If you're in favor of ending the "Gun Show Loophole" . . . .

[defendandprotect]

http://www.closetheloophole.org/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=cmpadlanding&htmlKey=adpage1&show=loophole&s=loophole&source=775-om-ba-10k

[naaman fletcher]

1. What loophole?

The law has said for a long time that firearms dealers have to abide by certain requirements. The law has said for a long time that private citizens can sell guns to each other.

These laws apply at gunshows.

What is the "loophole"?

[WeDidIt]

3. I believe a background check should be perforned regardless

Too many felons buy guns from gun shows.

[naaman fletcher]

4. Maybe...

But that doesn't make law standing law a "loophole".

[WeDidIt]

12. It is a loophole

It allows those who would otherwise be prohibited from legally obtaining guns to buy them at a gun show.

[X_Digger]

14. There's nothing 'gun show' specific about it, though.

And only 1.9% of guns used in crime are purchased from gun shows. (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf)

[WeDidIt]

16. Agreed, it is individual to individual purchases

So I think all transactions should have to be facilitated by a licensed dealer and require a background check. Any transaction that failed to meet these requirements should be considered illegal arms dealing and be punishable as a felony.

Loophole gone.

[X_Digger]

17. There's another thread right here in the gungeon talking about how to open NICS to individuals..

Personally, I'd be okay with a 1-800# and an automated system.

There wasn't a "gun store" in the county I grew up in, but we had plenty of guns. I can't get behind any system that requires one to find an FFL. I'd rather make it self-serve.

Others dislike that idea on the premise that it might end up as a de facto registry of gun owners.

[Travis Coates]

36. And you think criminals (who buy their guns illegally now)

Would obey this why?

[Unrepentant Fenian]

62. It would stop them from buying guns at gun shows if the sellers got busted

[naaman fletcher]

19. That is simply not true. nt

[SteveM]

27. No, it does not allow what you say...

Anyone prohibited by law from obtaining a gun can purchase one from ANY individual who is not a FFL licensee.

That could be you.

That could be me.

If either of us had knowledge that the purchaser was prohibited from buying a firearm, we would be in violation of the law.

Gun shows don't sell guns. They are rent-a-halls for those who do sell guns; some FFL licensees; some individuals like you or me. Fact is, individuals CANNOT access the NICS test. It is not allowed even if you wanted to access the system.

BTW, I cannot think of a better tax-free "sting" operation than a gun show. Some criminals try to purchase guns from shows (thinking along your lines), even when cops permeate the place, including the parking lot, with computers, photos, etc. Close the show, or somehow contrive a NICS test requirement of all individuals, then the show goes away -- and the car trunks open, the dark vacant lots become populated, the kitchen table becomes the counter. And there is little or no chance of catching crims.

If you want to require ALL people to use NICS, make a proposal. Most pro-2A folks like the idea in theory, and only argue about how it would be implemented to prevent registration-by-subterfuge. Many discussions on this topic have been carried out in this forum, but be forewarned that most gun-controllers/prohibitionists are NOT interested: they want the whole ball of wax.

[Euromutt]

26. Define "too many," then provide evidence for your assertion

Too many felons buy guns from gun shows.

What's "too many"? In a democratic society, governed by the rule of law, as the United States supposedly is, we have to make a cost/benefit analysis between the benefits of restricting freedom in some way against the costs in freedom. To cite an obvious example, we could undoubtedly convict more criminals if we did away with those cumbersome restrictions against warrantless searches and seizures, and against coercing criminal suspects/defendants to testify against themselves. But we reckon that lifting such restrictions would create the possibility for unwarranted intrusions into personal freedoms (and we need look no further than the so-called Wars on Drugs and Terrorism to see this process in action). "Too many" people die in motor vehicle accidents (more than die from gunshot wounds), and yet this is a cost we are willing to accept in exchange for the freedom of individual mobility that private motor vehicles give us.

So to assess the cost of the so-called "gun show loophole," we have to assess the benefit, in preventing criminals from illegally acquiring firearms, against the cost, in restricting the right of private individuals to sell their own property without the government imposing unnecessary hindrances to the transaction).

