Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Gun Show "Loophole" question


Long Branch Louie

Recommended Posts

 

 

So your assertion that "EVERYONE HERE APPROVES OF SOME FORM OF IT." Is just wrong. We only tolerate it and many of us don't abide by it at all.

 

Thanks, BK

 

That sentence says what I was trying to say in the previous post! :FlagAm:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Actually, the ONLY form of "gun control" I agree to is if you shoot, you should hit what you shoot at.

 

People control, disguised as "gun control" is not the answer. I hear "the wild west" bantered about and used to describe the purported result of concealed carry and ownership of guns all the time. In truth and actuallity the violent death rate and the murder rate in the "wild west" in it's entirety was much lower than the same rates in each of several eastern "civilized cities" at that time. The old addage "An armed society is a polite society," is true to an extent that most folks are suprised to find.

 

Layers of defense are as follows. Social mores being taught to generations appropriately and continually by family and comunity, education, the law of the land, law enforcement and the judicial system, and finally personal defense. When we are willing and allowed to defend ourselves and others with whatever means needed and available, the other layers work far more eficiently!!!

Ah the Wild West Banter is true in this aspect the Media has formed a lynch mob and guns are it's tragets.

 

KK

Link to post
Share on other sites

I made the offer and now you do not want to accept my compromise. You obviously are not willing to do your part to to address this situation.. I made the offer and now you want to totally reject it? That is not compromise on your part....

 

No, no, no. You have to give up something, too. My guns for yours. Sounds fair to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no way in hell I would sell a firearm registered to me without going through an FFL. I don’t care how well I know someone, once that gun leaves my hands I lose all control of its future. The last thing I want to be doing is explaining to a cop how that gun I sold to some guy I know only as Dastardly Dave ended up at the scene of a homicide, and that I have no idea who Dastardly Dave really is

Link to post
Share on other sites
So your assertion that "EVERYONE HERE APPROVES OF SOME FORM OF IT." Is just wrong. We only tolerate it and many of us don't abide by it at all.

 

Really? So, you believe that the mentally and emotionally ill, substance abusers, convicted felons, domestic abusers, and who knows how many others, should be allowed to own and carry? And that minors don't need adult supervision? That many of you don't abide by those restrictions at all is one of the reasons we're having this conversation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sonny boy, I *am* the government. Or haven't you been paying attention?

 

No, I'm not collecting data, I'm just trying to figure out whether your arguement has any basis in reality, or you're just spouting.

 

 

B.B.,

 

You were born a generation too late and in the wrong country. You would have been very happy in Germany in the 1930's.

 

"This year* will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? So, you believe that the mentally and emotionally ill, substance abusers, convicted felons, domestic abusers, and who knows how many others, should be allowed to own and carry? And that minors don't need adult supervision? That many of you don't abide by those restrictions at all is one of the reasons we're having this conversation.

 

 

Mentally ill and emotionaly ill? Yes I do. There are many types of mental illness that are responsive to treatment or untreated do not pose a risk to either the individual or to others.

 

Substance abusers? Yes I do until their substance abuse causes them to be a threat to others. I suppose you have never abused alcohol by being drunk?

 

Convicted felons are already banned from owning firearms. They surrender certain rights when convicted of a felony. I would expect a "Federal Officer" to know this.

 

Domestic abusers? Better surrender your guns. You are the one that advocates beating mentally ill individuals and family members. I believe your exact term is "As a parent it's your job to get a belt and re-polarize them."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? So, you believe that the mentally and emotionally ill, substance abusers, convicted felons, domestic abusers, and who knows how many others, should be allowed to own and carry? And that minors don't need adult supervision? That many of you don't abide by those restrictions at all is one of the reasons we're having this conversation.

I thought these recent conversations were prompted by a nutjob in CT who stole his mother's guns and shot a bunch of folks? What do his actions have to do with the restrictions you've just accused many of us of ignoring? He wasn't a minor, they weren't his guns, in fact he didn't own or legally carry any guns at all.

