facebooktwitterRSS
- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -
 

« News Home

Don’t be fooled into believing deceit of gun-show loophole



Published: Thu, March 7, 2013 @ 12:00 a.m.

Don’t be fooled into believing deceit of gun-show loophole

National gun registra- tion and the so-called gun- show loopholes are different things. The gun-show loop- holes are presented by anti-gun government officials as buy all the guns you want at gun shows without government oversight. They are being deceitful.

Fifty percent of gun-show sellers are registered firearms dealers; furthermore, they are multi-table users, selling close to 100 percent of the so-called assault weapons with the required background checks.

The balance of table holders are staffed by small-gun owners trying to sell their collection of deer rifles, shotguns, 22-caliber plinkers, antiques, etc., or people selling related gun items. Many tables have no guns at all. To think that plugging the so-called gun-show loophole is going to keep the criminal element from guns is being delusional and further hinders law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment constitutional rights.

National gun registration, which is used in the same verbal contexts with gun- show loopholes, is entirely different and imposes total control and loss of freedom, if enacted, with huge ramification to our law-abiding citizens as it relates to the Second Amendment and personal gun owners’ rights. To use gun-show background checks and national gun registration as similar, as many gun control people would have you believe, is deceitful, and it pales to what comes next.

National gun registration has no place in any U.S. gun laws as it is the path leading to gun confiscation. It is Mr. Obama and many of the Democrats in the U.S. Congress’ rush to new gun laws that are causing the large increase in gun sales. These law-abiding citizens are not buying assault weapons. They are not going to assault anyone; they are buying defense weapons for their own safety.

The NRA is right on with common- sense solutions to gun violence in our country such as a national mental-health database that the American Medical Association and other health organizations have lobbied against for years, professional armed security to protect our schools, enforcing existing gun laws, limiting the level of violence on TV, movie theaters, and video games. Stop this deceitful proposed gun-law rush to madness.

Tom Page, Boardman


Comments

1Photoman(950 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Should this so called "loophole" be closed, our government will next require that we report all private sales or gifts of guns. The tentacles of big government continue to tear more and more freedoms from our grasp.

Suggest removal:

2dmacker(224 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Nancy and her political puppets have been trying to ban guns for years. Each new tragedy affords them a new opportunity to re-package their efforts to ban all guns. They have now adopted a strategy of divide and conquer. By passing a few new laws and banning only some guns now they see their agenda moving forward step by step. How harmful can universal "registration" background checks be they ask.
Who could possibly be against this one new law which only affects the law abiding public? What criminals are going to submit to either background checks or register their guns?
One only has to look to this Administrations record and their end game to see the danger in their proposals.
It would seem that Congress has more important issues to spend their limited time and energy on.
But then maybe not.

Suggest removal:

3Sensible(118 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Can you be more specific about the deceit?
Deceit is generally acknowledged as a falsehood that is in direct conflict with known facts.

Do you know who is committed to gun confiscation and how do you know this? That would be an example of a fact.

Do you fear that someone is committed to gun confiscation?
That is an example of a fear.

Fears and facts, two completely different things.

My child may be fearful that there is someone under his bed, and to him that fear is very real. Because I tell him that there is no one under the bed, does that make me deceitful?

My opinion is that you are being childish in reacting to a fear as opposed to a fact.

Suggest removal:

4KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

It is really very simple.

You are either committed to keeping guns out of the hands of irresponsible people or you are not.

The estimates are that more than 90% of americans think that guns should not be sold to irresponsible people.

Tom, apparently you are one of the ten percent that think that we should not try to prevent irresponsible people from purchasing firearms.

It really is that simple!

Suggest removal:

5theoldwrench(210 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

You say that criminal can't pass a background test OK so how do they get them??? since guns are originally sold by licenced dealers. they can't all be stolen, if so then we have 10s of thousands of careless owners who should not be allowed to own guns.in the first place

Suggest removal:

6HappyBob(285 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

theoldwrench,
Do you suppose that there were some firearms purchased prior to 1994, or 1998 when NICS was available?

Do you suppose that there are some FFLs who would sell to prohibited persons? (Remember the FFL keeps all the paperwork )

Do you suppose that there were firearms sold to non-prohibited people who later became a felon or criminal at large.

Do you suppose that there were firearms that were stolen from non-prohibited users.

Do you suppose that the states did not submit the identities of adjudicated mentally ill to the NICS database.

(Sen. Graham said this morning that he understood that in South Carolina alone there are more than 14,000 adjudicated mentally ill that have not been reported to NICS system)

The point is that the ATF 4473 and NICS is not perfect and the NRA leadership/lobby is desperately trying to keep it that way.

Suggest removal:

7HappyBob(285 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Dmaker,
You asked: What criminals are going to submit to either background checks or register their guns?

Firstly, no one is asking anyone to register.
Second, Actually it’s a surprising number of criminals that will walk into a gun store, submit to a background check.
Take the most extreme case, where a fugitive from justice (someone that law enforcement is looking for to arrest).
In Pennsylvania in 2011 there were 110 such persons arrested on fugitive from justice warrant while actually in the gunstore because the PSP were alerted by the background check system.
Since PSP began their background check system over 1500 fugitives were arrested.
In Florida, under their Firearm Purchase Program, hundreds have been arrested, not because they were trying to buy a gun, but because they were already under indictment or were felons in flight.
In Colorado last year some 250 persons applied for a gun while local law enforcement was looking for them. They hung around the gunstore long enough for local law enforcement to take them into custody.

This information is not from the media or from some blogger or commentator. It is directly from the individual states justice departments annual reports and is available on the internet.

And none of the arrests were for applying for or perjury !!! (Although that may have come later)

Suggest removal:

8HappyBob(285 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

@Hman,
Are you referring to Feinstein's interview with CBS 60 minutes in 1995?

If so, the whole context of that interview was about assault weapons and question she was asked was "why didn't you try to get all assault weapons banned"

She answered "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them...Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in. I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

I suppose that you and I can argue if the "them" she was referring to was assault weapons or all guns. But the context of the interview was clear - it had to do with assault weapons.

Do you have any more or other definative evidence of a committment to confiscate guns? More specifically all guns?

Suggest removal:

9KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Hman, happybob, sensible, photoman, etc

You are all so full of yourselves, arguing and whining.

It is really very simple.

You are either committed to keeping guns out of the hands of irresponsible people or you are not.

The estimates are that more than 90% of americans think that guns should not be sold to irresponsible people.

It really is that simple!

The rest is BS!

Suggest removal:

10Woody2(26 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

you all a bunch of cranky old people who gt nothing to do. ho cares about weinstein, she another old fa*t from the left coast. she'sharmless.

Suggest removal:

11KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Hman,
I understand your committment, and that's OK. Just as you question who would decide who is irresoinsible, I'd ask you the same question. Who will decide who is law abiding?

As I understand the background check debate the NRA seems to think that the background checks should be extended to cover the people who are mentall ill.

Not to put words in their mouth, but The NRA thinks that the background check system needs to be expanded to cover mental illness. NRA also seems to be in agreement with the way background checks currently determines who is law abiding and not.

So is it fair to say that the NRA is OK with the current law (if you include the mentally ill) and you prosecute people who are rejected. What they are against is having this law apply to all gun sales?

Isn't that the NRA position in a nutshell?

I won't say I don't care about the "assault" weapons thing, I just don't bring it up because it's an entirely separate mess.

As far as the estimates of support for background checks there are tons of polls from every sort of pollster. Even without a poll, I can't imagine that you could get any rational people to support allowing non- law abiding people to have free access to firearms.

Suggest removal:

12KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

@Hman, I appreciate that you don't know anyone who would sell to someone they suspected would use in a illegal fashion. But are there sellers out there that don't care who they sell to? Unfortunately there are.
What doesn't make sense to me is that the NRA leadership is encouraging improving the background checks system but against implementing an improved system for all sales.

I don't understand that double standard.

I'd agree with this about the present system, if DOJ is not going to prosecute those who "lie" in answering the 12 or so questions on the ATF form, then it makes no sense to ask the questions in the first place. So just eliminate the questions and the signature.

Make it real simple, provide positive identification to the dealer, he calls the state poin-of -contact or NICS and gets a OK or denial. If the dealer gets a denial, he can't sell to that individual. If the dealer gets an OK, the dealer fills out the rest of his paperwork and consumates the sale.

The business with the questions and the customers assertion is irrevelant. The only value I can see in checking off the boxes and signing is to help the dealer. Obviously a reputable dealer is not even going to spend time with, or call/or go online with NICS if the purchaser has told him that he is a prohibited person by answering yes to the questions.

Suggest removal:

13KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Hman,
Well that's a rather personal question. You are asking if I would be found to be a prohibited person.

Putting aside your inartful manner of asking the question, I presume that you are really questioning if a FFL dealer can be fooled with a fraudulent identity.

Obviously I can't answer for FFL dealers. If the photo on the ID causes the dealer to be suspicious I would expect a reputable dealer to ask for backup identification. If the buyer is legitimate he should have no problem. The easiest thing that the buyer can do is supply his social security number - not because it helps the dealer but because it helps avoid incorrect NICS denials.

The presentation of fraudlent ID is a crime itself. Has nothing to do with the form 4473 questions.

Can you explain the inconsistancy with the NRA leadership position on background checks? Namely it's good for dealers but not for any other firearms purchases.

Suggest removal:

14KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

@Hman, And the answer to that question is simple.... NO, they should not! .....

Read your question above: "if someone had your personal information on a ID and their photo could they buy a gun". A dealer should NOT sell to someone who does not have proper identification.

Here's a more useful question: Can you explain the inconsistancy with the NRA leadership position on background checks? Namely that it's good for dealers but not for any other firearms purchases.

Suggest removal:

15KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Hman,
I will allow that a FFL dealer may be fooled with a fake ID, more so if the fake ID has a matching Social Security #. But that is a problem that is not peculiar to firearms transactions.

Your second sentence has two problems. First, you are not asking for government approval. You are asking for the government to confirm what you already THINK you know that your family members can lawfully own a firearm. The second is the phrase "and it's lawful for them to own". If that is a condition upon which you would place the sale, trade or gift, then you are agreeing with then intent of the background check system.

The family scenerio aside, can you explain why the NRA is dead set against checks for internet sales, and gun show sales, but are OK with actually strengthing the background check system for dealers?

Suggest removal:

16KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Excuse me, I said NRA above. I ment to say the NRA leadership. I'm not sure that the bulk of the NRA members are against checks at gun shows or on internet trade/sales sites.

Suggest removal:

17excel(273 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

GET SERIOUS! There is no need for any guns in the public sector. Confiscate them all and there will be no need for any bickering.

Suggest removal:

18kk80586(220 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

there are no guns in the public sector in Cuba....go there, you'll love it.

Suggest removal:

19Sensible(118 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Can anyone be more specific about the deceit of the gun show loophole?

Exactly who is lying, and what is the lie?

Either some people are exempt from the background check law or not.

Suggest removal:

20Bigben(1996 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

KSUgrad "The estimates are that more than 90% of Americans think that guns should not be sold to irresponsible people." - - -Define irresponsible. Is it someone who leaves their wallet at home by accident once a month , someone who forgets their carkeys , looses their cell phone ETC. Where are your 90 percent stats coming from?

As far as government grabbing guns from law abiding citizens if it smells like sxxx it probably is sxxx.

Suggest removal:

21KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

BIGben, The current defination of "irresponsible" people are those who are prohibited by the Brady act for the past twenty years.

It does not include someone who forgets their car keys or looses their cellphone.

If you were a person who has purchased a gun through a dealer in the past twenty years, you would know who is prohibited.

If you dont know then I am left to conclude that you are either not a gun owner or that you obtained your gun prior to 1994 or that you obtained your gun via the "loophole".

Gun grabbing is a fantasy that exists in your head.

Suggest removal:

22doubled(210 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

macker says ....."Nancy and her political puppets have been trying to ban guns for years. Each new tragedy affords them a new opportunity to re-package their efforts to ban all guns."

Apparently macker - and his slow, mouth breathing breathren on the vindy post, feel that expanded backround checks and the banning of military assault weapons is akin to the banning of all guns. But don't worry macker - and the rest of you sissies - with EACH NEW TRAGEDY you'll have another chance to chant more guns, more guns, more guns.

My God, you people are insane.

Suggest removal:

23Woody2(26 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Money is the greatest driving force!

People react to senseless mass shootings by calling for better gun control. The gun guys react to the calls for better gun control by buying more and more guns. The gun manufacturers and dealers make more and more money.

Conclusion: Senseless mass shootings is good for business !

Suggest removal:

24KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Multiple surveys and polls clearly show that the majority of NRA members believe that background checks should be required for firearm purchases. The NRA leadership has never contested those polls or commissioned a poll of their own.

As to internet sales: FFL dealers do indeed require background checks. But persons who are not primarily in the business of firearms sales are exempt. Ebay and Craigslist, two of the best known peer-to-peer internet sales and auctions have their own rules prohibiting firearms sales. But a quick check with the forums sections of several gun advocate web sites will show how to evade those rules. I will not go into detail on those tactics, you can find these on your own.

Tell me more about the "many" that want total confiscation. Who exactly are these many? Are these "many" sufficiently powerful to confiscate by force? The point here is that the American people would never submit to total confiscation. The Supreme Court has been very plain that it would be unconstitutional and unenforceable. Total confiscation is an completely unreasonable fear.

As to the background check fee, I don't know where you get 25$. It certainly is not national. I happen to know that in Colorado the "fee" is ZERO. My experience was a 10$ fee.
NRA leaders should want to be sure that gun owners are in compliance with the law, to do otherwise undercuts the reputation of all gun owners..

In the final analysis either you agree that gun possession should be limited to the catagory of "law-abiding" and "mentally responsible" persons or you don't.

Providing exceptions to the background check only underscores that you or the NRA are not serious about excluding prohibited persons from gun possession.

Suggest removal:

25KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

In the final analysis either you agree that gun possession should be limited to the catagory of "law-abiding" and "mentally responsible" persons or you don't.

It sounds like you don't.

Suggest removal:

26KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Hman,
Are you referring to political party?
At the present time I don't think that there is any disagreement between the political parties about who is law-abiding and mentally responsible. The only disagreement is if everyone is equal to scrutiny.

So, who would you trust to make "the call".

Suggest removal:

27KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Ok, I got that. You don't trust Washington.

I watched the Judiciary Committee business meetings on the gun control measures. I didn't hear any objection to the current backround check system (excepting that some republicans wanted more aggressive enforcement for application falsification). Even in their testimony and public statements the NRA has not criticized the classification system.

The principle objection/argument seems to be on an expansion of the background check system into gun shows and other transfers.

Yes, I suppose some fool will stand up and say that the whole system should be scrapped and that firearms be available to anyone with cash, but I can't see that getting any traction at all.

No scrutiny for anyone would be the purest application of the literal words of the second amendment. But that is not the law today, and I suspect it would never be law.

What I think they have to grapple with is deciding who should be scrutinized.

BTW, Colorado's firearm backround check system includes gunshow and gunshow parking lots. I think it's been mentioned elsewhere the current fee is zero.

Suggest removal:

28Jerryl(103 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

That fool would be Ted Cruz based on his performance today.
I'd bet on it!

Suggest removal:

29KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

I'm more inclined to agree (about the Democratic Senators in Red States) as it pertains to the assault weapons ban.

I am much less likey to agree with respect to the background checks bill, mainly for two reasons (1) the high degree of public support even in red states and (2) a reasonable desire on the part of gun owners to keep undesirables out of their "club of gun owners" --and I'm not referring to the NRA.

The only reason I mentoned Colorado was to point out that their state legislature does not have a gunshow loophole.

Suggest removal:

30KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

About the "assault weapons ban".
On a Constitutional grounds this should be easy to pass.
Strictly the Constitution says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

What it does NOT say is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms of any variety they might choose.
It is clear that the 2nd amendment ensures that “the people” could not be disarmed, anything beyond that is just a figment of imagination.

There are already in place prohibitions, restrictions and or regulations covering arms such as fully automatic firearms, grenade launchers, RPGs, shoulder fired missiles, claymore mines, scud missiles, howitzers, etc.

Politically the "assault weapons ban" may be tough to pass because of the popularity of these weapons, but there really is no Constitutional impediment.

Suggest removal:

31Jerryl(103 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Just saw Ted Cruz on the news today, he thought he was being a smart-aleck but he probably set the Republican/gun lobby effort backward with his point about the 2nd amendment.

He just reminded everyone that the constitution does NOT guarentee the people to have whatever arms they want.

He may not have intended it, but he just became an asset for Feinstein's bill!

Suggest removal:

32KSUgrad(144 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

@hman,
You may be right that Congress won’t adopt a ASW bill. But it won't be on constitutional grounds, it will be on political - popularity grounds.
It might be close in the Senate, but the House Republicans will shut it down.

But the issue of background checks being expanded to include gun shows stands a fair change of passage. That's where the constitutional disagreement is pertinent.

As I said before, it is clear (at least to me) that the intent of the 2nd amendment was to ensure that "the people" could not be disarmed by creation of laws. (As the English did to the Protestants.) That there are some that either don't believe or are against that, is just human nature. I'd be concerned if a significant number of our legislators felt that way. They are very few in number.

I'm also unconcerned about what the president thinks about disarmament. It's Congress that has the final word.

The thing to grapple with is this: Should SOME people be prohibited from purchasing firearms? I have yet to see anyone, poll, or group (including the NRA or GOA) that professes that ALL people should have unregulated access to firearms.
There seems to be universal agreement (with the exception of a very few, and loud, wingnuts) that some persons should not have their hands on firearms.

The task is to craft legislation that will accomplish that.

Suggest removal:

33kk80586(220 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Congress won't adopt an ASW bill because assault weapons are already banned/regulated. They won't ban scary looking features on rifles purely on Constitutional grounds.

"The task is to craft legislation that will accomplish that."
ok, let's do something that is based in common sense. Let's have a list of criminals and the violent mentally disturbed. That would make sense but liberals will not like a "list" of criminals will they?
My problem with background checks (and a "universal background check" specifically) is that first it has been proven not to work. And second, it assumes guilt and a law-abiding person must "prove" innocence by submitting to a background check which infringes on other Rights. I certainly don't condone criminals and loonies having guns just as much as I don't condone infringements on our Rights
The only thing background checks of law-abiding citizen's accomplishes is to give the gubmint a list of where to go if they do become tyrannical and want to confiscate weapons. That is how hitler and many others have done it. Why let history be repeated?
You like to claim "oh it's the carnage", yet (posted on a different story at vindy) after viewing the video where Suzanne Hupp explains 2A to the high and mighty hypocritical elite you choose to take her comments out of context and I feel fair to say ridicule her. She was a victim that day as much as her parents were yet your heart didn't bleed for her. Why? Because she didn't share your political view?
The shooting at Connecticut (and others) hit me as much as anyone who is not directly related to the victims. If I thought for one second that banning scary features on regular rifles would prevent that, I would be at the head of the line to ban them. As long as they (the other few, and loud, wingnuts) talk about or move to pass laws that are nonsensical and already proven not to work and violate the Bill of Rights, I will continue to protest on here and other venues and remind people why we even have Rights.

Suggest removal:

34HappyBob(285 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Who has proven background checks don't work?
And what is their proof?

It's been said many times before that the intention of the Brady act was to make it more difficult for criminals to purchase firearms.

Before Brady could a criminal purchase at a dealer? After Brady could a criminal purchase at a dealer? Did Brady put up a barrier for criminals to purchase at dealers?

