Gun Show Loophole

[TexasRifleman]

That implies nothing. It says that the "origin" is these states when they were traced. how they were gotten (stolen or bought) is not stated anywhere and there is no implication. It is SIMPLY WHERE THEY ORIGINATE when they are traced.

Exactly, so why did you bring it into a discussion of gun shows if gun shows don't have anything to do with it?

This is pointless. Readers of the thread can make up their own minds on this, but to me it all reeks of AHSA.

 

[Dokkalfar]

So, if for example you have a NJ permit and you come into NY it's legally THE SAME as if you have no permit. Since possession of a handgun is illegal in NY (and NJ and CT, etc) without a permit, you will be arrested.

If you are discovered, and it is only a legal arrest under FOPA IF your destination was NY. Since you were legal in NJ, if your destination allows you to legally have it as you are, it is legal to take it through NY if you follow the rules of FOPA.

 

[Zoogster]

Yes the antis repeat the primary states that allow private transfers and also require no permit or license to purchase or own.

And the statistics show what TexasRifleman has said. Most firearms used by criminals were stolen locally (or straw purchased by that young new girlfriend still into dating bad boys.)

So one source is legal owners. The other primary source is girls that normally go on to be law abiding adults but go through a phase of keeping their bad boy boyfriend happy. The bad boy boyfriend has a new girlfriend within a short time. New naive potential girlfriends come of age with no records every year that are going through the bad boy dating phase.
Most violent crime is committed by young males within the age bracket that those girls in their late teens and early 20s are dating.

In many nations they have draconian steps to acquire a gun. Like membership for x number of months in clubs before purchase. Requirements for storage that include X pound safes secured to the foundation (Which can make it really tough if you don't live in a house and are in a multi-dwelling apartment, trailer or motorhome, boat, etc.)
The storage requirements also often make accessible loaded firearms illegal, greatly reducing any legal potential for self defense use.

These requirements in such nations both reduce the total number of gun owners significantly along with the gun culture fighting for gun rights (which in turn leads to even more gun control easily passing), and also reduce straw purchases by such young girlfriends who are not going to go through all those steps to by someone else a gun.

I don't think such restrictions are in line with the freedoms of the United States, the check on tyranny reason for the 2nd Amendment, the 2nd Amendment, or the Heller ruling which outlawed D.C.'s storage requirements.
As a result I see both primary criminal sources remaining open sources in the future.

The real problem is gun control, not inevitable problems that result from it being in place.

 

[Deanimator]

This is pointless. Readers of the thread can make up their own minds on this, but to me it all reeks of AHSA.

It's all AHSA talking points, every step of the way.

 

[chibiker]

The word "loophole" really gets most people's goat so to speak. The vast majority of you, us, whatever saying there is no such thing. For my own clarification this stems from the fact that you (as long as your state legally allows it) can sell your firearms in private pretty much anywhere in your state without having to conduct a background check or fill out forms.... thusly it's legal at gunshows therefor no loophole, correct?
I'm wondering, is there any place where this "loophole" is underfire to be eliminated where the debate runs over into other places, like say your living room or local Kiwanis meeting?

I only ask because I have never heard of it being brought up by anti-gun groups or legislators to include any sales outside of gun shows. I have seen several occasions where people said to the effect that how can you close this mythical "loophole" when no one but FFLs are allowed to conduct background checks. Here in Illinois they passed laws about five years ago to close our "gunshow loophole".

http://www.illinois.gov/PressReleases/ShowPressRelease.cfm?SubjectID=3&RecNum=4183

It allows non-licensend sellers to conduct a background check through the State Police. They call it in and either get a "no-go" or an authorization number to proceed. Does anybody live anywhere where they too have a law passed insisting on background checks at gunshows but yet furnish no method to do so? That would be kinda crazy eh?

By the way, I came across this definiton of loophole on the princeton.edu site,
•S: (n) loophole (an ambiguity (especially one in the text of a law or contract) that makes it possible to evade a difficulty or obligation)
Thought that was kind of interesting...

