Can I ask a question - Gun Show Loophole

[Josh S 0]

Hey guys... Why is this a debate? I'm sorry but in my opinion this argument was over a long time ago. The right of the people shall NOT be infringed. What is so F'in confusing about that?

As far as some of you who want to argue this why we are at it lets limit your 1st amendment also. Call and ok your post with King Bama before you post

[Spartiati 63]

 

 

ding ding ding

 

give'em an inch...........

 

We already gave them the inch with NICS on FFL transfer, only logical to do it for FTF too. To be honest I don't really even view it as having given them an inch.

[Spartiati 63]

Hey guys... Why is this a debate? I'm sorry but in my opinion this argument was over a long time ago. The right of the people shall NOT be infringed. What is so F'in confusing about that?

As far as some of you who want to argue this why we are at it lets limit your 1st amendment also. Call and ok your post with King Bama before you post

 

So you don't agree that certain people should be prohibited from owning firearms? As you say "shall not be infringed" means no restrictions what so ever? Think most agree there are a number of people who shouldn't have access to firearms and requiring all transfers to go through NICS is reasonable.

[Josh S 0]

So what your saying is you want the government to do your job for you?

Can anybody tell me why the 2nd Amendment was put in the constitution? If you know the main reason it's there why would you let the Gov. regulate it? This country has the greatest constitution known to man. Why change it? Why put the blame on society for what the individual did?

[Josh S 0]

Hey Sparti sorry if my posts comes off condascending. What did NICS do for us with all the recent mass shootings? It turned down the dirt bag from Conneticut, but he obtained the tools anyway. Who's fought is that? The Moms maybe...we don't know, but NICS did its job right?

You can't tell me by looking a pics of this kid he wasn't off his rocker? Would you of sold him a gun? Would any FFL sold him a gun? Who's to blame here? Bad people do bad things and you can't stop them.

[Spartiati 63]

Hey Sparti sorry if my posts comes off condascending. What did NICS do for us with all the recent mass shootings? It turned down the dirt bag from Conneticut, but he obtained the tools anyway. Who's fought is that? The Moms maybe...we don't know, but NICS did its job right?

You can't tell me by looking a pics of this kid he wasn't off his rocker? Would you of sold him a gun? Would any FFL sold him a gun? Who's to blame here? Bad people do bad things and you can't stop them.

So you suggest eliminate NICS and then any prohibited person can walk in off the street and buy a gun? NICS isn't perfect but makes it more difficult for prohibited persons to obtain. You are using a few examples where it didn't work what about all the times it worked, they don't count?

[vladtepes 1,060]

if background checks are used a means to deny law abiding citizens their right to guns.. then YES that is an infringement..

if background checks are used to make sure you are not a recently released criminal with a history of armed robbery.. then NO they are not an infringement...

 

 

Part of the reason no one listens to us? it's the same reason we don't listen to them.. we sound ridiculous.. when you ignore common sense and keep babbling the same tired nonsense about your rights being infringed by background checks.. it is much easier for anyone on the fence to think you are nuts.. there is NO logic in a law abiding citizen ignoring the potential for selling a gun to a criminal, and being completely against developing a means to ensure it doesn't happen... to say "there is nothing wrong with face to face gun sales that require NO background check" makes you sound unreasonable.. and illogical..

 

I STILL think it is in our best interest to point out BOTH sides of the situation.. tell the public the TRUTH..

 

*the AWB is stupid.. it does nothing to protect anyone.. look at CT they have an AWB in place..

 

but then also reflect a little and come to grips with the fact that there are MILLIONS of people in the US.. and some of them should probably not have guns.. some are prohibited from having guns... we should probably exhibit a little common sense and develop some system to address that.. even if it is free NICS access to the public for FTF sales....

[67gtonut 847]

Agree 100%

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk excuse the spelling

[BlueLineFish 615]

Yup..check nobody. Everybody gets guns even those that shouldn't. That will help the fight for 2a rights.

 

Some people should be banned from owning firearms. Plain and simple. Unbelievable

[brocglock23 4]

if background checks are used a means to deny law abiding citizens their right to guns.. then YES that is an infringement..

if background checks are used to make sure you are not a recently released criminal with a history of armed robbery.. then NO they are not an infringement...

 

 

Part of the reason no one listens to us? it's the same reason we don't listen to them.. we sound ridiculous.. when you ignore common sense and keep babbling the same tired nonsense about your rights being infringed by background checks.. it is much easier for anyone on the fence to think you are nuts.. there is NO logic in a law abiding citizen ignoring the potential for selling a gun to a criminal, and being completely against developing a means to ensure it doesn't happen... to say "there is nothing wrong with face to face gun sales that require NO background check" makes you sound unreasonable.. and illogical..