The fact is that we have no clue how many firearms enter the criminal circuit via private sales at gun shows. The most recent available information indicates that fewer than 2% of prison inmates convicted for violent crime involving firearms acquired the firearm in question from an otherwise legal private seller (other than a friend or family). It would be naive to assume that there isn't some amount of purchasing at gun shows by traffickers, or more likely, their straw purchaser agents; not criminal end users, but those who supply the end users. assuming, however, that these traffickers do use straw purchasers as agents (and it's hard to imagine they'd be stupid enough not to, and if they were, they won't be in business for long), they could just as well be buying from FFLs. Buying from private sellers might extend the useful working life of a straw purchaser to some extent, but there's no way to state with any degree of certainty that requiring all sales at gun shows (or all sales of firearms) to go through FFLs would reduce the number of firearms thus acquired, let alone to zero.

The long and short of it is that we don't know how many felons acquire firearms via gun shows that they couldn't acquire via other means. We certainly don't know how many do who wouldn't otherwise, which means that statements like "too many" are meaningless.

[oneshooter]

38. With a Texas CHL no NCIS call is needed. n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

68. And newspaper classified ads, and family members, and flea markets, and garage sales and estate sale

s and and and and.

The mode is private transactions. It does not matter where it occurs. At a 'gun show' or a garage sale. The 'loophole' is private transactions.

[TheWraith]

72. Actually the FBI says only 1% of felons buy guns from a gun show.

Most get them from a family member or a street sale.

[Euromutt]

73. Directly, yes. But there may be more links in the supply chain

According to Firearm Use by Offenders (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf), fewer than 2% of offenders reported acquiring a firearm directly from a gun show or flea market. However, that does leave open the possibility that some weapon acquired by offenders from black market sources were originally acquired by those black marketeers at gun shows (probably using straw purchasers). In other words, there may be more guns that make their way into the criminal circuit via gun shows than those purchased directly by the "end users."

Of course, if the traffickers are using straw purchasers at gun shows (and they'd be fools not to), this would obviate any advantage of "closing the gun shows loophole," since the whole point of a straw purchaser is that (s)he can pass a NICS check...

[rgbecker]

5. I think the gun shows provide a "store" of "marketplace" for the sale

of guns by "Private parties" who don't have to do a background check on the purchasers. This "Loophole" allows or makes it easy for criminals, mentally ill and others who many think should not be able to, to get these tools of death and destruction.

:popcorn:

[X_Digger]

10. 1.9% of guns used in crome came from such sources. (see link)

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

[Euromutt]

24. It's not "don't have to do"; it's "can't do"

The NICS system isn't open to non-FFLs. Even if a private seller wanted to run a background check on a prospective buyer, he wouldn't be able to.

Curiously, nobody who rails against the so-called "gun show loophole" seem to be willing to entertain any alternative proposal to requiring private sales to go through an FFL (with all attendant hassle and expense). Why, it's almost as if the real objective is not so much to close the "loophole" as to out law private party sales! Say, wait a minute...

[SteveM]

28. So how many "gun-convicts" get their guns from gun shows?

[AtheistCrusader]

69. A 'store' full of off and on duty, and retired law enforcement officials.

Have you been to a gun show?

[aikoaiko]

2. As it turns out, even if every gun show sale required a NICS check, Robyn Anderson was 18

and could have passed the NICS check and bought the two shotguns and carbine from a FFL.

The problem was she gave them to minors without their parents knowledge or supervision. She should have gone to jail for that.


Robin Anderson was the person who bought some of the firearms Eric David Harris and Dylan Bennet Klebold used in the Columbine school shooting.

[jody]

6. Your OP is vague unless you state all gun sales at gun shows must pass a NICS check & a loophole

does not exist.

[aikoaiko]

7. I think a better solution is to open up NICS to calls from private sellers.

There are lots of variations of how this could be done.

It could be simple and the seller could call like an FFL does.

Someone in the Guns forum suggested a number on the back of state issued id could be used to verify with NICS.

NICS checks only reveal go or no go (or inconclusive). It doesn't reveal why a person is prohibited.

[jody]

9. Would an ID card complete with DNA sample, fingerprint, retina scan etc. help? n/t

[aikoaiko]

11. I'm not following you, Jody?

:shrug:

[X_Digger]

8. I see Bloomie's at it again

Never mind that the fed doesn't have the power to regulate intra-state commerce.

Never mind that Robyn Anderson and Mark Manes were both legal purchasers, and Manes didn't fall afoul of the law until he gave the handgun to the pair.

Nothing that Bloomie's stumping for would have made the purchases that supplied the guns to Klebold and Harris illegal in and of themselves. Straw purchases are already illegal. Nobody involved in this tragedy made a purchase that would have been stopped with Bloomie's pet law on the books.

Which makes you wonder- what's Bloomie's real motivation? It's not crime control-

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

Gun shows and the like account for 1.9% of the guns used by criminals.

[spin]

13. It's actually a private sales loophole ...

why do those who oppose RKBA always have to hide their schemes in terms that mislead?

Actually if they just came out and called it a private sales problem and suggested ways for all firearm sales to go through a background check, they might get more support.

[jazzhound]

22. Excellent point here. In the mailer I received from the Brady Bunch

the "gun show loophole" figured prominently on the front cover with the message "50% of all vendors at gun shows aren't licensed to sell firearms."

Well of course that's true because 50% of vendors at gun shows aren't even selling firearms. They're selling firearm ACCESSORIES. So the Brady Bunch can get away with intentionally misleading statements because their minions don't know any better, and will simply pass along the bogus "data" to other gullible consumers. Case in point ----- our original post.

[spin]

31. Almost everything the Brady Campaign publishes is misleading ...

which is sad as I feel pro-RKBA groups might work with them to come up with a way to solve their bullshit "gun show loophole" with a workable system for implementing an NICS check for private sales. Perhaps something as simple a method of marking a drivers license or as complicated as having the background check run through a dealer (for a reasonable fee of say $!0 to $20).

I suspect they have little or no interest in actually improving the current system, but would rather use fear tactics to generate donations for more of their propaganda.

[old mark]

33. The "Brady" group was organized and is led by republicans who

then blame anti-gun fever on Democrats.

They are interested in money only.

m

[xchrom]

15. Recommend

[jazzhound]

21. Cool! You're recommending a thread where the pro-control agenda

is destroyed by facts!

Gotta get behind that!!! :toast:

[SteveM]

29. I agree. Another controller/prohibition argument splintered. nt

[Travis_0004]

18. Whatever hapened to the commerce clause?

Congress has the power to say a two people of different states can not sell guns to each other. I'm fine with this law.

Congress shouldn't have the power (according to the US constitution) to regulate what happens solely within one state among private citizens.

If an individual state wants to ban private sales between people, I'm fine with them trying that, but I don't think the federal government should step in on this issue.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. If they try, that will be one of the challenges. A better way would be to allow instant check for

private purchases.

[rrneck]

20. If two private citizens

meet at a gun show and then leave said gun show, cross the street, and one sells a gun to another, would that be a Gun Show Loophole Loophole?

And what if the buyer suddenly realizes he's short on cash, and both buyer and seller proceed to a nearby ATM, would that be a Gun Show Loophole Loophole Loophole?

[pipoman]

23. Can only be done state by state, at the state level, can't be done federally,

so those who are most concerned should begin in their own state.

[SteveM]

30. OH, wait, "mayor against guns..." Isn't that a Bloomie? A Republican? nt

[S_B_Jackson]

53. Not really.....

Bloomberg was a life-long Democrat who, to avoid a bruising primary fight in 2001, switched his registration to "Rethuglican" as they were not running a candidate at all that year and Mikey was able to run unopposed. He continued this sham affiliation through the 2005 re-election and officially abandoned them in 2007 to run as an "independent".

Bloomberg is a cynical opportunist making it up as he goes along.

[old mark]

32. This is just bullshit - residents of many states have the right to sell

guns privately without going through licensed dealers, and some people sell them at flea markets, garage sales, through newspaper ads, etc. Here in PA, such sales are restricted to long guns - rifles and shotguns, while all handgun sales must go through a dealer and the transaction registered. Some states do allow in-state sales of hanguns privately.
The FBI report on guns used in crime has NEVER showed any such private transactions to account for more than between 1 and 2% of all guns used in crime. Most such guns are either stolen and re-sold illegally, in which case they are already illegal, or obtained by having someone buy the gun legally with the intent to re-sell it to another person, which is also illegal. Both these instances are felonies and will get you several years in a state prison.
The so-called "loophole" is anti gun bullshit, and always has been.

m

[One_Life_To_Give]

34. RRequiring background checks in the building but not the parking lot

Requiring background checks in the building but not the parking lot isn't going to have the desired affect. Seems more like Placebo Gun Control than anything which might actually help keep firearms out of certain hands, deemed illegal to posses such.

How difficult is it to set-up the show booth for private sale and hand out cards if people want to purchase at a later date. Like 15 minutes later out in the parking lot when the background check is no longer required.

[defendandprotect]

35. k

[jazzhound]

37. Great idea! Kick up a thread where the OP is destroyed and which features

no cogent input from the "control" crowd! I like it! :toast:

[defendandprotect]

39. "Destroyed" . . . ? It's from an ad on the HOME page . . . !!

I was wondering how many here might have voted for it --

but, obviously, gun posts outside of the "gun" dungeon is a danger to free thought!!

[jazzhound]

40. So the fact that it's on the home page somehow validates it?

Laughable.

And yes --- the argument was effectively destroyed by virtue of all of the information posted by the gun rights folks here, and the complete absence of any counters from pro-controllers -- including yourself.

[defendandprotect]

42. DU'ers have an opportunity to vote -- does that bother you?

Gun control will never be "laughable" -- if it were the NRA gun lobby here wouldn't

be so concerned about a post like this --

nor would it have been moved to gun lobby dungeon!

Keep laughing -- power does change hands.

[jazzhound]

43. Hard to know where to start in response, but I'll give it a shot.

!) I don't have any problem with people being given a chance to vote. But as long as we're on the subject, everytime the "control" team mobilizes an e-mail campaign (letter campaign, whatever) to legislators, those legislators receive roughly five times as many e-mails from the gun-rights side. So knock yourself out.

2) I didn't mean to suggest that the idea of gun "control" was laughable, but rather that simply posting a link to a voting booth regarding a "gun show loophole" sans any supporting argument was laughable. You still haven't responded to the observation that none of the usual "control" supporting suspects (including yourself) has even commented on this thread. Not surprising, given the general lack of knowledge the "control" team has on specific issues such as gun show sales. You really must have a very low opinion of your fellow Democrats to think that none of them will notice the fact that the members of the "control" side of the debate didn't even show up for this debate! Sure ---- closed-minded knee jerks who've already made up their minds without doing any research will just pull your lever, but I'm sure that there are some who will scratch their heads and ask themselves why pro-"control" advocates (including yourself) are apparently not able to respond to any of the knowledgeable posts from the gun-rights side in this discussion.

3) "Keep laughing -- power does change hands." Thanks for stating the obvious. Here's something equally obvious -- those in power tend to enjoy staying in power. Which is why Dem pols have been RUNNING from the gun "control" issue. You're entitled to believe that this will someday change, but I wouldn't bet the ranch on it.

[defendandprotect]

44. Good -- because what I was doing was pointing out that they had an opportunity to vote....

That's re #1 --

AND, certainly the GOP/NRA -- as most other GOP projects are well funded by the right --
and obsessive, as we see from the GOP/"pro-life" and GOP/T-bagging efforts --
Terri Shaivo, Bush vs Gore, GOP sponsored fascist rally outside Miami-Dade Election HQs
to stop the vote counting -- on and on -- Kerry Swiftboating. And, I'd suggest a few
assassinations.

And this decades long, heavily financed campaign to create a violent America.

Re letters, e-mails, you might also recall that Nixon in trying to fight off anti-war
movement arranged for faked telegrams and letters - by the 10's of thousands -- to be sent
to the White House in favor of the war -- and of course telephone calls. Many Repugs and
right wingers are happy to comply with these requests, especially when they're paid to do it!

#2 --

Again, I was reminding DU'ers of the opportunity to vote. Most Americans quite well understand the issue as basic common sense and are familiar with the debate -- and the counter-GOP/NRA arguments.
Further, the info with the poll quite well explains the concerns.

