It's the Guns, Stupid

It's the Guns, Stupid

There are 103292 comments on the Truthdig story from Apr 20, 2007, titled It's the Guns, Stupid. In it, Truthdig reports that:

“And that's the end of the issue”

Why do we have the same futile argument every time there is a mass killing? Advocates of gun control try to open a discussion about whether more reasonable weapons statutes might reduce the number of violent ... via Truthdig

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Truthdig.

“Imaginez tous les gens”

Since: Sep 09

Sunbury, OH

#110389 Sep 9, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"Quit playing semantics and deflecting from the astounding numbers.
You said "and all you did was stop them from obtaining a firearm"....LOL! Isn't that a good thing? You imply that's it's not that great??? It makes you look desperate."
Talk about desperate...YOU defend the criminal activities of criminals...then you give a PARTIAL quote (disengenuous) of the person you're responding too...lol
Here is what he said...but of course that doesn't fit your claim so you have to alter it;
"...all you did was stop them from obtaining a firearm at THAT location."
So, are you going to keep avoiding the question?
Isn't stopping almost 80,000 criminals a year from getting guns legally a good thing? Yes or no?

I am not defending criminals activity, lol....again, that makes you look desperate! I am for BACKGROUND checks...obviously, that does NOT defend criminals,. lol....nice try though...desperate, but a try nonetheless.
You are the one defending the right to criminals owning guns....you're sick!

It's not a partial quote, it is his own words....he said "all you did was stop a criminal from getting a firearm".....whether it be at that location, or another location...how can the fact that a criminal was STOPPED from getting a gun NOT a good thing? can you explain that one?
Funny how you and other gun nuts try to downplay stopping criminals, lol!
Why are you defending criminals? Why? Do you want it to be easier for them to get guns? Why?

“Imaginez tous les gens”

Since: Sep 09

Sunbury, OH

#110390 Sep 9, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's the part of the report that you and your article fail to address;
Of your 62,928 denials that violated the law, only 62 were referred for prosecution.
Prosecutors declined to prosecute 18...leaving 44...WOW!!!...isn't that awesome...?
I'm not willing to support a new law that's going to infringe on my rights when the current laws are not being enforced.
Let me get this straight:
1. You are aware the law stops almost 80,000 criminals a year.

2. Very few of those criminals were prosecuted, but STOPPED from buying a gun nonetheless!

3. You are against the law, because it doesn't prosecute the criminals that have already been stopped?

4. How does the law infringe on your rights, unless you're a criminal?

5. MOSTLY.....your position defends the CRIMINALS!

6. Here's your logic.....you are against background checks that stop 80,000 criminals a year, because most of those criminals are not prosecuted. You'd rather them NOT have to get a background check, buy the gun easily, with NO prosecution AND no background check???!!
How does that have any logic?
You want them prosecuted, and to show your outrage, you will be against background checks, thus making it easier for criminals to get guns AND not be prosecuted??

LOL< that's the most un-logical thing I've ever heard!

You are simply trying to deflect from the astounding number of criminals stopped by the background check, buy faking outrage that criminals have not been prosecuted!
If your outrage was genuine, then you wouldn't want to make it easier for criminals to get guns legally. You'd be pushing for stricter prosecution, and more enforcement of laws....not ridding the background check altogether (which we all know stops criminals).

