Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/14/2014 9:21 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/13/2014 9:47 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 18:15:43 -0800, jps wrote:

I really don't understand how people can be so obstinate about common
sense gun control

Because common criminals don't pay much attention to common sense.
These proposals are not going to do anything but create a new
bureaucracy that doesn't really accomplish anything.


The problem Greg is that liberals always think they are the only ones
smart enough to decide what "common sense" is... and there is never any
compromise unless it's a temporary means to an end.


Have you ever stopped to think about what the words "liberal" and
"conservative" mean?

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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if they decide the constitution is obsolete.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...

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/14/2014 2:20 AM, jps wrote:


Ha, funny that you've flip flopped and now consider Iraq an abject
failure, eh?

He never said that, but troll on... I wanna' see if you catch any of 'em
with this one.... lol

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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if they decide the constitution is obsolete.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?

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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...

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/14/2014 12:22 AM, jps wrote:


Come on, try to field a real argument, please.


Now that's funny...

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Friday, November 14, 2014 2:32:05 AM UTC-5, jps wrote:

In Washington, we just passed a referendum that requires all gun
buyers to go through a background check, gun show or private sale.

It will prevent people ignoring the law when they see a few idiots
prosecuted for selling a gun illegally, either through straw purchase
or ignoring the background check.

Then we'd better pass a law against murder and prosecute a few people that do it anyway. That will prevent people from ignoring that law, right?

Do you actually think this stuff through before you write it?

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/14/2014 9:31 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/14/2014 9:21 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/13/2014 9:47 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 18:15:43 -0800, jps wrote:

I really don't understand how people can be so obstinate about common
sense gun control

Because common criminals don't pay much attention to common sense.
These proposals are not going to do anything but create a new
bureaucracy that doesn't really accomplish anything.


The problem Greg is that liberals always think they are the only ones
smart enough to decide what "common sense" is... and there is never any
compromise unless it's a temporary means to an end.


Have you ever stopped to think about what the words "liberal" and
"conservative" mean?



Not gonna' argue that with you until you figure it out...

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

My idea of common sense gun control is to hit what you're aiming at.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/14/2014 9:34 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:



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



Troll away dick... Those weren't his feelings, it was a wide brush troll...

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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. :)

--
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.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/14/14 10:35 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 23:15:26 -0800, jps wrote:

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:21:38 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:15:08 -0800, jps wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 23:33:21 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 18:47:02 -0800, jps wrote:

I think you misunderstand me. A rogue government can only do away
with the constitution if they have buy in from the military.

In that case, it doesn't matter how many guns you own. They have
bigger.

How many times has the US military lost a war to guys in sandals with
AK47s in the last half century? I think it was every ****ing time.
They always had bigger guns.

The guys in sandals are organized. You'd be cowering in your media
room like all your neighbors, their wives and kids. This is America,
Greg, not Afghanistan.

We taught them and the Viet Cong most of what they know.
The real difference is they are fighting for their own freedom and you
can't underestimate that.

I really do not believe this really means anything here because we are
not going to ever get that far and the people in the army are, as a
rule, the guns, guts and god folks who the left disdains.

If there was a revolution, it would be more of a military coup than
Washington sending the army against the hinterlands.
The people who like oppressive government regulation, generally dodge
the draft and would not even consider enlisting..

Right, and you'd organize yourselves into a fighting machine by
connecting via Twitter?

Command and control? Hierarchy? Leadership? Fantasies.

You'd be on your own with a few neighbors. It'd be sad if your wife
had to watch you succumb to your country's own military.

That reading thing is not your bag I guess.
Non responsive answer Harry



A more responsive answer might require taking you gunnutzies seriously.



--
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.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

Bertram spews....
"Seat belts just moved dead bodies from the morgue to barely living
bodies in the intensive care units. The cost to everyone has gone up
since the seat belt laws came into effect. "

You're quite a piece of work, Bertie.
If that's the case maybe crash victims who would have gone to intensive care without seatbelts now get to resume normal life after a short hospital stay.
That is...In all categories seat belts lessen the severity of injuries.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 08:26:46 -0500, Harrold wrote:

On 11/14/2014 6:50 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
It really doesn't matter. Regardless of what you think, the CNN
documentary underscored an important issue, that being how easily a
Bushmaster semi-automatic, two Glock 17's and a S&W .45 could be
purchased over a weekend with absolutely no traceability of the
transaction and no record of custody of where those guns may ultimately
end up.

If those guns could be tied to crimes, guess who would have to answer to
those crimes? Laws or no laws, it behooves one to establish a chain of
custody for his own protection.

A chain of custody can easily be established with transfer documents
that require no increase in the federal bureaucracy.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

jps wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:22:33 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:24:55 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:16:36 -0800, jps wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:47:01 -0500, wrote:

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

I really don't understand how people can be so obstinate about common
sense gun control

Because common criminals don't pay much attention to common sense.
These proposals are not going to do anything but create a new
bureaucracy that doesn't really accomplish anything.

Yes, just like seat belts and all those bureaucrats who manage OSHA
and Product Safety agencies. Bloody waste of money and effort, eh?

Bad examples. Certainly we have a seat belt law and thousands of pages
of OSHA regulations but both are universally ignored.
Making the rules tighter and increasing the PPE required, does not
help much for the people who refuse to wear it.

Bullcrap. Seatbelts are universally accepted and between those and
other legislation, have reduced vehicular deaths in accident by 1/3.

Imagine reducing annual death by gun by 1/3. Is that folly?

How about when you have two government agencies with regulations
diametrically opposed? When both will sue you for non compliance.

Is this hyperbole, hypothetical or do you have an actual example?

Actual. Lots of cases. Like the EPA saying the farmer can not disk his
fends line because it is a wetland, and if he does, they will fine him a
$100k, while the fire dept says they will fine him if he does not disk.
Lots of contrary regulations. Some even from the same entity. And while
you reduce gun deaths by 1/3, where does that 1/3 come from? Armed
criminals, who ignore the law anyway. Or suicide, who just use a different
method?

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/14/14 10:59 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 23:31:59 -0800, jps wrote:

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:31:38 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:22:50 -0800, jps wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:43:46 -0500, 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.

You didn't notice that his argument was based on a CNN show that
demonstrated that if you tried, you could find someone to break the
law. Would 2 laws have stopped them? Three?

If someone wants to break the law, there's little stopping them.
Please cite one law on the books that prevents a determined person
from breaking it.

Holy crap. Where do you come up with these empty arguments?

NRA pamphlet?

Laws are meant to let people know where the line is. If they cross
it, they're liable to be prosecuted and put in jail or fined silly.
How would prosecuting someone for lying on a background check or
failing to sell a gun through a proper process be any different than
any other law?

Come on, try to field a real argument, please.

I am simply saying, the justification Richard was trying to make was
the "gun show loophole" but the loophole did not exist in the cases he
was citing. Every gun they bought was already illegal under both state
and federal law. Then they broke another federal law when they crossed
state lines with them.
Does anyone believe one more law would stop them?

It is like showing someone buying crack on the street and saying we
need another drug law.

In Washington, we just passed a referendum that requires all gun
buyers to go through a background check, gun show or private sale.

It will prevent people ignoring the law when they see a few idiots
prosecuted for selling a gun illegally, either through straw purchase
or ignoring the background check.

Laws and education can incrementally stem the flow, little by little.
Same as we've cut into the death rate from auto accidents. It's a
fair comparison.

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.



Perfectly legal in "gun show loophole states" like Virginia for
individuals to sell their regulated firearms to someone without
an instant check.

--
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.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 23:20:12 -0800, jps wrote:

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:27:32 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:18:06 -0800, 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?

Declare war against ISIS?
How will you know when you won?
We "won" in Iraq and we hanged the bad guy. How did that work out for
you?

Ha, funny that you've flip flopped and now consider Iraq an abject
failure, eh?

We broke it, we bought it. ISIS is an organized army without a
country's flag. Doesn't mean that we cannot target them and demolish
their capabilities.

Amazing that you can sitch sides as if it were your idea all along.

ISIS is simply a bunch of unruly thugs.

Don't you subscribe to Boating All Out?

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 08:59:36 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
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.




Criticizing a solution means you acknowledge a problem.
What's your solution?



http://www.beararms.com/PDF/FTUP.pdf

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/14/14 11:05 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 06:40:07 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/14/14 1:31 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:22:50 -0800, jps wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:43:46 -0500, 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.

You didn't notice that his argument was based on a CNN show that
demonstrated that if you tried, you could find someone to break the
law. Would 2 laws have stopped them? Three?

If someone wants to break the law, there's little stopping them.
Please cite one law on the books that prevents a determined person
from breaking it.

Holy crap. Where do you come up with these empty arguments?

NRA pamphlet?

Laws are meant to let people know where the line is. If they cross
it, they're liable to be prosecuted and put in jail or fined silly.
How would prosecuting someone for lying on a background check or
failing to sell a gun through a proper process be any different than
any other law?

Come on, try to field a real argument, please.

I am simply saying, the justification Richard was trying to make was
the "gun show loophole" but the loophole did not exist in the cases he
was citing. Every gun they bought was already illegal under both state
and federal law. Then they broke another federal law when they crossed
state lines with them.
Does anyone believe one more law would stop them?

It is like showing someone buying crack on the street and saying we
need another drug law.


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.

You keep talking about Virginia but you can't legally buy a gun in
Virginia and that was the law the CNN crew continuously tried to break
and after looking for 2 days in 4 states, they finally found 3 people
willing to break it.

I have not been to a gun show in over a decade that did not have a
free background check booth.

You're just so hung up on your never-ending silliness about the way you
argue, you can't see the forest for the trees.

Yeah those facts keep getting in the way


But, no worries. After all, your position on just about everything is
that "nothing can be done about anything, so why have laws, rules,
codes?" Right?

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.

--
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.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/14/2014 10:59 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 23:31:59 -0800, jps wrote:

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:31:38 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:22:50 -0800, jps wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:43:46 -0500, 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.

You didn't notice that his argument was based on a CNN show that
demonstrated that if you tried, you could find someone to break the
law. Would 2 laws have stopped them? Three?

If someone wants to break the law, there's little stopping them.
Please cite one law on the books that prevents a determined person
from breaking it.

Holy crap. Where do you come up with these empty arguments?

NRA pamphlet?

Laws are meant to let people know where the line is. If they cross
it, they're liable to be prosecuted and put in jail or fined silly.
How would prosecuting someone for lying on a background check or
failing to sell a gun through a proper process be any different than
any other law?

Come on, try to field a real argument, please.

I am simply saying, the justification Richard was trying to make was
the "gun show loophole" but the loophole did not exist in the cases he
was citing. Every gun they bought was already illegal under both state
and federal law. Then they broke another federal law when they crossed
state lines with them.
Does anyone believe one more law would stop them?

It is like showing someone buying crack on the street and saying we
need another drug law.

In Washington, we just passed a referendum that requires all gun
buyers to go through a background check, gun show or private sale.

It will prevent people ignoring the law when they see a few idiots
prosecuted for selling a gun illegally, either through straw purchase
or ignoring the background check.

Laws and education can incrementally stem the flow, little by little.
Same as we've cut into the death rate from auto accidents. It's a
fair comparison.

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.

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.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/14/2014 11:11 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 09:31:27 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Have you ever stopped to think about what the words "liberal" and
"conservative" mean?

In most contexts, the terms mean nothing like the dictionary
definition.
"liberals" can be some of the most rigid and prejudiced people on the
planet if it involves something they disagree about.



Yup. The words are not a descriptor of a political party.

There are conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans.

Weird, huh?

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Friday, November 14, 2014 11:11:51 AM UTC-5, F*O*A*D wrote:

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.

Thanks for proving that more laws won't work, and that we need to enforce the ones we have.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/14/2014 11:30 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/14/2014 11:11 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 09:31:27 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Have you ever stopped to think about what the words "liberal" and
"conservative" mean?

In most contexts, the terms mean nothing like the dictionary
definition.
"liberals" can be some of the most rigid and prejudiced people on the
planet if it involves something they disagree about.



Yup. The words are not a descriptor of a political party.

There are conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans.

Weird, huh?



Let me be clear here. When I say Liberals I mean the far left/mainstream
nancy pelosi democrats... you can define it any way you like for your
own purposes of course.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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?

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/14/14 11:41 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:03:09 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/14/14 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.



Perfectly legal in "gun show loophole states" like Virginia for
individuals to sell their regulated firearms to someone without
an instant check.

I ask again, why did CNN go to Tennessee, North Carolina and South
Carolina then? Were they saying there are no gun shows in Georgia or
are they not saying that those sellers wanted them to walk over to the
instant check booth first?

That is the problem with TV, you only see what the producer wants you
to see.


I don't know why they went there, and neither do you. The point is that
you can buy firearms at gunshows without a background check. Period. You
should not be able to buy or sell or gift a firearm without paperwork
recording the giver, seller and buyer.

--
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.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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.



--
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.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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?

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/14/14 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?


You don't seem able to comprehend the "gun show loophole." It's not just
a loophole for gunshows, either. When I sold my SIG to a Virginia buyer
in Virginia, I called the VSP to find out what I needed to do to make
the transaction kosher. "Individual to individual, we don't care" was
the response. I went through an FFL.

--
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.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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!

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Friday, November 14, 2014 12:19:50 PM UTC-5, 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?

Murder has been *banned*, has it not?

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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...

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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....

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/14/2014 11:41 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:03:09 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/14/14 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.



Perfectly legal in "gun show loophole states" like Virginia for
individuals to sell their regulated firearms to someone without
an instant check.

I ask again, why did CNN go to Tennessee, North Carolina and South
Carolina then? Were they saying there are no gun shows in Georgia or
are they not saying that those sellers wanted them to walk over to the
instant check booth first?

That is the problem with TV, you only see what the producer wants you
to see.


Maybe they decided to pick three nearby states within reasonable driving
distance and see how each compared in terms of easy of buying.

I just watched it again to get their story as accurate as I can.
They actually went to shows in Georgia, Tennessee and South Carolina.
(They did not visit North Carolina)

They purchased twice in Tennessee and once in South Carolina for a total
of four (4) guns. One Tennessee purchase was for two (2) Glocks.

They also reported that they were asked for ID's three times, once in
each of the states visited.

If you actually watch and listen to the recorded conversations, it's
hard to conceive that this whole thing was scripted.

That is, of course, unless you think everyone they talked to are actors,
hired to play a part. If you believe that, more power to you.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Friday, November 14, 2014 1:45:22 PM UTC-5, 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.

And the fact that they really don't care who owned it three people ago. The perp that did the crime with it right now is the criminal, and that's what rightly holds their interest.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/14/2014 12:17 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:44:20 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/14/14 11:41 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:03:09 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/14/14 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.



Perfectly legal in "gun show loophole states" like Virginia for
individuals to sell their regulated firearms to someone without
an instant check.

I ask again, why did CNN go to Tennessee, North Carolina and South
Carolina then? Were they saying there are no gun shows in Georgia or
are they not saying that those sellers wanted them to walk over to the
instant check booth first?

That is the problem with TV, you only see what the producer wants you
to see.


I don't know why they went there, and neither do you. The point is that
you can buy firearms at gunshows without a background check. Period. You
should not be able to buy or sell or gift a firearm without paperwork
recording the giver, seller and buyer.

If the seller is willing to break the law, what difference does it
make?
In this case the buyers and the sellers were breaking a federal law.

It would have been far more convincing if they just stayed in Georgia
and the fact that they didn't makes it sound like maybe they were
being asked more questions than they wanted for their show.

After all it is just a TV show and not a whole lot different than the
Kardashians or Honey Boo Boo. They shoot hours of tape to get a 12
minute segment.



Private sellers can break the law with virtual immunity *because there
is no requirement for a background check or registration of the
purchased firearm*. Geeze ...