Gun Show Loophole

[cskny]

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!


You're right. I've been 'trolling' with all these pages and pages of posts and conversations with other users in the thread.

You're an odd duck Stardust1.

 

[chibiker]

^^^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....

okay, the ILLINOIS guy here.... Mr. Stardust, I'm not sure how to respond, sensing some hostilities here and I''m not really sure why. Because I disagree with you? Or is that you disagree me since I really don't know what your stance is. Sorry maybe you stated your position in this discussion and I missed it.

So I get lumped in with Mr. Pavlov's pooches because you think that everytime some law gets passed in this state regarding guns I get all giddy, or salivate rather thinking, oh goody... afterall it's for our own good! Hardly the case sir, if I was accustomed to having my rights stepped on by this state or the federal government I wouldn't be making phone calls to state reps, emails to alderman, donations to the IRSA, continue my membership with the NRA, campaign against Daley everytime he runs, campaign against Jim Ryan in our recent primaries, campaing FOR Bill Brady and on and on.
Did I mention that I applied to be one of Mr. Gura's plaintiffs in the Chicago case? Even got interviewed but apparently I didn't have the "look". Tattooed, bearded, biker looking kind of guy didn't quite fit the hoped for vision of the powers that be of a man that was having his rights violated.
As long as this state and the federal government have laws on the books that prohibit certain individuals from buying and possessing firearms the issue of whether or not they should have to pass a background check to do so is just not a battle I pick to fight. If this lumps me into any type of group that in your thinking is not a true believer in "the cause" or make me just generally not seem to care about the 2nd Amendment at all then so be it.
Like I hardly care what some cheesehead thinks anyway (that's called a good natured poke in case you weren't sure, didn't know if the big smiley face would convey that)

 

[Shadow 7D]

Just got done with a debate class myself. I would make the anit gun side (unless your on it) define the "loophole", You need to shift the burden to the other side and try in the process to villianize them, use Gun Facts, pull up the actuall law, and cite it in the opening, ask where is the loop hole, what does the term actuall describe and start with a definitional deconstruction, proceed to compare gun to cars and ask how much regualation is required, end with a picture of everything bought and sold through the goverment, and mention that it reminds you of Soviet russia. This is a question of freedom, the right to sell what you own and to buy a legal tool, Take the time to do a major reframeing of the debate, and hope your partner can sync with you.

 

[Deanimator]

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.

I've talked to people with "alternate viewpoints" on slavery. They also have ulterior motives and attempt to deceive the gullible.

 

[cskny]

've talked to people with "alternate viewpoints" on slavery. They also have ulterior motives and attempt to deceive the gullible.


We are not discussing slavery. Your connection of the issues is offensive.

Also, no one is trying to deceive you. Make up your own mind and live your own life. i'll do the same.

 

[cskny]

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?



Some of the most popular statements on this very board things like:

"make sure you bring a gun to a gun fight"
"don't bring a knife to a gun fight"
Etc.

You're correct, I (and apparently many others here) recognize that all weapons are not equal.

 

[cskny]

Zoogster, you said:

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.


So hypothetically, are laws that prevent those straw purchases good or bad?

Example:

We have hours upon hours of training and coursework required just to submit applications, potential 6+ month waits for permits, and serious, real legal connections (and consequences) to the gun serial numbers (until legally removed). On top of that, we can't go to neighboring states and make purchases (even with our own state's legal permits).

Is that level of difficulty likely to stop a few of those bad boy's girlfriends? Cause mathematically, we've got A LOT of bad boys and A LOT of dumb girls around here.

In the time it takes just to get the permit they probably will have gone through 2 or 3 bad boys, right?

I'd love to hear your opinion.

 

[cskny]

One other thing before Saturday gets going here, I read this general sentiment all the time (and it's embedded in this thread a few times):

"well, they are criminals, they are going to break the law anyway so this is all pointless" as if it's some great revelation in this argument.

