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?

--
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.

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.

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.

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.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 15:38:18 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

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.

===

Oh no, that could not be. You're talking about the culture of the
Democratic party and we all know where that discussion leads.

wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 15:38:18 -0600, Califbill
wrote:



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.

Actually, in spite of all the hype from the left, these are the safest
times we have ever had in this country in reference to violence,
particularly gun violence. It is just that when it happens, that is
the only thing on the news for a month ... at least when it is white
people being shot or when a white person shoots a black person.
The bulk of murders are black people shooting other black people and
that is not news.
http://tinyurl.com/pvusl5x

I think we have more gun violence than in my youth. And I lay the blame on
the War on Drugs. Just like Prohibition spawned Al Capone and those type
gangs, the WOD. Has spawned new gangs. Overall we are probably safer, but
there are concentrated areas where violence is an epidemic. Comes with
drugs, not many jobs for the unskilled, and the lure of big money without
any education. But due to political correctness that can not be put
forward.

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.

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?

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?

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.