Gun Show Loophole debunked video

[DanMarvel 9]

Good video for the people who are uneducated about gun laws.

 

 

Suggest to post this video on facebook and other social media to spread it as much as we can. Should prevent all this gunshow loophole talk from spreading.

[bhunted 887]

I'm spreading this vid around as much as possible. Finally, somebody took the time to debunk it. Sent it to Fox news too.

http://louderwithcrowder.com/hidden-camera-buying-a-gun-without-a-background-check/

[louu 399]

Tell us what we don't already know tell us what we don't already know. I'm still confused as to why king O had to even waste time writing that law (that already exists) when he should have wrote a law to actually more heavily punishes people that commit gun crimes. You know, like all the drug dealers in his precious home town that only get a slap on the wrist and get right back to it.

[tattooo 220]

Really great video...thank you for sharing

[bhunted 887]

I started sharing this video around. Sent to Trump, Fox News, etc... Best way to piss off the libs is show them this. This vid is long over due...

[silverado427 10,717]

Ha ha. Nice one. 

[Arthur Kill 0]

That video is disingenuous and actually "debunks" nothing -- but it's Fox News based, so no surprise there. 

 

Yeah, yeah, yeah, politicians don't know crap about firearms.  Yawn.  I'll be the first to proclaim that present gun laws are idiotic and need to be re-structured from the ground up.

 

But misinformation and little white lies, like the video posted here, are not helping the cause.

 

The fact-of-the-matter is:

 

As of August 2013, 33 states do not require background checks for sales of firearms by private individuals, while 17 states and Washington, D.C. do require background checks for some or all private firearm sales.^[7] This is in contrast to sales by gun stores and other Federal Firearms License holders, who are required by federal law to perform background checks of all buyers, and to record all sales, regardless of venue (i.e. private sales).

 

This simple fact was NEVER stated in the posted video.  Wonder why? 

 

Because the video is intended to be inflammatory propaganda that gets a gullible, less enlightened but very vocal segment of gun owners in America, all riled up.

 

 

Like I've said before -- The NRA and radical right-wing misinformation is the number one threat to today's accepted interpretation of the second amendment, bar none.

 

[DanMarvel 9]

Private sales can occur in and out of gun shows. It can occur right outside of the police departments parking lot. So really that term "Gun Show Loophole" should not exist period. Really we should call it "Police parking lot loophole"

[n4p226r 105]

Arthur. There have been numerous times where people, as shown in the video, on TV said we need more background checks because people can easily buy automatic weapons across state lines without a background check.

 

The video shows that

1. You cannot easily buy automatic weapons

2. You cannot legally but any weapon across state lines without a background check

3. Dealers selling at a gun show have to perform background checks

 

 

I agree the video is kinda dumb, as are most of his videos, but he definitely does debunk some of the BS the president, democratic presidential candidates, and anti gun media say

[n4p226r 105]

Like I've said before -- The NRA and radical right-wing misinformation is the number on threat to today's accepted interpretation of the second amendment, bar none.

 

What is the accepted interpretation of the second Ammendment?

[RootSki 5]

My favorite loophole is the "found it in my girlfriends dad's basement" loophole.

 

We really need a law to prevent that.

[Arthur Kill 0]

What is the accepted interpretation of the second Ammendment?

 

Gee, I dunno?  There's so many, where should we start?

 

Are you an enlisted member of a well regulated Militia, in whose armory your weapons are stored?

 

Or do you keep them at your house?

 

Ever wonder why?  Because that is today's "accepted interpretation of the Second Amendment?"  Certainly you've been exposed to this never-ending second amendment interpretation debate before, no?

 

Why you act dumb?

 

[ChrisJM981 924]

Gee, I dunno?  There's so many, where should we start?

 

Are you an enlisted member of a well regulated Militia, in whose armory your weapons are stored?

 

Or do you keep them at your house?

 

Ever wonder why?  Because that is today's "accepted interpretation of the Second Amendment?"  Certainly you've been exposed to this never-ending second amendment interpretation debate before, no?

 

Why you act dumb?

 

 

The Second Amendment isn't about an organized militia or a sporting heritage. It's the last line of defense against tyranny, which could involve the federal or state government and its agents. To simplify, the Second Amendment is protection from YOU.

[n4p226r 105]

Gee, I dunno?  There's so many, where should we start?

 

Are you an enlisted member of a well regulated Militia, in whose armory your weapons are stored?

 

Or do you keep them at your house?

 

Ever wonder why?  Because that is today's "accepted interpretation of the Second Amendment?"  Certainly you've been exposed to this never-ending second amendment interpretation debate before, no?

 

Why you act dumb?

 

You have over 100 firearms and years of uber special firearms experience, where do you keep yours?

 

 

The accepted, legal, Supreme Court verified opinion is that the 2nd amendment guarantees a right for an individual person to keep and bear arms.

[bhunted 887]

There is nothing in there that is wrong. We are not talking about private sales. Hence, gun show loophole.

 

Art, w t f is your problem? Are you against anything that may help?

I've seen nothing but negativity in your posts.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SmittyMHS 603]

That video is disingenuous and actually "debunks" nothing -- but it's Fox News based, so no surprise there. 

 

Yeah, yeah, yeah, politicians don't know crap about firearms.  Yawn.  I'll be the first to proclaim that present gun laws are idiotic and need to be re-structured from the ground up.

 

But misinformation and little white lies, like the video posted here, are not helping the cause.

 

The fact-of-the-matter is:

 

As of August 2013, 33 states do not require background checks for sales of firearms by private individuals, while 17 states and Washington, D.C. do require background checks for some or all private firearm sales.^[7] This is in contrast to sales by gun stores and other Federal Firearms License holders, who are required by federal law to perform background checks of all buyers, and to record all sales, regardless of venue (i.e. private sales).

 

This simple fact was NEVER stated in the posted video.  Wonder why? 

 

Because the video is intended to be inflammatory propaganda that gets a gullible, less enlightened but very vocal segment of gun owners in America, all riled up.

 

 

Like I've said before -- The NRA and radical right-wing misinformation is the number one threat to today's accepted interpretation of the second amendment, bar none.

 

Fact of the matter is if someone has something to sell, and someone wants to buy it, how do you stop the sale? There's a black market for everything. Just how would you "re-structure" the laws now? You gonna put a GPS tracker in every weapon so you know where it is and who owns it at all times?  Ask Eric Holder how that worked out for him.

 Take another swig of that kool aid and get back to us

[Newtonian 453]

Gee, I dunno?  There's so many, where should we start?

 

Are you an enlisted member of a well regulated Militia, in whose armory your weapons are stored?

 

Or do you keep them at your house?

 

Ever wonder why?  Because that is today's "accepted interpretation of the Second Amendment?"  Certainly you've been exposed to this never-ending second amendment interpretation debate before, no?

 

Why you act dumb?

 

The part about the militia could just as easily read, "Since pork chops are two cents per pound..." or "since trolls make forum life unpleasant..." Semantically it is not a justification, or as some believe the only justification for "the right to keep and bear arms."

 

It's the same as saying, "The easy availability of newspapers, being necessary for providing the public with information, the right to free speech shall not be infringed." That doesn't allow the abolition of free speech simply because newspapers no longer exist.  

 

It has also been established that the meaning of militia in 1789 in Pennsylvania was different than its meaning in 2016 Kabul. 

 

Finally you'll note that the Amendment does not grant the right to keep and bear, it affirms it and limits government's ability to infringe on it. It's not like the 14th Amendment, which granted citizenship to slaves who previously did not enjoy citizenship, thereby granting a right out of thin air.

 

Constitutionalists have long realized the huge difference between rights a government grants out of the goodness of its heart and rights that are natural or God-given. 

[AlDente67 563]

You can't.  Look at ghost guns.  Made in the Philippine jungle, sold in town for $100, runner transfers them to shipment at $300 each, arrive in port and passed on to local underground dealer for $1000 each, sold as virgin pistol (usually a 1911) on the street for $3000.  Used in some stickups (mainly to rob drug dealers) once or twice, then passed back down the food chain (as the now existing ballistics are recorded).  Value of the ghost gun keeps diminishing as lower level thieves use it over again, then pass it on down to the bottom feeders before getting tossed in the lake or picked off their dead body.

 

This was all filmed before from fruit to nut.

[n4p226r 105]

The part about the militia could just as easily read, "Since pork chops are two cents per pound..." or "since trolls make forum life unpleasant..." Semantically it is not a justification, or as some believe the only justification for "the right to keep and bear arms."

 

It's the same as saying, "The easy availability of newspapers, being necessary for providing the public with information, the right to free speech shall not be infringed." That doesn't allow someone to say, once newspapers no longer exist, that free speech no longer exists.

 

It has also been established that the meaning of militia in 1789 in Pennsylvania was different than its meaning in 2016 Kabul.

 

Finally you'll note that the Amendment does not grant the right to keep and bear, it affirms it and limits government's ability to infringe on it. It's not like the 14th Amendment, which granted citizenship to slaves who previously did not enjoy citizenship, thereby granting a right out of thin air.

You are just a brainwashed NRA right wing radical with no possible rational thought process. Don't you know that ?

[PK90 3,570]

You are just a brainwashed NRA right wing radical with no possible rational thought process. Don't you know that ?

 

Hey. I resemble that remark.

 

[n4p226r 105]

Hey. I resemble that remark.

 

according to Arthur kill we all do

[JohnnyB 4,325]

according to Arthur kill we all do

F**K Arthur Kill! And I do not mean the body of water of the same name! The supposed gun show loophole is all about being able to go to a gun show and purchase a gun from a dealer there without a background check.

We all know as the video shows, that can't happen.

 

FAK goes off about private sales. Hell, even the PRNJ allows for F2F transfers without a NICS check. Sure we had to go through a more stringent check to get our FPID that we must show the seller. If a handgun is involved

they sure as hell checked you out before they issued a P2P. You must also complete a COE with 2 copies for a F2F sale.

 

I call BS on FAK! He is a troll who only comes here to aggravate people with his nonsense. He or she brings nothing to this forum and needs to be ignored. I will do just that (for the first time) after this post is up.

If we stop taking the bait, he will eventually go away out of boredom. Nuff said!

[svt3183 14]

Saw the same episode of underworld inc - seemed pretty stupid to me. A gun was used in a robbery or whatever so another criminal doesn't want it? I doubt it. And if used in a serious enough crime the gun would be dumped not resold.

 

You can't. Look at ghost guns. Made in the Philippine jungle, sold in town for $100, runner transfers them to shipment at $300 each, arrive in port and passed on to local underground dealer for $1000 each, sold as virgin pistol (usually a 1911) on the street for $3000. Used in some stickups (mainly to rob drug dealers) once or twice, then passed back down the food chain (as the now existing ballistics are recorded). Value of the ghost gun keeps diminishing as lower level thieves use it over again, then pass it on down to the bottom feeders before getting tossed in the lake or picked off their dead body.

 

This was all filmed before from fruit to nut.

[Shawnmoore81 623]

Maybe one of the mods can check his IP address and see if it's someone kicked off or a duel account by a member trolling. There is no way this dude would come on this site if they are his views.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[diamondd817 827]

Maybe one of the mods can check his IP address and see if it's someone kicked off or a duel account by a member trolling. There is no way this dude would come on this site if they are his views.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's Ray Ray!!

[Frank Rizzo 59]

Great informative video.

[Oleg 8]

They have different set of facts. The will be no progress until both sides stop seeing people with different opinions as enemies.

 

Great video. The problem is that the anti's have a thing against the facts.

[n4p226r 105]

They have different set of facts. The will be no progress until both sides stop seeing people with different opinions as enemies.

 

there are people on the other side with different opinions and there are enemies.  both exist.   loretta wineberg, hillary clinton, etc are not people that you can work with and come to an agreement on somewhere in the middle.  

 

there can be arguments over what kind of training and how much should be required for a CCW permit.  how much it should cost.  if open carry should be legal. etc.  and while i am on the extreme side that thinks just about every gun law is in some way unconstitutional, i'd be willing to work with someone that wanted a permit that was only good for XXX years and required training to get it the first time and whatever else.  but we aren't even given that chance to work with them.  

[Oleg 8]

Want to bet that Hilary Clinton negotiated successfully on much harder issues with much more motivated and extreme people than any of 'gun people' ever will be? I do not like her but what you are saying is - "I do not want to talk with anybody who does not agree with me".

 

there are people on the other side with different opinions and there are enemies.  both exist.   loretta wineberg, hillary clinton, etc are not people that you can work with and come to an agreement on somewhere in the middle.  

 

there can be arguments over what kind of training and how much should be required for a CCW permit.  how much it should cost.  if open carry should be legal. etc.  and while i am on the extreme side that thinks just about every gun law is in some way unconstitutional, i'd be willing to work with someone that wanted a permit that was only good for XXX years and required training to get it the first time and whatever else.  but we aren't even given that chance to work with them.  

[PD2K 115]

LOL love Louder with Crowder. He's got more firearm myth debunking videos like this.