I walk on the well lit streets, not the dark ones. I lock my front door at night. When I drive my car to the mall, I lock it. When I'm on vacation, I use the deadbolt at the hotel and I keep an eye on my stuff by the pool. The more people at the pool, the more often I look.

If you believe the above statement completely, then why bother?

Yes, they are criminals. BUT, we certainly don't need to make anything easier for them just because they might find a way around it.

 

[Deanimator]

We are not discussing slavery. Your connection of the issues is offensive.

Anyone who doesn't own his own life is a slave. Those like you and AHSA seek to make the means to defend ones own life a privilege instead of a right.

Your serial attempts to mislead and deceive gun owners are offensive.

Also, no one is trying to deceive you. Make up your own mind and live your own life. i'll do the same.

Your denial is itself an attempt to deceive. An inept attempt, but an attempt nonetheless.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

So hypothetically, are laws that prevent those straw purchases good or bad?

Aren't we putting the cart ahead of the horse by assuming that such laws will prevent or even slow straw purchases?

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.

Really? Is that speculation on your part or do you have some data that supports this conclusion?

We have hours upon hours of training and coursework required just to submit applications, potential 6+ month waits for permits, and serious, real legal connections (and consequences) to the gun serial numbers (until legally removed). On top of that, we can't go to neighboring states and make purchases (even with our own state's legal permits).

So the solution to people commiting felony firearms crimes is to make purchasing a firearm so difficult, time-consuming and burdensome on the 99% of people who use it legally, that the remaining 1% will give up trying to conduct their illegal activities?

Does that strike you as either an effective or just law? It seems to me that the 99% of people who aren't committing crimes are likely to stop purchasing firearms long before the 1% will. So it seems like the primary result of such a law is to disarm the people least likely to commit crimes.

 

[cskny]

Aren't we putting the cart ahead of the horse by assuming that such laws will prevent or even slow straw purchases?

-No, it was a hypothetical question that assumed the law could

Quote:
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.
Really? Is that speculation on your part or do you have some data that supports this conclusion?

-I don't know, you'll have to ask the actual person who said it in the thread, I just quoted it.

So the solution to people commiting felony firearms crimes is to make purchasing a firearm so difficult, time-consuming and burdensome on the 99% of people who use it legally, that the remaining 1% will give up trying to conduct their illegal activities?

Does that strike you as either an effective or just law? It seems to me that the 99% of people who aren't committing crimes are likely to stop purchasing firearms long before the 1% will. So it seems like the primary result of such a law is to disarm the people least likely to commit crimes.

It highly restricts who can purchase and posses handguns. If you're legal here, you still have your rights, you can still purchase and own, you just have to wait and go through the process. Is it effective? I'm really not sure. Does it "disarm" people least likely to commit crimes, no. They are still free to purchase, they just have to jump through hoops and wait. if they don't have that level of patience, they've disarmed themselves, no?

 

[cskny]

Thank you Deanimator for your "liberal" definition of Slavery.

Seriously, you've repeated your feelings about me about 100 times already. It's written and recorded and on the thread "record". I think everyone reading gets it by now, you don't like me.

Can you please let the rest of us have an intelligent conversation?

 

[smoking357]

It highly restricts who can purchase and posses handguns. If you're legal here, you still have your rights, you can still purchase and own, you just have to wait and go through the process. Is it effective? I'm really not sure. Does it "disarm" people least likely to commit crimes, no. They are still free to purchase, they just have to jump through hoops and wait. if they don't have that level of patience, they've disarmed themselves.

Waiting, patience and "jumping through hoops" are the characteristics of a privilege, not a right.

Anyone who hinders my exercise of rights is a traitor and an enemy.

You're in engaging in a similar tactic to that scumball Bush, who, when presented by Congress with the spectre of ending the evil and anti-American war in Iraq, responded with a "Surge" proposal. Everyone went on to debate the Surge, rather than the stupid war. There should be no restrictions on any firearm purchase, much less using the present immoral restrictions as the jumping-off point and initial justification for more restrictions.