And I'm going to just let this stand . . . .

You still haven't responded to the observation that none of the usual "control" supporting suspects (including yourself) has even commented on this thread. Not surprising, given the general lack of knowledge the "control" team has on specific issues such as gun show sales. You really must have a very low opinion of your fellow Democrats to think that none of them will notice the fact that the members of the "control" side of the debate didn't even show up for this debate!

as an apt example of GOP/NRA propaganda and how effectively it works on members.

Again, most of us are familiar with the issues.

And, again, this thread was posted in "General Discussion" but was quickly wisked away to the
Gun Dungeon. However, when gun issues are discussed in "General" they certainly have a more
positive anti-gun response from DU'ers. As I'm sure you're aware.


Sure ---- closed-minded knee jerks who've already made up their minds without doing any research will just pull your lever, but I'm sure that there are some who will scratch their heads and ask themselves why pro-"control" advocates (including yourself) are apparently not able to respond to any of the knowledgeable posts from the gun-rights side in this discussion.

Again, anyone who bothered to follow this thread to the Gun Dungeon would recognize that it was a
biased situation and not bother posting.



#3 --

It might one day occur to you that the GOP/NRA/Militia are on the right and are opposed to most
of the progressive agenda which Democrats allegedly support -- single payer health care,
overturning trade agreements, reregulation of capitalism, overturning corporate "personhood" --
human rights, which include Roe vs Wade and DADT -- and many of the issues still effecting the
freedom of African Americans, i.e., affirmative action, Voting Rights Act --

Of course, as has been reported for decades, it is the violent armed rightwing/militias who have
been working to shut down women's clinics -- with violent activity.
GOP/"Pro-life" movement -- like the rest of the right wing movements -- can only succeed thru
violence. That's why we have "pro-life" murderers.

And, again, corporate money is right wing money and it puts it to work buying your elected officials -- moving them to support an agenda which is opposed to the ideals of democracy --
opposed to labor and unions, opposed to minimum wage increases, opposed to equal pay for women, opposed to single payer health care for all -- on and on. Name any legislation you want
Democrats to pass and these corporations are against it and putting up money/bribes to STOP it.

And, yes the GOP/NRA has been able to infiltrate the Democratic party --
The DLC is pro-corporate -- and steadily increasing corporate money in the party -- and
pro-corporate candidates. Is that what you want?

So too has the GOP/"pro-life" movement infiltrated the Democratic party --
though the party platform supports Roe vs Wade.

It's not unusual, therefore, that there is also GOP/NRA infiltration of the party --
but it did take them decades of targeting elected Democrats with right wing money in order
to accomplish it. And they will continue to use their fortunes to combat any Democratic
Party progress on any Democratic issue.



This is just as an aside, but when William Buckley died a few CIA memoranda came bouncing
out -- which made clear that the CIA had been funding right wing members of Congress with
right wing money for decades. And, let's be clear, the CIA will take right wing money
from any source -- from neo-Nazis to the KKK. Some of the members they kept in place were
Sen. Strom Thurmond and Rep. Jerry Ford -- there were many more -- Sen. Jesse Helms has
also been mentioned. And, certainly money was given to Pat Buchanan over a long period of
time. And there is no way to be sure that they ever stopped doing this.

So -- pick your heroes and pick sides -- I'm with Democrats and the ideals of democracy.
Progressive and liberal agenda. And that's pro-gun control.

[jazzhound]

47. "So -- pick your heroes and pick sides --

I'm with Democrats and the ideals of democracy."

So am I. Which is why I oppose irresponsible "control" policies which are both immoral (in terms of tying the hands of crime victims) and extremely politically damaging. Your smug "Dem-loyal superiority" noted.

"It might one day occur to you that the GOP/NRA/Militia are on the right and are opposed to most of the progressive agenda which Democrats allegedly support -- single payer health care, overturning trade agreements, reregulation of capitalism, overturning corporate "personhood" -- human rights, which include Roe vs Wade and DADT -- and many of the issues still effecting the freedom of African Americans, i.e., affirmative action, Voting Rights Act --"

Gee........thanks for the lecture! Wouldn't have been aware of any of this! :eyes:

Re. #2 "And I'm just going to let this stand........as an apt example of GOP/NRA propaganda and how effectively it works on members."

