Discussion: The Second Amendment IV

[SV Fan]

On a related note, how can anyone oppose closing the gun show loophole? Anybody?

Because gun manufacturers(who stand to profit the most with loophole not being closed) fund the NRA and the NRA is against it

 

[dnno1]

So, tell me what you believe the so called gun show loop hole is.

It's one of those political, media terms that gets under my skin.

It's for real.

[YT]7zZnvo_x5tA[/YT]

 

[dnno1]

On a related note, how can anyone oppose closing the gun show loophole? Anybody?

More than just that we need to close the loophole on the private sale of firearms be they at gun shows, in the classifieds, or over the internet.

 

[Super Kal]

so gun owners shouldn't have the freedom to sell their firearm?... that's utterly ridiculous.

 

[SV Fan]

so gun owners shouldn't have the freedom to sell their firearm?... that's utterly ridiculous.

I am guessing it they strictly enforced the rules it would just eb a case you would have to bring your gun to a place to do the proper paperwork before you sell. It shouldn't stop person A from privately selling to Person B(assuming person B clears all background checks)

 

[Kelly]

so gun owners shouldn't have the freedom to sell their firearm?... that's utterly ridiculous.

I think they should be able to sell their firearm, but they have to do it through a 3rd party that is regulated in the same way that gun shop owners are regulated.

What is utterly ridiculous is being able to sell a gun to someone without any knowledge of that person, no background check, etc...

 

[dnno1]

so gun owners shouldn't have the freedom to sell their firearm?... that's utterly ridiculous.

You can still sell your firearm, you just have to make sure that a background check is done before the sale is complete. You can do that at your local FFL Dealer. This is no different than having a car smogged before the sale.

 

[Victarion]

Perhaps this is childish naivety on my part, but what if we pulled some of our military forces back from the overseas fighting and used them to crack down on gun violence, especially in cities like Chicago where it is bad? I am proposing that the U.S. military use its forces to put down the gangs in Chicago responsible for the gun violence.

Is that at all feasible?

 

[Super Kal]

You can still sell your firearm, you just have to make sure that a background check is done before the sale is complete. You can do that at your local FFL Dealer.

got no problem with that

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Perhaps this is childish naivety on my part, but what if we pulled some of our military forces back from the overseas fighting and used them to crack down on gun violence, especially in cities like Chicago where it is bad? I am proposing that the U.S. military use its forces to put down the gangs in Chicago responsible for the gun violence.

Is that at all feasible?

Nope, posse comitatus is still in effect. Best that could be done is if a governor called in National Guard, but even then, I doubt most governors would do such a thing for an extended period of time.

 

[dnno1]

Nope, posse comitatus is still in effect. Best that could be done is if a governor called in National Guard, but even then, I doubt most governors would do such a thing for an extended period of time.

See the 2008 NDA. It revised Section 333 of USC Title 10 as follows:

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it-- ``(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or ``(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.''. (2) Proclamation to disperse.--Section 334 of such title is amended by striking ``or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws'' after ``insurgents''.

That was signed into law under George W. Bush's watch. They can only intervene if there is an insurrection or a riot pretty much.

 

[Hotwire]

so gun owners shouldn't have the freedom to sell their firearm?... that's utterly ridiculous.

Sure, you can sell your firearms. You just have to run a background check on the person you're selling it to. This ensures you don't accidentally sell it to a criminal.

 

[Kable24]

The term "gun show loophole" is often used to describe the fact that federal law allows private sellers to sell firearms without background checks or record keeping.

From this article....

The vast majority of people who either visit or sell guns at gun shows are law-abiding citizens and dealers.

However, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms , and Explosives (ATF) reports that 30 percent of guns involved in federal illegal gun trafficking investigations are connected to gun shows.

This multi-state undercover investigation exposed how easy it is for criminals to buy guns at gun shows.

The City of New York investigated 7 gun shows in 3 states involving buys from 47 gun sellers using hidden cameras.

The investigation videos showed that 35 out of 47 sellers approached by undercover investigators at these gun shows sold guns illegally.

THE GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE
The term "gun show loophole" is often used to describe the fact that federal law allows private sellers to sell firearms without background checks or record keeping.

While private sellers are exempted from running background checks no matter where they make the sale, this loophole is associated with gun shows because they are the largest and most central marketplace where these private sellers can easily connect with purchasers who wish to avoid detection.

SELLING TO PROHIBITED PURCHASERS
Even though they are not required to perform background checks, private dealers cannot sell to someone who they have reason to believe is prohibited from buying guns.

Investigators attempted to purchase guns after telling private sellers that they probably could not pass a background check.
19 of 30 private sellers — 63% — broke the law by completing a sale to a buyer who they thought could not pass a background check.


Source: http://www.gunshowundercover2009.org/
NYC.gov

Really Kelly? You're going to explain to me the term gun show loop hole?


I know what it means and I know that the term "gun show loop hole" gets thrown about by politicians and especially the media and it makes people think that all gun sales at gun shows don't follow the proper paperwork and back ground check.
I wanted to know what Sun Down thought it meant.

 

[Kelly]

Really Kelly? You're going to explain to me the term gun show loop hole?


I know what it means and I know that the term "gun show loop hole" gets thrown about by politicians and especially the media and it makes people think that all gun sales at gun shows don't follow the proper paperwork and back ground check.
I wanted to know what Sun Down thought it meant.

He probably would have done the same thing I did.....if ya don't want to know, or are just being sarcastic....then.............say so.

Sheeesh, people around here wanting you to read their minds.....

And actually, I was thinking the investigation was interesting....

 

[Thundercrack85]

Perhaps this is childish naivety on my part, but what if we pulled some of our military forces back from the overseas fighting and used them to crack down on gun violence, especially in cities like Chicago where it is bad? I am proposing that the U.S. military use its forces to put down the gangs in Chicago responsible for the gun violence.

Is that at all feasible?

Well, putting aside the legal, ethical, and political problems with that idea, I'm doubtful it would work.

While guns are obviously going to make the situation worse, the fundamental problem runs a lot deeper.

Poverty, corruption, a culture of violence, and general sense of hopelessness, etc.

There are ways to deal with that, but nobody wants to put their necks on the line. And quite frankly, this goes back to corruption, a lot of people want it to stay that way.

 

[SV Fan]

Perhaps this is childish naivety on my part, but what if we pulled some of our military forces back from the overseas fighting and used them to crack down on gun violence, especially in cities like Chicago where it is bad? I am proposing that the U.S. military use its forces to put down the gangs in Chicago responsible for the gun violence.

Is that at all feasible?

Do that then the "gun nuts" would have a case of the Government using the military turning on it's citizens(which is one of the big reasons they make that everybody should be able to buy a gun)

 

[Fading]

Perhaps this is childish naivety on my part, but what if we pulled some of our military forces back from the overseas fighting and used them to crack down on gun violence, especially in cities like Chicago where it is bad? I am proposing that the U.S. military use its forces to put down the gangs in Chicago responsible for the gun violence.

Is that at all feasible?

My problem is it sounds close to martial law. While I like the idea of a better armed, and trained squad handling tasks that lead to police officer deaths, it's still asking our military to handle civilian affairs on our soil. Anytime you take a step like that, it has to be done cautiously, unlike, say, the patriot act. If you think peoples complaints for, and against guns is bad now, imagine the unrest when our own military is marching up, and down the streets shooting civilians (not talking innocents, mean criminals, but the media will overblow a story like that).

 

[Fading]

Do that then the "gun nuts" would have a case of the Government using the military turning on it's citizens(which is one of the big reasons they make that everybody should be able to buy a gun)

True. It would be career suicide for those involved, and you'd see record gun sales, increased civil war talk, and cries of Obama dictatorship on Fox. Things like that may sound OK on paper, but our culture reads far too much into everything anymore. I mean even having gun talks, just talking to figure out a solution had people threatening civil war, and assassination.

 

[dnno1]

Chris Kyle
(1974-2013)

'American Sniper' Author Fatally Shot at Gun Range
http://news.yahoo.com/reports-ex-seal-author-fatally-shot-gun-range-072047785.html

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

All those guns around did a fantastic job of protecting him. If only someone with a gun and training were there.

 

[Marvolo]

All those guns around did a fantastic job of protecting him. If only someone with a gun and training were there.

Yeah and airbags sometimes kill people so I guess we should write off all airbags as a legitimate means of defense against vehicular death. Guns wont always save you in a defensive situation. This isnt the movies. There are too many factors, and you dont know how the events of this situation transpired. To make lite of that fact in the event of someone's death to make an erroneous point is

 

[samsnee]

Yeah and airbags sometimes kill people so I guess we should write off all airbags as a legitimate means of defense against vehicular death. Guns wont always save you in a defensive situation. This isnt the movies. There are too many factors, and you dont know how the events of this situation transpired. To make lite of that fact in the event of someone's death to make an erroneous point is

I agree. So when the head of NRA says that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, it tells me he needs to stop watching movies.

 

[Marvolo]

I agree. So when the head of NRA says that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, it tells me he needs to stop watching movies.

In the event that a bad guy pulls a gun it is better to have a well and properly trained civillian with a gun in the area. A well trained civillian with a gun is no different than a well trained cop with a gun. They both know how to properly put down a hostile subject with no civillian casualties. What I have discovered is that cops aren't usually right there when a fool pulls a gun with intent to harm the innocent. The fastest response time is usually around 5 minutes or more. In that event I would much rather have a well trained civillian there that can stop the guy.

And notice that I said well and properly trained civillian. We have no use for armchair rambos carrying guns thinking they can shoot from the hip like John Wayne. This is why states require an 8 hour training course, a written test, and a psych evalutaion to obtain a Concealed Carry Permit. Civillian's who have Concealed Carry permits have proven they can use the weapon properly. The only concession I would make is making them repeat the training course once a year just to ensure they aren't getting rusty.

 

[samsnee]

I just don't think introducing more guns into that kind of situation is the safest thing. More than likely you have a panicked crowd running around. I get that a civilian has to pass tests and psych evaluations, but in that sort of situation, where everyone's adrenaline is pumping, I don't know if that means anything at that point.

And then let's say the cops do show up and see they two people shooting at each other. It just adds even more chaos.

 

[Marvolo]

I just don't think introducing more guns into that kind of situation is the safest thing. More than likely you have a panicked crowd running around. I get that a civilian has to pass tests and psych evaluations, but in that sort of situation, where everyone's adrenaline is pumping, I don't know if that means anything at that point.

And then let's say the cops do show up and see they two people shooting at each other. It just adds even more chaos.

Well, a properly trained civillian wouldn't fire into a running crowd. See that is what I mean. People who know what they are doing and are trained with firearms do not do that kind of stuff. I don't understand why someone trusts a trained and permited civillian with a gun any less than a cop with a gun. They both receive training, they both follow the law, and they both carry the gun to protect others and themselves. Wearing a badge doesn't impart you with magical gun skills. Heck, some cops do the bare minimum with their gun, and are worse shots than the civillians.