 

Your blanket indictment of SASS shooters reveals your true belief, to wit, many shooters aren't willing to accept restrictions on their rights that you, in your infinite wisdom, deem appropriate. Therefore 'something' must be done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? So, you believe that the mentally and emotionally ill, substance abusers, convicted felons, domestic abusers, and who knows how many others, should be allowed to own and carry? And that minors don't need adult supervision? That many of you don't abide by those restrictions at all is one of the reasons we're having this conversation.

 

I think you're missing the point. Those are people control issues, not gun control issues. Gun control issues are those that effect the availability of firearms to the law abiding population, not the criminal and fringe individual. Documented criminals should not be allowed to own or possess weapons. They are criminals. People with permanent mental problems should be reviewed on a case by case basis. Those of us who abide by the laws should have free and unrestricted access to the purchase and trade of all firearms without government intervention, regulation, or interferance.

 

All of the thirty thousand plus "gun laws" on the books did NOTHING to prevent any of these shooting rampages, and another thirty thousand won't do it either! :angry:

Link to post
Share on other sites

BB

 

What part of this word do you not understand?

 

in·fringe

 

/inˈfrinj/

 

Verb

 

1.Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".

2.Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".

 

Synonyms

violate - transgress - break - contravene - trespass

 

CS

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, no, no. You have to give up something, too. My guns for yours. Sounds fair to me.

 

What is Feinstein giving up for your guns.

 

You still do not understand.

 

I made a proposal and you are not willing to compromise, just as Nancy.

 

Your response demonstrates that you have no clue about the situation.

 

I believe you are intelligent and education, but evidently totally uninformed in this matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're missing the point. Those are people control issues, not gun control issues. Gun control issues are those that effect the availability of firearms to the law abiding population, not the criminal and fringe individual. Documented criminals should not be allowed to own or possess weapons. They are criminals. People with permanent mental problems should be reviewed on a case by case basis. Those of us who abide by the laws should have free and unrestricted access to the purchase and trade of all firearms without government intervention, regulation, or interferance.

 

All of the thirty thousand plus "gun laws" on the books did NOTHING to prevent any of these shooting rampages, and another thirty thousand won't do it either! :angry:/>

A big plus one on that Pard! Unfortunately advocates of gun control believe law abiding people should be willing to compromise their rights. In the view of the gungrabbers people are malleable, perfectable even, given the appropriate environment and direction. Or gungrabbers cynically call for gun control, knowing it won't reduce violence, but also happily aware it will be a strong move towards turning the people into the sheeple.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cinch, SASS#29433

That is exactly the problem everyone is talking about: How to stop these massacres before they happen. After they happen, it's too late. Is that your preference?

 

They will always happen! It's human evil, satan himself, or if you believe in a higher power... it was meant to be (I struggle with this).

 

There are millions of gun owners that need to be punished because of the actions of a few! I hate that crap! I hate rationalizing things by saying if it saves even one life it is worth it, because whoever uses that rationalization won't let it swing both ways and then ya have hypocrisy! How about the next time someone is 2 minutes late to work; everyone in the entire country has to drop and give me twenty :huh:/>/>

 

My buddy's friend and an acquaintance of mine stopped a hospital shooter in Montana, after being hit in the butt he got to his truck and pinned the guy down with his rifle until the cops could arrive. This kept the shooter from going inside and finishing his deed. This saved many lives and yet where was the call to arm every feller who goes to pick up his wife at the hospital? There is that hypo... word again

 

I still favor the large left leaning urban areas of the country turning in their guns and adopting their communal system of living. They can emerge a few years later and let us know how it is working for them ;)/>/>

 

If the feel good types ban "assault weapons" today, guns tomorrow, knives the next day... how many days until ya get to the jawbone of an ass?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the current debate, which most people here on the Wire seem to favor, is better funding, diagnosing, reporting and treating mental illness with a view to (among other considerations)keeping certain people away from guns. Sounds to me like that is the very kind of information that *should* be included in a background check. Do you really want people under fairly constant impairment to have access to guns? What good is it to diagnose, say, a severe paranoid, but to deny that information to the gun dealer?