Nah..........you're going to let it stand because *you don't even comprehend* what's being said here and as a consequence can offer no rebuttal. Which is no crime in itself, but you lack the intellectual fairness to investigate the claims. Totally transparent cop-out.

[defendandprotect]

56. Does the GOP/NRA use members' money to target Democrats?

[PavePusher]

60. Only when those Democrats oppose Second Amendment Rights.

But you knew that.

P.S. I'm reading your question only as applied to the NRA. The GOP opposition to Democrats is a given. But feel free to continue being your disingenuous conflations.

[defendandprotect]

74. So GOP/NRA attacks Democrats who support 2nd with members' money . . ..

Therefore, anyone who contributes to the NRA contributes to attacks on Democrats . . .

who are replaced by GOP members.

And you have no problem with that?

[defendandprotect]

45. And where you could have started was with hitting the link . . .

and reading the information --

Which is what most DU'ers would do had they been able to see the thread.

[pipoman]

46. The problem with that is

it has the same effect as a post linked by me to a NRA shill site for a poll. Mayors have ruined their own credibility with their repeated failure arguments laced with lies and half truths.

How would you react to being directed to an NRA poll?

[defendandprotect]

49. Not the poll . . . the supporting info which has been suggested wasn't there ...

Like the info or not -- it was there --

[pipoman]

51. No, the mayors are lying again.

They know that congress has no power to regulate intrastate private sales of any legal item or substance. This whole private sale issue can't be fixed at the federal level without a Constitutional amendment and these mayors know that. No, this issue must first be handled at the state level. Now the feds could choose to make it easy and cheap for states, but that isn't happening yet.

[defendandprotect]

52. Again, the post was intended to reply to those who suggested there was no

back up info -- it did.

And, however the LOOPHOLE is handled it has to be closed --

[pipoman]

54. Simply saying that it has to be closed has been going on since 1993

The Mayors, nor anyone else in the gun control camp has stated a solution. Call your congressman or senator isn't an answer because, again, this issue can not be solved at the federal level....if it could it would be already, it can't. Now what?

My answer has been to make NICS available to the public on a voluntary basis as a first step. Make NICS easily accessible from a price standpoint and a logistics standpoint, once in place, then the framework would be in place to encourage states to require NICS checks on all transfers. As it is now, the states would almost have to set up their own NICS like system to do the checks. This isn't going to happen in states which are already suffering financially.

If we do what the mayors are suggesting, look for another 20 years of stupidity like this shill site and no answers.

[defendandprotect]

55. Petition: "Background checks for ALL SALES at Gun Shows "--

Republican poll shows 65% of gun owners support closing the loophole --


Meanwhile -- sign the petition and let's have Congress come back to us and tell us what

you're saying --

but as more Americans understand this "loophole" -- more will want it closed.






The Gun Show Loophole is a serious gap in our nation’s gun laws, which allows individuals to buy guns without passing a background check. Over the years, this loophole has resulted in countless tragic shootings -- including the one at Columbine High School and the recent shooting of Pentagon police officers.

As concerned citizens, we stand with over 500 mayors from all across America in asking Congress to step up and close the Gun Show Loophole.

It is critical that criminal background checks are conducted on all purchasers at gun shows -- including people who buy from private sellers.

As we commemorate the tragedies at Columbine and Virginia Tech, we are reminded that legislative action is long overdue.

More and more innocent victims of gun violence are hurt or killed every day. It’s time for Congress to take action and close the Gun Show Loophole.

[pipoman]

57. And as I have already said

If, after all the study this group of politicos don't understand that the Federal Government has absolutely NO jurisdiction over intrastate person to person sales of legal property, they are idiots. This is the one and only reason that this issue hasn't been taken care of at the federal level. It isn't for lack of will by even a good share of republicants in Washington. It would be law if the little issue of the sovereignty of states didn't exist. Apparently, there isn't the will among the majority of states to pass a statute requiring some sort of checks on private sales. A good start would be to make NICS voluntarily accessible to private sellers but nobody wants to really solve the problem, they have other agendas.

