Gun Show Loophole debunked video

[DanMarvel 9]

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.

More of a reason why it should not be called gun show loop hole. You can do face to face with a private sale anywhere. Hell, you can conduct that at a police parking lot. I'd much rather have it coined as police parking lot loophole than gun show loophole. Very misleading.

[SmittyMHS 603]

My thoughts also. The only thing closing this "loop hole" would do is drive up the price on the black market. 

[voyager9 3,434]

More of a reason why it should not be called gun show loop hole. You can do face to face with a private sale anywhere. Hell, you can conduct that at a police parking lot. I'd much rather have it coined as police parking lot loophole than gun show loophole. Very misleading.

The only thing "gun show" about it seems to be the concentration of potential customers.

 

There is also a huge difference between someone who shows up at a single show to offload some firearms and someone who shows up at every show with "inventory"

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Arthur Kill 0]

The only thing "gun show" about it seems to be the concentration of potential customers.

 

There is also a huge difference between someone who shows up at a single show to offload some firearms and someone who shows up at every show with "inventory"

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

This.  Is exactly correct.

 

Criticizing the term "loop hole" is criticizing semantics.  Who cares?  Call it what ever you want - the fact remains that private sales don't require a NICS check - and that there is an intended concentration of those sales at a thing we call a "gun show."

 

Let's be honest, that's all I ask.

 

[Arthur Kill 0]

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

 

 

I'm not sure I can make my point any clearer to you.

 

I've given you the spirit of my plan -- take it or leave it.

 

I have no desire to sit and write out a long, detail-specific manifesto in legislation-type format just to satisfy the perception that you may, or may not like my vision as stated multiple times here.  No one here would read thru that anyway. 

 

But at least my vision is original and unique.

 

Again, what's yours?

 

[bulpup 98]

This. Is exactly correct.

 

Criticizing the term "loop hole" is criticizing semantics. Who cares? Call it what ever you want - the fact remains that private sales don't require a NICS check - and that there is an intended concentration of those sales at a thing we call a "gun show."

 

Let's be honest, that's all I ask.

 

Exactly. And it is why I won't be sharing that video. I prefer not put information out there that is based on ignoring one aspect of concern chiefly based on semantics.

[bhunted 887]

I'm not sure I can make my point any clearer to you.

 

I've given you the spirit of my plan -- take it or leave it.

 

I have no desire to sit and write out a long, detail-specific manifesto in legislation-type format just to satisfy the perception that you might not like my vision as stated multiple times here. No one here would read thru that anyway.

 

But at least my vision is original and unique.

 

Again, what's yours?

 

Then I am done here. You're nothing but hot air and you are by no means meant to lead. I admit, neither am I but I am open minded to the right people and you are nothing more than a condescending prick. Have a nice day.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Arthur Kill 0]

Then I am done here. You're nothing but hot air and you are by no means meant to lead. I admit, neither am I but I am open minded to the right people and you are nothing more than a condescending prick. Have a nice day.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I believe, as stated by the forum moderator in this thread, that you are due a penalty.

 

Enjoy your time-out.

 

[Arthur Kill 0]

I still would have liked to hear your unique vision.

 

Again, the same old tired radical-NRA "pry-it-out-of-my-dead-hand" approach isn't working.  

 

Ask LaVoy Finnicum how that worked out for him last Tuesday -- as his gun was actually pried out of his dead hand.

 

Other than raising a boatload of money from naive, less enlightened gun owners -- stupid, non-nonsensical laws like an assault weapons ban is the only result I've seen come from the NRA's obstinate approach.

 

[DanMarvel 9]

1,241,116 views as of 1/31/16

[voyager9 3,434]

This. Is exactly correct.

 

the fact remains that private sales don't require a NICS check - and that there is an intended concentration of those sales at a thing we call a "gun show."

 

I would ask the same of you. The fact above only applies to face to face sales between two residents in their state. Out of state sales always have to go through a FFL and always require a NICS check.

 

To me that makes this "loophole" a state problem and extremely niche in the grand scheme of things. Certainly not worthy the campaign point at the national level.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brucin 923]

I've stayed out of this for a while but I have to say ongoing training to posses and own is a complete non starter and would never stand up to legal scrutiny.

 

I have done training to get my CCW so I have to say I'm OK with that.

[fishnut 2,358]

I agree with you brucin. Training just to own a gun is crazy in my opinion, but I do feel that everyone who carries a gun should have to prove their proficiency once a year. Free of charge of course. I also believe in constitutional carry so in my little dream world anyone who is not a prohibited person can carry. IF they want to all they have to do is qualify, just like the police do, once a year and they get their free carry permit valid in all states. I feel this way because there was one girl in my Utah permit class and she just bought her first handgun and signed up for the class on the same day. She admitted that she has never fired a gun before but wanted to carry while away at school in PA. She also admitted that she had to watch a video on YouTube on how to load her new gun when she got home. I would be very uncomfortable around her when she was carrying a gun.......maybe even scissors

[PK90 3,570]

I am soooooo glad I left NJ with the thinking of supposed gun owners. May I remind everyone, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I do not see where it says that a permit or training is needed to buy, own or carry a firearm.