 

 

So you're in favor of giving the power to doctors to determine who should have their constitutional rights? It may sound perfectly acceptable in theory to say that we don't want mentally ill people to have access to firearms and that this needs to be part of the background check but look at the endless possibilities in practice. Who and how is that determination made? What if a statement of good mental health is needed as an additional form to purchase a firearm? Have you ever suffered from depression? Do you drink alcohol? What if your Dr. happens to be anti gun and won't give anyone clearance because of his personal position?

 

I'll give you a rather embarassing personal example: Years ago, in the middle of getting a divorce, my ex-wife to be smashed a wine glass over my head. I had no contact with her and called the police. She was issued a citation, I received nothing but it was considered a domestic dispute. Six months later, I went to petition our local Chief of police to get a gun permit (which is what we have to do in Connecticut.) He looked up the incident and since it was considered a domestic dispute he wanted my "record" to be clean for a full year before he would give hsi OK for me to get a gun permit. I could have probably fought it in court and won but that's the problem with any individual haveing this much power. Its one thing if someone has been adjudicated to be mentally ill or has been committed to a treatment facility but depends where the line is drawn. Keep a close eye on Biden's task force. It includes Kathleen Sebelius, head of Health and Human Services so watch out!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of limiting due to sanity sounds good, but remember that in Mother Russia (USSR) a few years ago, to disagree with the government meant that you were insane and subject to some cold time in Siberia....

 

Reminds me of the Cobra effect. The name came from the colonial period in India.

 

In India, the British government saw the danger of cobras - so they felt they had to do something. So they put a bounty on cobras. (Remember the government HAS to do SOMETHING!)

 

Sounded like a good idea at the time, but local farmers saw an opportunity for profit, so they started growing cobras and turning them in for $$.. So the end result was more dangerous cobras not fewer...

 

What to do, well, that's easy, drop the bounty idea. But remember that once something is started (especially by governments) going back will not restore the previous state.

 

With no bounty, the cobras were merely a liability. So the farmers killed some but generally released the ones they could not readily killed. So end result - more dangerous cobras roaming around....

 

Beware of the Cobra Effect....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one would be for closing FTF sales. If you are a law abiding citizen why would you be against a 4473 background check? If stopping the FTF reduces just one mentally ill person from getting a firearm and going out and doing what happened last week we would all be better off. Just my opinion and I know a lot of people do not agree as they feel it’s a slippery slope.

Well, on the reverse side of the card....... why should we burden the 99% of us who are law abiding citizens with the extra cost and hassle of doing what you suggest. The criminals will not do this even if iy is "a law". The far better thing to do is inforce the laws already in place! :FlagAm: You do know the 4473 asks if you have mental illness problems???

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of ideas floating around this thread. Some of you are comfortable having every inch of your life regulated. I'll take acting and thinking for myself and taking responsibility for what I do thank you. Someday I want to pass my guns on to my son, a 4473 and paying a dealer $$$ to do that is not what I want in that memory. Filled out lots of 4473 's in the last 10 years. Did one yesterday in. I am taking a very narrow minded stance on the fence setters among us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of ideas floating around this thread. Some of you are comfortable having every inch of your life regulated. I'll take acting and thinking for myself and taking responsibility for what I do thank you. Someday I want to pass my guns on to my son, a 4473 and paying a dealer $$$ to do that is not what I want in that memory. Filled out lots of 4473 's in the last 10 years. Did one yesterday in. I am taking a very narrow minded stance on the fence setters among us.

I agree, just take a look at the people heading up this "discussion". Feinstein wants them ALL, so does Biden and Blomberg. It's the usual cast of characters. Even if banning certain guns was in effect, the next incident that happens would prompt calls for more control. There will surely be another incident. When that happens, the grabbers will say that now we need to ban (insert any type of firearm) to keep this from ever happening again. It ain't about reducing crime or stopping shootings, it is about disarming America, plain and simple...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always found it interesting that we as a group of shooters, and all shooters in general canonize the old west LEO's who took guns away from the cowboys on entering "their" towns, but we villify Mayors like Emmanuel and Brown, etc. who seek to do the same thing now.

