Background checks at gun shows?

[GeezerMan]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
This is the problem with this debate. People don't know what the loophole is, they don't know what assault weapons are.. they don't know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic weapons..

Exactly. I have seen several news shows that have video of captured drug cartel weapons in Mexico. Tables full of full auto machine guns, rocket launchers, and grenades. Then the Mexican official says we need the USA to have the assault weapons ban in place. As if these types of weapons are easily purchased at gun shows , or were ever covered under the ban.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: GeezerMan

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
This is the problem with this debate. People don't know what the loophole is, they don't know what assault weapons are.. they don't know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic weapons..

Exactly. I have seen several news shows that have video of captured drug cartel weapons in Mexico. Tables full of full auto machine guns, rocket launchers, and grenades. Then the Mexican official says we need the USA to have the assault weapons ban in place. As if these types of weapons are easily purchased at gun shows , or were ever covered under the ban.

at least now w/ the internet people can actually do a bit of research if they are inclined, so that is good for us pro gun people. seems like some media is doing a bit more accurate reporting but again, this thread is proof that they still plug away w/ their propaganda campaign.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
This is the problem with this debate. People don't know what the loophole is, they don't know what assault weapons are.. they don't know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic weapons..

This is like telling people shouldn't complain about their Microsoft Windows bug because they don't know how the Windows is coded.

Who give a F about the loophole, assault weapon definition, all we need to know is people with mental problem/criminal background can and have bought guns to kill, and there are guns with ridiculous power in the market that doesn't serve any purpose other than being used for criminal purpose.

Something have to be done, period.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
This is the problem with this debate. People don't know what the loophole is, they don't know what assault weapons are.. they don't know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic weapons..

This is like telling people shouldn't complain about their Microsoft Windows bug because they don't know how the Windows is coded.

Who give a F about the loophole, assault weapon definition, all we need to know is people with mental problem/criminal background can and have bought guns to kill, and there are guns with ridiculous power in the market that doesn't serve any purpose other than being used for criminal purpose.

Something have to be done, period.

what do you suggest? and what do you consider "ridiculous power"?

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
This is the problem with this debate. People don't know what the loophole is, they don't know what assault weapons are.. they don't know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic weapons..

This is like telling people shouldn't complain about their Microsoft Windows bug because they don't know how the Windows is coded.

Who give a F about the loophole, assault weapon definition, all we need to know is people with mental problem/criminal background can and have bought guns to kill, and there are guns with ridiculous power in the market that doesn't serve any purpose other than being used for criminal purpose.

Something have to be done, period.

I nominate this for stupidest post of the thread. You are essentially proposing that facts and information don't matter, action must be taken regardless of efficacy. You sir, are a royal clod.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
This is the problem with this debate. People don't know what the loophole is, they don't know what assault weapons are.. they don't know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic weapons..

This is like telling people shouldn't complain about their Microsoft Windows bug because they don't know how the Windows is coded.

Who give a F about the loophole, assault weapon definition, all we need to know is people with mental problem/criminal background can and have bought guns to kill, and there are guns with ridiculous power in the market that doesn't serve any purpose other than being used for criminal purpose.

Something have to be done, period.

You're right, something have to be done.

I propose we send you to ESL classes, stat.

 

[fisheerman]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
This is the problem with this debate. People don't know what the loophole is, they don't know what assault weapons are.. they don't know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic weapons..

This is like telling people shouldn't complain about their Microsoft Windows bug because they don't know how the Windows is coded.

Who give a F about the loophole, assault weapon definition, all we need to know is people with mental problem/criminal background can and have bought guns to kill, and there are guns with ridiculous power in the market that doesn't serve any purpose other than being used for criminal purpose.

Something have to be done, period.

I nominate this for stupidest post of the thread. You are essentially proposing that facts and information don't matter, action must be taken regardless of efficacy. You sir, are a royal clod.

I second that nomination.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
This is the problem with this debate. People don't know what the loophole is, they don't know what assault weapons are.. they don't know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic weapons..

This is like telling people shouldn't complain about their Microsoft Windows bug because they don't know how the Windows is coded.

Who give a F about the loophole, assault weapon definition, all we need to know is people with mental problem/criminal background can and have bought guns to kill, and there are guns with ridiculous power in the market that doesn't serve any purpose other than being used for criminal purpose.

Something have to be done, period.

You should give a fuck about the definition of something you want to "ban". Otherwise you have no idea what you are actually banning and why and that is a terrible way to run a govt.

You last line says it all though. Something has to be done period. Doesnt matter if what is done makes absolutely no logical sense, it just has to be done!

 

[Bulk Beef]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
There are people on this forum who can both verify who i am and where i am but they shouldn't have to, if you paid any attention to my posts you'd KNOW that.

If you are who and what you say are, you should:

1. Embrace the meaning of the phrase "quiet professional" and:
2. STFU

If you aren't, skip step one.

 

[lokiju]

I've never been to a show that doesn't require one unless you already have a concealed weapons license.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: fisheerman
I know lets start a campaign and call it "The War on Weapons"!
We can throw billions of dollars at it and teach it in schools. We'll enact tough legislation that will put you behind bars for the most minor offenses and fill the prisons to overcapacity. Surely that will teach these criminals that they should follow the law.

Sound familiar?

Why is it an all or nothing proposition? Can't we just have sane laws that make sense and try to minimize the amount of guns that fall into the hands of criminals?

You continue to prove just how stupid you are every post you make. Laws do not stop criminals from getting guns. The very definition of a criminal is someone that does not follow laws. More legistlation and procedures only affect the law abiding citizens.
Should we make laws that say you can't speak out against the President? How about fuck the 5th Amendment, you now have to testify against yourself if you don't you'r guilty. If we could just make criminals testify against themselves it would make court proceedings much faster and get more criminals off the streets.

Why do you want to take guns away from people but you don't want to fix the problem that creates the crime?

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: fisheerman
I know lets start a campaign and call it "The War on Weapons"!
We can throw billions of dollars at it and teach it in schools. We'll enact tough legislation that will put you behind bars for the most minor offenses and fill the prisons to overcapacity. Surely that will teach these criminals that they should follow the law.

Sound familiar?

Why is it an all or nothing proposition? Can't we just have sane laws that make sense and try to minimize the amount of guns that fall into the hands of criminals?

You continue to prove just how stupid you are every post you make. Laws do not stop criminals from getting guns. The very definition of a criminal is someone that does not follow laws. More legistlation and procedures only affect the law abiding citizens.
Should we make laws that say you can't speak out against the President? How about fuck the 5th Amendment, you now have to testify against yourself if you don't you'r guilty. If we could just make criminals testify against themselves it would make court proceedings much faster and get more criminals off the streets.

Why do you want to take guns away from people but you don't want to fix the problem that creates the crime?

:roll: Yeah, and personal attacks make you look like a fucking genius.

Listen up halfwit, I'm trying to have a rational discussion here but you just keep spewing the same bullshit the NRA feeds you over and over. It's like arguing with a slice of bacon.

Oh, and show me where I said I want to take guns away from people? You can't, because I never said it. I am a gun owner you moron.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Listen up halfwit, I'm trying to have a rational discussion here but you just keep spewing the same bullshit the NRA feeds you over and over.

pssst, hey Jules... those are called actual facts and figures; which, if I recall correctly, are what one is supposed to use to prove any point. I know that facts can sometimes be pesky little things to argue against, but you're going to have to give it the 'ole college try, m'kay?

good luck.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
This is the problem with this debate. People don't know what the loophole is, they don't know what assault weapons are.. they don't know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic weapons..

This is like telling people shouldn't complain about their Microsoft Windows bug because they don't know how the Windows is coded.

Who give a F about the loophole, assault weapon definition, all we need to know is people with mental problem/criminal background can and have bought guns to kill, and there are guns with ridiculous power in the market that doesn't serve any purpose other than being used for criminal purpose.

Something have to be done, period.

I nominate this for stupidest post of the thread. You are essentially proposing that facts and information don't matter, action must be taken regardless of efficacy. You sir, are a royal clod.

Isn't that SOP for government, and liberalism in general?

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Oh, and show me where I said I want to take guns away from people? You can't, because I never said it. I am a gun owner you moron.

From the thread about the firearms instructor harrassed by the cops for legally carrying a holstered gun:

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

:thumbsup::laugh: Cops should have put him out of his misery.

Now quit pretending to be something you obviously are not you lyi8ng POS.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Listen up halfwit, I'm trying to have a rational discussion here but you just keep spewing the same bullshit the NRA feeds you over and over.

pssst, hey Jules... those are called actual facts and figures; which, if I recall correctly, are what one is supposed to use to prove any point. I know that facts can sometimes be pesky little things to argue against, but you're going to have to give it the 'ole college try, m'kay?

good luck.

Well Jules has a point because you guys are spewing the same stuff out again. He's talking about having checks for all sales, but you guys are talking about taking your 2nd amendment rights away. Checks != taking away your rights away. Deal with the issues of checks and checks ONLY. Stop going off on a tangent about how this leads to banning all guns and Feinstein and crap. I don't give a crap about our two lame overly-liberal senators either, but let's not mis-characterize quotes to make your points. Jules has pushed for sensible laws that force background checks to be made but stop short of depriving us of gun ownership.

Then you guys talk about how it's possible to buy cars without registering.... Well how about this. For 99% of the people, if they want to buy a used car to drive to work or as a vacation vehicle, whatever, they go about buying it and registering it and dealing with the legal stuff. And then someone brought up computers and serial numbers and everything. That's once again irrelevant.

Let's ask yourself what the hell the purpose of a firearm is. You can say self defense, but in reality it's something that shoots something else. Then there are hunting rifles which is a sporting good but once again it's to shoot and in this case kill something. Now I'm not saying guns are bad, but when the purpose is really just to harm, then I think some regulation needs to be in place. Ok, now some of you will say that it's a deterrent or whatever, but we can draw the analogy of guns to humans for home defense as missiles and bombs to countries for national defense. They're not always used to kill, but can be used to deter, but really is just made to do destruction as a primary purpose. The secondary purpose is your use as defense or protection or whatever. And once again it's fine because I myself don't have anything against guns. However, if you look at a total different industry like medical devices and pharmaceuticals where we talk about saving lives, there's every ounce of traceability. If anything goes wrong, you can trace it back to the operator who fucked up in the manufacturing facility and the time of the incident. If we make sure so much is in place so our drugs are safe, I don't see what's wrong in making sure our weapons are moving around safely when lives are at stake.

Jules also brings up another point that NO ONE has responded to. As a responsible gun owner, don't you feel better that you ran a check before selling your firearm to another individual? What would you feel like if the guy you sold your weapon to turned out to be a crazy school shooter?

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Listen up halfwit, I'm trying to have a rational discussion here but you just keep spewing the same bullshit the NRA feeds you over and over.

pssst, hey Jules... those are called actual facts and figures; which, if I recall correctly, are what one is supposed to use to prove any point. I know that facts can sometimes be pesky little things to argue against, but you're going to have to give it the 'ole college try, m'kay?

good luck.

Well Jules has a point because you guys are spewing the same stuff out again. He's talking about having checks for all sales, but you guys are talking about taking your 2nd amendment rights away. Checks != taking away your rights away. Deal with the issues of checks and checks ONLY. Stop going off on a tangent about how this leads to banning all guns and Feinstein and crap. I don't give a crap about our two lame overly-liberal senators either, but let's not mis-characterize quotes to make your points. Jules has pushed for sensible laws that force background checks to be made but stop short of depriving us of gun ownership.

Then you guys talk about how it's possible to buy cars without registering.... Well how about this. For 99% of the people, if they want to buy a used car to drive to work or as a vacation vehicle, whatever, they go about buying it and registering it and dealing with the legal stuff. And then someone brought up computers and serial numbers and everything. That's once again irrelevant.

Let's ask yourself what the hell the purpose of a firearm is. You can say self defense, but in reality it's something that shoots something else. Then there are hunting rifles which is a sporting good but once again it's to shoot and in this case kill something. Now I'm not saying guns are bad, but when the purpose is really just to harm, then I think some regulation needs to be in place. Ok, now some of you will say that it's a deterrent or whatever, but we can draw the analogy of guns to humans for home defense as missiles and bombs to countries for national defense. They're not always used to kill, but can be used to deter, but really is just made to do destruction as a primary purpose. The secondary purpose is your use as defense or protection or whatever. And once again it's fine because I myself don't have anything against guns. However, if you look at a total different industry like medical devices and pharmaceuticals where we talk about saving lives, there's every ounce of traceability. If anything goes wrong, you can trace it back to the operator who fucked up in the manufacturing facility and the time of the incident. If we make sure so much is in place so our drugs are safe, I don't see what's wrong in making sure our weapons are moving around safely when lives are at stake.

Jules also brings up another point that NO ONE has responded to. As a responsible gun owner, don't you feel better that you ran a check before selling your firearm to another individual? What would you feel like if the guy you sold your weapon to turned out to be a crazy school shooter?

Very few people in the thread are arguing against checks. The problem is that it is a closed system and not allowed to be used by individuals.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Listen up halfwit, I'm trying to have a rational discussion here but you just keep spewing the same bullshit the NRA feeds you over and over.

pssst, hey Jules... those are called actual facts and figures; which, if I recall correctly, are what one is supposed to use to prove any point. I know that facts can sometimes be pesky little things to argue against, but you're going to have to give it the 'ole college try, m'kay?

good luck.

pssst, hey palehorse... i am merely saying that i think people shouldn't be allowed to sell a highly regulated and lethal item like a handgun privately without the buyer going through a background check which has nothing whatsoever to do with disarming law abiding citizens or making guns illegal.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Oh, and show me where I said I want to take guns away from people? You can't, because I never said it. I am a gun owner you moron.

From the thread about the firearms instructor harrassed by the cops for legally carrying a holstered gun:

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

:thumbsup::laugh: Cops should have put him out of his misery.

Now quit pretending to be something you obviously are not you lyi8ng POS.

Apparently the thumbsup and the laughing didn't clue you in on the fact that I was kidding?

What exactly do you think I am pretending and lying about?

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Oh, and show me where I said I want to take guns away from people? You can't, because I never said it. I am a gun owner you moron.

From the thread about the firearms instructor harrassed by the cops for legally carrying a holstered gun:

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

:thumbsup::laugh: Cops should have put him out of his misery.

Now quit pretending to be something you obviously are not you lyi8ng POS.

Apparently the thumbsup and the laughing didn't clue you in on the fact that I was kidding?

What exactly do you think I am pretending and lying about?

You can't deduce that?

I think you're an elitist who thinks your good enough to own a gun but Joe Average isn't, so quit trying to act like you aren't trying to take guns away from law abiding people to just soothe your paranoia.

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Honestly, I think some of you just have a hard on to shoot somebody. Quite frankly, I question your motives.

pwned

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Oh, and show me where I said I want to take guns away from people? You can't, because I never said it. I am a gun owner you moron.

From the thread about the firearms instructor harrassed by the cops for legally carrying a holstered gun:

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

:thumbsup::laugh: Cops should have put him out of his misery.

Now quit pretending to be something you obviously are not you lyi8ng POS.

Apparently the thumbsup and the laughing didn't clue you in on the fact that I was kidding?

What exactly do you think I am pretending and lying about?