You clearly have an anti-gun agenda.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Does it "disarm" people least likely to commit crimes, no. They are still free to purchase, they just have to jump through hoops and wait.

But you see, this is where you are fundamentally wrong, and I don't know how to get you to actually look at the numbers to prove it, but they absolutely DO prove it.

Criminals who want guns will get guns. They jump through no hoops, they do not wait.

They purchase stolen guns from other criminals in nearly every case. They pay cash and they fill out no paperwork, no background checks, and they go on their way.

It's been shown over and over that guns obtained from legal private sellers are simply not used in crimes to any statistically relevant degree.

You are worrying about a problem that does not exist. You are arguing for solutions to a problem that does not exist.

This is why so many people are accusing you of having some kind of other motive, because the problem doesn't actually exist except in the minds of a few dedicated anti gunners such as Mayor Bloomberg and AHSA. You even quoted their statements as facts, which doesn't help much with that perception either.

If you personally have this worry then the answer is very simple, don't sell guns to people you don't know. And, if you want to sell a gun, tell the buyer you will only do it through an FFL. You are free to choose to do that.

But it's simply not possible, if you are honest, to say that there is a problem that needs solving here. It just doesn't exist. Not in NYC, not in Texas, not in any state in the US.

Gun crime rates are not impacted at all by gun show sales. Period.

 

[cskny]

TexasRifleman

So I guess you're saying that you don't agree with Zoogster's assertion of the alternate way in which illegal guns are originally obtained, correct? They are all "stolen"?

I would love to hear Zoogster's sources etc, but it doesn't even matter.

We know you're not accurate already. In the gun show sting, 19 dealers sold guns to undercover police illegally who admitted they couldn't pass the background checks. The undercover cops didn't "steal" them, they were sold, at the show. It's on tape. And yes, they broke the law but not in the way which you assert "all" criminal's do.

This statement:

Criminals who want guns will get guns. They jump through no hoops, they do not wait.

They purchase stolen guns from other criminals in nearly every case. They pay cash and they fill out no paperwork, no background checks, and they go on their way.

Is not true. They paid cash at the Gunshows and walked out. Go watch the tape as the dealers commit the crime and sell the guns themselves.

As far as I can tell, that's a problem that does exist.

 

[Deanimator]

Thank you Deanimator for your "liberal" definition of Slavery.

I am a pro-gun liberal.

Unlike the anti-gun whatever you are.

Nobody's buying what you and AHSA are selling.

Nobody ever does.

Nobody ever will.

 

[cskny]

Waiting, patience and "jumping through hoops" are the characteristics of a privilege, not a right.

Anyone who hinders my exercise of rights is a traitor and an enemy.

You're in engaging in a similar tactic to that scumball Bush, who, when presented by Congress with the spectre of ending the evil and anti-American war in Iraq, responded with a "Surge" proposal. Everyone went on to debate the Surge, rather than the stupid war. There should be no restrictions on any firearm purchase, much less using the present immoral restrictions as the jumping-off point and initial justification for more restrictions.

You clearly have an anti-gun agenda.


So I guess everyone who makes me jump through hoops to get a permit to sell in the street, or to gather in certain public places, or jump through process hoops to own something as simple as a car are all traitors because they hinder the exercise of my free rights.

And freaking forget about exercising your right to own land, right? I mean christ, you need a lawyer and a freaking mountain of papers and hours of process work to finally get through it. Traitors!

No, I'm pro-gun anti-criminal actually. It's not always easy to figure out how to balance the 2.

 

[Deanimator]

People used to have to jump through "hoops" in order to vote.

Actually only CERTAIN people had to jump, mostly those who failed the "paper bag test".

Those hoops included "literacy tests" in languages such as Sanskrit.

