Gun Show Loophole

[Deanimator]

So far you've redirected this gun show/legislation conversation

It's no more of a "conversation" than a broadcast by Lord Haw Haw.

You've done nothing but regurgitate AHSA propaganda verbatim.

We know who you are.

We know why you're here.

It's just more of the same, like the 87,000th reiteration in usenet by the National Alliance of the "Kosher tax" and the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". "Khazars" or "gunshow loophole", it's all mendacious gibberish, calculated to deceive and disinform.

Nobody's falling for the lies.

Nobody ever does.

 

[cskny]

Success! And with 4 or 5 new evil references.

Nice job Lord Haw Haw (that's you, right?)

 

[cskny]

I’ll try and save Deanimator the effort of a response - I think I've got the pattern

I’m like the mean kid in lord of the flies.

Doing nothing but wearing my ASPCA shirt and spouting their agenda verbatim

You know why I’m here.

I know why I’m here.

It's just more of the same, like the rope men on the Hindenburg, the Exxon Valdez or a poodle peeing on an electric fence.

You won’t fall for the lies.

Nobody ever does.



How did I do?

 

[StarDust1]

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)

You're mistaken, there's no hostility on my part, the hostility, arrogance, and condescension are all emanating from the New Yorker!
I'm simply making an observation, and introduced an analogy to explain the process of psychological conditioning to accept virtually any intrusive act by the state.
If you've been insulted by it, I sincerely apologize, I'm hoping to enlighten, not offend you, however it's an apt analogy, it's the very purpose of incrementalism, the end result always being the same, salavation on command.

 

[cskny]

You're mistaken, there's no hostility on my part, the hostility, arrogance, and condescension are all emanating from the New Yorker!
I'm simply making an observation, and introduced an analogy to explain the process of psychological conditioning to accept virtually any intrusive act by the state.
If you've been insulted by it, I sincerely apologize, I'm hoping to enlighten, not offend you, however it's an apt analogy, it's the very purpose of incrementalism, the end result always being the same, salavation on command.



Hey Stardust, can you quote where I'm doing this without provocation by you or Deanimator?:

The hostility, arrogance, and condescension are all emanating from the New Yorker


Look, I don't mind this little game with you guys where you pop in and provoke and I respond. That's entertaining.

But lets not generalize the rest of a fairly civil conversation (with fair heated disagreement) by painting the unfair picture that I'm somehow expressing "hostility, arrogance, and condescension" to the rest of the people in the posting. I respect those who are contributing, plain and simple. I don't have to agree with them all, but I respect them and have communicated as such.

Keep the clams of "hostility, arrogance, and condescension" in the correct context. It's with you and him.

 

[otcconan]

My brother bought a 1903A3 Springfield at a gun show.

He went through the same process of background checks he would in a store.

 

[cskny]

Hey Stardust, nice apology to chibiker

Funny, I didn't think you needed to be from NY or Chicago to realize that implying someone was the equivalent of a drooling dog in a Pavlov experiment was not a compliment.

But, I learn something new every day.

 

[cskny]

My brother bought a 1903A3 Springfield at a gun show.

He went through the same process of background checks he would in a store.



Hey otcconan, can you stay on topic...

Oh, wait a minute.......

 

[v65magnafan]

If you want two bits of interesting info for your study, check this out:

1. Bureaucratic paperwork

Canada already suffers with the system that the civilian disarmament fanatics want to implement in The United States.

Any firearms transfer must go through a government check. Registrations must be issued and authorizations to even transport the firearm must be issued.

There is no evidence that all this bureaucracy has ever prevented or helped to solve a single crime.

2. The fallacy of U.S. handguns on Canadian streets

Although handguns have been registered since 1934 and are authorized only for target practice, the drug gangs in the large Canadian cities have no difficulty acquiring handguns and ammunition. They also have no difficulty carjacking, home invading, and shooting up the streets.

According to the Vancouver Police Department, 97% of the illegal handguns seized from criminals originated from outside Canada. The civilian disarmament fanatics insist that these guns have come up from The U.S.

In fact, most have come from China and Eastern Europe.

 

[cskny]

v65magnafan,

The most interesting part of that to me is not so much the specific content itself, but the question of 'why' the bureaucracies end up creating themselves the way they do.

In the end, logic would tell you that there COULD be processes and laws that could help stop some things we don't want to happen. Simply put, a background check can find out if someone has been in a mental institution or killed someone before, right? That’s not all bad.

So how come so many times when the fighting is done, the compromises are reached, and the process and systems are all implemented they don't do what we expect and everyone on both sides hates them?

