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?