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.

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"?

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?