 

[v65magnafan]

Interesting point, cskny.

What is the intent of the legislators? Do they want to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of violent criminals and paranoid schizophrenics, for example, or do they want to disarm civilians?

The firearms system in Canada was engineered by two factions: the first is a handful of elite politicians who both hated guns and wanted to social engineer the entire society. The second faction, led by Canadian gun ban fanatic Wendy Cukier, made a lot of money by collecting lobbying money from the Liberal government of the day--to lobby itself. Allegedly she assisted in the writing of the legislation. The result has been a crippling of the law-abiding firearms community while illegal gun crime skyrockets. The legislation goes arm and arm with an official Liberal government policy to vilifiy gun ownership. Keep in mind that in Canada, all gun and ammo ownership is criminal. But at its discretion, the government issues licences to individuals whom they decide to qualify. And they can void the licences and confiscate a person's firearms more or less at whim.

Ironically, laws control people who don't need that control, whereas those who do need controls easily evade them. I have no problem with a database check that works to prevent felons and other dangerous people from legally acquiring firearms over the counter.


I don't think that most people are against a chokepoint at the time of purchase. I don't want the paranoid schizophrenic next to me at the checkout to be carrying a .45. The problem with databases, though, is that they can be carried around on a thumb drive. And they can be used to confiscate legally-owned firearms. Are NCIC checks actually erased, or are they secretly maintained for use during martial law? That is the issue for me.

 

[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"?

The ATF and DOJ say that guns used in crimes come from 3 major "sources":

a) Through completely legal means, meaning that the person who uses a gun in the crime has no record before hand, so background checks wouldn't matter. Henry Cho falls into this category in fact, since the medical community failed to report his information. He legally obtained his firearms.

b) Guns bought legally then stolen from the rightful owner, so background checks won't help this either. The stolen guns sold person to person are done criminal to criminal, they don't do this at gun shows so again, background checks for private transactions wouldn't help.

c) Guns bought legally by someone with a clean record who then gives them to a criminal; straw purchases. This is how the Columbine guys got guns, among others over the years. Brought up earlier as the "girlfriend factor". Background checks don't matter, even if these sales happen at gun shows. Private transactions with a background check wouldn't stop these either, since the purchaser has a clean record.


These are the sources for nearly all guns used in crimes according to FBI reports on crime.
Their own numbers show that guns bought at a gun show or in private transactions by "prohibited persons" who then use them in a crime is an almost negligible number.

So I ask you again....

What problem is all of this "loophole" nonsense trying to solve?

No matter how much Bloomberg wants it to be otherwise, the impact here is negligible. And, he has to massage his data in a major way, as in the UC Davis study, to even make his arguments.
He tries to make a correlation between the originating state and that states gun laws. But if 80% of the guns come from criminal sources, what difference do the laws in the state make anyway? Criminals are not following the law anyway. This is why it's dishonest, and this is why I call anyone a bald faced liar who quotes any of the Bloomberg or UC Davis information as fact. You made the VERY big mistake of quoting that garbage which puts your credibility at almost zero. No personal attack but you have to understand where that puts you when you quote that stuff, which has been debunked as fake even by NBC, who reported on the UC Davis study in the first place.

If you mistakenly trusted that stuff and you will admit it's all wrong that's one thing, but you have had the opportunity to do that several times and your only answer has been "Well you just don't understand, New York is different you see......" But that doesn't matter if less than 2% of guns used in crime comes from a gun show does it?

Here are the actual FBI numbers:among those (criminals) possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from –

a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

Again, tell me why gun shows are the problem here?

And if there really IS a problem, why lie?

 

[Deanimator]

Look, I don't mind this little game with you guys where you pop in and provoke and I respond.

The only ones who have "popped in" are the AHSA shills. WE were here all along and will be long after you disappear as all of your ilk do.

You have one goal, and one goal only here. You aim to gull the ignorant into supporting repressive gun controls rooted firmly in racism, anti-Semitism and anti-Catholicism.

It's never worked before.

It's not working now.

It'll never work.

Eventually you'll get tired and run away.

You always do.

 

[Deanimator]

And if there really IS a problem, why lie?

Have you ever seen AHSA do anything ELSE?

 

[Deanimator]

You have to wonder if the current crop of AHSA shills would defend laws that make it as expensive to vote as it is to own (nevermind carry) a handgun in NYC. Of course since Jim Crow voting laws and Jim Crow gun control laws were written with the same pen, it's hardly a mystery, is it?

Gun control, arming rich criminals and disarming poor minorities since before the Civil War.

 

[v65magnafan]

Right. And NY's Sullivan law was written specifically to keep firearms out of the hand of Italo-Americans. Who were perceived as criminals and anarchists.

 

[Deanimator]

Kind of strange, isn't it

...that these "pro-gun" people are propagandizing in FAVOR of repressive laws which turn a right into a capriciously (and corruptly) granted privilege?

They sound like "Blacks for Jim Crow", "Jews for the Nuremberg Laws" or "Gays for Anti-Sodomy Laws", don't they?

But then that's what AHSA is. They're the Judenrat of the "pro-gun" movement, hoping to kick enough people onto the boxcars first so that they'll be the last ones "resettled to the east".

 

[billdeserthills]

I will try to make this brief.

There is no gun show loophole. The same law which applies outside of a gun show applies inside of a gun show. What the proponents really want is that all private transactions be made subject to a background check... so what is wrong with that? (At least what is wrong with that as far as a person disinterested in the gun rights debate is concerned).

In order to enforce such a provision, it is necessary to implement licensing and registration of all firearms and include an additional requirement that owners report lost and stolen firearms. Without such provisions, there is absolutely no way that a requirement that private sales go through a background check can be enforced.... so what is wrong with that? (At least what is wrong with that as far as a person disinterested in the gun rights debate is concerned).

Such licensing and registration schemes will be expensive and ignored by the majority of gun owners. Canada's attempt is already called the "billion dollar boondoggle". The problem arises because in order for such schemes to work there has to be substantial compliance. Such schemes do not even come close. In Canada, the non-compliance ratio is estimated at 60%. In California, the non-compliance ratio is estimated at 70%. It is estimated that a federal licensing and registration scheme in the USA would be much more expensive than Canada's disaster and would have a non-compliance ratio of in excess of 70%. Such a non-compliance ratio eliminates any possible benefit which could be had.

In essence, the initial proposal (background checks for all) would necessitate additional laws covering licensing and registration in order to obtain any possible benefit. This is extremely expensive and not cost effective due to the high non-compliance ratio associated with such schemes. High cost--- coupled with little or no benefit.

And I did not have to say one word about the 2nd Amendment either...

Tell it to McCain...

 

[v65magnafan]

Canada again.

Wendy Cukier, who now shills for George Soros and Maurice Strong, the civilian disarmament billionaires at the UN, got the prohibition of handguns with barrels shorter than 105mm. These guns were perfect for women's self-defense.

Then, she co-opted the anti-gun movement and tied it into the anti-violence against women movement. So, if you were pro-gun, you were anti-female and therefore subject to hatred and ridicule. Canada and Australia were just the rehearsal for The U.S.A.

If you want to get inside of the anti-gun fanatics thinking, take a look at Saul Alinsky's Guide For Radicals. It also happens to be the Obama boy's manual. Also, take a look at the public relations thinking of Edward Bernays.

 

[StarDust1]

Kind of strange, isn't it

...that these "pro-gun" people are propagandizing in FAVOR of repressive laws which turn a right into a capriciously (and corruptly) granted privilege?

They sound like "Blacks for Jim Crow", "Jews for the Nuremberg Laws" or "Gays for Anti-Sodomy Laws", don't they?

But then that's what AHSA is. They're the Judenrat of the "pro-gun" movement, hoping to kick enough people onto the boxcars first so that they'll be the last ones "resettled to the east".

The various gun & RKBA forums across the world wide web are infested with them, you will never defeat them in a debate, the facts are of no significance to them, they deal in hyperbole and emotion exclusively, they inhabit both political parties.

 

[Deanimator]

The various gun & RKBA forums across the world wide web are infested with them, you will never defeat them in a debate, the facts are of no significance to them, they deal in hyperbole and emotion exclusively, they inhabit both political parties.

You defeat them (as I have for 20+ years) the same way you defeat Holocaust deniers. You show them up for the liars that they are. You rub their noses in their contradictions and hypocrisies. You expose their unstated motivations.

You use their own words against them. That utterly destroys them every time.

 

[chibiker]

Guys, I wasn't kidding before.... I seriously don't know who or what this AHSA thing is that I apparently am being labeled a shill for. The only thing I saw that had anything to do with guns in a quick google search was the American Hunters and Shooters Association. Granted I only spent about ten minutes going over their site but I didn't come across anything that seemed anti-gun, anti-2nd there. So, once again... could somebody please tell me who or what they are.

The only ones who have "popped in" are the AHSA shills. WE were here all along and will be long after you disappear as all of your ilk do.