What if another word was chosen or even made up... I dunno, say something like the gunshow farkle.
What's a farkle? definition:Farkle (n) a method to break existing laws whereas nobody knows a violation has taken place except for that person breaking the law.
Mind you farkles can take place anywhere not just gunshows. So in my state it's legal to do face to face sales... the tick being that it's my obligation to believe that there is no reason for you to not be legally able to own my gun. You're a clean cut individual, polite, nice car and I ask you, "are you legally able to own my gun?" Smiling, you respond, "indeed, never did a bad thing in my life, never even gotten a speeding ticket." I have no reason to not believe you and I certainly had no idea you were on the FBI's ten most wanted list, I haven't stepped foot in a Post Office in over ten years. I just got farkled.

Oh here's one for you, here in Illinois you have to have a Firearms Owner Identification Card (the FOID) to buy, sell or possess any firearm. You get this card by applying to the State Police and a background check is done. Lot's of people complain about it but maybe I have fallen into the brainwashed sheeple pool or something but I kind of like it. You want to buy my gun? You have your FOID card? I write down the number and info and keep a record of it for the required ten years and never worry about that ten most wanted list thing. Interestingly... this "gunshow loophole thingy" we got closed here because of all the criminals buying guns.... I have been to gun shows in close to tweny different cities in this state and at not one of them was I even allowed to pick a gun up off a table, and it some cases even get in the door without first showing my FOID card. For the life of me I don't know how them criminals were doing it!

My mind is starting to wander even more so. so I will wrap this up. I guess I am wondering why, even after reading all the posts in this thread I should be upset about this loophole thing, imagined or real. I mean I read all your opinions on why it's bogus, maybe I'm not worthy enough for the "cause". Afterall, I live in Illinois, Chicago even.... forgive me?


Steve

 

[TexasRifleman]

I guess I am wondering why, even after reading all the posts in this thread I should be upset about this loophole thing

It's called Incrementalism. Today "gun shows", then change what it is that exactly constitutes a "gun show", then move on to private sales completely.

I'm wondering, is there any place where this "loophole" is underfire to be eliminated where the debate runs over into other places, like say your living room or local Kiwanis meeting?

Yes, California. ALL firearm sales in that state must go through an FFL. No private sales at all, living room or otherwise.

California law:

All firearms purchases and transfers, including private party transactions and sales at gun shows, must be made through a licensed dealer under the Dealer Record of Sale (DROS) process. California imposes a 10-day waiting period before a firearm can be released to a buyer or transferee.

AHSA again:

ATF has recommended that: 1) all sales at a gun shows should be processed through a dealer; 2) the definition of "gun show" should be broadened to include flea markets, swap meets and similar venues where guns are sold; 3) the definition of "engaged in the business" be amended to better identify and prosecute gun traffickers and suppliers of guns to criminals; and 4) the federal government commit additional resources to combat the illegal trade of firearms at gun shows.

Incrementalism.

Afterall, I live in Illinois, Chicago even.... forgive me?

And, no offense intended, you've become accustomed to having it one way, so you get comfy with it. After one, two, 3 generations of people living there most can't even remember a time when it WASN'T that way. At that point it's just accepted as normal, even though it's completely wrong. A law abiding citizen needs permission from the government to sell his own personal property and that doesn't strike you as wrong. It should.

 

[Ranb]

In this definition, it's clear that the problem exists because some individuals (who can pass background checks legally) sell guns to people that can't pass the checks. Is it legal for them to do it, yes. Does it allow the buyer to avoid a background check? Yes. By all accounts, that's:

'A technicality that allows a person to avoid the scope of a law without directly violating the law.'

cskny,

I still disagree. The scope of the law only encompasses dealers; it has nothing to do with private individuals. If there was some provision in the law that allowed certain customers to avoid the background check when buying from a dealer, then you would have your loophole. But when a person legally buys from a private individual, they are not evading the scope of the law by exploiting a loophole.

There was a time when there were no licensed dealers. Then laws were passed requiring a license to deal in guns. Eventually background checks were required. But the federal government has never required a background check for any private sale of a title 1 firearm. The scope of the law is very narrow; it applies to gun dealers and their customers only. You are trying to manufacture a loophole where none exists.

You seem to be making up stuff as you go along. How about quoting the law and showing us the loophole; that should make your arguments much more convincing.

Ranb

 

[Deanimator]

Afterall, I live in Illinois, Chicago even.... forgive me?

I'm from Chicago. Lived there from 1957 until 1980.

Those like you said there's nothing wrong with registration of guns.

Tell me, how would I LAWFULLY move back to Chicago... with my handguns.

The stench of AHSA is thick in the air here...

 

[chibiker]

And, no offense intended, you've become accustomed to having it one way, so you get comfy with it. After one, two, 3 generations of people living there most can't even remember a time when it WASN'T that way.

None taken...

Now as far as comfy, I wouldn't consider myself that way. I have lived in this city for almost 30 years. I was living in Chicago when they instituted their firearm ban. I attended (with others) city council meetings to protest it. I went out and gathered signatures to have it repealed, spoke with lawyers, wrote my representitives. Got nowhere. Moved to Oak Park and two years later they passed a ban on not just handguns but all firearms. Went through the whole process again... it was much more of a battle to pass it there than Chicago faced but it went through.
Moved back to Chicago... because even though I had to remove my handguns from the city I was able to register my long guns. I have NEVER been "comfy" with the situation. Through all these years I have spoke with my alderman, written letters to representitives and so on.... You have no idea how happy I am to see the ban being challenged in the Supreme Court. It's our only chance... to this day, I believe if a vote were placed on a ballot to implement a gun ban.. ALL GUNS... here in Chicago it would pass. We are the minority.

That being said, and it may sound contrary...

A law abiding citizen needs permission from the government to sell his own personal property and that doesn't strike you as wrong. It should.

I don't really view it like that, if we didn't have laws that made it illegal for convicted felons, rapists, robbers, the mentally ill, and on and on to buy or possess firearms maybe I would. I agree with most of those laws, I think a lot of us do.

There is very little left in this life that any of us can do without the governments permission when it comes right down to it. The vast majority of it I don't agree with, I vote, write letters to express my views and belong to or donate to orginizations (I belong to the NRA, NOT the Brady Bunch) that support my views.

Those like you said there's nothing wrong with registration of guns.

Tell me, how would I LAWFULLY move back to Chicago... with my handguns.

That I take offense to.... the law requires me to but I am no means okay with that.
Why you would want to move back here is beyond me in the first place, but hopefully this year pending the Supreme Court decision you may do so if you so desire.

Oh and since I stand accused, apparently of spreading some kind of stink, what exactly is the AHSA? Laugh if you must but I honestly don't know who or what that is... I just googled it and got the American Hunters and Shooters Association as the first hit. There are many others though...such as the American Hampshire Sheep Association, Association of Home School Attorneys. So who are the "bad" people?

 

[TexasRifleman]

I don't really view it like that, if we didn't have laws that made it illegal for convicted felons, rapists, robbers, the mentally ill, and on and on to buy or possess firearms maybe I would. I agree with most of those laws, I think a lot of us do.

And this is where all of these usually end up, and why this entire discussion is so frustrating.

I agree with you here that the idea is to keep guns out of the hands of people who have proven themselves dangerous to society. But, if these people are dangerous why do they drive? Why can they buy alcohol? Why can they buy knives? Baseball bats?

So, why then is this a gun issue?

Why are those people not still locked up if they are dangerous to society?

Rather than address the problem the gun takes the blame. More gun laws rather than people laws. Why? Because the real problem is difficult to fix, so we accept gun laws because they "feel like" they should help.

Why? It clearly has no effect at all. Before 1968 felons could buy guns. Before 1968 there was no such thing as a "licensed firearms dealer".

And, before 1968 the gun crime level was pretty much exactly where it is today.

Other than a spike during the very violent drug days in the 80's the gun crime level didn't change once all of these gun laws were put in place.

So why the continued discussion of gun laws at all? It's not, and never has been, a gun problem.

Here we are, 42 years after the Gun Control Act of 1968 and not one thing is different other than the increased burden on law abiding citizens.

Now, after GCA, Brady, etc we are told that we just need ONE more. Just one more law to stop private gun transactions THEN it will all be OK.

Really? Anyone honestly believe that?

What then? Well, then we will be told that the real problem is gun theft and the only way to stop that is to require gun owners to keep their guns in approved storage containers.

Well, that didn't work. OK, we really need a law to fix that. Here's what we will do. Guns will be legal but how about we store them at government approved facilities and you can go check them out when you want to shoot them. That way the criminals can't steal them. (Don't laugh, some countries have already implemented this).

Will it all be OK then?

 

[cskny]

TexasRifleman, I gotta be honest, I really don't know exactly we got to this topic in this conversation!?! I never intended to talk about the source of illegal guns, it was a response to something someone said somewhere in here...

I agree with chibiker. I would be happy if we had a Firearms Owner Identification Card (the FOID) here. Or at least an ability as a potential private seller to call in somewhere for a go/no go background check. That would add some comfort to a possible private sale. I mean, I've seen photos of Ted Bundy, he didn't look like a bad guy. My point is, how on earth can I tell? I can't and I'm really not willing to guess.

Quote:
Afterall, I live in Illinois, Chicago even.... forgive me?
And, no offense intended, you've become accustomed to having it one way, so you get comfy with it. After one, two, 3 generations of people living there most can't even remember a time when it WASN'T that way. At that point it's just accepted as normal, even though it's completely wrong. A law abiding citizen needs permission from the government to sell his own personal property and that doesn't strike you as wrong. It should.

I don't know if chibiker agrees, but there's one problem with your response. You assume because I'm pro-gun that I must have just gotten "comfortable" with it being that way. But it's not that simple.

As a dumb example with admittedly lots of holes, I'm a law abiding citizen and my prescription medication is also my personal property. Would I expect to be able to sell that without permission from the government? Of course not. AND it doesn't strike me as "wrong".

Back to guns though, maybe there's a difference here based upon the realism of living in different population densities. Look at these numbers for a second and conceptualize (they are rough from google, so don't jump on me if I'm off a little):

The State of Nevada has a population of about 2.5 million.
The State of Texas has a population of about 24 million.
Look at them on the map and see how much land they encompass.

Now, the city of New York has over 8 million people living in it (that's 3 times the number in the entire state of Nevada). Then, on a working day about 17 million more come in. That's more people then the population of Texas, NOT in the STATE of new york, but in the CITY of New York (look at it on the map!). That's A LOT of people in a VERY small area. That's a lot of people that frankly, I don't know. And guess what, we have a lot of, well..., not so nice people in our part of the woods. Simple numbers crunching will tell you we have "more".

What's different for me (I guess) is that I live in a place where, frankly, I can't trust you until you PROVE otherwise. It's part of the social hazard of living in largely populated areas, but it's also how to stay safe in that dense population.

We have to do a lot of things differently. I'm not going to try and say they all work or they are all good, they are just different because we have insane amounts of people in insanely small spaces. If I'm going to sell a weapon in this population, I need to be sure of who that buyer is.

I realize that I'll never change any of your minds, but I don't want to. I just want to try and convey that alternate viewpoints exist, even among pro-gun people. And MAYBE, sometimes you can't appreciate why because you don't live the same lives in the same areas of the country. It doesn't always mean that the other side is black and white wrong.

Occasionally I have the opportunity at my local range to talk to some NYPD folks, some US Marshals, the NRA range instructors/rangers, etc (it's also a law enforcement training facility). All folks who are, what I would consider "pro-gun" people.

Interestingly, this subject comes up frequently. But everyone tends to express similar thoughts (probably because we all live here). Something like "you know what, around here we just have to do it differently and strictly and live with it. Yes it's a pain in the ass, but the alternative is worse".

I can appreciate that you can argue if the "alternative" is better or worse BUT, you're not going to find a lot of New Yorkers willing to be the test case subjects for the experiment.

 

[TexasRifleman]

What's different for me (I guess) is that I live in a place where, frankly, I can't trust you until you PROVE otherwise. It's part of the social hazard of living in largely populated areas, but it's also how to stay safe in that dense population.

Do you have knife crime there? Do you have vehicular crime there? Do you have violent crime with weapons other than firearms?

Do you advocate background checks for knives? Cars? Baseball bats?

Do you advocate limiting the private sale of knives?

Do you really believe this is a gun issue?

Seriously. Is this really a gun issue at all you are talking about? Or is the gun just something handy to blame for other societal problems?

Honesty time here. Here is some NYC crime data from the UCR.

Year Population Reported Violent Crime
1965 18,073,000 58,802
1970 18,190,740 124,613
1990 17,990,455 212,458
2008 19,490,297 77,585

So... how exactly did all of these gun laws help? In 1965 there were basically no Federal gun laws at all regarding the sale/transfer of firearms. None (other than NFA)

It (violent crime) actually went UP after the Gun Control Act was put in place. Peaking in 1990 at the height of the drug violence era, it then dropped back to where it is today.

These numbers are pretty much the same nationwide. Low in the late 60's, peaked in the late 80's/early 90's then back to pre-68 levels today pretty much everywhere.

Like it or not you HAVE been the subject of a great experiment, we all have been. And nothing really changed in the end.

 

[Mr.Davis]

Properly frame the debate, and it will already be won. "Framing" is the act of selecting the words you will use to describe an issue. A couple of good example would be "Pro-life/Anti-Choice" or "Pro-Choice/Pro-Abortion". Who wants to be "Anti-Choice"? Word choice can get people on your side at a subconscious level before they even agree with you.

Therefore, in your debate/discussion, do not use the term "loophole" except to disparage it. Casual listeners will hear "loophole" and think "evading the law", which could not be further from the truth in this particular case. Remember Nixon's "I am not a crook!" statement? When he said the word "crook", people immediately envisioned him as a crook!

The book "Don't Think of an Elephant" is an incredible primer on the power of word choice and controlling the framing of an argument. Unfortunately (for me) it's written by a guy, (Lakoff) who is very liberal. Liberals, though, are the masters of framing the debate through incendiary word choice ("Gun Show Loophole", "Anti-Choice", and "Homophobe" being a few of their most effective products). The lessons the book teaches are well worth the time it takes to read. If you don't want to fund a guy with his political slant, borrow it from the library - it's not a long book.

 

[cskny]

Ranb, I appreciate your thought out response and civility.

You said:

I still disagree. The scope of the law only encompasses dealers; it has nothing to do with private individuals. If there was some provision in the law that allowed certain customers to avoid the background check when buying from a dealer, then you would have your loophole.

What about this alternate way to think about it (and at least appreciate the other side): A dealership has/sells a lot of guns, probably in a storefront, and hence requires a license and is required to do background checks. An individual is not. That's the law. Legally we agree so far, right?

Here's the rub for some of us though, if I create a "gun show" where I put 50 INDIVIDUAL sellers in one place, under one roof, did I just create something else? What is the practical difference between the show (and its collective inventory) and the Gander Mountain store down the street from the venue? The difference is a legal one. Individual sellers, so the show is cash and carry, no background checks required. The Gander mountain is still a dealer, but probably has less inventory.

But I'll say right now, I can absolutely concede the word "loophole". I don't care what we call the problem.

If someone can't pass a background check at a dealer, then they shouldn't be able to purchase a gun from an individual either. The current system doesn't stop them from doing that.

Are you infringing on my right to sell a gun privately? I don't think so, I think you're taking away the right of the other guy to buy one (the intent in the first place), I'm just in the middle as a potential seller. The WORST part of this current system though, is that it gives me (as a private seller) no way to even check. So it forces me to take the hard-line stance that I will not sell face to face, anywhere.

So, while we have preserved my "right" to sell a firearm privately, I cannot/will-not in clear conscience exercise it. So, in practice, what did I preserve?

 

[cskny]

TexasRifleman,

As a life-long New Yorker to a Texan, I respectfully cannot agree. I live it here - day in, and day out and I just don't see it that way.

But I hope there are no hard feelings because I enjoy visiting Texas from time to time, and I don't want to get shot

Of course, you're welcome to visit our city whenever you like (but trust me, leave the guns at home if you come).

Can we call a cease fire and truce?

 

[StarDust1]

Do you have knife crime there? Do you have vehicular crime there? Do you have violent crime with weapons other than firearms?

Do you advocate background checks for knives? Cars? Baseball bats?

Do you advocate limiting the private sale of knives?

Do you really believe this is a gun issue?

Seriously. Is this really a gun issue at all you are talking about? Or is the gun just something handy to blame for other societal problems?

Honesty time here. Here is some NYC crime data from the UCR.

Year Population Reported Violent Crime
1965 18,073,000 58,802
1970 18,190,740 124,613
1990 17,990,455 212,458
2008 19,490,297 77,585

So... how exactly did all of these gun laws help? In 1965 there were basically no Federal gun laws at all regarding the sale/transfer of firearms. None (other than NFA)

It (violent crime) actually went UP after the Gun Control Act was put in place. Peaking in 1990 at the height of the drug violence era, it then dropped back to where it is today.

These numbers are pretty much the same nationwide. Low in the late 60's, peaked in the late 80's/early 90's then back to pre-68 levels today pretty much everywhere.

Like it or not you HAVE been the subject of a great experiment, we all have been. And nothing really changed in the end.

You can quote stats to this anti-gunner all day long, he's not even remotely concerned with statistical, or intellectual honesty, it's all based on emotion and a committed statist worldview!

 

[chibiker]

Mr. Rifleman....
I understand what you are saying and I agree with most of it. This all started about whether or not background checks should be law in private sales, gun shows or not. At least I think it did. When I joined into this conversation it was to put my two cents in that I didn't see what the real issue was in doing said background checks. Does that mean I want to outlaw private sales? Absolutely NOT. I am completely opposed to the idea of that.
If there is a way to do a background check that is readily available to the public than I just don't have that big an issue with it. I am just viewing it as more of a way to cover your own arse. I said we had the FOID card here in IL and that is my assurance that I am not selling a gun to a criminal. If I lived somewhere where that was not the case I don't know that I would really want to do a private sale. As was pointed out by Mr. CSKY maybe it's just a difference in locale. The whole thing... you gotta prove yourself to me first before I trust you. Time and time again on these boards I have seen members state that they will not do private sales without going through an FFL or unless the buyer had a CHL and so on. My assumption was always that they felt like that because they didn't want to take a chance of selling a firearm to a prohibited individual. I don't think I'm alone on this and I don't recall anyone stating they thought that type of thinking was wrong.

Hey, I am with you... throw ALL the laws out, we have all heard, say and agree that criminals don't abide by them anyway. I agree with that. I hope a lot of laws go by the way of the dodo after the 2nd is incorporated and I think they will. Until they do though I'm just not going to be upset about having anyone submit to a background check to purchase a firearm.

I don't know about the other poster here but in regards to your question about it being "just a gun thing". My answer would have to be yes... to me it is. I view them differently... I view them differently because there is very explicit laws on who can or cannot own a firearm. Baseball bats, not so much. Let's say a law was passed the made it illegal for anyone to buy or sell a car to an idividual who has been convicted of a DUI. As with gun laws... if they want a car they are going to get it, right? The law also states I am breaking the law if I sell my car to them. How do I know this person does not have a DUI without being able to do some kind of check on him. I would fight a law that says I can only sell my car to him if we go through a dealer, BUT if there was a phone number I could call and give them the info on the guy and they said he is clean then that works for me. Otherwise, I would be very reluctant to sell my car to anyone.... sorry if you don't agree with my thinking or logic on that, and to me it's okay if you don't, just the way I feel.

It's getting late and I'm getting tired so going to have to call this quits here but I have enjoyed the conversation by all, well except for the guy that accused me of being a Daley lover or stench spreader, or whatever

One last thing though.... you asked, if someone is so dangerous as to not be allowed to own a gun, along with other things, then why are they allowed to be walking the street. I've seen this same thought by many others as well....
Every time I do, I assure you I can understand the sentiment, just not neccessarily the reasoning. I base this on the fact that we live in a land of laws.... it's easy to convict and jail somebody when they have clearly broken a law, or it's been proven they have. Because of these laws it's also VERY DIFFICULT to jail somebody based strictly on what they MIGHT do. I'm very thankful for that as I would hope everybody is. I'm also hoping I explained it well enough that you understand exactly what I mean.

 

[cskny]

Ah StarDust1, I'm now an anti-gunner with a committed statist worldview. That's a lot of words. I'll add it to "improper english speaking elitist" as some others have so kindly said. I should add that to my resume actually:

A self starting anti-gunner with a committed statist worldview. Poor English skills but an excellent Elitist"

I'm curious though, aside from calling me names, What exactly is your point?

In other words, are you offering a proposal or just whining?

If you had the power, what would you like to see me and the other millions of co-inhabiting New Yorker's do Monday morning to make YOU in Wisconsin happy?

Do you want us to remove all gun restrictions within NYC and see what happens? I can make a couple calls but no promises.....

 

[cskny]

chibiker, nicely said.

 

[StarDust1]

^^^It's not specifically a difference in locality, so much as it's a difference in "conditioning!" You've just become accustomed to the totalitarian intrusions of Illinois upon your rights, so much so that they've become 2nd nature to you.
A man by the name of Pavlov has demonstrated the principles of this conditioningf in detail....

 

[StarDust1]

Ah StarDust1, I'm now an anti-gunner with a committed statist worldview. That's a lot of words. I'll add it to "improper english speaking elitist" as some others have so kindly said. I should add that to my resume actually:

A self starting anti-gunner with a committed statist worldview. Poor English skills but an excellent Elitist"

I'm curious though, aside from calling me names, What exactly is your point?

In other words, are you offering a proposal or just whining?

If you had the power, what would you like to see me and the other millions of co-inhabiting New Yorker's do Monday morning to make YOU in Wisconsin happy?

Do you want us to remove all gun restrictions within NYC and see what happens? I can make a couple calls but no promises.....

You've not been called a single name, you've been properly classified as what you are, your claims of gun ownership are meaningless, and if I may, it's particularly revealing(yet again)that you continue to cry wolf, while YOU'RE the one carrying out the personal attacks!
My educational status is professional, when you resort to cheap attempts at distracting the topic as you have just done, you have essentially admitted defeat, and of course, not graciously...

 

[cskny]

^^^It's not specifically a difference in locality, so much as it's a difference in "conditioning!" You've just become accustomed to the totalitarian intrusions of Illinois upon your rights, so much so that they've become 2nd nature to you.
A man by the name of Pavlov has demonstrated the principles of this conditioningf in detail....


Got it.

Excellent plan and suggestion.

Really on point and really nailed the question and helped me understand. Of course, I live in New York, so Illinois rights aren't quite second nature for me yet.

But hey, statistical detail right?

I'll go make the calls and get the millions on board with your plan.

This is what I'm going to tell them:

We're ringing a gun bell on Monday morning and salivating. I'm sure everyone will think it's an awesome idea.

 

[cskny]

You've not been called a single name, you've been properly classified as what you are, your claims of gun ownership are meaningless, and if I may, it's particularly revealing(yet again)that you continue to cry wolf, while YOU'RE the one carrying out the personal attacks!
My educational status is professional, when you resort to cheap attempts at distracting the topic as you have just done, you have essentially admitted defeat, and of course, not graciously...




You're kidding right? Is this candid camera?

 

[StarDust1]

^^^It's not specifically a difference in locality, so much as it's a difference in "conditioning!" You've just become accustomed to the totalitarian intrusions of Illinois upon your rights, so much so that they've become 2nd nature to you.
A man by the name of Pavlov has demonstrated the principles of this conditioningf in detail....


Got it.

Excellent plan and suggestion.

Really on point and really nailed the question and helped me understand. Of course, I live in New York, so Illinois rights aren't quite second nature for me yet.

But hey, statistical detail right?

I'll go make the calls and get the millions on board with your plan.

This is what I'm going to tell them:

We're ringing a gun bell on Monday morning and salivating. I'm sure everyone will think it's an awesome idea.

Your in absolutely no position to chime in with claims of on or off topic, you're presence here is strictly to troll and stir the pot, BTW, the post was intended for the guy from ILLINOIS!

 

[StarDust1]

You've not been called a single name, you've been properly classified as what you are, your claims of gun ownership are meaningless, and if I may, it's particularly revealing(yet again)that you continue to cry wolf, while YOU'RE the one carrying out the personal attacks!
My educational status is professional, when you resort to cheap attempts at distracting the topic as you have just done, you have essentially admitted defeat, and of course, not graciously...




You're kidding right? Is this candid camera?

Your little game has run it's predictable course, maybe it's time for you to call it a night...