This message was self-deleted by its author

[Mosby]

This message was self-deleted by its author (Mosby) on Mon Sep 5, 2016, 08:03 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[JonathanRackham]

1. The Devil's in the details.

In NC I can loan my brother or friend a rifle for hunting season. In NY by letter of the law a background check must be done. Seems a little anal retentive. What happens at the trap range if my shotgun breaks down, do I really need a background check to borrow one?

Unfortunately there seems to be no compromise or latitude for discussion.

Who's going to enforce background checks on gang members?

I think the solution is a two level approach, a FOID card or hunting license for long guns and a national CCW license for handguns. Documentation and certification would include firearm safety and storage.

[oneshooter]

10. Apparently all you have to do to is be a anti-gun preacher.

And you can ignore that law entirely.

[Straw Man]

11. Yes, it's one of the exemptions.

Apparently all you have to do to is be a anti-gun preacher.

And you can ignore that law entirely.

You can also ignore jurisdictional magazine capacity limits if you're a news anchor:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/dc-police-urged-meet-the-press-execs-to-use-picture-of-high-capacity-magazine/2015/01/24/f132eebe-a3f4-11e4-903f-9f2faf7cd9fe_story.html

[DonP]

2. Which version of "Universal Background Checks"?

The Bloomberg drafted version, that his paid staff people are trying to sell in state legislatures, where loaning your son a shotgun is considered a "Transfer" and requires a paid for background check and another "Transfer" when he returns it?

Or

The one where a "transfer" refers only to permanent private sales for background checks; kitchen table or gun show, like 15 states already have in place and working?

The first one is a cluster fuck waiting to happen, the second one makes sense.

But neither will have any impact on crime, criminals or mass shootings.

(Would be the same Pew study that also just said that 44% of households now acknowledge having guns, shortly to be denied and attacked selectively by the "Grabnutz" who have invested their souls in the "shrinking gun ownership" belief?)

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

3. OT: side question

How is the opinion poll industry like the AWB fans?

[DonP]

4. Some of them already know the results they want before they draft the questions n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

5. And, in addition...

...if asked for a definition of "assault weapon" they both may answer: "Whatever those words mean to you."

[DonP]

6. Create your own scary definition ... to support our prejudice.

Funny how they never ask for anyone to define the terms for something with so much room for misinterpretation..

In any survey I've done over the years, we always went to great pains to pre-test any term we thought might be even the least bit confusing. Then we'd use the most accurate and correct definitions and phrasing, even if we had to restructure the entire questionnaire.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

8. The survey places I've worked for and been involved with...

...tended to have opinion polls without documentation for any possibly abstract or unclear terms. This sometimes made the questions about as a clear as the AWB folk are about what it is they want to ban.

A long time ago I read a book which suggested the reader go to a local mall with a clipboard and survey random folks as to whether they were for or against communism. Probably 99 out of 100 would say against but then not have much of an answer when asked to define communism.

[beevul]

7. Add that registration will be a part of it (so called UBC) and see how it polls.

Last edited Fri Sep 2, 2016, 03:29 AM - Edit history (1)

I doubt very much that it would get majority support if the details were made known, the usual suspects will without a doubt use it as a means of getting their holy grail - registration.

Registration: The total control of ALL LEGAL gun sales. That's what they're after, and its been one of their goals since day 1.


Edited to add the word: LEGAL

[Straw Man]

9. Correction.

For the past several years, large majorities of both Democrats and Republicans have favored making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks.

Sales at gun shows are no different from sales anywhere: There is no federal requirement for a background check on private sales, but there is a federal background-check requirement for all sales conducted by federally licensed dealers. Some states do not allow private sales to take place without a background check, regardless of where they take place.

There is no specific exemption for sales at gun shows, at either the state or federal level. The "gun show loophole" is a myth.

[Mosby]

12. how is it a myth?

the "gun show loophole" language is rhetorical shorthand for private party to private party gun sales.

[gejohnston]

13. rhetorical shorthands are buzzwords are propaganda

tools to misinform people. Take "assault weapon" for example. It is simply a term that means what any politician wants it to mean. In New York, the target pistols used in the Olympics are "assault weapons". Under CT and CA law, none of the ARs used at Sandy Hook or the terrorist attack in San Bernideno were "assault weapons".

[beevul]

14. "Weapons of war", "weapons meant for war", "weapons meant for the battlefield".

All propaganda.

[Duckhunter935]

16. whats "assault-style weapons"

[virginia mountainman]

17. They have no clue what a "weapon of war" is..

I have "REAL" weapons of war in my gun case, weapons actually used in war, and they would call it a "hunting" rifle.... (not my pic, but an example of what I have)



But they call these black semi auto's "weapons of war" but *no* army in the world uses them in their military...

The lack of basic knowledge, and the amount of bald face lying is infuriating.

[Duckhunter935]

15. not really

just like internet sales. Funny, I have purchased several weapons via the internet and they had to be shipped to an FFL, and a background check performed. That language is used purposely to confuse. Why not just say "private sale", funny how the shorthand is longer, lol.

[Straw Man]

18. Here's how.

how is it a myth?

the "gun show loophole" language is rhetorical shorthand for private party to private party gun sales.

It's a myth because the real situation has nothing to do with gun shows. In jurisdictions where private party to private party sales without a background check are legal, they are legal everywhere -- not just at gun shows. In jurisdictions where private party to private party sales without a background check are illegal, they are illegal everywhere -- including gun shows.

Calling it the "gun show loophole" gives the false impression that sales at gun shows are exempt from background check requirements. This false impression is widespread. If you don't think so, poll the next ten people you meet and ask them what the "gun show loophole" is.

[Mosby]

21. so what? I couldn't care less about the way gun shows are percieved

Last edited Mon Sep 5, 2016, 03:27 PM - Edit history (1)

Regardless private person to private person gun sales happen all the time at gun shows, so claiming that it's a myth is stupid. Some research just came out that said 22 percent of gun sales at shows did not require a background check, that's a lot of weapons.

Obsessing about language is not an argument.

All gun sales should involve a background and mental health check and all guns should be registered in a national database. Thats my opinion.

[beevul]

24. What evidence is there, that private sales are a problem in need of a solution?

So far, all I've seen is assertions based on a presumption.

[Mosby]

25. you don't support background checks on principle?

[beevul]

27. I support private property rights on principle, so I'll ask you again...

I support private property rights on principle. I support solutions when a problem (not a 'potential' problem) can be demonstrated.

So I'll ask you again:

What evidence is there, that private sales are a problem in need of a solution?

So far, all I've seen is assertions based on a presumption.

You've demonstrated the presumption with your reply to me.

Can you substantiate that the measures you support are actually necessary?

[Mosby]

28. can't answer the question?

I support the President's position on the gun show loophole, who do you support?

[beevul]

29. I asked you first.

What evidence is there, that private sales are a problem in need of a solution?


Can't answer the question?

[beergood]

34. "who do you support?"

i support no one, only facts and truth.

i'm in favor of private party background checks only because they cause no problems and prevent people from accidently selling to a prohibited person.

[beevul]

35. Would that support change if they tell you registration is included? N/T

[beergood]

36. i live in CA

so i refuse to answer that question.

[Straw Man]

30. Obviously.

so what? I couldn't care less about the way gun shows are percieved

Regardless private person to private person gun sales happen all the time at gun shows, so claiming that it's a myth is stupid.

And private sales happen all the time at parking lots, yard sales, and people's homes. The "gun show loophole" is a deliberate misnomer, created and promulgated with the intention to deceive.

Any means to an end, eh?

[pablo_marmol]

19. "the "gun show loophole" language is rhetorical shorthand or private party to party gun sales."

The HELL it is! It's intentionally misleading rhetoric intended to convince people that it's easier for criminals to obtain guns illegally at gun shows than they could elsewhere. PERIOD.

Pure culture war........as The Controllers despise gun shows.

[Mosby]

22. I think gun shows should be banned in the US

Some brave cities already have like Tucson.

They realize that's not the kind of commerce they want in their city and county.

[gejohnston]

23. Actually, they aren't brave

They are virtue signalling fools who want to say they are doing something about violent crime, when in fact they are doing absolutely nothing of value. Like registration, does nothing but provide public sector jobs. Gun registries cost money and provide no benefit, which is why Canada and New Zealand ended registration of several types of guns. No crimes are solved, no evidence of crime dropping, no empirical value at all. If a policy or restriction doesn't provide any empirical benefit, then it shouldn't exist. For example, when my state liberalized concealed carry, nothing bad happened. In fact, no noticeable negative effects anywhere that does. That tells me the restriction shouldn't have existed in the first place.
Actually, some members on the city council did, I doubt the majority of the citizens support it or care.

[mainstreetonce]

26. Great suggestion

If only....

[pablo_marmol]

39. If only social policy was based on 'feelings' rather than *facts*?!

Nope. Gonna have to pass on that idea.

[Straw Man]

31. Why?

I think gun shows should be banned in the US

Because you're opposed to private sales? Then you'd better ban yard sales, garage sales, and Wal-Mart parking lots too.

[pablo_marmol]

32. "I 'think' gun shows should be banned in the US."

Since thinking clearly has little or nothing to do with the way your belief system has been developed, this post only serves to underline the manner in which your team has rendered itself irrelevant, given the pitch-perfect responses it attracted! So.......thank you very much!!!

Edited to add the fantastic description regarding culture war from post #20. Great job, E38!!

"Gun shows" are a means to carry out private sales if you are a non-FFL (few such "vendors," in my experience), but the venue is mentioned because gun prohibitionists are obsessd with looks, meetings, advertising, sport -- any physical representation of That Thing in general culture, and wish to bar gun shows de facto. Most of this country's prohibitions are suffused by the "dirtiness" of the act, the thing, the status which is proposed for prohibition. Witness the massive lines around gun shows post Sandy Hook. Gun-owners, like the cultures "attached" to any prohibition, are quite aware of this attempt at stigma, and respond aggressively and doggedly to ANY attempts to go after their culture (the same can be said of the "AWB&quot . Some of these responses are ill-advised and over-the-top, but one can say the same of others subject to culture-war prohibitions: LBTQ rights, drinkers, dope users, minorities, etc.

[Mosby]

37. less guns, less death.

Somehow that simple fact escapes a lot of people in this group which is why I avoid it.

Cheers.

[pablo_marmol]

38. "less guns, less death." Unproven according to at least 3 liberal criminologists.

But you keep that faith-based emotwaddle comin'!



Edited to add: You've got one helluva tough sell -- given that gun violence is less that 1/2 of what it was in 1993 while the national gun stock has risen dramatically. (I know, I know..........all you have to do is make pronouncements -- no empirical backup required.)

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

[pablo_marmol]

40. ".......which is why I avoid it."

You fool nobody. You avoid this forum because your feet are held to the fire to support your bogus claims, and that makes you vewy, vewy uncomfortable.

[Mosby]

41. get a grip.

[Eleanors38]

20. I have a slightly different take on the issus you raise...

1) "Gun shows" are a means to carry out private sales if you are a non-FFL (few such "vendors," in my experience), but the venue is mentioned because gun prohibitionists are obsessd with looks, meetings, advertising, sport -- any physical representation of That Thing in general culture, and wish to bar gun shows de facto. Most of this country's prohibitions are suffused by the "dirtiness" of the act, the thing, the status which is proposed for prohibition. Witness the massive lines around gun shows post Sandy Hook. Gun-owners, like the cultures "attached" to any prohibition, are quite aware of this attempt at stigma, and respond aggressively and doggedly to ANY attempts to go after their culture (the same can be said of the "AWB&quot . Some of these responses are ill-advised and over-the-top, but one can say the same of others subject to culture-war prohibitions: LBTQ rights, drinkers, dope users, minorities, etc.

2) Concerning UBCs (which I support), the prospects of achieving these grow dimmer for the near future due to the prohibitionist track record of the small but elite and well-placed groups which call for UBCs. Gun owners know about this ruse as well. The controller/banners nevertheless remain politically tone-deaf to a fault in not changng their ways for the past 30 friggin' years.

[pablo_marmol]

33. My nomination for Thread Winner.

Bravo, sir/maam.......bravo.