Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/14/2014 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?



I don't think private sellers at gun shows or anywhere for that matter
are criminals by nature, looking to break any laws. They may not have
even known that the state law to check ID's existed. They are gun nuts,
not professional dealers.

However, if there were a standardized and uniform procedure for the
private sale of guns that included a background check and registration
it's only logically that the number of these "casual" transfers would
decline and the number of documented transfers would rise.

That's the idea.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/14/2014 2:05 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
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.





What if somebody beleives something between the two.... is there no
other opinions but yours, and "it's all fake"?

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

Mr. Luddite
- show quoted text -
"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 ... "


Hoo Boy!
Listening to these gun nuts shuckin' and jivin' makes me want to drop down and kiss the Canadian soil I'm lucky enough to live on.

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?



It applies to you if you decide to sell or transfer a firearm to another
person.

I am also a licensed owner with a CCW. I can sell or transfer a firearm
privately (and have) but I am still required to report the transaction
to the state. I am also required to verify the buyer has a valid
license and the buyer verifies that I was the lawful owner and licensed
to own the firearm. In this state having a valid license means a
background check has already been done and fingerprints are on file.
All the pertinent information ... buyer's and seller's name, address,
gun license numbers, type of gun and serial number are all reported at
the time of transfer. In other words ... a paper trail of ownership.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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...

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/14/2014 12:02 PM, 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.



As previously posted, the CNN crew reported that they were turned down
three times, once in each of the three states they visited.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/14/2014 2:29 PM, True North wrote:
Mr. Luddite
- show quoted text -
"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 ... "


Hoo Boy!
Listening to these gun nuts shuckin' and jivin' makes me want to drop down and kiss the Canadian soil I'm lucky enough to live on.


Careful boy. You might just be sticking your nose in rat poo being as
you live by the docks.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 13:40:42 -0500, "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.



We absolutely need more laws for those damn lawbreakers to break.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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?

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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).

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/14/14 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.



Scotty is looking for hints so he can buy himself a pocket rocket.

--
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 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".

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 14:15:10 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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 ...


Private sellers could break the law if there *was* a requirement for a
background check or registration..."

Geeezeeee Peet!

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 10:02:38 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

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?

But no specific examples, making it hypthetical.

Maybe cross referencing mental health or domestic violence incidents
with gun ownership would help drop the homicide/suicide rates?

It could mean that gun freaks with a bad temper might lose their right
to bear arms.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/14/14 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.



That's pretty close to the most naive statement you've ever made here.

You think the unlicensed individuals selling firearms walk around with
signs?

--
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 2:46 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 14:15:10 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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 ...


Private sellers could break the law if there *was* a requirement for a
background check or registration..."

Geeezeeee Peet!


But since there isn't such a law in Virginia...
--
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!!!
 

From 2013. Lol!

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-new...-show_01292013

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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?

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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.

;^)

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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?

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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...

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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...

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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 :)

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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...

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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 :)

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

"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?

Depends which continent you reside on.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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.

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.

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?


For how many years did we not have background checks, and probably less
violence than now? Maybe it is the culture now and not guns that are the
problem.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/14/14 4:38 PM, Califbill wrote:
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.

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.

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?


For how many years did we not have background checks, and probably less
violence than now? Maybe it is the culture now and not guns that are the
problem.


Entirely separate debate.

--
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 15:34:53 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/14/14 2:46 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 14:15:10 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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 ...


Private sellers could break the law if there *was* a requirement for a
background check or registration..."

Geeezeeee Peet!


But since there isn't such a law in Virginia...

So what? You're the one saying the law is broken all the time. What
would another law do? OK, it would increase the size of the AFGE.
Other than that - nothing.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 16:41:36 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/14/14 4:38 PM, Califbill wrote:
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.

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.

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?


For how many years did we not have background checks, and probably less
violence than now? Maybe it is the culture now and not guns that are the
problem.


Entirely separate debate.

Why? 'Cause it makes the arguments by you and Luddite ridiculous? Do
you think the Chicago, DC, Flint, NO, etc, shooters undergo background
checks?

It's so ridiculous it's sad, really sad.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 17:52:30 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

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.

You are right, we don't know how many people turned down the offers. If
CNN wasn't practicing yellow journalism they would have provided that
information in their report.

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.

We shouldn't have to assume. They, the media, should provide the
information without our asking.

It is like the NBC guys not telling us that the put an IED next to the
truck's gas tank to make it blow up because they were unable to make it
blow up when they crashed other vehicles into the side of the truck.

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.

Were the sales illegal? Did they do the paperwork after the sales and
neglect to report it in the video they released.

You'll find that both Luddite and Krause tend to ignore arguments they
can't refute.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

Bertram spews..
".Death from auto accident is cheaper for the insurance company than
paying for emergency care of the injured. When your head goes through
the windshield and is then popped off you die. If you head bangs into
something and the seat belt breaks some of your bones you are really
****ed up and you will require quite a huge amount of care. "


Silly me, I was thinking of the welfare of the accident victim.......not the bottom line of the insurance company.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/14/14 6:40 PM, True North wrote:
Bertram spews..
".Death from auto accident is cheaper for the insurance company than
paying for emergency care of the injured. When your head goes through
the windshield and is then popped off you die. If you head bangs into
something and the seat belt breaks some of your bones you are really
****ed up and you will require quite a huge amount of care. "


Silly me, I was thinking of the welfare of the accident victim.......not the bottom line of the insurance company.


That's because you are a human being, and not a corporate automaton.

--
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 6:06 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 17:52:30 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

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.

You are right, we don't know how many people turned down the offers. If
CNN wasn't practicing yellow journalism they would have provided that
information in their report.

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.

We shouldn't have to assume. They, the media, should provide the
information without our asking.

It is like the NBC guys not telling us that the put an IED next to the
truck's gas tank to make it blow up because they were unable to make it
blow up when they crashed other vehicles into the side of the truck.

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.

Were the sales illegal? Did they do the paperwork after the sales and
neglect to report it in the video they released.

You'll find that both Luddite and Krause tend to ignore arguments they
can't refute.



Whoosh...

--
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 6:06 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 17:52:30 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

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.

You are right, we don't know how many people turned down the offers. If
CNN wasn't practicing yellow journalism they would have provided that
information in their report.

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.

We shouldn't have to assume. They, the media, should provide the
information without our asking.

It is like the NBC guys not telling us that the put an IED next to the
truck's gas tank to make it blow up because they were unable to make it
blow up when they crashed other vehicles into the side of the truck.

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.

Were the sales illegal? Did they do the paperwork after the sales and
neglect to report it in the video they released.

You'll find that both Luddite and Krause tend to ignore arguments they
can't refute.



Refute what? None of the questions or comments have anything to do
with the issue being discussed.

This whole subject centers around the strange wording of the 2A that
historians and legal scholars have been scratching their asses for a
couple of hundred years trying to figure out what the hell Madison was
talking about. He lived in the days of Red Coats, Minute Men, muskets
and flintlocks not 30 round magazines, semi-automatic rifles and
pistols. When he drafted the wording of the 2A, the "militia" consisted
of farmers and fishermen who were expected to bring their own musket or
flintlock to the fight when needed.