I can see right through you :)
Besara

Omaha, NE

#110391 Sep 9, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
Apparently not, otherwise, there would be no need for us to have this conversation, now would there?
<quoted text>
Really? So another 20,000 gun laws would make a difference to the criminals?
You need to change your name to 'Reality is just an illusion'.
just an allusion wrote:
One can hope, though that IS the point of the current legislation.
Hope? Well, all of the other legislation that put the 20,000 laws currently on the books shared that same optimism. And the criminals ignored those laws too.
Do you know what the definition of insanity is?
just an allusion wrote:
ANYTHING that we can do to deter criminality, particularly the sort of criminality that leads to the wanton massacre of innocent people, men, women, children...is worth the while.
Not when it sacrifices liberty at the altar of hand-wringing hyperbole.
just an allusion wrote:
Is that "noble" enough for you?
No. It's irrational.
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
It isn't so much about encouraging the criminal element to become upstanding citizens (though that would be an ideal outcome) as much as it is about doing what we can to limit, if not eliminate altogether, their ability to impose their criminality on others.
<quoted text>
The proposed legislation does no such thing. It is designed to make people believe it will make them safer even though it won't change anything.
just an allusion wrote:
Because it is not the goal of the current legislation to delve into the mindset of the murderer, only to remove their access to weaponry that would enable them to act upon their motives.
And yet it only applies to firearms. Why is that?
just an allusion wrote:
I mean, surely it is not your intent to suggest that anyones' "motive" for murder justifies the act?
<quoted text>
No, just as surely as it's not your intent to suggest that criminals will obey these laws because they are somehow different than the others they've been breaking. It's just more feelgood useless legislation.
just an allusion wrote:
Again, the goal is to minimalize the weaponry/arsenal available to the criminally inclined by imposing more thorough firearm purchasing requirements to further enforce and strengthen those already on the books
And of course failing to comprehend that criminals don't usually go through the legal channels for which this legislation is pointed at.
just an allusion wrote:
As a matter of fact, from 1999 to 2009, 1.8 million people were blocked from purchasing guns after failing a background check because they had criminal records or suffered from mental illness.
It is a small burden, if "burden" at all, for the honest.
Are you touting the effectiveness of that?
If what you are saying is true, then you are undercutting your own argument.
I told you laws were ALREADY on the books to curtail access to firearms from convicts and mental illness, yet you insist there aren't or expect me to post evidence of that.
Now that you've done the research for your 1.8 million claim, find out how many of those were prosecuted for their attempts to purchase firearms.
Let us know what you come up with.

“Imaginez tous les gens”

Since: Sep 09

Sunbury, OH

#110392 Sep 9, 2013
Fling wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact of the matter is just this: YOU —amongst others— happen to 'think' that a law is going to STOP something from happening.
Well, we all know that the law stops almost 80,000 criminals a year from legally buying a firearm. I don't think anyone claimed a law can STOP everything altogether. BUT, it can make it harder for the criminal!
Fling wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, just as =>YOUR<= idiot allopathic DORK doctors seemingly think that a drug is going to stop a medical problem from recurring.
Well, we all know for a fact that penicillin works.
I don't understand your logic with this point?
Fling wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU really have NOT thought out this matter, have you?
I think you need to ask yourself that question :)
Fling wrote:
<quoted text>
Just enact another law, and the problem will go away, right?
Who said that?
Fling wrote:
<quoted text>
WHEN —YOU BITCH— WHEN was the last time a law of man STOPPED =ANYTHING= from happening?
The FBI has documented it stops almost 80,000 criminals a year! Are you saying we should make it easier for criminals? Why>?

Besara

Omaha, NE

#110393 Sep 9, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
Completely different context entirely, and so, irrelevant to the present discussion...Just more deflection.
Not at all. It's very relevant. That it points out the false premises of your argument is simply inconvenient for you.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#110394 Sep 9, 2013
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet no one is even suggesting that anyone "surrender" their guns!
All that anyone is doing is proposing more stringent gun laws that will serve to further insure that firearms do not fall into the hands of the criminally minded or the mentally imbalanced,,nothing more.
I don't know where you're getting your intel from, or if you're merely deluded, but I suggest that you revisit the media and reassess your perception of what is actually being suggested.
Except that the one that is deluded is YOU. Feinstein has already admitted that if she could get the votes in Congress, she would outlaw every gun out there. And take a look on how the assault weapons ban in California went down.