[voyager9 3,434]

I don't think training can or should be required to own. I do think, though, that there are ways to incentivize training.. Handle it similar to the way Auto insurance promote Defensive Driving courses. Have a Home Defense, or NRA approved safety course take a bit off Homeowners insurance. If CCW, waive the renewal fee if courses have been taken during that period.

[voyager9 3,434]

......substance......Gay marriage..... inches.....pushed.....stuff will fly......FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!!! BOY!!!!

I think I found the problem..

[Arthur Kill 0]

I think I found the problem..

 

[Arthur Kill 0]

I am soooooo glad I left NJ with the thinking of supposed gun owners. May I remind everyone, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I do not see where it says that a permit or training is needed to buy, own or carry a firearm.

 

Well, they are contained within and you did just type the words "well regulated."

 

[Arthur Kill 0]

 

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.....

 

 

 

Then I am done here. You're nothing but hot air and you are by no means meant to lead. I admit, neither am I but I am open minded to the right people and you are nothing more than a condescending prick. Have a nice day.
 

 

[Stonecoldchavez 92]

AK-

 

"well regulated" meant well equipped, not limited or restrained. Any LEO would know that.

 

What agency/Dept. did you say you worked for again?

 

S.

[Arthur Kill 0]

Me too.

 

We tried to warn those of you above the mason Dixie line ( Dixon) several times and y'all would not listen. "What can it hurt" Was often what was said. Well I will say how it hurt

 

Obama

 

The prosecution rests.

 

Last time I checked, Delaware was "above the mason Dixie line."

 

Even fought on the union side.

 

What did I miss?

 

[Arthur Kill 0]

AK-

 

"well regulated" meant well equipped, not limited or restrained. Any LEO would know that.

 

What agency/Dept. did you say you worked for again?

 

S.

 

I never said, nor will I.

 

I accept your interpretation and it's timing is perfect as brings to light one of the main facets of this very debate -- interpretation.

 

It's all about interpretation.  It was designed that way purposely by our founders.

 

[SmittyMHS 603]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seriously?

[Arthur Kill 0]

Seriously?

 

Seriously what?

 

[JohnnyB 4,325]

Seriously?

Troy,

 

       On one hand you have a new visitor with 63 posts who is absolutely opposed to what we stand for on this forum and does nothing but incite anger and animosity. Then you have Bhunted, a well respected veteran on

this forum with well over 5,000 posts.

 

      The new guy incites John and now wants him temporarily banned. I call BS here! Since when do we cater to the antis? If we can't at the very least, stick together on our core beliefs then none of us should be here.

[n4p226r 105]

Well, they are contained within and you did just type the words "well regulated."

 

Well regulated. You mean finely tuned and properly functioning like a well regulated watch?

[Arthur Kill 0]

Troy,

 

On one hand you have a new visitor with 63 posts who is absolutely opposed to what we stand for on this forum and does nothing but incite anger and animosity. Then you have Bhunted, a well respected veteran on

this forum with well over 5,000 posts.

 

The new guy incites John and now wants him temporarily banned. I call BS here! Since when do we cater to the antis? If we can't at the very least, stick together on our core beliefs then none of us should be here.

So, your core beliefs are that the rules don't apply to you?

 

Got it.

 

 

 

 

PS - our goal is the same, our tactics are not. Its unfortunate that your apparent obstanance doesn't allow you to realize that fact.

[Arthur Kill 0]

Well regulated. You mean finely tuned and properly functioning like a well regulated watch?

The ambiguity is intentional.

 

[njpilot 671]

The ambiguity is intentional.

 

What ambiguity? Many historians have said at the time of the Founders, words were used to mean things that they no longer do. Today, people would use the word regulated as you are. In the 18th century, regulated was used in a different way. Just because you, like most antis, like to say the Constitution is a living, breathing document and has to change with the times, doesn't mean the intent or meaning of the Founders changes to fit your desires.

 

If you read much of James Madison, author of the Second Amendment, as well as many other Founders, Washington, Jefferson, Monroe, they all wrote of their beliefs that free men should be armed.

 

Just because you don't like the idea, doesn't mean it wasn't the intent of the Founders.

[JohnnyB 4,325]

So, your core beliefs are that the rules don't apply to you?

 

Got it.

 

 

 

 

PS - our goal is the same, our tactics are not. Its unfortunate that your apparent obstanance doesn't allow you to realize that fact.

I don't live under rules....I live under my Constitutional RIGHTS!  Rules don't trump Rights in my country and you don't want to understand that simple fact.

 

Why are wasting your time posting on this forum when you could be out there campaigning for Hillary?