The hoops that our AHSA "friends" are advocating here were concocted for EXACTLY the same reasons that the voting hoops were. These sorts don't want the "wrong people" voting OR owning guns. The southern gun control laws were enacted to disarm Blacks and make them unable to defend themselves from the Klan. The northern gun control laws were intended to disarm Blacks, Italians and Jews.

If you make the process difficult and expensive enough, only the "right" kind of people will vote OR own guns. And that was the intent all along.

 

[cskny]

I am a pro-gun liberal.

Unlike the anti-gun whatever you are.

Nobody's buying what you and AHSA are selling.

Nobody ever does.

Nobody ever will.


I've read this post many times already from you. Your opinion is typed and well documented.

 

[Deanimator]

No, I'm pro-gun anti-criminal actually.

You have it backwards, and intentionally so.

You're anti-gun and pro-criminal. A study was recently published showing the historical degree of criminality of members of the Chicago City Council.

Guess who, along with cops are the ONLY people allowed to carry handguns in Chicago?

It's not always easy to figure out how to balance the 2.

You have no more difficulty doing that than Nathan Bedford Forrest did balancing human liberty and "property" rights. And you've made the identical choice.

 

[cskny]

People used to have to jump through "hoops" in order to vote.

Actually only CERTAIN people had to jump, mostly those who failed the "paper bag test".

Those hoops included "literacy tests" in languages such as Sanskrit.


Right, because now a days we can walk into the polls and just vote. Wait, what? You mean I need to have registered with the local municipality? Oh, damn. What? I have to prove my residency? You want to see a government issued photo id? How do I get that? Go where? How many forms and proof of ID's/birth do you need?

Yeah, you're right. We don't jump through any more hoops in our everyday lives. Glad they fixed all that.

 

[cskny]

I did the typing sir, it's in the correct order. How you want to re-arrange is under no control of mine and of no consequence to my thoughts and mind.



No, I'm pro-gun anti-criminal actually.
You have it backwards, and intentionally so.

You're anti-gun and pro-criminal. A study was recently published showing the historical degree of criminality of members of the Chicago City Council.

Guess who, along with cops are the ONLY people allowed to carry handguns in Chicago?

Quote:
It's not always easy to figure out how to balance the 2.
You have no more difficulty doing that than Nathan Bedford Forrest did balancing human liberty and "property" rights. And you've made the identical choice.
__________________

 

[Deanimator]

Yeah, you're right. We don't jump through any more hoops in our everyday lives. Glad they fixed all that.

Chicago and NYC are for gun ownership today what Mississippi and Alabama were for voting in 1890... and for EXACTLY the same reasons.

All of the incompetent AHSA attempts at deception and misdirection won't change that.

 

[Deanimator]

I did the typing sir, it's in the correct order.

You did the obfuscating. I made clear the true nature of your statements.

AHSA and Holocaust deniers engage in identical rhetorical games. Everybody knows the con by now.

You're like the Nigerian scam artist who's sent out the same "404" con email for the 9,000th time. Nobody's buying the BS.

 

[cskny]

Deanimator

So far you've redirected this gun show/legislation conversation with references to the following topics (that I picked up on at least):

-Slavery
-AHSA
-The Holocaust
-the Haitian earthquake
-Nigerian scam artists
-Voter Fraud
-and there's probably more, I just don't feel like looking

And amazingly, throughout, you have managed to say remarkable little (if anything) new, post after post.

But I can tell, you're the type that's going to keep on trying....so swing away Deanimator and repeat yourself again with a new historical disaster or social atrocity reference!

I'll help you out a bit, I don't think you've compared me to:

-The plauge
-The depression
-Any world war
-Pear Harbor
-Ivan the terrible
-Genghis Khan
-The Crusades -or-
-The sinking of the titanic

So go ahead, copy and paste your feelings about me and then add a new 'bad thing'. Feel free to go off list, they are just friendly suggestions.