with someone who abhors them?
We'd ALL give up our guns if it saved anyone's lives, especially kids. But because it would not in even the slightest, we choose not to bow to pre-existing political agendas so someone somewhere can feel good.
Matthew 7:21-23
King James Version (KJV)
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Recognizing a problem is first. But it's not enough to just recognize it and wish it away. You have to actually know what is the right thing to do, and you have to actually do it.
Course, I'm deranged, so I'm sure I'd be first on many folks' list.
WARNING - Due to the rising costs of ammunition, warning shots will no longer be given.
Okay help me understand you.. If *what* were the case? In what scenario would you willingly give up your guns? .. in a heartbeat?Originally Posted by BarryBobPosthole
If you turn a dog loose to hunt – you’d better to be ready to deal with what he trees.
If I thought it would actually prevent these things from happening. Giving up our guns won't. Sharpening our pencil on enforcement and finding ways to make sure criminals don't have easy access will help.
And Bucky, you sure were happy to give up your liberties and mine with the Patriot Act. The fit you're throwing now is disengenuous considering how you rolled over on those liberties. It almost seems like this is moreabout politics than it is about guns.
BKB
I never commented to you on the Patriot Act that I can remember. I couldn't even tell you what it entailed. I do know that you think it restricted liberties. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. But I'd not concede the point that it did without knowing. Your argument is common debate tactics.......assume your opponent is inconsistent by incorrectly applying prior sentiments. Liberty and Freedom is not 100% unconditional, I'll concede that point. But I am strongly opposed to having the line drawn by those whose core beliefs are so opposite of mine.
And I just said it was more about politics than liberties. It wasn't me that suggested changes in laws, so it isn't about my politics. Besides, just being about politics is not in and of itself wrong, anyway. Something can be about politics AND about guns, can it not? Seems the Left certainly thinks so, as does your post insinuate. Whether this discussion is 'more' about one than the other is.......well, disingenuous, I think.
There are thousands of gun laws on the books now. Making 23 more vague EO's is not the answer, and I think even you know it. Me personally, I don't understand folks' easy willingness to forego freedoms, especially those that are so clearly codified, just to make vain attempts to force safety on others.
If there are valid deterrents to these rare crimes, then let's discuss those. But if your ideas are shown to be ineffective, you can't hold to them inordinately. Disingenuous to me is the fact that we spend so much time discussing this type of crime, and let the truly abhorrent, and more easily fixable, ones slide. I guess we think we are in a Reality Show. It's hot now, so let's ride it. The single most item used in homicides, according to the FBI, is a baseball bat. But no one will even discuss that. It's dismissed as silly to even bring that up. Cars cause way more deaths than guns, but we don't discuss the 'need' to have a V8 in cars vs. a 4 cylinder. V8's cause a lot of deaths, if they were banned, we'd be safer.
Do we want to be safer? Or do we want to politically emasculate all gun owners due to some inane fear?
Course, I'm deranged, I realize.
WARNING - Due to the rising costs of ammunition, warning shots will no longer be given.
Yes. Deranged and Disingenuous. You're working through the D's.
BKB
Add Disappointed.
Good night.
WARNING - Due to the rising costs of ammunition, warning shots will no longer be given.
"Those who surrender freedom for security wil not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
B Franklin
As responsible gun owners, we should participate in discussions that address preventing criminals and crazy fucks from getting guns.
My personal line is the 2nd Amendment as I believe it is intended. That doesn't mean it remains a binary issue. There is middle ground to be had.
If we all threw our problems in a pile, and you saw everyone else's problems-- you'd take yours back.
Niner, I've seen that tired old mis-attributed quote trotted out in almost every discussion on gun regulations that I've ever seen. and yet, we still had the alien and Sedition Act, we still took liberty away from the Japanese in WWII, we had the Patriot Act, Abe Lincoln himself waived habeas corpus durinig the civil war, and George Bush and the Congress pass the Patriot act which took away many of our liberties and made it legal for our government to spy on its own people: all in the name of national security. And what's the budget of the Homeland Security department nowadays, $57 billion? It started at $18 billion right after 911 and not one single solitary dime of it, by the way, was 'paid for' by cuts elsewhere. when it comes to our security we compromise many of the things we claim to hold dear. So I don't buy it. Yes, to prevent mass shootings of people I think we should be willing to give up something. I mean heck, we're willing to have teachers walk around in kindergarten class with firearms, we're willing to arm administrators and have armed cops patrol the halls of our schools. Isn't that giving up something?
come on. let's have a real discussion about it.
BKB
There's a parallel here somewhere to the discussion about our 5th Amendment Rights against self-incrimination which gave us "Miranda". I've often heard, and agree, that it's better for 100 guilty men to go free than for 1 innocent man to be jailed. When it comes to Free Speech, I personally find Nazi hate speech to be repugnant. But, I'd defend their right to say what they want. When it comes to Freedom of Assembly, I hate the idea of the Klan marching through a predominantly black neighborhood. But, I'd defend their right to do it. So, why are some so willing to limit our Right to Keep and Bear Arms in the name of the so-called public good? Lots of our Rights have negative consequences, but the whole idea when the Constitution was being written was that certain Individual rights (bestowed upon us by God) could not be subjugated by the tyrrany of the masses.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." Raoul Duke
Hank its because, at least from a homicide by gun statistics standpoint, there are fewer per capita gun deaths in places like South Africa, Phillipines, Chile, etc than there are in the United states. We claim to be freer but we're not. Ask any bank teller who's been robbed at gun point if we're freer. Two thirds of our violent crimes are committed with guns.
I do NOT agree with the assault weapon ban and never have. We tried it once and there was no difference. We keep trying to do things that we know don't work and statistically aren't proven. Of the 11,000 people killed by gun homicide in America every year (yeah, three times those killed on 9/11) only about five hundred are killed by long guns of ANY kind. So what will the assault weapon ban do for us even if it is wildly successful beyond our wildest dreams? Not much. What I'm arguing for is to have the argument. Instead of comparing our president to Hitler or quoting dead patriots we need to be figuring out how to do this. But we won't even have the discussion. Its not possible because nobody else knows the truth like we do. Nothing is wrong. Carry on. Blame something else, even though countries that have gun control and have taken their guns away from their citizens have one-fortieth, yes forty times less guin violence and homicide than we do. and here's a news flash, they are free countries where their citizens enjoy the same freedoms we do (Germany and England). Personally, I don't want to be Germany or England. But I do think we can't ignore the numbers and the truth. We have a problem and we need to fix it. Unfortunately, we can't even have that discussion.
BKB
There's a lot if things I'd love to have an honest discussion about. Let's start with Race. Just not sure it will ever happen.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." Raoul Duke
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote