Gun Show Loophole exposed <<MOD WARNING ISSUED>>

It's a loophole so big you can drive a truck thru it

 

More myth and fantasy

 

It's a huge loophole that needs to be fixed

 

Are gun apologists pro rule-of-law? Why do they support a loophole which makes it easy for violent criminals to obtain firearms?

 

Honest debate can be quite stimulating, thought-provoking, and even facilitate understanding. HONEST debate. That is clearly not what you are here for.

 

You long ago already lost the Loophole discussion. I understand you want new laws but there is, as you have been repeatedly corrected, no Loophole. Your persistence in claiming a Loophole is nothing more than an attempt to flamebait. You’ve no legs to stand on but take on the mantle of the Black Knight...
[video][/video]

 

There are no "gun apologists" here. There is also no loophole.

We live in a nation based upon rule of law through the Constitution, which places strict constraints upon the power of government to protect the rights of the individual.

Violent criminals can get any implement of violence they wish, regardless of the law. Certainly we can criminalize the use of said implements to enhance sentencing upon those who prey upon the innocent to remove them from the streets; but when the law prevents the honest citizen from being able to effectively defend themselves that law is unacceptable in a free society.

 

I have posted verifiable evidence on this thread while others post Monty python videos. You are talking to the wrong person

 

[QUOTE="Vegas giants, post: 1069806366, member: 70431"]I have posted verifiable evidence on this thread while others post Monty python videos. You are talking to the wrong person[/QUOTE]
No, you haven’t. And, you keep posting the same, deliberate, misrepresentation over and over of an arguement you lost in the period prior to your being banned.

 

No, you haven’t. And, you keep posting the same, deliberate, misrepresentation over and over of an arguement you lost in the period prior to your being banned.[/QUOTE]
T
Please post more money python videos....it really is the best you can do. Lol

 

I think An Tiabhse speaks for a lot of us here. I know he speaks for me on this subject.

 

I accept your concession. It's easy to win when the opposing side runs out of facts and only has money python videos. Lol

 

You rate Monty Python responses; absurd comedy for absurd comedy. To accept a concession when none was extended is the height of absurdity as the Monty Python sketch both illustrates and reflects the level and the seriousness of your posts. But, then, engaging in rational debate isn’t your motive.
Rather, your interest is to provoke responses even if it means redefining word to do so. Day is night and night is day. As long as you are the best that mindlessly argues for gun control, the less concern gun rights activist should have, so keep it up, every bit helps.

 

Blah blah blah. More personal attacks. That is all you have because you lost the argument.

A loophole is an inadequacy in the laws WHICH I ALREADY PRESENTED THAT AS THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM. This law has a giant loophole in it that criminals take advantage of. It was designed that way as a political measure but it needs to be fixed.

Now say something about my mother. At least get creative with your insults since you have no argument. LOL

 

Ah, ‘the parrot isn’t dead’ arguement.
A loophole doesn’t exist, in this case, when the law specifically excludes application in private sales. You may not like the law and want to change it, but it isn’t a loophole. As far as current law being inadequate, that is a matter of opinion for which the remedy is to change the law. However, since there doesn’t appear to be enough that agree with you, the law remains as is... no Loop Hole, just your opinion more laws should be added for achieving your fantasy. Feel free to keep advocating your fantasy...you won’t be adding followers here.

 

Yes it is my opinion that there is an inadequacy in the law and thus a loophole. And my opinion is as valid as yours. Except I can express it without insulting you personally....the difference between us

 

My guess is you have never bought a firearm at a "gun show," or you would fully understand there is really no gun show loopholes.

 

Well it really is just called that but it applies to all private sales. If you need to I can teach you about it. What would you like to know?

 

Which are maybe 5% of sales at gun shows and around .001% of all gun sales, it's a nothing burger.

And never forget BATF can still trace a firearm no matter where it is bought.

 

Oh great....you have evidence? Lets see it

Here is mine

Harvard’s Dr. Deborah Azrael tells The Trace that of 2,072 gun owners the researchers surveyed, roughly 40 percent said they’d acquired their most recent firearm (through a sale or transfer) without going through a background check.

Azrael was not ready to provide specific numbers, as the research is still being readied for formal release, and those figures will merit thorough examination once they are made public. But here’s how she says the numbers stack up about how Americans acquire their firearms.

• Roughly 70 percent: Gun owners who purchased their most recent gun.
• Roughly 30 percent: Gun owners who did not purchase their most recent gun, instead obtaining it through a transfer (i.e., a gift, an inheritance, a swap between friends).
• Zeroing in on the population of gun buyers, about 34 percent did not go through a background check.
• Among the gun owners who got their firearms through a transfer, roughly two-thirds did not go through a background check.

Add it up, and it works out to:

• Roughly 60 percent: the share of gun owners surveyed who did go through a background check when they obtained (through sale or transfer) their latest gun.
• Roughly 40 percent: the share of gun owners who did not.

https://www.thetrace.org/2015/10/private-sale-loophole-background-check-harvard-research/

 

Your information is, as usual, full of falsehoods.

The Trace, himm, who's that organization?

And are they unbiased, probably not considering their funding.

Old news pal Paul Bedard June 15, 2015 03:00 PM

All the way back to Obama.

Secret revealed: Bloomberg funds new gun news site, 'The Trace'

The launch of another news site by Bloomberg, the former New York mayor, head of the Bloomberg news operation, and funder of several anti-gun sites including Mayors Against Illegal Guns, comes as President Obama and Democrats are trying to revive their gun control agenda. Last week, legislation was proposed, for example, to require a police-issued license prior to buying a handgun.

The Trace is headed by former New Republic story editor James Burnett. He didn't respond to an email question about the project, one sign of the secrecy around it. His Twitter account describes him as "editorial director, a site to be named later." But his Twitter handle gives it away: "TraceBurnett."

And a reporter working a story for the website described herself as "a freelance writer for The Trace, a soon-to-be-launched online news magazine about guns and gun rights."

In the only story about The Trace, New York's "Capital" said the site will be the editorial arm of Bloomberg's Everytown for Gun Safety. The group draws attention to gun violence, builds protests against organizations and companies that don't ban guns in stores, and promotes background checks.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/secret-revealed-bloomberg-funds-new-gun-news-site-the-trace

 

Did Bloomberg fund the Harvard study I cited? Will you believe it if I provide a differ source for the EVIDENCE? LOL

 

No they moved the number around to suit their narrative, which their believers fell into.

If it 's credible maybe, but make sure you find the funding behind the study or the opinion formed from it.

Otherwise I will shred it apart in public.

 

Well you cited a number of .001%. Its a very specific number. Please show your evidence for this number.


Watch this folks. LOL

 

Are those who support firearm-related restrictions pro rule-of-law? It certainly does not appear that such is the case. The firearm-related restrictions in place are working and being utilized as they were originally intended, exclusively with regard to those who are in the business of selling firearms for profit. The law in question was never intended to apply to private individuals disposing of their own personal and private property.

Yet despite the law working and being applied exactly as it was intended, supporters of greater firearm-related restrictions are complaining because it is not being applied in a manner it was not designed nor intended for. They are literally demanding the law be broken in its use.

Is the acquisition of firearms by violent criminals legal under these circumstances? Or is it something that is simply being engaged in regardless?