 

I STILL think it is in our best interest to point out BOTH sides of the situation.. tell the public the TRUTH..

 

*the AWB is stupid.. it does nothing to protect anyone.. look at CT they have an AWB in place..

 

but then also reflect a little and come to grips with the fact that there are MILLIONS of people in the US.. and some of them should probably not have guns.. some are prohibited from having guns... we should probably exhibit a little common sense and develop some system to address that.. even if it is free NICS access to the public for FTF sales....

+1 I completely agree with this. especially pointing out both sides of the situation and tell the public the truth. I get to hear the other side everyday b/c I am married to it. By no means is my wife a hardcore liberal but she believes the ability to get a gun in other states is too easy and I have not found an argument that can justify someone selling someone else a firearm without a background check or something that proves he has had one at some point.

[bulpup 98]

if background checks are used a means to deny law abiding citizens their right to guns.. then YES that is an infringement..

if background checks are used to make sure you are not a recently released criminal with a history of armed robbery.. then NO they are not an infringement...

 

 

Part of the reason no one listens to us? it's the same reason we don't listen to them.. we sound ridiculous.. when you ignore common sense and keep babbling the same tired nonsense about your rights being infringed by background checks.. it is much easier for anyone on the fence to think you are nuts.. there is NO logic in a law abiding citizen ignoring the potential for selling a gun to a criminal, and being completely against developing a means to ensure it doesn't happen... to say "there is nothing wrong with face to face gun sales that require NO background check" makes you sound unreasonable.. and illogical..

 

I STILL think it is in our best interest to point out BOTH sides of the situation.. tell the public the TRUTH..

 

*the AWB is stupid.. it does nothing to protect anyone.. look at CT they have an AWB in place..

 

but then also reflect a little and come to grips with the fact that there are MILLIONS of people in the US.. and some of them should probably not have guns.. some are prohibited from having guns... we should probably exhibit a little common sense and develop some system to address that.. even if it is free NICS access to the public for FTF sales....

 

I want to repost this to facebook. Any problem with that?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[vladtepes 1,060]

I want to repost this to facebook. Any problem with that?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

no problem with it at all..

[bulpup 98]

no problem with it at all..

Done and with at least 3 likes.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mipafox 438]

if background checks are used a means to deny law abiding citizens their right to guns.. then YES that is an infringement..

if background checks are used to make sure you are not a recently released criminal with a history of armed robbery.. then NO they are not an infringement...

 

 

 

 

If you need a background check or any other government permission to purchase or keep and bear arms then it is an infringement by definition. And, it is against the law as it is a violation of the Constitutions of both These United States and The Great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (of which you are a Citizen.)

 

Seems we did just fine without background checks for FFLS up through the mid 1990s, and instituting them hasn't solved anything.

 

Further, background checks are only required for purchases from FFLs in most states anyway. It's my guess that most gun sales don't involve background checks. Which is fine by me, since almost no gun sales involved background checks until the mid-1990s unless you lived ina Communist State.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

If you need a background check or any other government permission to purchase or keep and bear arms then it is an infringement by definition. And, it is against the law as it is a violation of the Constitutions of both These United States and The Great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (of which you are a Citizen.)

 

Seems we did just fine without background checks for FFLS up through the mid 1990s, and instituting them hasn't solved anything.

 

Further, background checks are only required for purchases from FFLs in most states anyway. It's my guess that most gun sales don't involve background checks. Which is fine by me, since almost no gun sales involved background checks until the mid-1990s unless you lived ina Communist State.

 

Thanks Ed, seems your state is getting infested more and more with anti's. be safe brother

[tony357 386]

their is no loophole..that is media hype..

[mipafox 438]

Thanks Ed, seems your state is getting infested more and more with anti's.  be safe brother

 

It is. And thank you. But antis are people that are not willing to listen, learn, or honor. Many of the people here are definitely not antis, just people that have lived in a bubble and don't know, or are still figuring out, how the other 250 million people in this country live and how everybody lived just fine before the BRADY BILL (FFL background checks started only about 15 years ago), or that most gun sales don't involve background checks and the only difference is that Liberty and Justice are denied.

[vladtepes 1,060]

It is. And thank you. But antis are people that are not willing to listen, learn, or honor. Many of the people here are definitely not antis, just people that have lived in a bubble and don't know, or are still figuring out, how the other 250 million people in this country live and how everybody lived just fine before the BRADY BILL (FFL background checks started only about 15 years ago), or that most gun sales don't involve background checks and the only difference is that Liberty and Justice are denied.

 

give me a logical reason.. it is unreasonable to want to verify someone is not a prohibited person before selling them a gun..

 

what is the logic behind being SO against background checks..

 

 

 

just because things went fine 15 years ago has no relevance to anything... people used to leave doors unlocked 15 years ago.. doesn't mean it is a good practice today..

[brocglock23 4]

The more and more I read these threads the more I believe the anti's are going to get stronger. Not because of guys like Vlad but because of people that have this F U attitude if you try to do this you are infringing upon my rights, If you do that it's against the constitution. We (99.9% of the people here (Vlad, Ray, Mipa, and most) are all for the 2A and less restrictions on guns, RIGHT? Well the ANTI's are all on the same page, BAN EVERYTHING!!!!! We collectively need to get our shit together and realize that common sense will have to prevail. We can't openly allow criminals to gain access to guns. Eliminating FTF or opening NICS to the public would help. Will it solve all the problems no. But then no one can say things aren't being tried to keep the gun of of the criminals hand. If you aren't a criminal you have nothing to worry about. IMHO.

[mipafox 438]

<p><p>

give me a logical reason.. it is unreasonable to want to verify someone is not a prohibited person before selling them a gun..

 

what is the logic behind being SO against background checks..

 

 

 

just because things went fine 15 years ago has no relevance to anything... people used to leave doors unlocked 15 years ago.. doesn't mean it is a good practice today..

 

You want me to justify why I don't want my rights infringed.  

 

You can take the kid out of the Jersey, but you'll still work to fuckeverybodyelse over (can't take the fuckeverybodyelse out of the kid).

[vladtepes 1,060]

The more and more I read these threads the more I believe the anti's are going to get stronger. Not because of guys like Vlad but because of people that have this F U attitude if you try to do this you are infringing upon my rights, If you do that it's against the constitution. We (99.9% of the people here (Vlad, Ray, Mipa, and most) are all for the 2A and less restrictions on guns, RIGHT? Well the ANTI's are all on the same page, BAN EVERYTHING!!!!! We collectively need to get our shit together and realize that common sense will have to prevail. We can't openly allow criminals to gain access to guns. Eliminating FTF or opening NICS to the public would help. Will it solve all the problems no. But then no one can say things aren't being tried to keep the gun of of the criminals hand. If you aren't a criminal you have nothing to worry about. IMHO.

 

the truth is eliminating FTF sales would probably stop NO crime.. the truth is most guns used in crimes ARE probably acquired illegally.. but "loop holes" is a common anti talking point..

 

for me.. I live in a nation that must reach compromise.. we have to work together or we get nowhere..

 

the Antis will say close loop holes.. ban 30 rd mags... ban this.. ban that..

 

so I have to look at that.. and I simply say to myself.. these are the things that YOU as a US citizen are concerned with...

 

*"assault weapons / "hi cap" mags"

to that I say F you... we look at states like CT that HAD an AWB and it did NOTHING to prevent a crime.. we look at history before "assault weapons" even existed and look at things like Charles Whitman... I further feel that micro managing the type of gun IS an infringement of my rights because you are limiting my access based on arbitrary nonsense...

 

"gun show loop holes"

to this I say.... while there has not been significant data to suggest that "FTF" sales enable criminals to get weapons.. logic does tell me that if I can buy a gun WITHOUT a background check.. then it is certainly a reasonable concern... it COULD easily happen.. does a background check infringe my rights?... NO not at all... I am still able to make a purchase after verifying that I am not prohibited from owning a gun...

 

that is why I feel that way... you can sit like a hard ass and say "NOPE NOT BUDGING AN INCH" and then they will simply say the same thing.. if you at least view it in a light other than your own.. for a second.. and just try to appreciate why someone may think the way they do.. ending face to face sales is not about YOU.. it is about preventing easy access for those that should not have..

[vladtepes 1,060]

<p><p>

 

You want me to justify why I don't want my rights infringed.

 

You can take the kid out of the Jersey, but you'll still work to fuckeverybodyelse over (can't take the fuckeverybodyelse out of the kid).

 

when you have no intelligent response you just talk shit.. that is typical..

and who has the F everyone else attitude?

 

are you a criminal that would be denied ownership? how is verifying you are not a criminal an infringement..

saying that violates your rights is comical at best... I know I know.. its all about you... it doesn't matter that it is totally possible for ANYONE to acquire a gun.. god forbid we make you get a background check... to keep that from happening.. wouldn't want to inconvenience you... violate your rights or anything..

[mipafox 438]

and who has the F everyone else attitude?

 

What do I want the government to force you to do against your will?

 

Nothing.

 

What permission do I want you to seek from the government to exercise your rights?

 

None.

 

Who wants the government to fuckotherpeopleover and make them request permission to exercise their rights?

 

You. Not me.

 

I don't have an F everybody else attitude, because, unlike you, I don't want to force any restrictions on your rights. That's YOUR game.

[brocglock23 4]

I can't believe I'm going to say this but I have a beautiful 2 year old daughter and another baby on the way. If it helped to make the world a better place by doing background checks I'd be all for it. Minus the stupid limiting laws on firearms I think NJ actually has a pretty decent system. But then again it is also just "feel good" legislation b/c if someone wants something bad enough they will get it.

[woodentoe 14]

I can't believe I'm going to say this but I have a beautiful 2 year old daughter and another baby on the way. If it helped to make the world a better place by doing background checks I'd be all for it. Minus the stupid limiting laws on firearms I think NJ actually has a pretty decent system. But then again it is also just "feel good" legislation b/c if someone wants something bad enough they will get it.

 

This is going to be a very unpopular opinion here. The claws are out.

[Qel Hoth 33]

I can't believe I'm going to say this but I have a beautiful 2 year old daughter and another baby on the way. If it helped to make the world a better place by doing background checks I'd be all for it. Minus the stupid limiting laws on firearms I think NJ actually has a pretty decent system. But then again it is also just "feel good" legislation b/c if someone wants something bad enough they will get it.

 

NJ has a pretty horrible system. In utopia where nobody steals anything NJ's system would work great. However, in utopia we wouldn't be worried about mass shootings (or any crime, for that matter) either.

 

Camden, Trenton, Newark, etc are all living, breathing proof that NJ's system does not work. The reason? It only prevents those prohibited persons who are NOT INCLINED TO BREAK THE LAW, buying firearms. If you don't think that anyone who wants a gun to do harm to other people can't get it in this state - any state, any country - because of its laws, you are beyond delusional.

[vladtepes 1,060]

What do I want the government to force you to do against your will?

 

Nothing.

 

What permission do I want you to seek from the government to exercise your rights?

 

None.

 

Who wants the government to fuckotherpeopleover and make them request permission to exercise their rights?

 

You. Not me.

 

I don't have an F everybody else attitude, because, unlike you, I don't want to force any restrictions on your rights. That's YOUR game.

 

you are not asking permission

you are making sure YOU are not providing a gun to a person that can not legally have one..

 

that is called responsibility..

but apparently that is too inconvenient for you..

[vladtepes 1,060]

NJ has a pretty horrible system. In utopia where nobody steals anything NJ's system would work great. However, in utopia we wouldn't be worried about mass shootings (or any crime, for that matter) either.

 

Camden, Trenton, Newark, etc are all living, breathing proof that NJ's system does not work. The reason? It only prevents those prohibited persons who are NOT INCLINED TO BREAK THE LAW, buying firearms. If you don't think that anyone who wants a gun to do harm to other people can't get it in this state - any state, any country - because of its laws, you are beyond delusional.

 

the point is not to stop illegal acquisition of guns.. we all have common sense and know that will happen..

 

if anything background checks make it so YOU do not inadvertently furnish a prohibited person with a gun..

 

 

the point is not to disallow those that have the right to purchase... the point is not to stop all illegal obtaining.. but the point is simply to eliminate ease of access to unverified individuals..

[brocglock23 4]

NJ has a pretty horrible system. In utopia where nobody steals anything NJ's system would work great. However, in utopia we wouldn't be worried about mass shootings (or any crime, for that matter) either.

 

Camden, Trenton, Newark, etc are all living, breathing proof that NJ's system does not work. The reason? It only prevents those prohibited persons who are NOT INCLINED TO BREAK THE LAW, buying firearms. If you don't think that anyone who wants a gun to do harm to other people can't get it in this state - any state, any country - because of its laws, you are beyond delusional.

Fully agree with that. I work in Camden, Trenton, Plainfield and the bad areas of NJ. That's why I said it's feel good legislation and if a criminal wants it bad enough they will find a way. I don't think it is a horrible system though, Do our laws suck, yes. Does the system hurt someone who is not a prohibited person, No. So no, Not delusional. This system does make it a little harder for criminals. Not impossible.

[brocglock23 4]

Actually let me ask you this....... Being from NJ, when you do a FTF transfer, you ask for a FID and DL and P2P if necessary. You are telling me you would sell a gun to someone who doesn't have that?? I will venture a guess and say no b/c that person might be a prohibited. That helped keep that gun out of his hands. So yes it does work it just isn't fool proof.