If you can show me proof that a criminal can now purchase a firearm at a dealer just as easily as was possible before Brady, then I will agree with you that background checks didn't work.

Suggest removal:

35kk80586(220 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

never said they could purchase at a dealer, most never did anyway even before brady. steal them, buy on black market, make them, etc.etc. put on your thinking cap. a little more difficult?...maybe but a criminal bent on getting a gun WILL get a gun. that much we know.
AND people who pass (like the cop in LA) who not only passed b.c for gun but also cop check and Navy check. how much did any b.c work out there?
all they are doing is building a database of legal gun owners which wouldn't be a bad idea if they used it for a good reason like not having to fill out the same paper work every time. all it does is delay and inconvenience legal gun owners.
I've stated previously I am not big-time against b.c. I am against a federal registry which is the first step hitler and others did before confiscation.
I actually have addressed all your concerns and questions in earlier posts (on this and/or the other article).
earlier in this article you tried to tell someone that a backgound check is not gun registration. that is wrong. I know a guy that took his concealed carry course with a borrowed gun (had never owned one). bought one. went to get c.c. lic. deputy asked him, "what did your wife think of the new gun?" He not only knew the guy now owned a gun but also his first. if it looks like gun registration and smells like gun registration, it f'n IS gun registration.

Suggest removal:

36HappyBob(285 comments)posted 1 year ago

I'm asking a simple question:
Who has proven background checks don't work?

Suggest removal:

37kk80586(220 comments)posted 1 year ago

let's see....I tried the nice guy route and that got me nothing but called names...Let me try this--
I actually have addressed all your concerns and questions in earlier posts. maybe you should try reading them. You were given the answers and it's an open book test.
it seems that when you post as "SeriouslyNow" you make more intelligent statements and arguments....but I could be wrong.
actually, the above text was written into post 48 but I gave you a chance to shutup and look intelligent so now you get the rest of what I was going to say :
you DARE to come on these forums on two different accounts and use one account to actually say you agree with the other account so that people will think that at least one other person in the world agrees with you and then YOU call me a lunatic and a fool??? Son, you ain't nothing but a troll. I've probably been on the internet as long as you've been alive. Trolls like you bore me. Over the years I've annihilated trolls with way more intelligence and savvy than you. Consider yourself annihilated as I will not be responding to you in the future. Your silly questions have been answered many times and I repeated a good part of the answer in post 48. read it until you comprehend it! what are you 12?

Suggest removal:

38HappyBob(285 comments)posted 1 year ago

Hi Hman,
Glad you could rejoin the conversation.

As I recall it, actually the background check did exactly what it was supposed to relative to Fast and Furious.
What I recollect was that purchases were made from a dealer who did the check and NICS gave the OK because the buyer was not a prohibited person. The dealer was concerned because of the number of weapons being purchased that perhaps this was a straw buyer. Supposedly he contacted AFT Phoenix and they said that they would "follow" the guns.

You and I have disagreed before about the intentions of the ATF with this whole series, so we don't need to rehash that.

But the dealer did exactly what he was supposed to do, he checked and found the buyer was not a prohibited purchaser.

The "proof" that I'm trying to find is evidence that many dealers do sell to prohibited purchasers. That would be proof that the background check doesn't work. Or that the background system regularly gives approval for people that they know are prohibited purchasers.

I just read thru the senate hearings, where the NRA and others testified. I can not find anywhere that a claim was made that the background checks "do not work". There was some testimony that the system was flawed, specifically it didn't have all the records necessary to do the job, or that it took too long, or that prosecution of people who applied and were denied wasn't conducted.

Those hearing would have been the best place to provide evidence that the background checks "don't work".

So that's why I ask the question. It's an honest question. So far I have not found that proof being offered on this thread.

@KK80856, I don't know what set you off.

Suggest removal:

39RTS1416(117 comments)posted 1 year ago

@kk808..2 million felons have been denied the purchase of a firearm since the Brady bill was enacted. Are background checks a catch all? Certainly not, but they do have some effect. A half of a glass is better than an empty one in my humble opinion.

Suggest removal:

40kk80586(220 comments)posted 1 year ago

RT- read my last comments (in my comments history) to see a more Constitutional, common sense idea. Let me know what you think so I will know if you want to protect kids or restrict Rights.

Suggest removal:

41Bigben(1996 comments)posted 1 year ago

AMENDMENT II

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.

Suggest removal:

42Woody2(26 comments)posted 1 year ago

@Bigben,
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", including murderers, rapists and the criminally insane.

Isn't that the consequence of the adherance to the actual words of the Second Amendment ?

Suggest removal:

43kk80586(220 comments)posted 1 year ago

use some common sense woody. seems you want strict adherence to the 5th for terrorists and lunatics (re: your reply to tex on the drone issue)
"Texfisher,
So you are now saying that the constitutional guarantees of due process can be ignored if there is an imminent threat?
Please clarify!"
common sense solves all problems. Murderers, rapists and the criminally insane are NOT "the people" anymore than terrorists and lunatics who pose an imminent threat. They all give up some if not all of their Rights by their own actions no matter what the looney left would have you believe, no matter how an activist, pro-criminal court may decide.

Suggest removal:

44Woody2(26 comments)posted 1 year ago

Of course common sense is needed, my comment was Sarcastic to BIGben. My point is that the blind adherence to the actual words leads to the conclusion that all people have a god-given, inalienable right to “keep and bear arms” that shall never be infringed, restricted or regulated.
That attitude flies in the face of common sense.

As does the core of Paul’s filibuster that the commander in chief can not be relied upon to use common sense to determine if an imminent threat exists. Paul wants congress to make that determination – HA!
Congress can’t agree on much of anything. I dare say they would wait for a suitcase nuke to go off before thinking that they might need to act quickly.

Suggest removal:

45kk80586(220 comments)posted 1 year ago

"That attitude flies in the face of common sense."
Not really. You can try to keep guns out of the hands of people like you mentioned but it never has succeeded and never will. The only solution is NOT have infringements, restrictions and regulations on the (majority) law-abiding citizens so they may protect themselves. The problem I have with background checks is that the gubmint is gathering information on law-abiding citizens. Totally against what 2A is about. What they should have is a list of those people who have disability and are forbidden from owning arms.
Paul was correct... with the open-answer that holder gave, I would want to make sure the administration was absolutely clear on what it's limitations are. After fast&furious and trying to blame bhengazi on a youtube video, I would not trust this admin if they went on the news tonight and said we are in the year 2013. Of course, there's a lot more than those 2 examples but I'm not gonna type all night. Usually in terms of National Security, congress does a pretty good job. Of course that IS their primary job description and the rest of the stuff they do just pretty much screws things up and screws us.
I still see (according to your statement to tex) that you would like someone posing an imminent threat to have "due process". Did you mistype something or want to phrase that differently?

Suggest removal:

46Bigben(1996 comments)posted 1 year ago

- - - -KSU" BIGben, The current defination of "irresponsible" people are those who are prohibited by the Brady act for the past twenty years.

It does not include someone who forgets their car keys or looses their cellphone.

"If you were a person who has purchased a gun through a dealer in the past twenty years, you would know who is prohibited.

If you dont know then I am left to conclude that you are either not a gun owner or that you obtained your gun prior to 1994 or that you obtained your gun via the "loophole". - - -What are the percentages of murders in the state of Ohio from purchases at gun shows? What percentage of murders are committed with rifles and how many of that number are assault rifles ?How about those FBI figures for the national statistics regarding those categories? What percentage of gun related murders occur at gun shows as a percentage?

Gun grabbing is a fantasy that exists in your head."- -Yeah I know like the idea that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or that specualtion wasn't playing a part in the housing debacle in 2005, and the dangers of fracking -all fantasies . When someone wants to chip away at your rights they tend not to tell you that they are chipping away at your rights.

You wrong on all counts. You seem given to jump to conclusions rather quickly. Referring to rifles as assault weapons is a fantasy in my head too? I don't think so. It has already been shown that Feinstein wants the guns.

Suggest removal:

47Bigben(1996 comments)posted 1 year ago

KSU"What it does NOT say is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms of any variety they might choose.
It is clear that the 2nd amendment ensures that “the people” could not be disarmed, anything beyond that is just a figment of imagination." - - What in the hxxx are you talking about? The Constitution does not limit what type of firearms citizens may posses. You may hate that , you may argue that it does but it does NOT. Laws have been passed but the Constitution does NOT limit types of weapons.With your line of thinking Americans maybe be armed with pellet rifles and sling shots and have their Constitutional rights in tact?

Thank God the framers had a "figment of imagination".

Suggest removal:

48Bigben(1996 comments)posted 1 year ago

@woody "Isn't that the consequence of the adherence to the actual words of the Second Amendment ?" - - -No that is the consequence of adherence to evil thoughts. Every evil act committed began with an thought. Can you ban thoughts?

Suggest removal:

49Woody2(26 comments)posted 1 year ago

@bigben,
Gun rights advocates insist on strict adherence to the words, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT be INFRINGED." - no more no less, no interpretation, no translation, no common sense.

According to them , "the people" doesn't mean some people, or only the righteous, or only the sane, or only those over a certain age. If the founders wanted gun rights to be limited to some people they would have said so, by adding one word, "some".

My point is that the gun rights advocates strict "word-for-word" application/interpretation of the second amendment is unreasonable, and probably not what the founders ever intended.

Suggest removal:

50kk80586(220 comments)posted 1 year ago

woody- again, YOU need to use some COMMON SENSE. I don't know of ANY gun owners or 2A supporters who say criminals or loonies should have access to guns or any weapons. In actuality, it is people like you that ARE the problem. It is because of people like you that a lot of these criminals, murderers and loonies are running loose. (re: your reply to tex ) -- "Texfisher,
So you are now saying that the constitutional guarantees of due process can be ignored if there is an imminent threat?
Please clarify!"
You want to coddle terrorists and lunatics but infringe on the Rights of law-abiding citizens??
I had already explained to you that the Founders (like most people back then) had common sense and would not include criminals and loonies as "the people". Criminals lose (as they should) most of their Constitutional Rights by their own actions.
Perhaps if you understood WHY the Bill of Rights were written and WHY each and every Right was specified you would start to have an understanding of why people are so fervent on protecting any of our Rights and especially 2A.
It would also be good to study history and see what happens over and over again throughout all time after the gubmint disarms the people.
Use google.

Suggest removal:

51Woody2(26 comments)posted 1 year ago

to kk80856,
I thought it was you who lectured on using the exact defination of "infringed" . I thought it was you who were insisting that the words be used precisely as given.
Maybe it was someone else at post #6 in the comments on "Limited gun restrictions don’t violate the Second Amendment".

Suggest removal:

52kk80586(220 comments)posted 1 year ago

Common sense woody, common sense. In that post I was simply pointing out that the title of the article (and the premise of the article) was stupid because what the author was essentially saying was "Limited infringements on gun rights won't infringe on the 2nd Amendment". Read the rest of my posts to get a full context of where I stand. I am all FOR infringing on criminals and loonies and all AGAINST more infringements on law-abiding citizens and 2A.

Suggest removal:

53Woody2(26 comments)posted 1 year ago

Your position is moronic.

Your position is that we should only have laws for people who break the law. Speed limits should only be applied to those who have a history of speeding!

Passports should only be required of criminals.

Drivers licenses should only be required of people who drive illegally.

Your common sense is whacked

Civilized society requires everyone to be subject to laws.

Suggest removal:

54kk80586(220 comments)posted 1 year ago

Your last line was a fairly intelligent statement so I will respond to it. I never said there can't be laws. There is a law against murder. If someone murders they should be put to death....sooner rather than later.
speed limits, passports and drivers licenses are not mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

normally I would have been offended by the first line but I considered the source

Suggest removal:


News
Opinion
Entertainment
Sports
Marketplace
Classifieds
Records
Discussions
Community
Help
Forms
Neighbors

HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes | Pittsburgh International Airport