And there are already laws on the books that make possession of a firearm ILLEGAL for felons and the mentally unstable. Surely don't think that they will suddenly become law-abiding citizens simply because ANOTHER law is passed making it more illegal, do you??? Just like you don't prevent drunk driving by making it harder for SOBER people to get a driver's license.....you don't prevent criminals from getting firearms by making it harder for the law-abiding to get one. Criminals DON'T GIVE A DAMN about how many gun control laws you pass. In fact, they LOVE them. It's makes there job MUCH easier knowing that the person they are trying to rob, assault, rape, etc. can't put up some kind of ARMED defense.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#110395 Sep 9, 2013
Adam Gadahn wrote:
<quoted text>
I am a ZIONAZI Jew.
How DARE you make fun of me!
I shall now dispatch Gog, and Magag to rend you!!
{click-click}
Bring 'em on!

“Imaginez tous les gens”

Since: Sep 09

Sunbury, OH

#110396 Sep 9, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no transaction that takes place at a gunshow that can't take place anywhere else. Federally licensed gun dealers BY LAW must conduct backgraound checks just like they are selling a firearm at their own store. Period. And it veries by state, but in most, private citizens selling their own privately owned guns do not have to conduct a background check. Same as if they were selling a gun to a neighbor or whoever from there home or out of the trunk of their car. Some states do require private owners to conduct background checks at gun shows.
And I hate to break it to you (not really), but Adam Gadahn is completely full of shit. As far as full-auto weapons go....NO ONE is allowed to own one or buy one without passing a background check and paying an additional $200 tax, and in some states, notifying the state and local police of your ownership of a full-auto weapon.
So since there is no transaction at a gun show that can't happen anywhere else, there is NO GUNSHOW LOOPHOLE.
So, you agree the loophole exists, it's just a play on words?!
It should be called the gun show/private seller loophole?
We can all see there's a loophole!

Adam Gadahn is NOT full of shit. We ALL can SEE he made the video urging terrorist to buy guns, semi auto, and full auto....even though you can not legally buy FULL auto guns at guns shows without checks, doesn't negate the fact that terrorist USE those gun shows to buy WEAPONS to use against us!!!! I hate to break it to you!
Terrorists cannot buy a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check at a gun show, but they can buy a semi-automatic assault rifle without a background check at a gun show.... the larger point remains the same, eh?
The ATF identified gun shows as "a major venue for illegal trafficking" of firearms, and has specifically linked private sales at gun shows to trafficking operations -- some involving Mexican drug cartels. A member of Hezbollah also bought weapons at gun shows in Michigan.

So.....what is your point here?
Should I not be worried about semi auto, and other weapons?

“Imaginez tous les gens”

Since: Sep 09

Sunbury, OH

#110397 Sep 9, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"It's only a felony if they KNOWINGLY try to buy a firearm."
Gee...so why do you think they are getting a background check...? You believe they are getting a job in a daycare...?
If they THINK they are allowed to own a gun, they try to legally buy one, and then are told "you've been denied", and they walk out WITHOUT a gun.
It has happened to THOUSANDS of people....do a little research :)
They are knowingly buying a gun, but obviously do not KNOW they can't.
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"I didn't contradict ANYTHING......if they do not know it's a CRIME, then they don't have the proof to prosecute a CRIME!"
Let me get this straight...they can't prosecute someone if they didn't know it was a crime...?...got it...I can just hear that argument in court...lol
No, they can not prosecute someone if they do not have EVIDENCE or PROOF they knowing could not buy a gun. That was the QUOTE from the AG (I posted his quote in yesterdays post)...so obviously it does old up in court. That's why so few have been prosecuted.
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"Why do you keep deflecting from the IMPORTANT POINT>thousands of criminals are stopped from legally buying a firearm every year!"
Not deflecting at all...
You are deflecting! You keep avoiding the fact that almost 80,000 criminals a year are stopped from buying a gun is a GOOD thing.
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
So, are you saying that all of these 1.8 million criminals that attempted to get a gun and were denied, never got a gun somewhere else...?
They very well could have, but we obviously made it harder for them.
Are you saying we should STOP doing background check, and make it easier for them?
I don't understand that logic! lol

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#110398 Sep 9, 2013
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
<quoted text>So, you agree the loophole exists, it's just a play on words?!
It should be called the gun show/private seller loophole?
We can all see there's a loophole!
Adam Gadahn is NOT full of shit. We ALL can SEE he made the video urging terrorist to buy guns, semi auto, and full auto....even though you can not legally buy FULL auto guns at guns shows without checks, doesn't negate the fact that terrorist USE those gun shows to buy WEAPONS to use against us!!!! I hate to break it to you!
Terrorists cannot buy a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check at a gun show, but they can buy a semi-automatic assault rifle without a background check at a gun show.... the larger point remains the same, eh?
The ATF identified gun shows as "a major venue for illegal trafficking" of firearms, and has specifically linked private sales at gun shows to trafficking operations -- some involving Mexican drug cartels. A member of Hezbollah also bought weapons at gun shows in Michigan.
So.....what is your point here?
Should I not be worried about semi auto, and other weapons?
The Gun Show "Loophole:" More Gun Control Disguised as Crime Control

There Is No Gun Show Loophole

The claim that a quarter to half of the vendors at most gun shows are unlicensed dealers is true only if one counts vendors selling items other than guns (e.g., books, clothing, ammunition, knives, holsters and other accessories) as unlicensed dealers.

Federal law requires that any person "engaged in the business" of selling firearms possess a valid Federal Firearms License. This is true whether one is selling guns for a living at a gun store or at a gun show. Licensed dealers must conduct an NICS check prior to the transfer of any firearm - regardless of where that transfer occurs. The majority of sellers at gun shows are licensed dealers and do conduct checks.

Individuals who occasionally sell or trade guns from their personal collection need not be licensed nor are they required to conduct a NICS check prior to the sale - whether the sale occurs at a gun show, at their home or out of the trunk of their car. Congress never intended a person who wants to sell a spare hunting rifle to a friend, a father who wishes to give a .22 rifle to his son or a widow who wishes to dispose of her late husband's firearms through an Internet auction or an ad in the local paper to undertake a NICS background check.

Thus, the same laws apply to gun shows as to all other gun transactions.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba349

“Imaginez tous les gens”

Since: Sep 09

Sunbury, OH

#110399 Sep 9, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>
The Gun Show "Loophole:" More Gun Control Disguised as Crime Control
There Is No Gun Show Loophole
The claim that a quarter to half of the vendors at most gun shows are unlicensed dealers is true only if one counts vendors selling items other than guns (e.g., books, clothing, ammunition, knives, holsters and other accessories) as unlicensed dealers.
Federal law requires that any person "engaged in the business" of selling firearms possess a valid Federal Firearms License. This is true whether one is selling guns for a living at a gun store or at a gun show. Licensed dealers must conduct an NICS check prior to the transfer of any firearm - regardless of where that transfer occurs. The majority of sellers at gun shows are licensed dealers and do conduct checks.
Individuals who occasionally sell or trade guns from their personal collection need not be licensed nor are they required to conduct a NICS check prior to the sale - whether the sale occurs at a gun show, at their home or out of the trunk of their car. Congress never intended a person who wants to sell a spare hunting rifle to a friend, a father who wishes to give a .22 rifle to his son or a widow who wishes to dispose of her late husband's firearms through an Internet auction or an ad in the local paper to undertake a NICS background check.
Thus, the same laws apply to gun shows as to all other gun transactions.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba349
So, it's just a play on words?!
It should be called the gun show/private seller loophole?
Or is it the word "loophole" that you don't like?
My point remains the same, whether you like the wording or not.

We can all see there's a loophole/way to get out of background checks....word it however you like, the premise ids the same!
It doesn't negate the fact that terrorist USE those gun shows to buy WEAPONS to use against us!!!! I hate to break it to you!
Terrorists cannot buy a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check at a gun show, but they can buy a semi-automatic assault rifle without a background check at a gun show.... the larger point remains the same, eh?
The ATF identified gun shows as "a major venue for illegal trafficking" of firearms, and has specifically linked private sales at gun shows to trafficking operations -- some involving Mexican drug cartels. A member of Hezbollah also bought weapons at gun shows in Michigan.

So.....what is your point here?

“Imaginez tous les gens”

Since: Sep 09

Sunbury, OH

#110400 Sep 9, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>
Congress never intended a person who wants to sell a spare hunting rifle to a friend, a father who wishes to give a .22 rifle to his son or a widow who wishes to dispose of her late husband's firearms through an Internet auction or an ad in the local paper to undertake a NICS background check.
I'm sure congress didn't intend terrorists to be able to use are own laws against us, and buy weapons at gun shows to use against us!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#110401 Sep 9, 2013
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
<quoted text>
So, it's just a play on words?!
It should be called the gun show/private seller loophole?
Or is it the word "loophole" that you don't like?
My point remains the same, whether you like the wording or not.
We can all see there's a loophole/way to get out of background checks....word it however you like, the premise ids the same!
It doesn't negate the fact that terrorist USE those gun shows to buy WEAPONS to use against us!!!! I hate to break it to you!
Terrorists cannot buy a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check at a gun show, but they can buy a semi-automatic assault rifle without a background check at a gun show.... the larger point remains the same, eh?
The ATF identified gun shows as "a major venue for illegal trafficking" of firearms, and has specifically linked private sales at gun shows to trafficking operations -- some involving Mexican drug cartels. A member of Hezbollah also bought weapons at gun shows in Michigan.
So.....what is your point here?
ATF knows all about loopholes and they are not telling public just much they have been involved in letting illegal guns get on the Street in their "Fast and Furious" and then use it to justify more gun control laws.

December 7, 2011 1:44 PM

Documents: ATF used "Fast and Furious" to make the case for gun regulations

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-5733854...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#110402 Sep 9, 2013
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
<quoted text>I'm sure congress didn't intend terrorists to be able to use are own laws against us, and buy weapons at gun shows to use against us!
go trying buying a gun and you will learn alot of all that is involved just to buy a gun.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#110403 Sep 9, 2013
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
<quoted text>So, you agree the loophole exists, it's just a play on words?!
It should be called the gun show/private seller loophole?
We can all see there's a loophole!
Adam Gadahn is NOT full of shit. We ALL can SEE he made the video urging terrorist to buy guns, semi auto, and full auto....even though you can not legally buy FULL auto guns at guns shows without checks, doesn't negate the fact that terrorist USE those gun shows to buy WEAPONS to use against us!!!! I hate to break it to you!
Terrorists cannot buy a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check at a gun show, but they can buy a semi-automatic assault rifle without a background check at a gun show.... the larger point remains the same, eh?
The ATF identified gun shows as "a major venue for illegal trafficking" of firearms, and has specifically linked private sales at gun shows to trafficking operations -- some involving Mexican drug cartels. A member of Hezbollah also bought weapons at gun shows in Michigan.
So.....what is your point here?
Should I not be worried about semi auto, and other weapons?
A loophole is a way to get around an existing law through a legal means. Since there are NO transactions that take place at a gunshow that can't take place outside of the venue....THERE IS NO GUNSHOW LOOPHOLE. It is a made-up term by anti-gun leftists to make it sound like there is some kind of way for criminals to legally obtain weapons that they don't have access to on the outside.

And in typical Bunny fashion, you move the goal post when your claim is proven to be FALSE.

Here's something else for you to ponder. I have told you this before on more than one occasion, but since your memory seems to be fading, I'll say it again. DOJ statistics a few years ago showed that LESS THAN 2% of all firearms recovered at crime scenes where able to be traced back to a sale at a gunshow. Less than 2%.

Now I have zero desire to hash all this out with you again, because you have come back making the same bullshit claims as before, which has already been completely debunked. So unless you can come up with some kind of new argument to back what you claim, I will bid you, adieu.

“Imaginez tous les gens”

Since: Sep 09

Sunbury, OH

#110406 Sep 10, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>go trying buying a gun and you will learn alot of all that is involved just to buy a gun.
I own guns, I am aware what's involved in buying a gun....but thank you!

“Imaginez tous les gens”

Since: Sep 09

Sunbury, OH

#110407 Sep 10, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
A loophole is a way to get around an existing law through a legal means.
loophole - a means of escape; especially : an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Since there are NO transactions that take place at a gunshow that can't take place outside of the venue....THERE IS NO GUNSHOW LOOPHOLE
So, it's merely the wording?!
Should I call it the gun show AND private seller loophole?
There is a LOOPHOLE...it is a HOLE that allows people to not show ID or a background check that the law requires. It;s a means of getting around that law.
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a made-up term by anti-gun leftists to make it sound like there is some kind of way for criminals to legally obtain weapons that they don't have access to on the outside.
Then what do you suggest we call it? What do we call the process of skirting around the background check law and system terrorists use to skirt the Brady law? I never said criminals don't have access on the outside...the "loophole" simply makes it easier.
You might not like the term, BUT the premise of my point remains the same.
Call it whatever you like.....
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
And in typical Bunny fashion, you move the goal post when your claim is proven to be FALSE.
What claim was proven false? How did I move the goal post...can you be specific? We are directly talking about the "gun show/private seller loophole"...or whatever you wanna call it, lol.
I have proven it exists. You only dispute the wording of it, but we both know it exists.
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's something else for you to ponder. I have told you this before on more than one occasion, but since your memory seems to be fading, I'll say it again. DOJ statistics a few years ago showed that LESS THAN 2% of all firearms recovered at crime scenes where able to be traced back to a sale at a gunshow. Less than 2%.
proof please? I'll be waiting.....
BUT...did you take private sellers into account too? The loophole is for gun shows AND private sellers as well! I wonder how that figures in to your total percentage?
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Now I have zero desire to hash all this out with you again, because you have come back making the same bullshit claims as before, which has already been completely debunked
BullS!t :D
We can all see there is a way for criminals and terrorists to skirt the Brady Law...what do you think we should call it?
Nothing has been debunked...you simply dispute the wording!
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
So unless you can come up with some kind of new argument to back what you claim, I will bid you, adieu.
Dodge!

“Imaginez tous les gens”

Since: Sep 09

Sunbury, OH

#110408 Sep 10, 2013
MD Conservative wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are willing to give up MY RIGHTS and those of others that exercise their Second Amendment to keep firearms out of the hands of .00001% got it.
Wow! Can you possibly be more Anti-American, Anti-Constitution?
How does background checks effect your rights, unless you're a criminal?
We have the RIGHT to vote, but we still have to show ID when we register to vote, and AGAIN when we're at the polls.
Does that mean YOU are willing to give up MY right, and the right of others to exercise the right to vote in an attempt to prevent voter fraud that is only 0.00004% got it?
I don't see you fighting for VOTING rights....eh? How can you be FOR the constitution regarding guns, but against the constitutional amendments regarding voting rights?
WOW, can you possibly be more anti American, anti constitutional^?
BUT...I must add.....the founding fathers (the writers of the second amendment) had THEE strictest gun control laws EVER. So it's obvious their intent is FOR some gun control.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#110409 Sep 10, 2013
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
<quoted text>
loophole - a means of escape; especially : an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded
<quoted text>So, it's merely the wording?!
Should I call it the gun show AND private seller loophole?
There is a LOOPHOLE...it is a HOLE that allows people to not show ID or a background check that the law requires. It;s a means of getting around that law.
<quoted text>Then what do you suggest we call it? What do we call the process of skirting around the background check law and system terrorists use to skirt the Brady law? I never said criminals don't have access on the outside...the "loophole" simply makes it easier.
You might not like the term, BUT the premise of my point remains the same.
Call it whatever you like.....
<quoted text>What claim was proven false? How did I move the goal post...can you be specific? We are directly talking about the "gun show/private seller loophole"...or whatever you wanna call it, lol.
I have proven it exists. You only dispute the wording of it, but we both know it exists.
<quoted text>proof please? I'll be waiting.....
BUT...did you take private sellers into account too? The loophole is for gun shows AND private sellers as well! I wonder how that figures in to your total percentage?
<quoted text>BullS!t :D
We can all see there is a way for criminals and terrorists to skirt the Brady Law...what do you think we should call it?
Nothing has been debunked...you simply dispute the wording!
<quoted text>Dodge!
If a sale between two PRIVATE individuals does NOT require a background check to be done or ID to be shown, REGARDLESS OF THE LOCATION, then there is no special "loophole" at a gunshow that allows them to skirt the law. THE LOCATION DOES. NOT. MATTER. Calling it a "gunshow loophole" is incorrect because it DOES. NOT. EXIST. It is a misnomer that liberals use to make it seem as though a law is being skirted when one ISN'T, and your "premise" is still WRONG! There is no ID required, BY LAW, for the saleof a firearm between two private people. And if one of them is not allowed to purchase a firearm because of past criminal history, there are already laws against him/her doing so. Whether that person buys a gun from a private seller at a gunshow OR a private seller outside the gunshow....IT IS STILL ILLEGAL. THE VENUE DOESN'T MATTER!

Is that clear enough for you, blondie?

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#110410 Sep 10, 2013
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
<quoted text>
loophole - a means of escape; especially : an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded
<quoted text>So, it's merely the wording?!
Should I call it the gun show AND private seller loophole?
There is a LOOPHOLE...it is a HOLE that allows people to not show ID or a background check that the law requires. It;s a means of getting around that law.
<quoted text>Then what do you suggest we call it? What do we call the process of skirting around the background check law and system terrorists use to skirt the Brady law? I never said criminals don't have access on the outside...the "loophole" simply makes it easier.
You might not like the term, BUT the premise of my point remains the same.
Call it whatever you like.....
<quoted text>What claim was proven false? How did I move the goal post...can you be specific? We are directly talking about the "gun show/private seller loophole"...or whatever you wanna call it, lol.
I have proven it exists. You only dispute the wording of it, but we both know it exists.
<quoted text>proof please? I'll be waiting.....
BUT...did you take private sellers into account too? The loophole is for gun shows AND private sellers as well! I wonder how that figures in to your total percentage?
<quoted text>BullS!t :D
We can all see there is a way for criminals and terrorists to skirt the Brady Law...what do you think we should call it?
Nothing has been debunked...you simply dispute the wording!
<quoted text>Dodge!
Your claim that was proven false was the where you poasted that full-auto firearms could be bought at a gunshow without ID or background check. Then you said, but you can still buy semi-auto's... blah blah blah.

And no law written will EVER stop a criminal or terrorist from getting what they want. And there are already laws n the books making it illegal fro them to obtain firearms.

And I don't care what you call it as long as it is accurate. Call it "Bunny's Fantasy Loophole". It's a more accurate description because that is all it is.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Largest maker of bump stocks will stop acceptin... 1 hr javawhey 577
News Lash Hansborough: Second Amendment no longer ap... 2 hr The Green Watchdog 9
Shooting at Lake Hefner Restaurant in OKC 11 hr The Green Watchdog 5
News Trump's plan will seek to 'harden' schools agai... 13 hr Shelly Bl 1,562
News Committee rejects bill to arm teachers Thu Joseph DeDominicis 3
News Texas Moms Demand Action President Charged for ... Thu judy 16
News Saratoga proposes firearm safety ordinance May 19 WTF 2