You can't deduce that?

I think you're an elitist who thinks your good enough to own a gun but Joe Average isn't, so quit trying to act like you aren't trying to take guns away from law abiding people to just soothe your paranoia.

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Honestly, I think some of you just have a hard on to shoot somebody. Quite frankly, I question your motives.

pwned

Questioning someone's motives doesn't equal taking their guns away. You haven't pwned anyone.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Oh, and show me where I said I want to take guns away from people? You can't, because I never said it. I am a gun owner you moron.

From the thread about the firearms instructor harrassed by the cops for legally carrying a holstered gun:

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

:thumbsup::laugh: Cops should have put him out of his misery.

Now quit pretending to be something you obviously are not you lyi8ng POS.

Apparently the thumbsup and the laughing didn't clue you in on the fact that I was kidding?

What exactly do you think I am pretending and lying about?

You can't deduce that?

I think you're an elitist who thinks your good enough to own a gun but Joe Average isn't, so quit trying to act like you aren't trying to take guns away from law abiding people to just soothe your paranoia.

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Honestly, I think some of you just have a hard on to shoot somebody. Quite frankly, I question your motives.

pwned

Questioning someone's motives doesn't equal taking their guns away. You haven't pwned anyone.

Your intentions are clear. The very fact that you are drawn to every gun thread like a fly to shit and feel you have clarify to everyone you are a "gun owner" shows your "motives" quite nicely, thank you.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
Your intentions are clear. The very fact that you are drawn to every gun thread like a fly to shit and feel you have clarify to everyone you are a "gun owner" shows your "motives" quite nicely, thank you.

So, I'm the fly and you're the shit?

I really don't know what you're blabbering on about and why are you taking this so personally? I love gun owners because whenever you ask them an honest question you just get rhetoric and then they call you a liberal commie and accuse you of trying to grab their guns.

In any case, you've said and done nothing to change my mind on the original point of this thread. But hey, it's the weekend, go have a beer and lighten up. :beer:

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
Your intentions are clear. The very fact that you are drawn to every gun thread like a fly to shit and feel you have clarify to everyone you are a "gun owner" shows your "motives" quite nicely, thank you.

So, I'm the fly and you're the shit?

Eat me!!

I really don't know what you're blabbering on about and why are you taking this so personally? I love gun owners because whenever you ask them an honest question you just get rhetoric and then they call you a liberal commie and accuse you of trying to grab their guns.

I love gun grabbers because they will do the cutest song and dance act for you rather then give you their honest opinion.

In any case, you've said and done nothing to change my mind on the original point of this thread. But hey, it's the weekend, go have a beer and lighten up. :beer:

Right back at ya. :beer:

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
Your intentions are clear. The very fact that you are drawn to every gun thread like a fly to shit and feel you have clarify to everyone you are a "gun owner" shows your "motives" quite nicely, thank you.

So, I'm the fly and you're the shit?

Eat me!!

I really don't know what you're blabbering on about and why are you taking this so personally? I love gun owners because whenever you ask them an honest question you just get rhetoric and then they call you a liberal commie and accuse you of trying to grab their guns.

I love gun grabbers because they will do the cutest song and dance act for you rather then give you their honest opinion.

In any case, you've said and done nothing to change my mind on the original point of this thread. But hey, it's the weekend, go have a beer and lighten up. :beer:

Right back at ya. :beer:

I've given you my honest opinion...and I'm not a "gun grabber" I just like to question people and their motives. When someone gets defensive I get suspicious and dig a little deeper. It's just my nature.

I hate labels. I've been accused of being an elitist, a homophobe, a racist, a gun grabber, a liberal, a conservative, a communist, a tree hugging hippy, and just about every other thing you could think of. It's funny though, I'm probably a little bit of all of those things and more (mostly good) but I'm not someone you should have any reason to fear or hate. I have an opinion that's for sure but in reality I have very little ability to change things...same as the rest of you. I'm an American. :beer: