Gun show loophole?

[Deanimator]

That were listed in the phone book, and were at home in major urban areas between the hours of 10 and 11 AM on a Tuesday...

...and NONE of whom were asked a question which includes the DETAILS of what a sham "universal background check" (including REGISTRATION) REALLY entails.

Likewise, I'm sure you'd have gotten a different response from Polish Jews in 1932 if you'd polled them to see how they felt about "free railroad travel for Jews" than if you'd asked if they'd like "to be kicked onto boxcars, shipped to Sobibor, Treblinka and Belzec and gassed to death".

The gun control cult is lies, deceit, deception and disinformation.

 

[JR47]

Maryland, California, and now, New York have laws that require even private sales to be subject to various law enforcement reviews. In Maryland, to sell a hand-gun, or a restricted weapon, one has to fill out the State Police form, send it in, pay for that, wait for it to be approved, and then wait out the rest of a seven-day waiting period. Of course, if the buyer has purchased another of either category within the preceding 30 days, it will be refused.

NONE of the states that have initiated this have shown any marked decline in crime that is attributed to this system. Like the equally expensive, and useless, fired shell casing programs, they are more a way to let politicians say "we've done something", while not inconveniencing their political support among criminals.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Deleted......

 

[CoalTrain49]

It isn't coming to Ohio, now or any time soon. Ohio isn't Washington.

Those who plan for defeat usually achieve it.

NO, I REFUSE.

Really?

Ohio helped put a Democrat in the white house in the last 2 elections. You're
not as red as you think. Judging by Ohio's recent voting history they will probably do it again.

 

[Deanimator]

Ohio helped put a Democrat in the white house in the last 2 elections. You're
not as red as you think. Judging by Ohio's recent voting history they will probably do it again.

And the last Democrat governor was MORE pro-gun than the previous Republican.

There's NO stomach for new repressive gun controls in Ohio.

I suspect that were this March 1945, you'd be wracking your brain trying to think of what kind of deal we could cut with the Germans...

 

[buck460XVR]

Nowhere in that chart is the term 'Universal Background Checks' used, defined, or asked as a question...

Smoke and mirrors...

Again...you must have missed it. It's again in bold type right above the 2nd set of results.......Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?. By definition, that's what a universal background check is.

One of the other things you may missed are the results from the first question.....Do you support or oppose stricter gun control laws in the United States? The results show that a decreasing amount of folks support this and those opposed are in the majority in the most recent polling. If the University that did the polling manipulated the results about UBCs, why did they not manipulate this also? This poll has been verified and considered legitimate by a number of organizations, many which are considered quite conservative. No, there is no smoke and mirrors. Whether the choices are made intelligently or emotionally, informed or naive, it shows, like it or not, accept it or not, that a majority of folks that are pro-gun, are also pro UBC. There are other legitimate polls out there that show that even a majority of NRA members current or recent, support the use of UBCs. Up till a few years ago, the NRA itself supported background checks. Ask Wayne LaPierre. None of these are lies or "Smoke and Mirrors". Just a accurate appraisal of American opinion.

Again, I don't like the idea of UBCs, nor do I think expanding them to FTF sales will do one lick of good to decrease crime and gun violence. I just admit that a majority of folks in the U.S. do. I have seen the proof. Denying it is not going to change it. Just calling 90% of the American voting public "idiots and liars" is not going to change it either. Like those that support UBCs, we need to show facts and give legitimate reasoning against them. Educating the voters, while not as easy as posturing and calling names like a third grader on the playground, is what may change their mind.

 

[Deanimator]

None of these are lies or "Smoke and Mirrors". Just a accurate appraisal of American opinion.

It's ALL "smoke and mirrors"... or more appropriately "Nacht und Nebel", UNLESS "universal background check" is DEFINED, and essential related issues are stated.

Otherwise, it's just asking Polish Jews in 1932 if they want free railroad transportation... without stating the destination.

 

[CoalTrain49]

I suspect that were this March 1945, you'd be wracking your brain trying to think of what kind of deal we could cut with the Germans...

Not me. USN vet here. I'm just looking at the numbers and making predictions. Has nothing to do with how I feel about it. The common mistake, and I hear it all of the time, is it won't happen here. They said that in WA and they said it in OR. Both have UBC's now.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...ohio-voters-favor-universal-background-checks

Pull your head out of the sand and look at the polls. I would say you will probably get one sooner rather than later.

By the way I voted no on I-594 here in WA but it didn't change the outcome much. My fellow gun owners helped to get it passed.

 

[Old Dog]

Arriving late to this party ... but I had to chuckle when I saw Deanimator had posted this remark:

The gun control cult is lies, deceit, deception and disinformation.

Just how did you think they sold the voters in Washington state on UBCs?

We're a red state with a couple blue counties ... millions of gun owners. Gun owners here bought into UBCs (gosh, most of us still can avail ourselves on instant checks and walk out with our guns, so what does it really matter?) Now we have de facto registration, which we did not have before. But it didn't come about, as you posit, like citizens who collaborated with the Nazis (really interesting how you brought 1932 Poland and the Nazis into this thread, by the way, but still not even relevant to the discussion).

And previously Deanimator noted

There's NO stomach for new repressive gun controls in Ohio.

Clearly, the gun-loving voters in Washington and Oregon did not regard UBCs as "repressive gun controls."

If you, and the rest of the Ohio gun-owners, with obvious hubris, believe there's no way UBCs will ever happen in your state, all I can say is, good luck with that. That's exactly what my friends and I believed while still ardently campaigning against UBCs -- NO WAY that'll happen in this gun-loving state! -- yet, here we are now.

 

[X-Rap]

It isn't coming to Ohio, now or any time soon. Ohio isn't Washington.

Those who plan for defeat usually achieve it.

NO, I REFUSE.

Hope your right but if you think Ohio has stronger pro gun demographics than the western states that have already succumbed to UBC I think you are mistaken. 2016 is a big election year with a lot at stake, next year you will see labor, academia, media, youth and minority advocates pull all stops and Ohio like most states has the population and power centralized in its major cities. I don't believe Cleveland, Cincinnati or Toledo are bastions of 2A support. Expect to see the pot issue again then as well.

 

[Deanimator]

Just how did you think they sold the voters in Washington state on UBCs?

By leaving out the most important elements, namely that without REGISTRATION, it's UTTERLY meaningless.

If that message wasn't hammered home, that's the fault of the "pro-gun" forces.

Polling is ALL in the questions asked. Ask a vague question, get a vague answer. What Polish Jew in 1932 wouldn't want to be able to travel by train, free of charge? Would that willingness change if he knew it was a one way trip to Sobibor?

The anti-gun cult are pathological liars, nearly as deceitful as Holocaust deniers. Pro-gun people who don't point that out at every opportunity are doomed to failure and by their own incapacity.

 

[yokel]

Everyone ought to know by now that the adversary is trying to gradually destroy the right to keep and bear arms by attrition. It's no secret that if you continue making the legal commercial sale of arms more pricey, time consuming, and complicated then fewer people will be willing to go through with it. It may seem like "common sense" in that it doesn't immediately remove all guns from all private hands, however, the gun control advocate's whole protracted course of action is somewhat akin to coastal erosion, i.e., the wearing away of land and the removal of beach or dune sediments by wave action, tidal currents, wave currents, drainage or high winds.

Always bear in mind that the exponents of domestic disarmament are relentless in the pursuit of their ways around and through their problem of how to "regulate" the Bill of Rights into insignificance and oblivion!

 

[Deanimator]

Always bear in mind that the exponents of domestic disarmament are relentless in the pursuit of their ways around and through their problem of how to "regulate" the Bill of Rights into insignificance and oblivion!

And "compromising" with them is NEVER a compromise, only surrender.

The gun control cult is a maximalist movement. Treating it as anything else is like convincing yourself that bull sharks are herbivores, and swimming among them with bloody fish guts stuffed down your trunks.

They're the ENEMY. Treat them as such.

 

[RugerBob]

Either way, you can't have 100% background checks without 100% registration.
Registration will equal confiscation, always has, always will.
Show me one country in the last 100 years that didn't have registration that didn't equal some sort of confiscation.
Or at least a HIGh insurance to own certain guns.

 

[Salmoneye]

Again...you must have missed it. It's again in bold type right above the 2nd set of results.......Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?.

Again, it is not 'I' that missed it...

"Universal Background Checks" is nowhere in that question, and is not defined...

It's a simple matter of asking the 'right' question to attain the answer you are looking for...

If the question was asked as:

"Would you approve of 'Universal Background Checks' for all gun transfers including between family members as gifts, bequests, and to include temporary transfers for a day of hunting or target shooting?"

You would receive a completely different set of numbers...

By definition, that's what a universal background check is.

It clearly is not the 'definition'...

Smoke and mirrors...

 

[AKElroy]

You really think the soccer mom that says all she wants is for her 3rd grader to be safe at school is lying to us? That the father that buried his child because of random shooting violence and claims" it should have never happened" is trying to deceive us? If you really believe that, whatever you are smoking is illegal. You accuse the antis of lying and making false claims, but then do the same thing yourself. This is why many folks neutral to gun ownership no longer listen to anything we say.....because we lower ourselves to the level of our opposition and are no better than they are. False blanket claims such as yours do nothing to help our cause or to promote responsible gun ownership. Only makes us all look like idiots. Kinda like those folks that believed in Aryan superiority.


Again, I don't agree with mandatory UBCs or any of the other possible scenarios that many think would go along with them. But I don't think that lying and making false accusations that others are always lying and making false accusations is going to keep them from happening.

No, I believe they have been effectively propagandized by those that are. At the end of the day, what we are talking about with NICS in general is the forced obligation to seek permission from the very institutions our founders sought to protect us from via the RKBA. That, from the standpoint of original intent, is an absurdity.

 

[AKElroy]

Again...you must have missed it. It's again in bold type right above the 2nd set of results.......Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?. By definition, that's what a universal background check is.

One of the other things you may missed are the results from the first question.....Do you support or oppose stricter gun control laws in the United States? The results show that a decreasing amount of folks support this and those opposed are in the majority in the most recent polling. If the University that did the polling manipulated the results about UBCs, why did they not manipulate this also? This poll has been verified and considered legitimate by a number of organizations, many which are considered quite conservative. No, there is no smoke and mirrors. Whether the choices are made intelligently or emotionally, informed or naive, it shows, like it or not, accept it or not, that a majority of folks that are pro-gun, are also pro UBC. There are other legitimate polls out there that show that even a majority of NRA members current or recent, support the use of UBCs. Up till a few years ago, the NRA itself supported background checks. Ask Wayne LaPierre. None of these are lies or "Smoke and Mirrors". Just a accurate appraisal of American opinion.

Again, I don't like the idea of UBCs, nor do I think expanding them to FTF sales will do one lick of good to decrease crime and gun violence. I just admit that a majority of folks in the U.S. do. I have seen the proof. Denying it is not going to change it. Just calling 90% of the American voting public "idiots and liars" is not going to change it either. Like those that support UBCs, we need to show facts and give legitimate reasoning against them. Educating the voters, while not as easy as posturing and calling names like a third grader on the playground, is what may change their mind.

Again, media and administration propaganda are driving this result. Fortunately, our rights are not supposed to be subject to the whims of the majority. Having rights enumerated and codified protects them from the evils of pure democracy, AKA the tyranny of majority rule.

The question may be worded as you state, but I would imagine a significanltly different result in this poll between these two wordings:

1. Do you believe that a system should be established to prevent dangerous criminals from potentially acquiring firearms to kill your children?

2. Do you believe as an American citizen you should be forced to seek permission from the government to purchase a firearm for the protection of your children?

Same question, and yet the results between them would be wildly disparit. The point is that polls are worthless. Even If they were capable of accurately measuring the will of the people, such results should be irrelevant when applied to limiting a constitutional right. Those rights, by definition, are not subject to majority rule.

 

[larryh1108]

The question may be worded as you state, but I would imagine a significanltly different result in this poll between these two wordings:

1. Do you believe that a system should be established to prevent dangerous criminals from potentially acquiring firearms to kill your children?

2. Do you believe as an American citizen you should be forced to seek permission from the government to purchase a firearm for the protection of your children?

Same question, and yet the results between them would be wildly disparit. The point is that polls are worthless. Even If they were capable of accurately measuring the will of the people, such results should be irrelevant when applied to limiting a constitutional right. Those rights, by definition, are not subject to majority rule.

Nailed it.

Good job!

 

[natman]

The question may be worded as you state, but I would imagine a significanltly different result in this poll between these two wordings:

1. Do you believe that a system should be established to prevent dangerous criminals from potentially acquiring firearms to kill your children?

2. Do you believe as an American citizen you should be forced to seek permission from the government to purchase a firearm for the protection of your children?

Same question, and yet the results between them would be wildly disparit.

Here's a good example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

From the excellent British political satire Yes, Prime Minister.

 

[buck460XVR]

Again, media and administration propaganda are driving this result. Fortunately, our rights are not supposed to be subject to the whims of the majority. Having rights enumerated and codified protects them from the evils of pure democracy, AKA the tyranny of majority rule.

The question may be worded as you state, but I would imagine a significanltly different result in this poll between these two wordings:

1. Do you believe that a system should be established to prevent dangerous criminals from potentially acquiring firearms to kill your children?

2. Do you believe as an American citizen you should be forced to seek permission from the government to purchase a firearm for the protection of your children?

Same question, and yet the results between them would be wildly disparit. The point is that polls are worthless. Even If they were capable of accurately measuring the will of the people, such results should be irrelevant when applied to limiting a constitutional right. Those rights, by definition, are not subject to majority rule.

Again...not my poll and not my questions. As to changing the wording, yes wording can be generic as in the shown poll or it can be intimidating like your wording. Results may or may not vary, you accurately cannot predict what random folks will say........only way is to poll the same folks and see the answers. I doubt if the overall answers to the first question would change, as it is only clarifying what most folks think the implementation of UBCs will do. While I too would support a system that would keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous criminals....I doubt very much if there is one that could without also keeping them out of the hands of law abiding citizens. That is why I'm against UBCs.

Also again....you are preaching to the choir. I agree, as do most folks on gun forums that UBCs are not the answer. It is not me or others here that you need to convince. But.....the facts show us that many folks out there do support UBCs, and in many cases they are the majority, even in gun loving states. Beating my brow is not going to change that fact. What the answer is, I don't know, but it is readily apparent that most others don't either.......yet. As for 2nd Amendment rights not subject to majority rule, ask the folks from Washington State about that.

 

[Deanimator]

Also again....you are preaching to the choir. I agree, as do most folks on gun forums that UBCs are not the answer. It is not me or others here that you need to convince. But.....the facts show us that many folks out there do support UBCs, and in many cases they are the majority, even in gun loving states. Beating my brow is not going to change that fact. What the answer is, I don't know, but it is readily apparent that most others don't either.......yet. As for 2nd Amendment rights not subject to majority rule, ask the folks from Washington State about that.

I'm a fixture on cleveland.com, slapping down the lies, half-truths, and disinformation of the gun control cult.

How about you?

 

[CoalTrain49]

As for 2nd Amendment rights not subject to majority rule, ask the folks from Washington State about that.

That happened because of an initiative process that is not the normal legislative process in most states. It skirts around legislators being able to do their jobs and the courts have to get involved to pass judgement. OR passed a bill which is the normal avenue for new laws. Same thing happened in CO. so it can be done either way.

I'm living with I-594. Mostly it is just driving up the cost of used guns with added taxes/FFL fees and giving the FFL dealers a new found income. Can't really see how it has affected anything else.

And yes, it's just one more infringement on my RKBA.

 

[Deanimator]

Can't really see how it has affected anything else.

Don't worry, that's coming.

When it [inevitably] fails to prevent any meaningful number of crimes, it will need to be "fixed" with registration and whatever else they can think of.

 

[buck460XVR]

I'm a fixture on cleveland.com, slapping down the lies, half-truths, and disinformation of the gun control cult.

How about you?

I help teach hunter/shooter safety to new hunters/shooters and have been for a coupla decades. This is where informing people of the truths and benefits of gun ownership works well. Young folks and those new to the sport with open minds that have not formed a emotional opinion over a period of many years. Still, they are receptive because firearms interest them and they are a captive audience for 14 hours.

IMHO, internet forums do very little if anything to change folk's minds when it comes to politics. Folks are actively involved in internet forums because they already have strong opinions and try, mostly in vain to change the minds of others. Generally what happens if folks just argue about semantics, nit pick on language use and have very little real information to share. Basically discussions are reduced to name calling and belittlement as the main forms of debate. Similar to this thread. While forums can be a good source of objective and technical information, folks with like ideals tend to migrate to and stay on forums that mirror their own opinions and after a period of time, the general consensus on subjective subjects is the same. Folks that can't handle confrontation generally leave and take a bad taste in their mouth with them.

 

[Old Dog]

Show me one country in the last 100 years that didn't have registration that didn't equal some sort of confiscation.

Well, not to pick nits here ... but you may have wanted to have performed a little research prior to asking that question.

By the way, except for those isolated, illegal confiscations post-Katrina, are guns being confiscated in the several U.S. states that have registration?