 

I personally only approve and abide by one form of gun control. Like Ted Nugent on his now famous interview, I maintain that the 2nd Amendment is "my carry permit" and short of nuclear arms, my view is that the Constitution's wording was specific in "KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" to mean that the citizenry was to be empowered with the same arms that any tyrannical government may field.

 

FREE MEN have wholesale abdicated their moral duty to protect and provide for their own lives and the lives of their loved ones long enough. Personally I made the choice long ago after a lesson that I'll never forget and do my best to never repeat, too.

 

So your assertion that "EVERYONE HERE APPROVES OF SOME FORM OF IT." Is just wrong. We only tolerate it and many of us don't abide by it at all.

 

 

 

+1, well said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The vast majority of the guns I own, includind AR15s and Mini 14s were purchased through FFL transfer. I have seen people who look like gang bangers and guys with prison tatoos buying guns from guys who look like farmers in gunshow parking lots. I have no problem splitting the transfer fees with buyer/seller to purchase a gun I want since I generally pay for transfer fees any way. To oppose closing the "gunshow loophole" - something that would appear reasonable to all anti-gun and many pro-gun people only makes our overall position weaker. I think it was Frederick the Great who said "He who defends everything, defends nothing" may have made a point useful to us in the fight for gun rights. Like it or not, the world - and America - is changing. It is evolve or die.

 

But since I am on vacation, I need not post more or reply to any flaming. I believe what I believe and am life-long gun owner and NRA member so my opinion is of equal value to any other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something is gonna come out of the Newtown massacre. We can fight it al the way...and we should. But something will change. From my perspective, closing the gun show loophole is the least painful. If you really want to sell your guns face to face to a private party, go for it. If you want to set up at a gun show, you're a dealer. Period. B*tch all you want, but when the "private collection" guy has 150 firearms and is there every show, he's a dealer. Get your paperwork in order like the rest of us have to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

 

I personally only approve and abide by one form of gun control. Like Ted Nugent on his now famous interview, I maintain that the 2nd Amendment is "my carry permit" and short of nuclear arms, my view is that the Constitution's wording was specific in "KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" to mean that the citizenry was to be empowered with the same arms that any tyrannical government may field.

 

 

 

That is after all exactly what the Second Amendment says and means.

Adios Sgt. Jake

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something is gonna come out of the Newtown massacre. We can fight it al the way...and we should. But something will change. From my perspective, closing the gun show loophole is the least painful. If you really want to sell your guns face to face to a private party, go for it. If you want to set up at a gun show, you're a dealer. Period. B*tch all you want, but when the "private collection" guy has 150 firearms and is there every show, he's a dealer. Get your paperwork in order like the rest of us have to.

 

If ya wanna insult other gun owners by callin' em sheep, you're gonna lose respect and you may lose that necessary voice who might have otherwise supported your position on most of the gun control issue.

 

Don't do it.

 

Every gun show I attend is a mix of FFL and non FFL holders. Selling of a private collection is legal. FTF sales are LEGAL where local law allows. ATF is at every show in way or another. If a true comprimise could be met then that would be one thing. FTF sales have nothing to do with the recent shooting. Think I'll pass on the respect lessons Greg, contrary to whatever you have worked up in your head I'm doing just fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So nobody thinks that there has not been enough comprimise already?

 

Me an' you brother! Me an' you!!

 

I think one of my previous posts on this thread said just exactly that. I'll compromise over what to have for lunch. I'll compromise on who's gonna' drive, (to a point). I might even compromise on who's paying, but to compromise on what is just plain wrong, AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL!! is unacceptable!! :angry::angry:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe in any compromise on any of our rights.......but be aware, change is coming. There isn't a damn thing (real world) that we can do about it either. Sure we can write, e-mail, social media, etc, etc until our fingers fall off but.....money will do the talking, walking and compromise in Washington. Some of these people are in office for 2 years, some for 4. Remember the ones who compromise, the ones who turn tail and the ones who stand strong. Write it down, put it in your important papers....come 2 or 4 years, bring it out again.

 

Our rights are being eroded little by little every year, like a cancer. Never looks like it's growing and spreading, but it is. Then one day.....it's too late.

 

.......When they came for me, there was no one left to speak for me.

 

CS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe in any compromise on any of our rights.......but be aware, change is coming. There isn't a damn thing (real world) that we can do about it either. Sure we can write, e-mail, social media, etc, etc until our fingers fall off but.....money will do the talking, walking and compromise in Washington. Some of these people are in office for 2 years, some for 4. Remember the ones who compromise, the ones who turn tail and the ones who stand strong. Write it down, put it in your important papers....come 2 or 4 years, bring it out again.

 

Our rights are being eroded little by little every year, like a cancer. Never looks like it's growing and spreading, but it is. Then one day.....it's too late.

 

.......When they came for me, there was no one left to speak for me.

 

CS

Correct !

The Second Amendment was compromised first in 1934 then again in 1968 and many times yet again,Vote against our rights be voted out of office. No Compromise ! Adios Sgt. Jake

Link to post
Share on other sites

Every gun show I attend is a mix of FFL and non FFL holders. Selling of a private collection is legal. FTF sales are LEGAL where local law allows. ATF is at every show in way or another. If a true comprimise could be met then that would be one thing. FTF sales have nothing to do with the recent shooting. Think I'll pass on the respect lessons Greg, contrary to whatever you have worked up in your head I'm doing just fine.

 

I have nothing "worked up in my head". In a war, you need every soldier.

 

I see you edited your remark.

 

Peace.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The sheep comment was not helpful to a rational and polite discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My immediate concern is not over the relatively few gun-grabbers who have the Hitler-like agenda of removing the guns so as to be able to exercise the remainder of a plan to be in complete control. Instead, it is of the ignorant in the general population who believe that gun restriction to law abiding Americans is a solution. It is these people, who are suddenly more open to the idea of gun control because they are being driven by powerful emotions (that all of us are feeling) created by the massacre of children by a crazy person, that some politicians, whose agenda is simply to remain in office at all cost, will attempt to pacify in order to insure votes for re-election. It is sad to me that some politicians, I believe, are among the ignorant. They really believe that gun control is the answer in spite of clear evidence here in the U.S. to the contrary.

 

Ultimately though, it is the ignorant masses, who might otherwise be intelligent, that fail to pay attention to history, and by doing so, allows history to repeat itself. They mistakenly believe that Hitler was a fluke, the first and last of his kind, when in fact he was neither the first nor the last. They believe it could not happen here. After all, "We the people" choose our leaders. They fail to realize that Hitler was wildly popular and promised quick solutions to the problems of the day.

 

Some of us, I hope enough of us, realize that there is not always a quick or complete solution to some problems. There will always be crazy people. Crazy people will always do crazy things. As many have said in one way or another, the problem in the case of crazy shooters is not guns, it's that the people were crazy. There were no crazy shooters as we know them in Hitler's world. Adam Lanza wouldn't have made it to the age of the children he murdered. Personally, I don't agree with Hitler on people control or gun control.

 

To be clear, I'm not saying any of our politicians are Hitler-like. I am more concerned that many are either blissfully ignorant or totally politically driven. I am saying that "absolute control" is a two-edged sword that comes with a price. That price is our freedom. Our freedom came about with guns and will disappear without them. History says so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm referring to an assumed eventual ftf ban across the board, not just gun shows. as far as meeting at a gun shop. That's a 75 mile round trip for m. WE don't all have a neighborhood gun shop. In fact, we don't all have even a neighbordood. :lol:/>

 

 

And remember,

FTF includes your son, your daughter, your nephew, and anybody else that you want to pass on to, as your family heritage, your dad's favorite Winchester Model 12 that he got from your Grandfather.

 

Boothill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.