See the dishonesty and hoodwink intent is apparent when even after over 15 years of pissing and moaning by this and other bradyite groups and still no honesty even about the issue they are so passionate about. They still maintain "It is critical that criminal background checks are conducted on all purchasers at gun shows -- including people who buy from private sellers." Again, either these people are idiots, or they believe people are too dumb to understand the private sale exemption and disassociate the exemption from gun shows, which again is just bizarre considering the relative few crime guns which come from gun shows.

[defendandprotect]

58. Sign the Petition and let's have Congress tell us what you're saying ....

and suggest what options we have --

[pipoman]

59. They already have told us,

and everyone knows the options but, as I said, they really have no desire to do anything to reduce the issue.

And, no, I am not doing shit on the band of liar's ridiculous web site.

[defendandprotect]

63. Why not post that response so we can all read it --

Unfortunately, I think we need the direct word from Congress in order to fully

understand what you're saying --

[pipoman]

65. Exactly what is it you don't understand?

It really couldn't be clearer.

The Act initially required purchasers to wait five days for a background check to occur before purchasing a handgun from a federal firearms licensee, a dealer who is licensed to sell guns by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (the ATF). Sales between private parties could not be covered under the Act because, opponents of the Act argued, the federal government has no jurisdiction to restrict intrastate commerce. The provision in the Act that mandated local law enforcement officials to carry out background checks was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1997 because, the court ruled, it was an unfunded mandate.

http://en.allexperts.com/e/b/br/brady_handgun_violence_prevention_act.htm

[defendandprotect]

66. You're presenting merely an "argument" . . . what does Congress say . . .???

Sales between private parties could not be covered under the Act because, opponents of the Act argued, the federal government has no jurisdiction to restrict intrastate commerce. The provision in the Act that mandated local law enforcement officials to carry out background checks was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1997 because, the court ruled, it was an unfunded mandate.

And Supremes against it because "unfunded" --- since when are they involved with

monitoring our budget?

What has Congress, specifically, said about this?

[Vinnie From Indy]

70. LOL!

Really? You cannot be that obtuse!

You keep hilariously asking what "Congress" has to say about the issue while being provided TWICE the EXACT thing that Congress had to say about it in the form of AN ACT OF CONGRESS! If you get lost again keep reading the above VERY slowly or maybe ask a friend for assistance.
:)

[defendandprotect]

71. Disagree with opponents of the Act . . . does Congress . . . ??

Now . . . put in quotes what Congress said --

And, again, what the Supremes said is also irrelevant since it is based on

it not being "funded" -- !!

Evidently those floating the Petition also don't get what you're saying!!

[jazzhound]

48. You assume a great deal.

What made you assume I didn't check the link?

Do you understand how statements like this undermine your credibility?

[defendandprotect]

50. So . . . did you find supporting information at the link?

It's irrelevant whether you agree with the info or not --

The supporting info was there --

[proteus_lives]

41. This old fail comes trotting out again.

:eyes:

[friendly_iconoclast]

61. Would we still be able to buy the alien technology you brought to our attention...

...on this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4356696#4356865

or would a matter disruptor be illegal if it had too many imported parts?
Anybody up on what the current BATFE regs say about them should post here. TIA!

[defendandprotect]

64. You're talking about the Stephen Hawking thread . . .

And what it is you are so ineptly trying to ridicule?

Stephen Hawking and his theory that there are other species of life in the universe?

Or my comment to another poster that we may not be awaiting the "coming" --

but that they may be our ancestors?

What "matter disruptor" -- ???

Clarify your post --

[friendly_iconoclast]

67. I am referring to your habit of posting your beliefs as established fact...

...and, when asked for evidence and/or citations, you refer back to your own posts and act as if any counter evidence does not exist.

[defendandprotect]

75. ...and everything you post is backed up by "evidence" . . . ?

You've tried to use a thread on aliens to support your point here with ridicule . . .

but it doesn't work --

just makes you look sillier.

If you don't like my posts - don't read them.

[Fla_Democrat]

76. ..it proves you don't have a clue....

and buy into the hype. Forget the chant, stop and think about it, and the truth of the "loophole" will be be clear. :hi: