Close the Loophole???

[Old Fuff]

Merlinfire, and others who support background checks of private gun sales at gunshows should go back and read post #22. Others might profit from doing the same.

Private sellers cannot have background checks made of potential buyers - at least through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

Why not? Because it's against the law! Well couldn't they change the law? Possibly, but they won't.

First of all, to work the system requires a # 4473 form, which only FFL dealers can use.

Second, if they changed the law it would defeat what gun control advocates are trying to accomplish, which is to force private sales to be made through an FFL holder.

Third, if the system was opened to individuals it would be next to impossible to prevent some people from using the system to check on others - for whatever reason they wanted to do so.

This so called loophole is nothing but a scam, designed by those that want to eliminate private sales, and make all firearms transfers go through federally licensed dealers.

If that's what merlinfire wants he should come out and say so.

 

[bigfatdave]

-The second gun I ever bought was a private sale.

Well you should have sought out a background check by your logic.

See how YOU are OK to make a private transaction, and yet you want everyone else to jump backwards through their own ... ... loophole to do the same?

In my defense, I will make this, one more post.

I'll end my involvement in this conversation

Yep, you're just oozing credibility here.

There is no loophole. There is simply private property being sold between private citizens.
Making special laws about a particular type of private property isn't ever going to curb crime or dissuade criminals from their plans. Added onto the charges of armed robbery, rape, murder, or other violent felonies, the additional charge of possessing a gun while prohibited is chump change.
Merely inconveniencing citizens with these silly measures is at least 200 infringements, possibly more. A true citizen can be trusted with a firearm, to buy, sell, carry, store, or shoot safely. A true citizen can be trusted with any arms; pistol, rifle, scary military-appearance rifle, shotgun, machine-gun, missile, RPG, explosives, swords, grenades, pointy sticks, broken bottles, weaponized herpes, or ANY "dangerous object" ... because they are capable of reason and are NOT a potential criminal.

merlinfire, I would trust YOU to responsibly purchase or sell a weapon at a gun-show, garage sale, classified ad, or in a random alley ... because I expect you to act responsibly regardless of the hardware in your hands, and I expect out justice system to hold you responsible for any stupid things you do with the tools in your hands.
Treating citizens like felonies waiting to happen is pretty authoritarian, don't you think?
I'm disappointed in your lack of trust in your fellow citizens. Write a letter to your congresscritters and state government if you don't like the scumbags being out of prison and at the gun shows, but don't you dare call for yet another infringement on real citizen's right to arms.

 

[atomd]

For some reason I keep thinking about Franklin saying "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety".

"Sure, what's a little inconvenience if it makes me safer". "Sure, what's a few extra dollars if it keeps me safe".

25 years later it becomes:

"Sure, what's an extra 5 hours it takes me to board a plane"...."Sure, what's an extra $500 to get a concealed carry permit".

50 years later it becomes "Remember back in the good old days when you could actually..........".

The trick is not to give the inch so they can't take the mile. EVERYTHING starts small.

 

[Kalashnikovkid]

C'mon Deanimator and ArmedBear...
We know Merlinfire and Kostyanj are saying things that sound a lot like AHSA rhetoric, but in their defense, you have no actual basis that they are members of that organization or any like it. Even if they are members of AHSA, why would they not be welcome to share their views, as long as they do not break the rules of this site, the same as you? If you're going to sling mud at each other, would you mind doing it in private messaging please? These ad hominem attacks are really detracting from the intelligent debate we are trying to have...

 

[Deanimator]

C'mon Deanimator and ArmedBear...
We know Merlinfire and Kostyanj are saying things that sound a lot like AHSA rhetoric, but in their defense, you have no actual basis that they are members of that organization or any like it. Even if they are members of AHSA, why would they not be welcome to share their views, as long as they do not break the rules of this site, the same as you? If you're going to sling mud at each other, would you mind doing it in private messaging please? These ad hominem attacks are really detracting from the intelligent debate we are trying to have...

1. Let's see, they say EXACTLY the same things as AHSA, they say it in EXACTLY the same way as AHSA, they dissemble in EXACTLY the same way as AHSA, but they're not REALLY AHSA. Yeah, sure.

2. AHSA exists for one reason and one reason only, to mislead the uninformed into supporting repressive gun controls through lies, deception and trickery. I'm not even going to pretend to respect that any more than I've pretended to respect Holocaust denial in historical forums and newsgroups when I come across it.

3. AHSA means to do harm to the gun owners of this country and to ultimately make sure that there are virtually no gun owners in this country. Any claim to the contrary is sophistry at best and an outright lie at the worst.

Dishonesty doesn't merit respect, not for Holocaust deniers, not for 9/11 "Truthers", nor for AHSA. AHSA is lies and nothing but lies.

 

[bigfatdave]

AHSA is at best a misguided group advocating control of "non-sporting" firearms, and at worst (closer to the truth) a group dedicated to amassing a membership of Fudds and elitists to keep gun ownership limited to "sporting use" among the wealthy, if not a front for the VPC/HGCI/BCPGV.

Distancing one's self from ASHA is generally seen as a good thing, pretending to advocate RKBA without ever having heard of ASHA is unlikely, but possible. Hopefully with this knowledge a few posters can now figure out which ASHA is being referred to and respond.

 

[RippinSVT]

I am against any and all gun control, first and foremost.

That being said, let's quickly address an easy step towards getting the anti's off our asses. I know this is off-topic, but hear me out. We as gun owners should project a responsible, sensible aire about us in public. If you wanna be Bubba with the Big Gun out on the farm, as I do, that's fine, but we should all strive to portray a level of professionalism in public if people know we are gun owners, that's just my humble opinion. Some years ago a local film crew came into our local gun show at the fairgrounds nearby and took a relatively neutral position during their statements, and everybody looked like normal folks. Then it happened. They interviewed some of the less desirable guests, the KKK and Neo-Nazi's who had set up shop in the show. Now, I believe they can believe whatever they want, but there is NO ROOM for these types at a GUN show when they publicly condone violence as a means of furthering their wacked-out agenda.


The reason I bring this up is that with the recent militia busts and such, the public views ANY unordinary or fringe group as dangerous, regardless or whether they are or not. Now, you put these same seemingly violent (as the public views them) fringe elements in a show that sells GUNS, and we have problems. I HIGHLY doubt we would get so much crap from the anti's if people like you or I, responsible normal citizens, were the only ones buying guns at the shows.

 

[kostyanj]

Why am I all of a sudden being grouped in with anyone else? Merlinfire and myself were saying completely different things. I was just stating that I have no official viewpoint on background checks for private transactions. As I said in my previous posts, I am still in the dark about what exactly AHSA is, if someone could fill me in, I would be delighted. Further, I am very much in favor of the right to keep and bear arms as witnessed by my gun collection and my reloading equipment. Now if someone could please point out to me exactly what I said that was pro gun-control, we can end this conversation.

 

[rbernie]

Ahem.

THR's mission statement includes the notion that we attack arguments - not people. Some posts here, however well meaning, have come dangerously close to personal attacks.

We're better than that. The facts are on our side.

Let's act like it.

 

[NG VI]

In all fairness to the AHSA, which I also understand was initiated as an anti-gun false flag operation, they have come around to some extent.

No, they aren't a credible firearms organization yet, but they have come a LONG way from the blatant Brady shills they used to be.

 

[cbrgator]

I HAVE A PROPOSITION:

Let's start by changing the name from Gun Show Loophole to Private Sales Prohibition which is what it really is.

Any transaction at a gun show that doesn't require a background check wouldn't require one outside the gun show either. This isn't closing a loophole. It's banning private, non-FFL sales. We should change the name to reflect the action which may help bring awareness to what Brady is trying to do.

 

[NG VI]

Hellz yeah, CBRGator called it like it is.

 

[Deanimator]

In all fairness to the AHSA, which I also understand was initiated as an anti-gun false flag operation, they have come around to some extent.

No, they aren't a credible firearms organization yet, but they have come a LONG way from the blatant Brady shills they used to be.

When did any of that supposedly happen?

I've never seen them do ANYTHING except act in the false flag role.

Of course isn't there a rather astonishing overlap in membership of the leadership between AHSA and a number of militantly anti-gun organizations, just as there was between those same organizations and the laughable "National Firearms Association" of the '90s? And isn't AHSA just a "rebranded" NFA?

The statements of self-avowed AHSA members here, in other forums, and in the media haven't shown ANY indication of a meaningful change in course for them. At BEST, I'd expect a half-hearted "comintern" to "cominform" change of facade.

I'd REALLY like to see ANY evidence of AHSA being anything other than what those of us who've dealt with it know it to be. Do you have any links to confirm what you say?

 

[rbernie]

No, they aren't a credible firearms organization yet, but they have come a LONG way from the blatant Brady shills they used to be.

I do not see how anyone can arrive at this conclusion, and would welcome any evidence to support this assertation.

Go thru their press releases and their blogs and tell me that they are any different today than when Ray Schoenke first put it together.

http://www.huntersandshooters.org/media/releases

 

[Deanimator]

Go thru their press releases and their blogs and tell me that they are any different today than when Ray Schoenke first put it together.

You don't even have to leave this site!

Look at what they've posted HERE in the last year.

I read quite a few firearms related message boards and occasionally usenet. I've never seen one iota of evidence that they are anything different than what they've always been, a Quisling organization seeking to trick gun owners into giving up their rights to own guns.

I'd LOVE to see proof of the claim that they've changed for the BETTER in ANY way. I'm not holding my breath.

 

[CoRoMo]

Just because you disagree does not make me a liar or a "schill".

Why am I all of a sudden being grouped in with anyone else?

Without calling you an AHSA troll, I'd say that you must realize that many of them have come here to propose the exact 'feel good' anti-liberty notions that you guys are pitching. How are we to know the difference?

 

[Deanimator]

How are we to know the difference?

How does a distinction without a difference matter?

If two people are calling for the same thing, do their supposed different affiliations change the meaning of their words?

That of course assumes that you believe their self-proclaimed (or self-NOT-proclaimed) affiliation anyway.

Affiliation just often acts as a CONFIRMATION of motivation.

 

[CoRoMo]

Good point. Even if they are not affiliated, they will certainly find like-minded company there.

 

[kostyanj]

CoRoMo, those 2 quotes are from 2 different people. So once again, I challenge anyone to find something anti-gun in anything I've posted.

 

[NG VI]

I'll see if I can find wht I was thinking of, I'll be the first to admit I am often wrong, and have a lot going on this past few months, but I vaguely remembered hem doing something or other that seemed like an indicator of progress to me.

Ok, the very first thing on their site shows they are worse, not better.

CHeck out the October 09 blog, the first guy, Zakariah Johnson, is solid. Nothing to complain about, his column is about New Jersey's discriminatory and irrational approach to their own laws regarding handguns. It's actually a pretty good column, though I eventually started skimming in the name of volume.

I skipped Schoenke's column, that clown will never be taken seriously as any kind of firearms authority or advocate by myself or anyone else, and the final column is more of an observation than anything else, though I agree that outdoors sports and the shooting sports could benefit a lot from a concerted effort to try to turn many urban people into the fold. Isn't going to be an easy task, or one I would personally want anything to do with the planning of though.

July 2009, I couldn't read the first column, it was too boring and slow. Something about ducks. Looks like Mr. Johnson was busy that month, he has a column defending Sotomayor, and another about the harmful effects of prohibition, couched in terms of the prohibiton of guns anti-gun individuals want and the prohibition attempts (and failures) of the war on drugs.




I can't really tell with these guys, in some ways they seem to be more or less on the right track in all the ways that count, in a few other ways they kind of tip their hand that they most likely continue to be a little false flag operation run by Brady associates.

 

[CoRoMo]

CoRoMo, those 2 quotes are from 2 different people.

Good job there. I was speaking to both of you because both of you were complaining about the same thing. Or did you not read the rest of my post?

...the exact 'feel good' anti-liberty notions that you guys are pitching.

 

[CoRoMo]

Posted by kostyanj
...I challenge anyone to find something anti-gun in anything I've posted.

No problem, here ya go...

Maybe not require them before entering, but certainly before buying a gun.

I realize that you have your own definition of 'infringe'. You believe that it means 'to deny', but that is incorrect. It merely means to encroach. If I step onto the corner of your front lawn, I'm not denying you that property, I'm encroaching upon what is yours. The same is true for all regulations and restrictions for gun ownership. Every bit of government dabbling, in regards to owning and carrying of arms, is an encroachment into an area they have been explicitly prohibited from. You can disagree with plain English, but it doesn't change the definitions.

When you propose to 'certainly require them before buying a gun', you are advocating an infringement upon an inalienable right. That idea is contrary (anti) to the 2nd Amendment of our Bill of Rights. Anti-2A positions are commonly referred to as "anti-gun" positions.

Concluding that, your position there... is anti-gun.

 

[Zoogster]

I can't really tell with these guys, in some ways they seem to be more or less on the right track in all the ways that count, in a few other ways they kind of tip their hand that they most likely continue to be a little false flag operation run by Brady associates.

The AHSA is anti-gun. They were started by antis specifically to sway pro-gun people on individual issues so antis can pass them.
This is not speculation, but is actually documented as the intended purpose before it was actually created. They felt things were getting done a little too slowly from the anti-gun side alone, and so some switched over to the pro-gun side to weaken it.


Consider you are an anti, and you want to win at all costs, no deceit or means to that end is wrong as long as you get the end you desire.
Now you know many pro-gun people will never side with you and most of your radical supporters that devote themselves to getting things done and anti-gun legislation passed.
But those pro-gun people are just too difficult to overcome when they vote together.

Solution? Create fake pro-gun groups and even claim you support things you detest. Say you support freedoms you detest, because you have to in order to reel in the fish. Now once you have hooked some members, still pretend to support all gun rights, except for the one you and your more radical antis in other groups actively involved in legislation are pushing hardest at the moment and are closest to passing.
Get some in your "pro-gun" group to agree, divide and conquer some gun owners who don't know what is going on. Once that is passed move on to the next thing. Pretend to still support all rights..well except the new anti-legislation closest to passing, or pro-gun thing you may feel your anti friends may be able to defeat.
As a fake pro-gun person appear to concede that "well maybe the antis actually have a point" on just that one issue, and try to convince pro-gunners to compromise.
Rinse an repeat.

If something gets too hard to pass in the short term, like an "assault weapon ban" reverse course, and pretend to favor the right to own them...and focus on other legislation. The time will come again to support that or something similar by another name later. You can only be against a freedom or two at a time, or for one restriction or two at a time, and have to get it passed or pretend to reverse course before you add more or you risk being too obvious.



One of the biggest advantages of this strategy beyond just the divide and conquer aspect is the reporting aspect.
Consider that many cite some group like the Brady Campaign for one side of an issue, and the NRA for the other side. But if you can to cite or have your fake pro-gun group quoted as the other side of the issue you can control both sides. You can have one a strong supporter of gun control, and the fake pro-gun side sound like it is reluctant and suspicious, but does agree and is ready for compromise.
Giving the appearance of a balanced story, when in fact it is all well controlled for the anti-gun agenda.
You can then in reality speak for both sides, and control who sounds more articulate, or intelligent, and who wins arguments! Make them sound like either die hard pro-gun people but have them sound dumb and lose arguments, or have them sound like pro-gun people who have decided to compromise on the latest specific issue.
Rigging the game to your advantage.

 

[GoWolfpack]

common sense laws that prevent those people who legally cannot own guns from obtaining them

In big, bold letters:

LAWS CANNOT PREVENT CRIMINALS FROM OBTAINING GUNS. Criminals, by definition, ignore and disobey laws.

 

[NG VI]

Yeah, I was wrong.