It's not a "gun show loophole"

[KG1]

Now it's a "private sale loophole"

For one, the "gun show loophole" is a terrible name. The better way to look at it is a private sales loophole: If someone purchases a gun from a private seller, such as a collector, friend, or family member, no gun background check is required. This is well-known as the "gun show loophole" because these types of private sellers can be found at gun shows

President Obama isn't closing the "gun show loophole." Here's what he's doing instead. - Vox

 

[printcraft]

See?! We didn't go far enough to keep kids safe.
We now need to close the private sale loophole.

 

[dusty88]

Well at least it's a more honest name.

 

[printcraft]

Except a legal action is not a ****ing loophole.

 

[KG1]

Doesn't take much to figure out that what they really wanna go after is ALL private sales no matter where they are conducted. Can you say UBC?

 

[dusty88]

Except a legal action is not a ****ing loophole.

yes, but it's more prone to rational discussion

As it is now, some folks think that you buy every gun at a gun show without a background check. There is a lot of energy wasted on straightening that out before you can even get to the part of discussing why private gun sales should perhaps not be subject to background checks.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

What if the buyer was promoted beyond E-3?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Now it's a "private sale loophole"



President Obama isn't closing the "gun show loophole." Here's what he's doing instead. - Vox

It had crossed my mind if it were a mistake to try to correct these people about their misconception. Maybe we should have let them go on about gun shows and imagined loop holes and let them try to solve a problem that didn't exist...On the other hand, maybe it's good to let them continue to lift their masks.

 

[IndyDave1776]

What if the buyer was promoted beyond E-3?

 

[Bfish]

Except a legal action is not a ****ing loophole.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Except a legal action is not a ****ing loophole.

Ah, but any legal activity is a 'loophole' (i.e., there ought to be a law...) to someone who hates liberty and cherishes control over others. More specifically, if there is any aspect of your life not controlled by the .gov, it represents a 'loophole' of some kind.

 

[Bennettjh]

Except a legal action is not a ****ing loophole.

 

[ajeandy]

There's a loophole in their heads. Or maybe just a hole in general.

They think it's absurd that someone can privately sell a gun. They think private sales should be illegal as you could buy a bunch of guns and sell them to violent felons!

What they really want is "Australian or Germany style gun control."

Because....THEY do not take responsibility for their own safety and think they can legislate the bad guys away.

 

[dusty88]

There's a loophole in their heads. Or maybe just a hole in general.

They think it's absurd that someone can privately sell a gun. They think private sales should be illegal as you could buy a bunch of guns and sell them to violent felons!

What they really want is "Australian or Germany style gun control."

Because....THEY do not take responsibility for their own safety and think they can legislate the bad guys away.

I think that's true of the actual gun control advocates.

Not everyone is an advocate with a hard shell.

If you had asked me 20 years ago about this, I might have at first glance thought a background check on private sales was a good idea. Once someone (maybe it was myself, i don't remember) walked me through the realities of defining that, of the fact that you transfer guns to family members, etc I see the problems with such a law. I also see that anyone who gives a darn about who they sell their gun to can spot a dicey situation.

IMO, it is worth having a conversation when you spot someone who isn't being a sarcastic smart-ass.

Actually I've found that sometimes on social media if you answer the sarcasm and hyperbole with calm, intelligent answers that you won't change the mind of the hardcore advocate. But you may change the mind of someone else who is watching/listening/asking.

 

[ajeandy]

I think that's true of the actual gun control advocates.

Not everyone is an advocate with a hard shell.

If you had asked me 20 years ago about this, I might have at first glance thought a background check on private sales was a good idea. Once someone (maybe it was myself, i don't remember) walked me through the realities of defining that, of the fact that you transfer guns to family members, etc I see the problems with such a law. I also see that anyone who gives a darn about who they sell their gun to can spot a dicey situation.

IMO, it is worth having a conversation when you spot someone who isn't being a sarcastic smart-ass.

Actually I've found that sometimes on social media if you answer the sarcasm and hyperbole with calm, intelligent answers that you won't change the mind of the hardcore advocate. But you may change the mind of someone else who is watching/listening/asking.

Everyone I've tried talking to already has their mind made up. They think no civilian should own an assault rifle, they think 2A was for back before we had an army and that arms referred to flintlocks only, and they think that the .gov should regulate all the guns.

I cannot understand why so many people do not think for themselves and instead are

 

[rvb]

yes, but it's more prone to rational discussion

yea. when I've pointed out to folks the "gun show loophole" is only the transfer of private property between individual who reside in the same state, and that the fed govt requires licensed dealers/BG-checks on all transactions across state lines, and that it's a real stretch of govt authority to allow them to regulate intra-state sales of private property and maybe that issue is best left to the states as it currently is, the fire often dies out of proponents of closing the "loophole"....

-rvb

 

[IndyDave1776]

I cannot understand why so many people do not think for themselves and instead are

The best explanation I have managed to develop is that thinking for one's self requires a combination of work and taking responsibility for your own outcomes. Life is much easier, less stressful, and blissful (in the sense that ignorance is bliss) so many people are willing to suck up the spiked koolaid and let someone else do their thinking for them.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

The best explanation I have managed to develop is that thinking for one's self requires a combination of work and taking responsibility for your own outcomes. Life is much easier, less stressful, and blissful (in the sense that ignorance is bliss) so many people are willing to suck up the spiked koolaid and let someone else do their thinking for them.

^^^THIS^^^

I've noticed that, in general, these same "sheep" are lazy and irresponsible to various degrees in pretty much every aspect of their life. Our traditional "American" culture that admires hard work, independence, and intelligence has been lost. The proliferation of "sheep" that we see today is the result and has brought with it a whole host of negative symptoms. Taking back the culture is the first step to setting our country back on the right path to long-term success, treating only the symptoms is a recipe for frustration and failure.

 

[ajeandy]

^^^THIS^^^

I've noticed that, in general, these same "sheep" are lazy and irresponsible to various degrees in pretty much every aspect of their life. Our traditional "American" culture that admires hard work, independence, and intelligence has been lost. The proliferation of "sheep" that we see today is the result and has brought with it a whole host of negative symptoms. Taking back the culture is the first step to setting our country back on the right path to long-term success, treating only the symptoms is a recipe for frustration and failure.

Found this from someone on facebook, thought it was well spoken:

Obama’s new Executive Order requires doctors to violate their long-standing doctor/patient confidentiality rule and report those with a “mental impairment” to the FBI or other government agencies. So…..what constitutes a mental impairment or “documented mental health issue”? Well, that’s being left kinda open for interpretation. Homicidal ravings? Yep. But doctors already are allowed to report any client they think is a danger to themselves or others. This EO wasn’t necessary.
But now, it includes those ‘unable to handle their finances’. How about people who are taking medication because they’re clinically depressed? Anxiety attacks? How about post-partum depression? Grief over loss of a loved one? Anger towards someone who assaulted your child? How about someone who speaks out vehemently against a political idea on Facebook or YouTube? Someone who organizes anti-administration protests?
It’s a very slippery slope. Even mental health professionals can’t agree on what falls under the umbrella of mental illness. And it’s a slope those currently in power in Washington and the media may come to regret when the balance of power swings to the right (which will inevitably happen). While they may want to declare the Bundys unfit to own a weapon today, what if it turns around and anyone leading a “Black Lives Matter” protest or spouting Socialist views are declared mentally ill and put on an FBI watchlist tomorrow?
More gun laws won’t fix what’s wrong with our gun violence. A century ago there were more guns per person in the US than there are now with far fewer problems. Why? Because children were raised with a firm understanding of right and wrong behavior. Because parents, schools, churches and society all reinforced the same rules and supported the concepts of accountability and punishment. People were embarrassed when they were caught and publicly punished. Being ‘on the dole’ (government assistance) wasn’t something to be proud of – it was something to work your way off of as soon as possible. Instead, children were raised with morals and skills that made them good employees and productive citizens as soon as they left school.
Today’s youths are taught that they are victims of their environment and circumstances. That things done decades or centuries ago leave them unable to excel.
BULL!! Instead of feeding them excuses, infuse them with purpose. Challenge them to excel, not to whine. And the key source of this is….the family unit.
I was born to a mentally ill unwed mother, taken from her and placed in foster care and then with my elderly grandparents, and had four last names before being adopted at the age of five. I could have been a statistic or an angry youth, but the difference was being surrounded by a firm but loving family that challenged and disciplined me.
Which brings me back to where this rant started: The way to solve our gun violence problem isn’t with more restrictions or laws on guns. It’s with more guidance and discipline of our citizens of all ages. It starts with self-accountability and responsibility for ourselves and our families. If you have a child, it’s YOUR responsibility to support, teach and raise that child to be a productive member of society. If you have elderly parents, mentally ill siblings or handicapped family members, you need to stay involved and know when you need to step in. At some point, you may have to finally take the keys from your grandpa or get inpatient care for your psychotic brother who won’t stay on his meds. I have close friends who have taken the step of removing firearms from a loved one’s home. Don’t leave it to their doctor and hope he’ll make the hard decisions for you. Stop expecting Uncle Sam, Big Brother or some other government entity to solve all your problems for you.
Obama’s EO is nothing but a cop-out for families too broken or unwilling to take care of their own. And he backed it with false facts and figures. (You can’t buy guns from online dealers without going through a background check. You also can’t buy them from licensed dealers at gun shows without a background check. And if gun laws actually worked, Chicago wouldn’t be one of the bloodiest cities on the continent.)
The result is a dangerous chipping away of our Constitutional protections which, once lost, can’t be regained. As Benjamin Franklin so aptly put it, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. “
So stop with the crocodile tears, Mr. President, as you stand there with dozens of heavily armed Secret Service agents armed with full-automatic weapons surrounding you and your family. If you truly want to make a difference, focus more on long-term solutions and less on short-term blame.

 

[Arickosmo]

I was speaking with some people the other day and it occurred to me that there really is a "loophole". Bare with me.

A gun show brings all the "clingers" and those looking to buy right? So it's kinda like free advertising in that you reach a huge audience. If I were a bad guy I know I can go there and buy a gun off of the next guy in front of me. No checks, just me and him right? Ok, so to prevent it, and head off the asshats in Washington, all we need is a self governing system that makes them shut up.

You enter the show, your personal carry or the baby killing machine you brought to sell to the next school shooter gets a red zip tie through the action. You may leave with what you brung. If you want to sell during the show, privately, you MUST see a dealer who can perform a background check for a fee. Let the dealers compete. At that point you get a green zip tie through the action. You may only leave with what you brought, red tie and accounted for, or a green tie meaning a dealer cleared you.

No need to worry about private sales away from gun shows as the "advertising" is minimal.

Will it work? HELL NO!

Will it force them to say that is really not the problem and go off in another direction? Yes.

discuss...