Out With The Gun Show Loophole

[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. Just like we don't call AR/AK rifles assault weapons.

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... and that is ban all private sales.

 

[medalguy]

Sounds good to me. That after all is precisely the aim of the Brady Bunch.

 

[rbohm]

i agree as well.

 

[oasis618]

I'll 4th that.

 

[7mmsavage]

Very good, I Agree !!

Is the fight for "Private Sales Prohibition" as strong in Fl as it is here in Va? I guess I never thought about how other states were affected. We hear it evertime there is a gunshow and usually about a dozen times a year other than that. I wish that more people understood that it is an attempt to take away the right to private sales and not the closing of some deadly "gunshow loophole" like they are spoonfed from the media. Earlier this year I attended a pro 2A rally and lots of people had on stickers that said Guns Save Lives. There was an anti group there wearing stickers that said Background Checks save Lives. I very politely, maybe somewhat sarcastically said to one of them, "We should just make murder illegal." He did not answer but just looked at me like I was an idiot. I guess it made no sense to him. Anyway thanks for what you are doing in Florida, I will try to spread that here in Virginia as well.

 

[Al Diehl]

Sounds good to me but, it's still "Preaching to the Choir". Until you convince the "ANTIs" to change the name it really doesn't matter. Does it?


Be well.
Al

 

[hso]

What's the plan?

How do you intend to change the term in common usage to this more accurate one?

 

[Deanimator]

How do you intend to change the term in common usage to this more accurate one?

It's not that hard. EVERY time you hear the intentionally deceptive term "gun show loophole" used where you have the ability to interact with those who use it or with their intended audience, contradict that usage.

I did that for years on usenet with animal rights fanatics and with NAMBLA members. I ABSOLUTELY refused to use their terminology. EVERY time I saw some PETA type talk about "murdering" an animal or a child molester from NAMBLA talking about "inter-generational" sex, I contradicted their usage. It was ESPECIALLY effective with the NAMBLA-ites because every time they used some insipid euphemism, I ALWAYS changed it to RAPE. I stayed on point and rammed the point home incessantly. Eventually, they took their bat and ball and went home.

If you let somebody else set the terms of debate, you've already lost the debate.

 

[rideandcarry]

I read an article awhile back that stated whoever frames the discussion usually wins the discussion. When "abortion" changed to "women's rights" and "pro-choice" the argument was won. It's no longer called abortion or the murder of babies (oddly enough, the rights of the female babies is ignored, a discussion for another forum though). Same when the private sale of guns was called the "gun show loophole." Whoever frames the discussion has odds on winning that discussion.

If it means enough to you, then call it what it is and don't allow the opposing side to change the context.

 

[Phatty]

The anti's are the ones using the term "gun show loophole." I can't convince them to stop using that term anymore than I can convince them to change their beliefs on guns.

I don't consider it a "loophole" so I don't ever call it that.

 

[Phatty]

I read an article awhile back that stated whoever frames the discussion usually wins the discussion.

The anti's aren't willing to even have a discussion. They just keep on issuing press releases to the media that contain terms like "gun show loophole."

 

[Deanimator]

The anti's are the ones using the term "gun show loophole." I can't convince them to stop using that term anymore than I can convince them to change their beliefs on guns.

You don't need to convince THEM. You just need to sow doubt in the audience's mind, especially about the other side's honesty. Do that and the battle's won.

NAMBLA used to be a regular fixture in usenet newsgroups. They had regular homosexuals hoodwinked into supporting them because according to them, gays who WEREN'T rapists were next. I just calmly talked to the gays in whatever newsgroup I happened to be in and explained to them that a fifty year old having sex with a five year old boy was RAPE and that it had absolutely nothing in the world to do with two adult men deciding between each other to have sex. I explained to them that protecting RAPISTS merely because they were gay made as little sense as Blacks protecting serial killer Alton Coleman because he was Black, and that they were being used as human shields by RAPISTS. They decided that indeed they had nothing to gain from letting RAPISTS hide behind them and turned on NAMBLA in a rhetorical bloodbath.

VPC, Brady and AHSA are lost causes. You'll never convince them and simply don't need to anyway. Convince their intended VICTIMS. Do that and they become as irrelevant as Tobey Hoover has become in Ohio.

 

[Phatty]

What I believe is a bigger issue is trying to convince the average joe that we shouldn't ban private non-FFL sales. Just because you reframe the term from "gun show loophole" to "private sale prohibition" doesn't mean that you automatically win people over to our side. The average joe that first encounters the issue is very likely to think its a good idea to make private sales go through a FFL and do a background check to make sure the transfer is kosher.

 

[Floppy_D]

How do you intend to change the term in common usage to this more accurate one?

For starters, with a sticky entitled "THR Glossary". Anytime a new member unwittingly uses the term "assault rifle" or "gunshow loophole" or "hi-cap" (or any other anti-2A term,) we could refer them to a sticky on the preferred term. Heck, as often as those type of posts derail threads, it's overdue.

As long as we could come up with a list of the incorrect terms, define them properly and explain why our term is correct, we're at least clarifying to our own members and any guests who browse through why one term is preferable.

I'm sure we could find room for "clip" in there, too.

 

[sonick808]

'gun show loophole' is my personal hotbutton when it comes to anti nonsense.

I'm all for purging this overt attempt to mislead people into believing gun shows are felonious free-for-alls.

I sell someone a gun at a gun show, my living room, borders books lot, NO DIFFERENCE.

if a law ever were passed "closing the gun show loophole", the NRA would have it shot down in court within a year i'd bet.

i AM for penalizing people that don't check age & citizenship via DL / Fed ID of some sort. That's just wrong.

 

[12131]

Originally posted by Phatty:
What I believe is a bigger issue is trying to convince the average joe that we shouldn't ban private non-FFL sales. Just because you reframe the term from "gun show loophole" to "private sale prohibition" doesn't mean that you automatically win people over to our side. The average joe that first encounters the issue is very likely to think its a good idea to make private sales go through a FFL and do a background check to make sure the transfer is kosher.

That is exactly the real issue.

 

[Zack]

Are pawn shops FFL? or is it all private seller?

 

[Uhrmacher]

Pawn shops need an FFL like any other dealer if they want to carry guns.

 

[danez71]

Adding this for sake of discussion and strengthening the debate......

Its not uncommon for "Swap Meets" to require the vendors to have a business license. I dont know if its required at a gun show or not.

Some cities even require a business license if you have more than X # of garage sales per year in your own front yard.

Additionally, you would not be able to sell alcohol at a swap meet with out a liquor license.

It would be wise IMO to discuss the differences, if any, of a Swap Meet and a Gun Show as they appear to both be a group of private indiviguals selling goods. I "think" it has to do with creating a Market Place.

Same? Different? Why or why not?

EDIT: IM SOME WHAT RETRACTING MY POST. TEXESRIFLEMAN ENLIGHTEND ME ON SOME DETAILS. IM LEAVING THIS POST FOR THE SAKE OF ADDING SOME OTHER ANGLES THAT MAY NEED TO BE DEBATED. OTHERWISE DISREGARD - Thankyou texasrifleman.

Its things like this that better be thought out well if you're going to win the debate.

 

[cbrgator]

What's the plan?

How do you intend to change the term in common usage to this more accurate one?

For starters, we can refuse to use the term, just like we refuse to address ARs and AK's as assault weapons. We must educate people when we here them say gun show loophole, correct them and tell them no, no, no private sales prohibition.

I think spreading the word goes a long way. People may be against barrel shrouds, but not many are against hand guards. Just changing the name can also change the perception.

If anyone here has contacts to more visible 2A proponents, we can ask them to help us by spreading the new terminology as well. I'm not sure how to spark a movement, but I think it would be a good one to spark.

 

[alohachris]

In addition to avoiding using the term, I like to shock people out of parroting phrases like "gun show loophole" by responding "there is no such thing". If they persist, I point out that repeating it doesn't maKe it so. There is no such thing as the "gun show loophole" it's a ruse cooked up by people who want to ban guns incrimentally.

 

[Tacbandit]

Quote: By rideandcarry
"If it means enough to you, then call it what it is and don't allow the opposing side to change the context."

Exactly...Call it what it is, stand your ground...be willing to "enlighten" others with truth and logic, because they need to hear the truth regardless of whether or not they are willing to discuss it. Believing a lie doesn't make it the truth.
Tac

 

[cbrgator]

That's my point. Change the name, change how people feel about it. I think it's very important to get private sales prohibition out there because that's the most likely thing to be attacked by legislation.

 

[rainbowbob]

Until you convince the "ANTIs" to change the name it really doesn't matter. Does it?

I beleive it DOES matter that we call the anti's euphemisms what they really are.

In fact, it had never really occurred to me before that a complete "private sales prohibition" is exactly what they are aiming at with "the gun show loophole" BS.

So it is very helpful to re-state the double-talk into words that communicate. First we educate ourselves - then we educate others.

 

[cbrgator]

If we talk about the laws on their terms, they dictate public perception. We must change the public perception to win the battles.