I was pretty much done here, as in I stated my opinion, you all tried to convince me how "wrong" I was. By the way, it didn't "enlighten" me, sorry.
I came back not just because of being labeled a shill but because my hard-headed nature took the part about me, as this "shill" getting tired and disappearing while all YOU people that are RIGHT will still be here, as a challenge so to speak. You know, like you called my Mom stinky and while I leave the playground not defending her you and all the boys laugh.

In review... in case anybody missed it or is unclear. I never supported or argued the verbage of a loophole, it's a word....period. I am surrounded by people everyday that have extreme difficulty with the english language and I haven't flipped out yet. I have simply stated that as long as there is laws on the books that make certain people prohibited from buying or possesing a firearm I am not opposed to a background check being done wherever said firearm can be purchased.

Because I think background checks are okay I am somehow viewed as the anti-christ in the gun world?? Seems like a really big stretch to me, but then of course it would... because I am just a raving anti-gunner lunatic right?

The bulk of the arguments seemed to point out that they don't do any good so why bother. You are all taking the viewpoint of the buyer. If a criminal is going to buy a gun he is going to get it one way or another. I AGREE WITH THAT!! I am taking the viewpoint of the seller... something I don't feel any one of you are copping onto. By doing a background check I am not selling a gun to a criminal...Why do I feel so strongly about this. Because all of our law makers decided to make it just as illegal for me to sell it as it is for him to buy it... actually in most cases more so. You know, afterall he is a career criminal of course he is going to do that so we will just slap him on the wrist once again. YOU however should know better so we are going to throw the book at you.

It all kinda comes down to the chicken or the egg thing in a way. If there is no law saying a felon can't own a gun, why in the world would anyone want to check to see if he IS a felon, or mentally ill, or a wife beater and child molester and on and on and on.

Since I have been branded as an "outsider" already, why don't I just take advantage of it and present that good old "outsider viewpoint". In all the studies and statistics I have read and you have all said.... very little crime guns come from gunshows. There is a stat in one of the posts that states the FBI says less than 2% of crime guns come from gun shows. Why would anyone pound their chest and proclaim that because of this number there is no problem? Last I checked, less than 2% is NOT ZERO. It has happened and been documented.... but because it's not commonplace this is okay right?

Why do all of you own guns, or carry them? I have a shotgun in my home so let me see if any of you are like me. I am armed in my home because there is a chance by not being so means I could become even more of a victim should somebody decide to break into my home and try and rob me or kill me. Statistically there are a lot more bad things that are more than likely to happen to me than a home invasion... you know, like a car crash, being hit by lightening, that kind of thing. So I wear a seat belt and don't play golf in thunderstorms. Do you see where I am going here? Small chance of being a victim of a crime in my home but there is that chance so I do what I can to protect myself.

Now let's say I have a couple of guns I want to sell... I need cash because I wanna buy a better more shiny one. There is a statistic showing that some criminals get their guns through private sales... so the chance that somebody wants to buy my gun is somebody that shouldn't be able to by law is there, right?
He is going to buy that gun someplace, even steal it maybe, whatever, there is not much you and I are going to be able to do about it. Here's the kicker though.... not only have they made a law about that criminal dude, they made one about me too. I don't think he is a criminal but I don't know that... I really want to sell my guns, he has cash in hand. Turns out he is a three time convicted armed robber out on parole. Because I didn't know that I might end up okay after it is all said and done but my world is going to be turned upside down and there is a big chance I might go to prison and on and on and on.

If I have the ability to make a phone call to the State Police or NICS or whatever and that entity tells me this guy has no record and it's perfectly fine to sell my gun to him then whatever that dude decides to do with that gun is no longer my problem... call it passing the buck or whatever you want. He goes straight to the nearest 7-11, robs it and blows the clerks brains out..... that's horrible!!!!! But on the other hand I am not going to prison for his choices in life.

You don't agree with my philosphy or feelings on this that is all of your perogatives.... truly, I don't think badly of any of you. It's a free country (well mostly anyway) afterall.
I do gotta say though, I am truly baffled that my opinion would lump me in with anti-gunners, racists, elitists and all the other associations that have been made.... ya'll really really lost me on that one.

 

[cskny]

Funny chibiker, I had no idea what AHSA was either and a quick google search found the same thing. I'm not sure if that's who I'm supposed to be a part of.

I want to get back to reading about actual guns.

 

[StarDust1]

Funny chibiker, I had no idea what AHSA was either and a quick google search found the same thing. I'm not sure if that's who I'm supposed to be a part of.

I want to get back to reading about actual guns.

I'd say you're just where you wish to be, you've posted to this thread 43-times!

 

[StarDust1]

Guys, I wasn't kidding before.... I seriously don't know who or what this AHSA thing is that I apparently am being labeled a shill for. The only thing I saw that had anything to do with guns in a quick google search was the American Hunters and Shooters Association. Granted I only spent about ten minutes going over their site but I didn't come across anything that seemed anti-gun, anti-2nd there. So, once again... could somebody please tell me who or what they are.




I was pretty much done here, as in I stated my opinion, you all tried to convince me how "wrong" I was. By the way, it didn't "enlighten" me, sorry.
I came back not just because of being labeled a shill but because my hard-headed nature took the part about me, as this "shill" getting tired and disappearing while all YOU people that are RIGHT will still be here, as a challenge so to speak. You know, like you called my Mom stinky and while I leave the playground not defending her you and all the boys laugh.

In review... in case anybody missed it or is unclear. I never supported or argued the verbage of a loophole, it's a word....period. I am surrounded by people everyday that have extreme difficulty with the english language and I haven't flipped out yet. I have simply stated that as long as there is laws on the books that make certain people prohibited from buying or possesing a firearm I am not opposed to a background check being done wherever said firearm can be purchased.

Because I think background checks are okay I am somehow viewed as the anti-christ in the gun world?? Seems like a really big stretch to me, but then of course it would... because I am just a raving anti-gunner lunatic right?

The bulk of the arguments seemed to point out that they don't do any good so why bother. You are all taking the viewpoint of the buyer. If a criminal is going to buy a gun he is going to get it one way or another. I AGREE WITH THAT!! I am taking the viewpoint of the seller... something I don't feel any one of you are copping onto. By doing a background check I am not selling a gun to a criminal...Why do I feel so strongly about this. Because all of our law makers decided to make it just as illegal for me to sell it as it is for him to buy it... actually in most cases more so. You know, afterall he is a career criminal of course he is going to do that so we will just slap him on the wrist once again. YOU however should know better so we are going to throw the book at you.

It all kinda comes down to the chicken or the egg thing in a way. If there is no law saying a felon can't own a gun, why in the world would anyone want to check to see if he IS a felon, or mentally ill, or a wife beater and child molester and on and on and on.

Since I have been branded as an "outsider" already, why don't I just take advantage of it and present that good old "outsider viewpoint". In all the studies and statistics I have read and you have all said.... very little crime guns come from gunshows. There is a stat in one of the posts that states the FBI says less than 2% of crime guns come from gun shows. Why would anyone pound their chest and proclaim that because of this number there is no problem? Last I checked, less than 2% is NOT ZERO. It has happened and been documented.... but because it's not commonplace this is okay right?

Why do all of you own guns, or carry them? I have a shotgun in my home so let me see if any of you are like me. I am armed in my home because there is a chance by not being so means I could become even more of a victim should somebody decide to break into my home and try and rob me or kill me. Statistically there are a lot more bad things that are more than likely to happen to me than a home invasion... you know, like a car crash, being hit by lightening, that kind of thing. So I wear a seat belt and don't play golf in thunderstorms. Do you see where I am going here? Small chance of being a victim of a crime in my home but there is that chance so I do what I can to protect myself.

Now let's say I have a couple of guns I want to sell... I need cash because I wanna buy a better more shiny one. There is a statistic showing that some criminals get their guns through private sales... so the chance that somebody wants to buy my gun is somebody that shouldn't be able to by law is there, right?
He is going to buy that gun someplace, even steal it maybe, whatever, there is not much you and I are going to be able to do about it. Here's the kicker though.... not only have they made a law about that criminal dude, they made one about me too. I don't think he is a criminal but I don't know that... I really want to sell my guns, he has cash in hand. Turns out he is a three time convicted armed robber out on parole. Because I didn't know that I might end up okay after it is all said and done but my world is going to be turned upside down and there is a big chance I might go to prison and on and on and on.

If I have the ability to make a phone call to the State Police or NICS or whatever and that entity tells me this guy has no record and it's perfectly fine to sell my gun to him then whatever that dude decides to do with that gun is no longer my problem... call it passing the buck or whatever you want. He goes straight to the nearest 7-11, robs it and blows the clerks brains out..... that's horrible!!!!! But on the other hand I am not going to prison for his choices in life.

You don't agree with my philosphy or feelings on this that is all of your perogatives.... truly, I don't think badly of any of you. It's a free country (well mostly anyway) afterall.
I do gotta say though, I am truly baffled that my opinion would lump me in with anti-gunners, racists, elitists and all the other associations that have been made.... ya'll really really lost me on that one.

So, once you step out of your home you're willing to let it ride on the expectation of what exactly?