Gun Show Loophole debunked video

[n4p226r 105]

thats not what i am saying.  I am saying that negotiating with people that want to destroy the 2nd amendment will never work.   there is a bill for a 5 round magazine limit in the nj legislature right now.  how do you work with and compromise with whoever submitted that bill?   

[Arthur Kill 0]

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.  

 

 

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.

 

 

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

 

 

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!

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

God forbid anyone have an opinion that does not march in lock-step with the direct orders of the NRA.  Lost here is the irony that we are in a forum, talking about American freedom and rights.  Wow.

 

 

I'm not a sadist mired in negativity -- I'm a gun enthusiast who cares about the future of gun ownership in America -- and IMO, the NRA is only harming the cause.

 

[Arthur Kill 0]

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.

 

...and you have your own interpretation.  Congrats.

 

 

And it's pure comedy that you have the ever-poular-with-the-wholly-misinformed-gun-rights-warrior "Tree of Liberty" quote by Thomas Jefferson in your sig line.  Dollars-to-donuts you're unaware of it's origin -- why is it that SO many of today's constitutional "experts" are the same dudes that barely finished high school because they refused pay attention?

 

The quote is from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to William Smith -- that speaks of misinformation, propaganda and outright lies in the media of the time period.  And the propencity of the people to believe what is so often repeated, even though it is untrue. Quote:

 

The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves.

 

To me, this is EXACTLY what is happening today.  Tell the truth, you probably believe that Barack Obama is a Kenyan-born muslim -- that Donald Trump is a qualified candidate for POTUS -- that Hillary Clinton killed people in Benghazi and that socialism has not always been an integral function of America's political system. 

 

Am I right?

 

Ironically, you are a victim of the NRA as well as the entire corporate-funded, right-wing media machine, who operate by the words that Thomas Jefferson wrote in the very same letter you cite in your signature:

 

We must be contented to amuse, when we cannot inform.

[SmittyMHS 603]

You didn't answer my question. What would you do NOW? You seem to be the only one here that think the founding fathers had something else in mind.

[Arthur Kill 0]

You didn't answer my question. What would you do NOW? You seem to be the only one here that think the founding fathers had something else in mind.

 

Are you aware that, because they disagreed we each other, much like we are today -- the founding father's INTENT when writing the Second Amendment was ambiguity?  That they intended it to be interpreted by society as a whole, to fit into it's modern environment, through our system of check and balances, for eternity.

 

They wrote about it extensively, under pseudonyms, in the The Federalist -- aka The Federalist Papers.  Check it out.

 

I've stated what I'd like to see NOW -- basically, a "frame up restoration" of all gun laws and the implementation of extensive training (in process, weeding out the emotionally disturbed) for ownership, possession and carry. 

 

Training continually re-certifies -- safety, proficiency, retention, use-of-force and legal.

 

[bhunted 887]

God forbid anyone have an opinion that does not march in lock-step with the direct orders of the NRA. Lost here is the irony that we are in a forum, talking about American freedom and rights. Wow.

 

 

I'm not a sadist mired in negativity -- I'm a gun enthusiast who cares about the future of gun ownership in America -- and IMO, the NRA is only harming the cause.

 

Nobody said you can't have an opinion. But I rarely read anything positive out of you. The NRA has nothing to do with this topic. It's about a video and they way I look at things is even the smallest positive thing is good. Because collectively, it can be a great weapon.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Arthur Kill 0]

Nobody said you can't have an opinion. But I rarely read anything positive out of you. The NRA has nothing to do with this topic. It's about a video and they way I look at things is even the smallest positive thing is good. Because collectively, it can be a great weapon.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Well naturally, I have the same opinion about you.  Nothing positive as you support a programmed agenda that IMO, hurts gun ownership in America.

 

No offense.

 

The video is pure, unadulterated, dishonest horseshit.  So far, subscribing to that ideology has only got us assault weapons bans and associated bad legislation.  The tact of the NRA is a fail because it is obstinate and dishonest.

 

It ain't working.

[Arthur Kill 0]

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. 

 

 

I appreciate your position and maybe should have directed by above statements as a reply to you because you had the courtesy to reply to mine.  Sorry dude.  See what I stated above about the framers intent.  I think it applies here.

 

Gotta run but will BB.

 

[bhunted 887]

Well naturally, I have the same opinion about you. Nothing positive as you support a programmed agenda that IMO, hurts gun ownership in America.

 

No offense.

 

The video is pure, unadulterated, dishonest horseshit. So far, subscribing to that ideology has only got us assault weapons bans and associated bad legislation. The tact of the NRA is a fail because it is obstinate and dishonest.

 

It ain't working.

Naturally? How tit for tat childish.

Wars are won in small battles and at least we are trying. I don't recall seeing you put yourself forward. You are new here. We've all been banned together for quite some time. Some of us provided services, money, man power and more. Get on that band wagon, then we can have decent discussion.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[67gtonut 847]

Before this gets too much further......

