Gun Show Loophole

Status
Not open for further replies.
chibiker said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually that is not even close to being correct, no surprise again that the law is misquoted.

It IS NOT A CRIME to sell a firearm to a felon or prohibited person unless you KNOW OR HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE HE IS SUCH.

So this BS story that you want to protect the sellers is just that, BS. If you do due diligence and ask for a drivers license, a voter registration card (they cant vote), a concealed carry permit, etc and you sell a gun to a prohibited person unintentionally, you have not broken the law.

And, since less than 2% of guns used in crimes come from gun show sales, and a very small amount from personal transactions of ANY kind, this whole thing is just smoke and mirrors.

Now, if you on your own feel that private transactions are a bad idea then feel free to require guns you personally sell then by all means tell buyers you will only sell through an FFL.

But don't tell the lie that you "need" background checks to keep out of legal trouble.

That, like a lot of stuff posted in this thread, is BS.
 
It IS NOT A CRIME to sell a firearm to a felon or prohibited person unless you KNOW OR HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE HE IS SUCH.
Click to expand...

NO, what is really BS is that is the way the law reads. How many people have been crucified in courts over the aspect of whether or not they did indeed not know somebody was a prohibited individual. Tell me that never has happened so I can call you full of BS. To you that may be black and white enough however to me, I see a whole lot of grey area for the legal system to come in and really ruin your day.

Ask for a drivers license? That proves what? That he is who he says he is? Does your state have some kind of sticker put on your license that states whether or not you are a felon? Mine doesn't.
Ask for a voters registration card? If they don't have one they must be a criminal? Really? I don't have one.... it went through the wash and I never got a new one. When I voted in the primarys here a while back I went to the polls and showed them my drivers license. They didn't ask for a card, they looked on the list and bingo there I was. Actually thank you for that information though, I am being serious.... I didn't think of that as a way to verify somebody's worthiness.
Ask for a concealed carry permit? We don't have that in my state.

What it all boils down to for me is that I can take your word that you are not a bad guy and decide for myself that to the best of my knowledge and gut feelings you are on the up and up. If this turns out to not be the case then I get to try and convince the police or the courts of why I thought it was okay.
My other choice is to only go through an FFL and let them deal with it. But guess what, he is going to have them fill out paperwork and go through a background check so we're right back where we started from.... somebody having to submit to the horrors of a background check.

And, since less than 2% of guns used in crimes come from gun show sales, and a very small amount from personal transactions of ANY kind, this whole thing is just smoke and mirrors.
Click to expand...

Here, let me use that same line of logic.......

And, since the statistics show that the actuality of any violent crime being committed against you or your family is very small the idea that you need to have a gun in your home or carry one on your person is nothing but smoke and mirrors. Kinda delusional right?

Call me or my line of thinking full of BS all you want. In my BS filled life I cannot make the distinction of what makes a background check for buying a gun anymore evil that submitting to one to teach at a school or work for a bank or handle sensitive documents. Maybe Mr. Stardust has a point, I go through them all the time and like Mr. Pavlov's dog they have never caused me any harm. I do want to point out though that I don't start dripping at the jowls everytime I am being fingerprinted, photographed and signing on the dotted line.
 
chibiker said:
Sorry sir, I don't understand the question. Could you be a little more specific?
Click to expand...
^^^Amazing, even as you heap ignorant scorn upon my analogy, you prove it out, to the letter! BTW, you indicated that you keep a shotgun at "home" for defensive purposes, curious, who carries the burden of protecting you outside of it, where your odds of a violent assault skyrocket?
 
^^^Amazing, even as you heap ignorant scorn upon my analogy, you prove it out, to the letter!
Click to expand...

The dog thing right? Ignorant scorn? Uh, alrighty then

BTW, you indicated that you keep a shotgun at "home" for defensive purposes, curious, who carries the burden of protecting you outside of it, where your odds of a violent assault skyrocket?
Click to expand...

Nobody other than myself. So are we still on the dog thing or was there another point you are trying to make?
 
Call me or my line of thinking full of BS all you want. In my BS filled life I cannot make the distinction of what makes a background check for buying a gun anymore evil that submitting to one to teach at a school or work for a bank or handle sensitive documents.
Click to expand...
Teaching is not a constitutionally protected right.

Working for a bank is not a constitutionally protected right.

Handling sensitive documents is not a constitutionally protected right.

Of course you AHSA types don't believe that owning a gun is constitutionally protected right. You are of course wrong.

Have you noticed that nobody's buying your anti-gun propaganda?

You'll be gone soon.
 
You guys are something else...

I say I don't have an issues with background checks and you just keep coming up with all this stuff. Pavlov's dog, shill for the AHSA, which ONCE again nobody can be bothered to tell me who or what they are. I'm a rabid anti-gunner spreading my propaganda, I don't believe in the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Okay, let me have a go at it.... let me tell you what you guys are based on some little tidbits that I know.
Deanimator... since you live in Rocky River, Ohio, a suburb of Cleveland with approx. 2 or 3 percent of the population being something other than white you clearly must be afraid of large cities and obviously a racist.
StarDust1... Northwest Wisconsin eh? Obviously a homophobe, growing your own food and chopping your own firewood. Paranoid of your own shadow and you are a raging liberal with that Garafolo chick's posters plastered all over your log cabins walls, you only post on here and sound the way you do because you don't want anyone to know what you really are all about.

SEE... I'm just as right about you as you are me! We're amazing!!

Good nite all, it's been um, enlightening to say the least. Talk later.
 
one last thought

So I’m standing on the street between 2 buildings:

On the left corner is a local Gander Mountain store. Inside there’s a gun department with about 250 guns for purchase. If I choose to enter that store and purchase one, state law mandates that they run a background check before I can purchase.

On the right corner is my County Center and this weekend the gun show has setup. Inside, there are about 50 private sellers who brought 5 guns each. If I choose to enter the show and purchase one, no one is obligated to run a background check, it’s cash and carry.

As a reasonable person standing between the buildings, I can appreciate the issue. But hey, that makes me "anti-gun".
I’m sorry that many of you cannot see or accept why some have a problem, I can.

What's a potential solution that might make more then 1 person happy? Well, a gunshow is not an inherent right, it's a money making endeavor by the organizers, I think you idealize them to much. That's why they charge admission/participation fees, the organizers have to get paid. So, they get county passes and permits just like any other event in the center. As a requirement of a permit, there COULD be mandatory background-checks within the show walls. If I was selling at a show, I'd voluntarily subscribe. But if you made it a term of the show, you have not taken your individual right to sell away, you've mandated that in order to sell at a collective gathering background checks are required. It would be a requirement on the show, not you as an individual. if you don't like that, don't participate in the show, no one is forcing you to go and keep selling locally.

So go ahead and rip apart the example with a dictionary again so you can argue why it’s not a technical “loophole”. Argue statistics about gun show sale origins (which I’m not sure how you are gathering and maintaining on the private sellers serial numbers anyway, but that’s not even my point).

In the end, it’s not rocket science to understand the problem standing between the 2 buildings.
 
Last edited:
^^^

Let me add to your example.

So a law is passed banning private sale of firearms. Now the law abiding people that used to frequent that gun show no longer do. However, on that same side walk two thugs are exchanging cash for the stolen revolver the other has.

Thug one says.....wait....private gun sales are illegal! We cant do this! Can I have a FOID before I sell you this crack and pistol? :rolleyes:

The Problem is, (Like so many have said here) the law only applies to those inclined to follow it. There are so many avenues of ILLEGAL gun sales that you will not stop criminals from possessing them. YOU WILL prevent law abiding people from their liberty. :fire: Look at the many examples of banning things, alcohol, drugs. The history shows that the criminal element moves directly to those items when they are banned. Both in our history, and those of other contries which have actually banned guns.

Because you say it is illegal, does not make is so! (Otherwise we would all drive the speed limit)
 
cskny said:
So I’m standing on the street between 2 buildings:

On the left corner is a local Gander Mountain store. Inside there’s a gun department with about 250 guns for purchase. If I choose to enter that store and purchase one, state law mandates that they run a background check before I can purchase.

On the right corner is my County Center and this weekend the gun show has setup. Inside, there are about 50 private sellers who brought 5 guns each. If I choose to enter the show and purchase one, no one is obligated to run a background check, it’s cash and carry.

As a reasonable person standing between the buildings, I can appreciate the issue.
Click to expand...

What "issue"?

By the way, you've employed the fallacies of the loaded question, the self-sealing argument and false equivalence.
 
^^^

Let me add to your example.

So a law is passed banning private sale of firearms. Now the law abiding people that used to frequent that gun show no longer do. However, on that same side walk two thugs are exchanging cash for the stolen revolver the other has.

Thug one says.....wait....private gun sales are illegal! We cant do this! Can I have a FOID before I sell you this crack and pistol?

The Problem is, (Like so many have said here) the law only applies to those inclined to follow it. There are so many avenues of ILLEGAL gun sales that you will not stop criminals from possessing them. YOU WILL prevent law abiding people from their liberty. Look at the many examples of banning things, alcohol, drugs. The history shows that the criminal element moves directly to those items when they are banned. Both in our history, and those of other contries which have actually banned guns.

Because you say it is illegal, does not make is so! (Otherwise we would all drive the speed limit)




Couple problems:

1. Participation in a "show" is not a liberty.

2. Because criminals will break the law anyway, it doesn't mean that we make it easy. The extreme example: if criminals are going to "get guns anyway", lets let them buy them in a local store, right? At least the county can collect the sales tax. They will "get them' anyway, they are criminals!

How do you guys keep arguing #2 with a straight face?
 
cskny said:
^^^
Couple problems:

1. Participation in a "show" is not a liberty.
Click to expand...

Proof? Engaging in economic activity, intercourse with other like-minded persons and coming together for advocacy of a right looks very much like "Liberty."

2. Because criminals will break the law anyway, it doesn't mean that we make it easy.
Click to expand...

Who is the f is "we," and how does the absence of yet one more law make anything "easy?" Where is there an obligation to surrender liberty to make to commission of crimes difficult? After all, have we made it "easy" to kill someone? Lots of steak knives out there, and no controls on their use.

You're now engaging in outright lying.

The extreme example: if criminals are going to "get guns anyway", lets let them buy them in a local store, right? At least the county can collect the sales tax. They will "get them' anyway, they are criminals!

How do you guys keep arguing #2 with a straight face?
Click to expand...

Straw man. You're not pressing a good-faith argument. You're engaging in deception.
 
Straw man. You're not pressing a good-faith argument. You're engaging in deception.




I can only assume you have difficulty reading or comprehending. The argument is clearly in good faith and there's no deception, I've been laying it out the whole damn time.

If you have specific problems with the actual issue, say them, in equal levels of detail and specificity. Try not to defend your position by saying "deception" and "good-faith". Those are not arguments when you're being presented with a specific issue.
 
cskny said:
I can only assume you have difficulty reading or comprehending.
Click to expand...

Ad hominem. Another fallacy.

If your argument is reducible to: "Activity B should be restricted because Activity A is restricted," that's a feeble argument. Not only do you have to prove absolute equivalence of the two acts, you have to prove the original justification for the restriction on Activity A.
 
A gun show is a MONEY MAKING EVENT, setup and organized by someone for the PURPOSE of making MONEY. Participation costs money. You pay that money because of your interest in purchasing/browsing OR you desire to get more potential buyers.

A gunshow is NOT an organization of like-minded individuals all gathering for the betterment of society. (or some equally glorifying description).

I think that some of you are glorifying a "gun show" into something it's not. It's the same as a flee market, car show, or other large sales "gathering".
 
smoking35, here's a specific question:

If you think that criminals are going to get guns no matter what, then would you be ok with granting them "amnesty" to enter a gun store and make their purchases locally to collect the sales tax? If yes or no, why?
 
Last edited:
cskny said:
A gun show is a MONEY MAKING EVENT, setup and organized by someone for the PURPOSE of making MONEY. Participation costs money. You pay that money because of your interest in purchasing/browsing OR you desire to get more potential buyers.

A gunshow is NOT an organization of like-minded individuals all gathering for the betterment of society. (or some equally glorifying description).

I think that some of you are glorifying a "gun show" into something it's not.
Click to expand...

False dichotomy. You need to show that the 'set of all things money making' is completely exclusive of the 'set all things for the betterment of society'. By the way, another straw man. It was not posited that the gun show is organized for the betterment of society. Confine your polemics to the terms in currency.

Further, you said that a gun show is not an incident of Liberty. I responded by saying that it is an incident of Liberty, inter alia, economic Liberty. You retorted that a "gun show is a money making event," admitting the bill, in toto. You must realize that economic liberty exists among the natural rights we all possess and has been so acknowledged by political philosophers, the Founding Fathers and our courts.

Having admitted my argument, I can only presume you'll quit your plan?
 
cskny said:
smoking35, here's a specific question:

If you think that criminals are going to get guns no matter what, then would you be ok with granting them "amnesty" to enter a gun show/store and make their purchases locally to collect the sales tax? If yes or no, why?
Click to expand...

I fully support "criminals" attending a gun show, an ACLU rally or a lecture at the local university on Renaissance art.

As to the other clause, you'll need to prove the authority to ask that question of me, and it was fairly unctuous of you to ask it.

I might well ask you whether you raped and murdered a young girl in 1990?
 
It's fascinating.

I feel like it's 1938 and I'm listening to representatives of Germany and the Soviet Union arguing respectively how "reasonable" it is to bar Jews from the professions and to require people to assign workers production quotas under pain of criminal law.

AHSA doesn't respect the US Constitution, truth or facts for that matter. But then that's no surprise to anyone who knows them.

What you're seeing is the manifestation of corruption, elitism and prejudice.

Want the PRIVILEGE of protecting your own life? Pay for it.

Want the PRIVILEGE of protecting your own life? Be "important".

Want the PRIVILEGE of protecting your own life? Be the right race, ethnicity or religion.

They can try to change the subject as much as they want to, we know their REAL motivations.
 
I have not read the entire postings here, just some from both sides so to speak. Am I wrong that some that have posted believe that a background check will cure all of the imagined ills of gun shows will be cured with a background check?
 
smoking357 - I notice you again did not answer the specific good-faith question. Thanks anyway.

Deanimator, you may know their motivations but honestly, you're post are getting more obscure and difficult to follow. Can you bring them back to to more mainstream language and references, dumb them down a bit for me.

Thanks


Quote:
Originally Posted by cskny
smoking35, here's a specific question:

If you think that criminals are going to get guns no matter what, then would you be ok with granting them "amnesty" to enter a gun show/store and make their purchases locally to collect the sales tax? If yes or no, why?
I fully support "criminals" attending a gun show, an ACLU rally or a lecture at the local university on Renaissance art.

As to the other clause, you'll need to prove the authority to ask that question of me, and it was fairly unctuous of you to ask it.

I might well ask you whether you raped and murdered a young girl in 1990?
 
You need to use "less words" and make "more point" in your responses.




Quote:
Originally Posted by cskny
A gun show is a MONEY MAKING EVENT, setup and organized by someone for the PURPOSE of making MONEY. Participation costs money. You pay that money because of your interest in purchasing/browsing OR you desire to get more potential buyers.

A gunshow is NOT an organization of like-minded individuals all gathering for the betterment of society. (or some equally glorifying description).

I think that some of you are glorifying a "gun show" into something it's not.
False dichotomy. You need to show that the 'set of all things money making' is completely exclusive of the 'set all things for the betterment of society'. By the way, another straw man. It was not posited that the gun show is organized for the betterment of society. Confine your polemics to the terms in currency.

Further, you said that a gun show is not an incident of Liberty. I responded by saying that it is an incident of Liberty, inter alia, economic Liberty. You retorted that a "gun show is a money making event," admitting the bill, in toto. You must realize that economic liberty exists among the natural rights we all possess and has been so acknowledged by political philosophers, the Founding Fathers and our courts.

Having admitted my argument, I can only presume you'll quit your plan?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

V
  • Locked
Gun show loophole publically exposed
Replies
2
Views
744
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
B
  • Locked
gun show loophole: why should we keep it?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
2K
BHP FAN
B
T
  • Locked
Gun Show Loophole?
Replies
9
Views
503
redhead
R
C
  • Locked
The gunshow loophole?
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
Andrewsky
A
S
  • Locked
Senate Bill Introduced to Close the Gun Show Loophole
Replies
11
Views
960
jpsimms
J
Back
Top