On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 12:02:11 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:19:29 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/14/2014 10:59 AM, wrote:


That reading thing again. I was pointing out that there were already
laws that would have prevented the CNN crew from legally purchasing
the guns they bought and they still bought them. The thing that ****ed
Richard off was when I pointed out that they had to drive over 600
miles, visit 5 gun shows just to find 3 illegal sellers.
If you know anything about TV at all you know they had hours of
footage of people following the law that ended up on the cutting room
floor to get the "70 seconds" they used.



You don't know how many people turned them down other than the one
person in Tennessee.

I don't know either. Unlike you however, I don't "assume" what I don't
know and make it a fact in my conclusions.


I know they admitted they went to 5 gun shows in 4 states. Are you
saying they only ran into 4 sellers?
It is clear they were dissuaded from buying a lot of guns. Only one
made the show.


Again though, the point is missed. They still bought a small arsenal in
two days consisting of a Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle, two Glock 17's
and a S&W 45 with no questions asked.

I think there were a lot of questions asked at the booths they didn't
buy from. They just did not make the show. Otherwise why didn't they
just buy all the guns in Ellijay and they would have been home for
dinner.
The narrator said it was because of a "limited selection". He didn't
say there were no guns.

Maybe I pay more attention to what they didn't write in the script but
was apparent from the circumstances and from what they did say.

It was presented as fact that they shopped at 5 gun shows in 4 states
and found 3 illegal sellers. It is easy to assume that everyone else
they talked to was not willing to make an illegal transaction.
They admitted to one. What about the rest?
I guess people following the law is not good TV.


If they just wanted to buy a few illegal guns, they probably didn't
even have to start their car. I bet there are gang bangers in downtown
Atlanta who would sell them guns, no questions asked.

The point is not the ratio between those that follow laws and those
that don't. It's the ready availability of weapons given one's
interest and persistence in obtaining them.

If it were Taliban or ISIS in the country making those purchases,
would it be any more compellting to you?

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 09:34:27 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/14/2014 9:31 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/14/2014 12:18 AM, jps wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 23:05:28 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 18:15:43 -0800, jps wrote:

The government already knows everything they need to.
Them knowing whether you own a gun isn't going to make any difference
if they decide the constitution is obsolete.

===

What you apparently fail to appreciate is that the government is
abrogating the constitution slowly, inches at a time, and always with
seemingly good intentions.

Or political intentions. How about Congress being too ****ing scared
to debate and declare war against ISIS? They were more interested in
golf and cavorting with their wealthy donors. Hmmm, where have I
heard that complaint before?


Oh boy.. jps is starting to get vulgar. Guess he isn't getting his way,
won't be long till he's calling you all stupid...


Like you just calling him an "idiot" for posting his beliefs?

I skip KC's posts. All chaff, no wheat.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 10:48:33 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/14/2014 10:16 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/14/14 9:37 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/14/2014 9:35 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/14/2014 8:15 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 19:03:06 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:40:01 -0800, jps wrote:

Thank you for stepping out and making your thoughts known about gun
control. You make a reasoned argument for common sense law.

"I've shot (pun intended) my mouth off regarding my views on the
need
for reasonable gun control laws, basically supporting universal
background checks, gun registration, a chain of custody record of
ownership and standardization of the myriad state laws. I believe
they should apply to both FFL dealer purchases and subsequent
private
sales."

This is exactly the import of the referendum Washington voters just
passed by 60%+. Our legislature is too weak to take it up so the
citizens have done it for themselves.

You would not believe the apoplexy demonstrated by gun owners here.
You'd have thought they were being castrated while their kids were
deep fat fried by "liberals."

Common sense laws covering the sale of weapons needs to happen in
this
country, otherwise there's no chance of holding idiots, assholes and
scumbags responsible for those same guns leaking into the hands of
criminals.

Background checks on every gun sale will help stem the flow of legal
weapons into criminal hands. It's not a panacea, just a step along
the way to a safer citizenry.

Thanks for voicing your opinion.

It was a great discussion. However, the failure of many to agree with
Luddite caused a degree of frustration which resulted in some
comments
not taken well.

It's a damn shame that a difference of opinion can't simply be
accepted. Very sad!

Political scientists working on behalf of parties have found ways to
neatly divide us by issue. And we're suckers for allowing ourselves
to be manipulated so expertly.

Most of the American electorate sit somewhere in the middle and have
the ability to see both sides of an issue, but the language that's
proffered by the extremes is what gets adopted in the debate.

I'm as guilty as any but I also know I sit significantly closer to the
middle than what's estimated by most of the "righties" here.

I really don't understand how people can be so obstinate about common
sense gun control. The paranoia about being on a "list" is
ridiculous. The government already knows everything they need to.
Them knowing whether you own a gun isn't going to make any difference
if they decide the constitution is obsolete.

Therein lies your problem and Luddite's problem, both of you believe
that your views of common sense gun control is "the" solution and "the"
only solution that makes sense.



Exactly, and like most liberals they think if you don't agree with them
lock step, cause of course they are much smarter than us, that we are
just stupid... Once that happens, the bully comes out cause when you are
so wrong about something, brute force is the only way to get the rest of
us to comply...


Holy Crap! LOL!

Yup. Looney Bin.



Hey, you're the one "debating" with a psychotic!

Last week, PsychoScotty implied he'd have to get a pardon before he
could buy a regulated firearm. Better be careful up there...you're
within range of a moped tank full of gasoline.


Terrifying.

;^)

On 11/14/2014 2:39 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/14/2014 1:52 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/14/2014 1:40 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/14/2014 11:41 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/14/2014 11:29 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

On 11/14/14 11:05 AM, wrote:

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 06:40:07 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:



I think you missed the point of Luddite's posit entirely. The
point is
that firearms are being sold at gun shows sans even the instant
background checks, especially but not only by individuals who are
not
FFLs. It has been demonstrated many times that Virginia, in
particular,
a "gunshow loophole state," has numerous individuals selling
firearms to
other individuals at gunshows and at other venues without bothering
with
any background checks.



In another of his posts, he had a statistic that said less than
1% of
the guns used in crimes came from gun shows.


I don't know for a fact but I suspect that 1% number refers to
*reported* gun show sales by a FFL. It's the only way the data could
have been documented.

I don't think it includes "no questions asked" private sales at gun
shows. How could it if there are no records?



Well, if that's the case then "no questions asked" in the context of
this discussion is only a hypothetical too?

sigh

If you are referring to the CNN documentary, they showed and reported
that the sellers didn't even ask the buyer's name let alone any ID. You
can believe that or not believe it, but that's what they reported.

Probably easier for you to just declare the report as being a made-up
hoax like Greg and it will satisfy you.





Non responsive.. let me try again.. has anybody here experienced
personally the type of activity the CNN report "found". Is this
prevalent or can we assume CNN had to dig a little to get someone to do
it? Just trying to get by the this or that extremes you leftys are
throwing out here... suggesting that if someone doesn't see it your way,
they must be as far from your opinion as possible.. I know that makes it
easier to justify dismissing their point of view or coming to the
middle, but it doesn't change anything...


I don't buy guns illegally ... personally.



Ok you haven't seen this type of activity? Ok, that is a start, anybody
else see any of this activity at gun shows?

On 11/14/2014 2:42 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 13:45:21 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/14/2014 12:10 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:29:02 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


On 11/14/14 11:05 AM, wrote:

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 06:40:07 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:



I think you missed the point of Luddite's posit entirely. The point is
that firearms are being sold at gun shows sans even the instant
background checks, especially but not only by individuals who are not
FFLs. It has been demonstrated many times that Virginia, in particular,
a "gunshow loophole state," has numerous individuals selling firearms to
other individuals at gunshows and at other venues without bothering with
any background checks.



In another of his posts, he had a statistic that said less than 1% of
the guns used in crimes came from gun shows.


I don't know for a fact but I suspect that 1% number refers to
*reported* gun show sales by a FFL. It's the only way the data could
have been documented.

I don't think it includes "no questions asked" private sales at gun
shows. How could it if there are no records?


Dunno, it was your statistic.

Perhaps they asked?



I have said all along, the cops don't usually spend a lot of time
tracing crime guns. they know it will not do anything to help their
case, so why bother?


Maybe it's because there is no reliable data base that shows the chain
of custody.


Oh, now we need a data base?


oh, oh...

On 11/14/2014 2:54 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 13:45:21 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/14/2014 12:10 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:29:02 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


On 11/14/14 11:05 AM, wrote:

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 06:40:07 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:



I think you missed the point of Luddite's posit entirely. The point is
that firearms are being sold at gun shows sans even the instant
background checks, especially but not only by individuals who are not
FFLs. It has been demonstrated many times that Virginia, in particular,
a "gunshow loophole state," has numerous individuals selling firearms to
other individuals at gunshows and at other venues without bothering with
any background checks.



In another of his posts, he had a statistic that said less than 1% of
the guns used in crimes came from gun shows.


I don't know for a fact but I suspect that 1% number refers to
*reported* gun show sales by a FFL. It's the only way the data could
have been documented.

I don't think it includes "no questions asked" private sales at gun
shows. How could it if there are no records?


Dunno, it was your statistic.

Perhaps they asked?



I have said all along, the cops don't usually spend a lot of time
tracing crime guns. they know it will not do anything to help their
case, so why bother?


Maybe it's because there is no reliable data base that shows the chain
of custody.



BTW, I thought you'd left 'cause we were so screwed up.


Don't encourage him to leave, encourage him to get back to the dick we
used to know...

On 11/14/2014 2:43 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/14/2014 1:55 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/14/2014 1:10 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 12:30:22 -0500, KC wrote:

On 11/14/2014 12:19 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:59:04 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/14/14 11:45 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:11:49 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:


It is as valid as your idea that the problems of the world
would be
solved with a little bit bigger government and a few more laws.


I could attend a Virginia gun show, find an individual (not a
licensed
dealer) selling firearms, and buy one from him at the show
without him
doing any background check, because such is legal in Virginia. Now,
being an out of stater, we'd both be in violation of the law,
but...there's no enforcement. You are grasping at straws.

If there is no enforcement, what difference would a new law make?
You are the one grasping.

If the guy is not even going to make sure you are a resident, what
would make him do a background check?


The idea is to *ban* individual sales unless there is a paper trail
and
perhaps make all gun transfers go through an FFL or some mechanism
that
makes a background check mandatory. Of course, I also favor licensing
gun owners.

I am a (CCW) licensed owner so most of this does not apply to me
anyway but again, if these sellers are willing to break an existing
law, what would make them follow another law?


Just wondering if any of you have experience or have seen all of this
"illegal transfer" we are hypothesizing about here?

Here are the requirements for the private transfer of a firearm in
Virginia:

"What are the laws concerning the private sale of a handgun?
To privately sell a firearm, it is recommended that you safeguard
information pertaining to the transaction such as the date the firearm
was sold, the complete name and address of the buyer, and the make,
model, and serial number of the firearm. The seller and buyer of a
handgun must be a resident of the state in which the transfer occurs.
Should the firearm ever be located at a crime scene, trace of the
firearm will determine the licensed dealer who last sold the firearm
and will identify the last buyer of the firearm. To have your name
removed from this process, you may consider placing your firearm on
consignment with a licensed dealer. This will also ensure that the
firearm is transferred only to a lawfully eligible individual. "

If you are from out of state, and I sell you a handgun, then we've
broken the law. Apparently all these 'Virginia Gun Show Loopholes' to
which Harry continuously refers are simply folks breaking the law.

What we need are more laws to keep lawbreakers from breaking the law!


But have you seen this at gun shows, or are we spending time and energy
talking about a baited anomaly the left dug deep enough to find?



DICK! PAY PARTICULAR ATTENTION HERE!!! *I am not saying CNN dug deep*, I
am just trying to find out what the reality of the "gun show loophole"
is to see if *I* feel it's relevant at all....

What the hell are you yelling at me for? Nothing I've said is quoted
(above).




Just wanted you to know I wasn't saying "CNN made it up"... just wanted
to make sure you saw that part

On 11/14/2014 2:44 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 13:55:22 -0500, KC wrote:

On 11/14/2014 1:10 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 12:30:22 -0500, KC wrote:

On 11/14/2014 12:19 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:59:04 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/14/14 11:45 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:11:49 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:


It is as valid as your idea that the problems of the world would be
solved with a little bit bigger government and a few more laws.


I could attend a Virginia gun show, find an individual (not a licensed
dealer) selling firearms, and buy one from him at the show without him
doing any background check, because such is legal in Virginia. Now,
being an out of stater, we'd both be in violation of the law,
but...there's no enforcement. You are grasping at straws.

If there is no enforcement, what difference would a new law make?
You are the one grasping.

If the guy is not even going to make sure you are a resident, what
would make him do a background check?


The idea is to *ban* individual sales unless there is a paper trail and
perhaps make all gun transfers go through an FFL or some mechanism that
makes a background check mandatory. Of course, I also favor licensing
gun owners.

I am a (CCW) licensed owner so most of this does not apply to me
anyway but again, if these sellers are willing to break an existing
law, what would make them follow another law?


Just wondering if any of you have experience or have seen all of this
"illegal transfer" we are hypothesizing about here?

Here are the requirements for the private transfer of a firearm in
Virginia:

"What are the laws concerning the private sale of a handgun?
To privately sell a firearm, it is recommended that you safeguard
information pertaining to the transaction such as the date the firearm
was sold, the complete name and address of the buyer, and the make,
model, and serial number of the firearm. The seller and buyer of a
handgun must be a resident of the state in which the transfer occurs.
Should the firearm ever be located at a crime scene, trace of the
firearm will determine the licensed dealer who last sold the firearm
and will identify the last buyer of the firearm. To have your name
removed from this process, you may consider placing your firearm on
consignment with a licensed dealer. This will also ensure that the
firearm is transferred only to a lawfully eligible individual. "

If you are from out of state, and I sell you a handgun, then we've
broken the law. Apparently all these 'Virginia Gun Show Loopholes' to
which Harry continuously refers are simply folks breaking the law.

What we need are more laws to keep lawbreakers from breaking the law!


But have you seen this at gun shows, or are we spending time and energy
talking about a baited anomaly the left dug deep enough to find?

DICK! PAY PARTICULAR ATTENTION HERE!!! *I am not saying CNN dug deep*, I
am just trying to find out what the reality of the "gun show loophole"
is to see if *I* feel it's relevant at all....

Been to lots of Virginia gun shows. No one tried to sell me a gun,
other than dealers who wanted the fed form completed.


Well, that's two of you gun nuts, and so far no pattern, or even one
incident... What I am getting to here is CNN never said they searched
long and far for folks who would do it, but they didn't say they didn't
so we really don't know. However... Logic, and a open mind might suggest
that CNN "could" be tweaking the editing to make a liberal point,
something we do know for a fact CNN has been caught doing in the past...

On 11/14/2014 2:46 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/14/2014 2:31 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/14/2014 2:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:



I don't think private sellers... snip.... They are gun nuts,
not professional dealers.


All of them? So all private sellers are "gun nuts"? This is why folks
are giving you **** on this subject...



Sorry. In your case, delete "gun".



So, you defend name calling, with name calling.... cute the way you did
that

On 11/14/14 4:27 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/14/2014 2:44 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 13:55:22 -0500, KC wrote:

On 11/14/2014 1:10 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 12:30:22 -0500, KC wrote:

On 11/14/2014 12:19 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:59:04 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/14/14 11:45 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:11:49 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:


It is as valid as your idea that the problems of the world
would be
solved with a little bit bigger government and a few more laws.


I could attend a Virginia gun show, find an individual (not a
licensed
dealer) selling firearms, and buy one from him at the show
without him
doing any background check, because such is legal in Virginia.
Now,
being an out of stater, we'd both be in violation of the law,
but...there's no enforcement. You are grasping at straws.

If there is no enforcement, what difference would a new law make?
You are the one grasping.

If the guy is not even going to make sure you are a resident, what
would make him do a background check?


The idea is to *ban* individual sales unless there is a paper
trail and
perhaps make all gun transfers go through an FFL or some
mechanism that
makes a background check mandatory. Of course, I also favor
licensing
gun owners.

I am a (CCW) licensed owner so most of this does not apply to me
anyway but again, if these sellers are willing to break an existing
law, what would make them follow another law?


Just wondering if any of you have experience or have seen all of this
"illegal transfer" we are hypothesizing about here?

Here are the requirements for the private transfer of a firearm in
Virginia:

"What are the laws concerning the private sale of a handgun?
To privately sell a firearm, it is recommended that you safeguard
information pertaining to the transaction such as the date the firearm
was sold, the complete name and address of the buyer, and the make,
model, and serial number of the firearm. The seller and buyer of a
handgun must be a resident of the state in which the transfer occurs.
Should the firearm ever be located at a crime scene, trace of the
firearm will determine the licensed dealer who last sold the firearm
and will identify the last buyer of the firearm. To have your name
removed from this process, you may consider placing your firearm on
consignment with a licensed dealer. This will also ensure that the
firearm is transferred only to a lawfully eligible individual. "

If you are from out of state, and I sell you a handgun, then we've
broken the law. Apparently all these 'Virginia Gun Show Loopholes' to
which Harry continuously refers are simply folks breaking the law.

What we need are more laws to keep lawbreakers from breaking the law!


But have you seen this at gun shows, or are we spending time and energy
talking about a baited anomaly the left dug deep enough to find?

DICK! PAY PARTICULAR ATTENTION HERE!!! *I am not saying CNN dug deep*, I
am just trying to find out what the reality of the "gun show loophole"
is to see if *I* feel it's relevant at all....

Been to lots of Virginia gun shows. No one tried to sell me a gun,
other than dealers who wanted the fed form completed.


Well, that's two of you gun nuts, and so far no pattern, or even one
incident... What I am getting to here is CNN never said they searched
long and far for folks who would do it, but they didn't say they didn't
so we really don't know. However... Logic, and a open mind might suggest
that CNN "could" be tweaking the editing to make a liberal point,
something we do know for a fact CNN has been caught doing in the past...


You are an absolute, complete, total moron. There's been plenty written,
reported, and videotaped about "the gunshow loophole," and how people
who do not want to leave a paper trail use it to obtain firearms without
background checks.

--
Just because you are opposed to abortion doesn’t make you pro-life. Your
morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a
child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed, not a child
clothed, not a child able to see the doctor. That’s not pro-life…that’s
pro-birth.