 

I let some things slide during the snow storm..... mostly because we were all caged animals and needed a release.....

 

But let's hit the reset button.....

 

I have had contact with members asking me to Ban Arthur Kill.....    why? ...... because he does not walk in step with the majority on this forum.....  Sorry, not a reason to ban....  He is entitled to his opinion.....

 

BUT......

 

 

From this post on......  

 

I expect an adult discussion from BOTH sides.....  What that means is ZERO name calling or Personal Attacks..... 

 

I do not intend to move this discussion to the 1A forum.....  I will give people some time off if they cannot act like an adult.

 

And for the people who will cry that I did NOT give them a warning or reason for their "Time Out" ......

 

Consider this your warning.....

[bhunted 887]

There is always room for decent conversation. But its hard when some condescending new guy comes here and tears down everything we do or say.

 

So here is what I propose. Since he has shared nothing but trashing whatever we say, close this thread down.

 

His challenge is, start his own thread, come up with a viable game plan that we can follow and at least try to act like he's on our side instead of alienating everyone here. It's obvious that's what he has done since you're seeing so many complaints.

 

We are suppose to be on the same side. But this attitude as long as I've been here has done nothing for the grand scheme of things.

I can't speak for others, but you can have the best built car on the market. But if your commercials piss me off enough, I will just not watch them, I will mute them and for sure not want to buy one.

 

I have no respect for people that will constantly piss down your neck. We are not all naive here, nor are we children although sometimes we like to act like it. So without further adieu, enough.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Newtonian 453]

I appreciate your position and maybe should have directed by above statements as a reply to you because you had the courtesy to reply to mine.  Sorry dude.  See what I stated above about the framers intent.  I think it applies here.

 

Gotta run but will BB.

 

Glad you brought up the Federalist Papers. Here's a direct quote, pretty much affirming the right-wing gun-nut case for a purely and broadly defined 2nd Amendment that does not change with the changing winds:

 

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

[n4p226r 105]

Well naturally, I have the same opinion about you. Nothing positive as you support a programmed agenda that IMO, hurts gun ownership in America.

 

No offense.

 

The video is pure, unadulterated, dishonest horseshit. So far, subscribing to that ideology has only got us assault weapons bans and associated bad legislation. The tact of the NRA is a fail because it is obstinate and dishonest.

 

It ain't working.

So what is your view? Besides mandatory training to own a gun you haven't said anything? What part is the NRA wrong on?

[n4p226r 105]

From this post on......

 

I expect an adult discussion from BOTH sides..... What that means is ZERO name calling or Personal Attacks.....

 

I do not intend to move this discussion to the 1A forum..... I will give people some time off if they cannot act like an adult.

 

And for the people who will cry that I did NOT give them a warning or reason for their "Time Out" ......

 

Consider this your warning.....

BOOOO

[67gtonut 847]

BOOOO

 

 

 

It's my party..... lol

 

cry if you want to....

[njpilot 671]

Before this gets too much further......

 

I let some things slide during the snow storm..... mostly because we were all caged animals and needed a release.....

 

But let's hit the reset button.....

 

I have had contact with members asking me to Ban Arthur Kill.....    why? ...... because he does not walk in step with the majority on this forum.....  Sorry, not a reason to ban....  He is entitled to his opinion.....

 

BUT......

 

 

From this post on......  

 

I expect an adult discussion from BOTH sides.....  What that means is ZERO name calling or Personal Attacks..... 

 

I do not intend to move this discussion to the 1A forum.....  I will give people some time off if they cannot act like an adult.

 

And for the people who will cry that I did NOT give them a warning or reason for their "Time Out" ......

 

Consider this your warning.....

I don't know who has asked you to ban him Troy and for what reason, but I agree a difference of opinion is not a reason to ban. His childish attacks, with no substantive arguments, against just about everyone who has stated their opinion is a qualifying reason. If he continues with those attacks, there would be no justifiable reason to not ban him. He isn't adding anything worthwhile to the discussion.

[bhunted 887]

I don't know who has asked you to ban him Troy and for what reason, but I agree a difference of opinion is not a reason to ban. His childish attacks, with no substantive arguments, against just about everyone who has stated their opinion is a qualifying reason. If he continues with those attacks, there would be no justifiable reason to not ban him. He isn't adding anything worthwhile to the discussion.

Not to mention, how far off on a tangent this thread went. Totally derailed.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[67gtonut 847]

I don't know who has asked you to ban him Troy and for what reason, but I agree a difference of opinion is not a reason to ban. His childish attacks, with no substantive arguments, against just about everyone who has stated their opinion is a qualifying reason. If he continues with those attacks, there would be no justifiable reason to not ban him. He isn't adding anything worthwhile to the discussion.

 

 

Agreed....

 

Like I said.... I let crap slide during the snow storm, we all were a little on edge....

 

But from now forward...... He needs to play by the rules everyone does...

[njpilot 671]

Agreed....

 

Like I said.... I let crap slide during the snow storm, we all were a little on edge....

 

But from now forward...... He needs to play by the rules everyone does...

Thank you Troy

[jeff47 30]

Actually I find Art entertaining as he has managed to rally us all around a common cause. That and the video specifically addresses FTF transactions, so I guess he didn't bother watching the video in its entirety. Personally I find the NRA's recent stands refreshing.

[PK90 3,569]

The video also never mentioned that you CAN buy a firearm at a gun show without a background check, just as if you can anywhere else.

 

Sent from an undisclosed location via Tapatalk.

 

 

[Arthur Kill 0]

Naturally? How tit for tat childish. Wars are won in small battles and at least we are trying. I don't recall seeing you put yourself forward. You are new here. We've all been banned together for quite some time. Some of us provided services, money, man power and more. Get on that band wagon, then we can have decent discussion.

 

I'm directly criticizing that bandwagon as ignorant, obstinate and detrimental to the cause of gun ownership in America today.  As-a-matter-of-fact, the whole bandwagon mentality is really the issue here -- it's not working.

 

I thought I had made that clear?  IMO, it is time to take this "fight" in a new, more intellectually honest, direction.

 

[Arthur Kill 0]

Glad you brought up the Federalist Papers. Here's a direct quote, pretty much affirming the right-wing gun-nut case for a purely and broadly defined 2nd Amendment that does not change with the changing winds:

 

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

 

 

If your intent here was to reinforce my point in our discussion, you've done a fantastic job.

 

But somehow, I don't think that's what you were after.

 

Maybe re-phrase your assertion/question - or we can move on...but either way, I appreciate the dialogue.

 

Thanks.

 

[Arthur Kill 0]

The video also never mentioned that you CAN buy a firearm at a gun show without a background check, just as if you can anywhere else.

 

Sent from an undisclosed location via Tapatalk.

 

Finally.

 

I was beginning to lose hope that there was another honest user here.

 

Dishonesty and obstinance, as displayed in the video, are doing nothing but hurting the cause of preserving today's accepted interpretation of the second amendment.

 

'nuff said.

 

[bulpup 98]

It's an interesting video, but I believe what Arthur is trying to say is that if they merely changed the name "gun show loophole" to "Face To Face Transfer loophole" the descriptor and the issue would be appropriate to each other.

 

 

[SmittyMHS 603]

is it a "loop hole" or legally done transfer?

[bhunted 887]

I'm directly criticizing that bandwagon as ignorant, obstinate and detrimental to the cause of gun ownership in America today. As-a-matter-of-fact, the whole bandwagon mentality is really the issue here -- it's not working.

 

I thought I had made that clear? IMO, it is time to take this "fight" in a new, more intellectually honest, direction.

 

So like my post says, you always say what is wrong and don't work. How about telling us your plan. And stop beating around the bush as they say. No more critique, no more condescending, what's your plan? Full scale war?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Arthur Kill 0]

So like my post says, you always say what is wrong and don't work. How about telling us your plan. And stop beating around the bush as they say. No more critique, no more condescending, what's your plan? Full scale war?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

I mean dude, how many times do I have to repeat "my plan?"

 

I've stated multiple times in this forum that "my plan" is generally about a complete repeal/re-structing of all gun laws and the institution of comprehensive and on-going training to own, possess and/or carry.  That the training phase will also involve a function to weed out emotionally disturbed individuals.

 

You "haven't heard my plan" isn't the same as "you don't like my plan."

 

What's yours?  Same old tired radical-NRA "pry-it-out-of-my-dead-hand" approach?   Ask LaVoy Finnicum how that worked out for him last Tuesday -- because that's exactly what they did.

 

I'm all ears.

 

 

[bulpup 98]

is it a "loop hole" or legally done transfer?

I don't know what you would call it, but if a person can do a face to face transfer without a NICS check then when they say "gun show loop hole" they probably meant face to face transfer.

[bhunted 887]

I mean dude, how many times do I have to repeat "my plan?"

 

I've stated multiple times in this forum that "my plan" is generally about a complete repeal/re-structing of all gun laws and the institution of comprehensive and on-going training to own, possess and/or carry. That the training phase will also involve a function to weed out emotionally disturbed individuals.

 

You "haven't heard my plan" isn't the same as "you don't like my plan."

 

 

I'm all ears.

 

 

You love putting words in my mouth or skirting around my questions. What you made is a statement, a subject, call it whatever.

Training is one thing. But you say restructuring... How? Do you have a plan laid out? I want details. Not some simple statement. Start your own fooking thread like I asked, lay it all out. Because your tripe means nothing if all you do is talk down to people. I'm trying to be civil here but all I see is a screaming ape throwing his pooh.

 

If you cannot do that, then my responses to you are done. You can argue with yourself. You want someone to listen and back you, then get off your fooking horse and do something.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk