Stabbing spree in Texas
Maybe didn't pass the background check for a firearm.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04 … udent?liteGiven that no one died it seems way better that the firearm alternative.
Unfortunately, nobody else at the scene did either.
I worked in this store on security at this time and all this happened in 4 minutes
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/knife … 16971.html
The system now deems him safe to walk our streets yet the scares still burden those he attacked.
The real question is "what should we do to protect the public" banning weapons will not stop it, maybe trying to identify those who are most likely to use them would be a better option.
We hear all to often that these individuals have been identified as having previous issues with mental illness or crime so as a society should we be putting more resources into preventing these individuals?
I am sure some human rights campaigners would be up in arms about the question i have asked but the problem with human rights is it seems to focus on the wrongdoers rights rather than the victims.
Here in the UK we have some of the strictest gun and knife controls in the world yet we still have at least 1 death a week from either or both and in most cases the authorities already know the people who commit or are likely to commit such crimes!1) No one is seriously calling for a ban on all firearms, just some common sense measures to reduce the risk of firearms falling into the wrong hands.
2) The fact that a law cannot eliminate a problem does not mean the law should not be created. Laws prohibiting homicide clearly do not eliminate homicide, but that does not mean there should be no laws against homicide.
3) The law alone is not the answer, and I don't think anyone is susggesting it is. Legislation is just one of a number of different measures that can be taken to reduce the risk of mass shootings.
Then I guess you think there is no human state of health other than "dead" and "perfectly alright".
Then I guess you think I'm talking about their health status when I'm talking about the crime committed. You seem to be ok with stabbing someone.
Being stabbed is apparently preferable to being shot full of holes by an an assault weapon.
Think what he might have done with an AR 14.
All I said is that they didn't die.
Thus your conclusion that I am in favor of stabbing can only mean you consider every person not "dead" to be "perfectly alright". Otherwise how would you go from what I said to your conclusion? There is no other way to get there.
I personally feel there is a whole gradation of experiences between "quite alright" and "dead"--being stabbed and in critical care being towards the "really not very alright at all" end of that spectrum.He stabbed 14 people before anyone was able to muscle him down? What the hell was everyone else doing?!
Running away like they have been told to do all their lives?
I'm sure if you had been there you would have stopped him single-handedly.
You think, you might have hidden under a desk. You might have missed, someone else might have been hit by the stray bullet.
No, I don't think I would have hidden under a desk, you might I wouldn't. I am not going to shoot unless I have a clear target and will shoot for center mass. Some people act and some people hide I assume you would fall into the latter category.
Is that how you see it? I explained what I would do, what would you do?
I occasionally open carry if I have to go to the office in the docks at night but I would not be carrying in a college (not that people are allowed into colleges with guns anyway because they might shoot people) so I would have hightailed it like you would not believe a60 year old man can go
I carry openly everyday and when confronted with gun free zones I ignore them and carry concealed. I am not going to be a victim because the law says I must obey especially at a school. I just noticed what you said about carrying a gun in school. Why because someone carries a gun in school might they shoot someone? Having a firearm does not automatically turn you into a homicidal maniac, I would use you as proof.
And look Clint carries a gun in gun free zones...yet no murders are committed!!
Whereas we might not know what we will do in any given situation we do know that both Josak and Unvited Writer would rather run then.....well let me put it in a quote.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." -Edmund BurkeWell, good for you that you know for sure how others would react.
And maybe the difference is that I refuse to live in fear and don't always expect bad things to happen around every corner.Well Josak did state he would run and your an woman who probably doesn't own a gun (based on your "what if you miss" comment) over 50 (under 65) with very limited mobility...you can't walk long distances (info gathered from your article on mobility-props btw). I can hardly see you trying to tackle a person...so you'd run.
Actually, I can't run
Hey, even cops miss on occasion.
Incidentally if you sounded pro-gun and had a concealed weapons permit I'd have a different opinion on that matter.
True...lol actually I'd probably have more faith in a random gun owners shot then a cops. About a year ago in my area (Redding, Ca) we had the cops shoot something like 40 shots at a criminal...only 3-4 actually hit him. That's scary. Nobody was hurt though...besides the criminal.
Maybe if more people had concealed weapons permits or gave guns to teachers we wouldn't have school shootings/stabbings. If you think from a criminals perspective what's the best place to go on a shooting rampage...a weaponless crowded school or a shopping mall (which probably has trigger happy rent-a-cops/or cops nearby)
Just curious, where do you live and go every day where you feel you are in danger??
I don't feel that I am in danger because I am armed.
My point is, we don't always know how we will react in any situation. We may think we know what we will do but we won't know until faced with it.
Why aren't the democrats screaming to ban knives? Don't they want our children to be safe?
At the very least, people should be limited to one knife, perhaps no more that four inches in length?
Yeah, we should totally ban knives. We can use our handguns to cut up vegetables for dinner, and we can use our AR-15s or AK-47s to carve up the turkey at Thanksgiving.
You obviously don't care about the children.
Everyone says being stabbed and living is better than being shot and being killed. While logically that makes sense I think there are many victims of crimes who could disagree. After all living with the memories of a horrific crime aren't always easy.
Taking away guns all together will do very little. Before we know it people will be blowing up schools instead of shooting them up.But no one... not one single person... is talking about taking all guns away...
Problem here Univited Writer is complete gun control starts somewhere. You pass an anti-gun law and you have to understand that the laws will only get stricter. (Give a Mouse a cookie, and He'll ask for a glass of milk).
While the current administration claims it won't go for peoples guns, it has made many other campaign promises that have been broken...including Obama claiming he won't enact any new gun laws if re-elected.Textbook use of the Camel's Nose fallacy, invalid by it's own nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel%27s_noseYou mean Josak you can't think of a single example of snowball effect lead to more restrictions?
We've argued before Josak. I'm a fan of using History from WW2 era...more specifically the Nazi party...why? Well that era has it all, gun control, mass discrimination, snowball effect/Camel Nose (interesting read btw I didn't know about that specific phrase). But I digress..
Since the snowball effect is clearly a fallacy care to explain that to anyone living during the Holocaust? More specifically the restrictions the Jews underwent once they were alienated by the government..it seems that at least in that example it started off small and grew to a much bigger problem...
So how exactly is the Snowball effect a fallacy?Its probably because we live in a democracy. There is a YouTube video talking about how Muslims immigrating to France and England will turn the countries into Islamic republics. Clearly, that hasn't happened.
If anything, I'd be more worried about living in a Christian theocracy in 20 years the way conservatives want things done in this country.And what exactly do you fear Cody about living in a Conservative America?
More people with guns? Countries with less strict gun laws show to have less crime then those who have banned guns.
http://christopherfountain.wordpress.co … hats-next/I'll try to keep this under 300 pages.......there are just too many reasons why conservatives should stay miles away from politics.
Let's see...
Conservatives brand themselves as compassionate people who think that everyone should have the same rights except for when they....
-Ban Gay Marriage
-Try To Circumvent Voting Laws and Tell Wild Stories About Voter Fraud When They Don't Win
-North Carolina Wants To Pass A Bill That Would Violate The Constitution
-North Dakota Is Passing Legislation That Would Ban Abortion In The State Once Again Circumventing The Constitution
-Don't See Any Reason Why Background Checks Should Be Necessary To Purchase A Gun In ALL Cases
A group that has no clue why everyone deserves the same rights under the law regardless of their skin color, gender or sexual orientation. A group that cries bloody murder when they can't concepts from the Bible into the law of the land....
Should I continue?Google the difference between conservative/libertarian values and Republican. You stated lots of Republican examples. And I'm curious what North Carolina law are you talking about.
"A group that has no clue why everyone deserves the same rights under the law regardless of their skin color, gender or sexual orientation. A group that cries bloody murder when they can't concepts from the Bible into the law of the land...."
-This would be the liberals defense over racial discriminating law of Affirmative Action?
-Guess who started the KKK?Confederate loyalist soldiers started the KKK let me guess they were liberals right?
The first Klan was founded in 1865 in Pulaski, Tennessee, by six veterans of the Confederate Army.[16] The name is probably from the Greek word kuklos (κύκλος) which means circle, suggesting a circle or band of brothers.[17]
Although there was no organizational structure above the local level, similar groups arose across the South adopted the same name and methods.[18] Klan groups spread throughout the South as an insurgent movement during the Reconstruction era in the United States. As a secret vigilante group, the Klan targeted freedmen and their allies; it sought to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans. In 1870 and 1871, the federal government passed the Force Acts, which were used to prosecute Klan crimes.[19] Prosecution of Klan crimes and enforcement of the Force Acts suppressed Klan activity. In 1874 and later, however, newly organized and openly active paramilitary organizations, such as the White League and the Red Shirts, started a fresh round of violence aimed at suppressing blacks' voting and running Republicans out of office. These contributed to segregationist white Democrats regaining political power in all the Southern states by 1877......essentially they were the military arm of the Democrats...But Democrats were not liberals and is thus irrelevant to modern politics in that sense. It makes a whole lot more sense to define racism geographically as experimental data shows racism concentrates in that way, they were southerners, who is the party of the south now?
Unless you are trying to indicate that Abraham Lincoln being the head of the Republican party until just before was a conservative...Who were the conservative party at the time.....
Ugh.....the democrats were the conservatives back then
http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/08/can-u- … religions/
North Carolina tries to establish an official religionFascinating. I would have gone with Thomas on that one; that's how I read the constitution. Fortunately the rest of the SCOTUS doesn't agree with me.
Banning abortion is circumventing the constitution, is abortion mentioned in the constitution?
Yes I have, is abortion mentioned in the constitution?
If the Supreme Court upholds it is a right that is deemed constitutional.
Oh I see, so the answer is no, abortion is not mentioned in the constitution. Are you in favor of all SCOTUS rulings?
Lol, the ruling means that the right to an abortion is already covered in the document.
LOL is right, I'm not for or against abortion, but I am for the items that are in fact mentioned in the constitution.
You don't understand what the SC is for do you? Cases are brought before them because it is unclear if something is in fact allowed under the Constitution.
The SC then rules if the action is question is granted under the law.....
Therefore, if the SC says yes, it is granted under the Constitution.
Hence....in the Constitution.It doesn't really matter at all what SCOTUS says, it is not a right granted in the constitution.
Then point that right out to me. Not the SCOTUS decision the text in the US constitution that grants the right to an abortion!
The SCOTUS decision IS WHAT MAKES IT LEGAL UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
Screaming doesn't put the words into the constitution.
And we wonder why the GOP gets away with just saying no all the time haha
Maybe you should understand that I do not follow stupid laws meant only to restrict my freedom.
It must be easy to live in such a black and white world
It really is, I won't hurt you if you don't hurt me, I will not force my way on you ever. I will live free. I understand very well it makes me an outlaw.
Fair enough, but you can't claim that the SCOTUS means nothing or that they don't decide the law of the land....because they do.
Yes they do, but their decisions do not effect me. Even though admittedly I break the law by carrying a concealed weapon where the law says I can't it isn't an issue, I am not violating any other law to attract the attention of law enforcement. I am not going to pull my weapon out and start shooting, most of us who carry are armed in most places.
Also, there is a huge difference between someone who says live and let live and other conservatives who want to turn our nation into One Nation Under God with rights only for a select group of people.
Laws like "you can't kill people" would seem to restrict people's freedom. Thus all you are really saying is "I want to decide which laws I follow and which I won't, based purely on what I decide is stupid".
You must think that a law preventing murder is a stupid law otherwise you would not have included it as an example. I personally think its a good law.
According to the professionals in that field yes it is.
As Cody has made very clear, the SCOTUS has ruled that the freedoms and liberties given by the constitution include the right to an abortion.
Just as they have ruled on the 2nd amendment. But there are still so many of you that don't care about those rights.
They have said it means that you have a limited means to protect yourself or your property if you are under attack. Nothing more.
You mean when they ruled:
"The right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"
Yeah that seems about right.Josak, we need to coordinate our responses lol
I never said that it was a right to carry whatever I wanted, but the text of the 2nd amendment does not place a limit either. So I will still carry whatever and wherever I want, and nobody will stop me.
As the interpretation shows it implied restrictions thus covered by the constitution. The constitution was created with the SCOTUS in mind so that it could be interpreted by experts on the law and the writings of the founding fathers.
Hence the constitution itself deems that what the SCOTUS rules to be constitutional is part of the constitution.So you have no respect for the law of the land.
That must be a comfort to you, 'cos like the slogan says: as an outlaw, when guns are outlawed, you'll be one of the outlaws with guns.
Oh I see, so the answer is no, abortion is not mentioned in the constitution.
Doesn't need to be.
Amendment IX:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Seriously, you should think about reading the Constitution all the way through before you presume to tell others what it says. There are other amendments besides the second one.I have and nowhere in it does it mention abortion.
And, because of the 9th Amendment, the Constitution doesn't need to mention abortion to protect the people's right to have one if they want one.
See, just looking at the squiggles on the paper isn't really enough. You have to read them.
Seth, the comparison of the U.S. government in 2013 to the Nazi party in 30's Germany, and your suggestion that modern gun safety measures equate to the restrictions on Jews before the Holocaust is despicable and idiotic. Despicable not only because Senators and Representatives on both sides of the aisle no doubt have relatives who fought and died fighting the Nazis (giving you the freedom to make such a silly comparison) but also because it uses the genocide of 10 million people for political points scoring. And foolish because it displays an ignorance of historical facts.
The Allies instigated gun control in Germany after WWI (the Germans had just caused a war that killed 16 million people) as part of the Treaty of Versaille. It had already been implemented by the Weimar Republic when Hitler came to power. Hitler's own gun policy relaxed controls on gun ownership for German citizens. The 1938 "German Weapons Act" deregulated the buying and selling of all rifles, shotguns and ammunition.
What the debate needs is sensible people, with an appreciation of both sides of the argument, making useful contributions. From your comment it seems you think the exact opposite is true.
Nope, but that doesn't stop idiots from pretending that some communist boogeyman is "comin' fer yer gunz!"
It's the best ad campaign Smith&Wesson never paid for. They're laughing all the way to the bank at how these ignorant paranoids are buying up expensive, not very useful stuff they don't especially need.
It's especially hilarious how proud they are of being played for chumps.The only ad campaign being bought by the least informed is the one featuring "we only want to do background checks and close the gun show loophole" that doesn't really exist. And Obama is the best gun salesman this country has ever had, he should be proud.
Then by all means, tell me what new restrictions on gun ownership have been implemented since President Obama took office in 2008.
Seriously, list them. 'Cos I really hate being wrong. If Obama has implemented new gun regulations, I want to know about them, so I can stop saying that he hasn't implemented any new gun restrictions, and in fact has loosened gun regulations, signing legislations that allows concealed carry in our national parks.
I've been paying close attention, but I suppose that it's possible that a new restriction on our gun rights could have been passed while I wasn't looking. Please, seriously, if you know of a new federal gun regulation that's been passed in the last 6 years, let us all know about it. Oh, and please tell us the sponsors of the bill, and who voted for it, and when the President signed it? Or if you don't want to do all that copying-and-pasting, please just link us to the bill in the congressional record.
I'm sure someone as educated and well-informed as you are will be able to find all those new gun restrictions in a heartbeat, right?I'm educated enough to know that I never said that he had enacted any gun restrictions, would you mind very much showing me where I said otherwise?
Oh, so you admit that nobody's coming for your guns? Good.
No I do not admit that, why would I? I have no crystal ball to see into the future. I know that Obama with his usual highhandedness is lying and saying we need more background checks to close the gun show loophole, the non-existent gun show loophole. Why would he do that?
"No I do not admit that, why would I?"
Well, since before Obama's election, we've been warned that "they" would be "coming for our guns," but in six years (unless there's been a regulation passed that neither of us knows about), exactly nothing has been done to restrict gun sales or ownership, and in fact, we can now carry them in national parks when we couldn't do that before Obama signed the law that allows it.
"I know that Obama with his usual highhandedness is lying"
Oh, you just know he's lying, eh? How? Crystal ball? Magic mirror? Gut feeling? Ouija board? Or are you just making stuff up?
"Why would he do that?"
You're begging the question: you expect me to concede the point that Obama is lying, and you've presented no evidence to support it.
So my answer to your (rigged) question is this: He isn't doing that.
Basically, you've got no evidence to prove your claims. Ergo, your claims are garbage.Yes he is. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 … w-loophole
Your ignorance of this fact is quite astounding.Yes he is.
Lying, you mean? 'Cos that's what you said he was doing, and that's what I asked you to prove.
You've submitted no evidence of Obama lying.
Your utter lack of reading comprehension skills is what's astounding, mate.
You've been played for a dupe, and what's more, you seem awfully proud of it.
Of course, like the man said, it's easier to fool someone than to convince him he's been fooled.He is in favor of a gun show loophole that does not against, he keeps saying we must close the gun show loophole that he knows doesn't exist, the only dupe is you.
Not only that but there is not a single bill calling for background checks that doesn't include gun bans of some kind. Just because they have not succeeded yet does not mean they will stop trying.
But, you already know this.There is a gun show loophole:
"In 2000, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) published the "Following the Gun" report.[18] The ATF analyzed more than 1,530 trafficking investigations over a two-and-a-half-year period and found gun shows to be the second leading source of illegally diverted guns in the nation. "Straw purchasing was the most common channel in trafficking investigations."[19] These investigations involved a total of 84,128 firearms that had been diverted from legal to illegal commerce. All told, the report identified more than 26,000 firearms that had been illegally trafficked through gun shows in 212 separate investigations. The report stated that: "A prior review of ATF gun show investigations shows that prohibited persons, such as convicted felons and juveniles, do personally buy firearms at gun shows and gun shows are sources of firearms that are trafficked to such prohibited persons. The gun show review found that firearms were diverted at and through gun shows by straw purchasers, unregulated private sellers, and licensed dealers. Felons were associated with selling or purchasing firearms in 46 percent of the gun show investigations. Firearms that were illegally diverted at or through gun shows were recovered in subsequent crimes, including homicide and robbery, in more than a third of the gun show investigations."
Source: WikipediaThere isn't a gun show loophole, in order to sell a firearm at a gun show the seller must have a Federal firearms license. A background check must be made to complete the sell, no way around it. Private party sales can occur anywhere, if two people happen to meet at a gun show and a sale is made that is perfectly legal but does not occur in a gun show, you could call this the McDonalds loophole or Wal-Mart loophole because the sale takes place somewhere other than in the gun show! The only reason it is called a gun show loophole is to create a reaction from anti-gun zealots who do not know any better.
So, basically, your retort is this: "Is too, is too!"
My retort is that there is no gun show loophole with the reason why.
"All told, the AFT report identified more than 26,000 firearms that had been illegally trafficked through gun shows in 212 separate investigations. The report stated that: "A prior review of ATF gun show investigations shows that prohibited persons, such as convicted felons and juveniles, do personally buy firearms at gun shows and gun shows are sources of firearms that are trafficked to such prohibited persons. The gun show review found that firearms were diverted at and through gun shows by straw purchasers, UNREGULATED PRIVATE SELLERS, and licensed dealers. Felons were associated with selling or purchasing firearms in 46 percent of the gun show investigations. Firearms that were illegally diverted at or through gun shows were recovered in subsequent crimes, including homicide and robbery, in more than a third of the gun show investigations."
Source: Wikipedia
"There isn't a gun show loophole, in order to sell a firearm at a gun show the seller must have a Federal firearms license."
Not true!"There isn't a gun show loophole, in order to sell a firearm at a gun show the seller must have a Federal firearms license."
"Not true!"
"Yes it is."
Only people "engaged in the business" of selling firearms are required to have a Federal license to sell firearms at gun shows. For anyone else no Federal license is required and no background check needs to be completed. Some states regulate such sales, but currently 33 states do not regulate private sales of firearms at gun shows in any way.
So although in some cases the sale may be restricted by state regulations, a seller does not require a license to sell a firearm at a gun show.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_ … ted_StatesWrong, if you set up a booth at a gun show to sell guns you are required to have a FFL! I have already addressed the private party sellers. A private party can sell a gun anywhere but they cannot have a booth at a gun show to sell guns, why is that so hard to understand.
That may be what the law says, but we all know how much the NRA loves to lobby for any legislation that suppresses such laws...
So? The NRA is not the entity putting on the gun show, those who do will follow the law.
I didn't see any comments about setting up a booth. I only saw "There isn't a gun show loophole, in order to sell a firearm at a gun show the seller must have a Federal firearms license." Alone, that statement is factually incorrect.
Obviously you have never been to a gun show or you would know there are booths set up to sell things! It is not factually incorrect you are factually incorrect....again!
"Obviously you have never been to a gun show or you would know there are booths set up to sell things! It is not factually incorrect you are factually incorrect....again!"
As Jeff Berndt has (quite patiently I think) explained, setting up a booth is not the only way to sell a firearm at a gun show. If you are suggesting private sales of firearms do not happen at gun shows, then I think you are wrong. And the 18 states that currently regulate the private sale of firearms at gun shows think you are wrong too.
Wrong, if you set up a booth at a gun show to sell guns you are required to have a FFL! ... A private party can sell a gun anywhere but they cannot have a booth at a gun show to sell guns, why is that so hard to understand.
You just described the gun show loophole that you claim doesn't exist.
You go to a gun show with your gun(s), and as long as you don't actually have a table at the show, you can sell a gun to anybody you want, no background check required.
That's a textbook example of a loophole.
You just defeated your own argument, genius.What is your malfunction? A gun cannot be sold at a gun show unless it is sold by a FFL holder after a back ground check!
A law permitting me to sell a firearm anywhere I want is not a loophole! Why is it so hard for you to understand there is nobody selling guns in gun shows EXCEPT holders of a FFL? genius.What is your malfunction? A gun cannot be sold at a gun show unless it is sold by a FFL holder after a back ground check!
A law permitting me to sell a firearm anywhere I want is not a loophole!
Okay, let me explain. (I'll try to use small words.)
You can't have a table at a gun show unless you have a firearms dealer's license. I get that.
At the same time, you (or I) can sell a firearm anywhere we want. I get that too.
People go to gun shows for many different reasons.
Some people go to gun shows just to do some comparison shopping.
Some people go to gun shows to buy a gun.
Some people go to sell guns.
If you have a dealer's license, you can set up a table and put your guns on it to show everyone what you have to sell.
If you don't have a dealer's license, you can't set up a table at a gun show, but you can buy a gun.
If you don't have a dealer's license, you can sell your gun to someone who has a table.
If you don't have a dealer's license, you can also sell your gun to someone who hasn't got a table (and neither of you has to be a licensed dealer). There's nothing stopping such a transaction from taking place.
See, this is because in the phrase "anywhere I want," the word "anywhere" includes "the corner of Fifth and Main," "the top of Mount Rushmore," "on a boat in the middle of Lake Michigan," or "at a gun show."
Why is it so hard for you to understand there is nobody selling guns in gun shows EXCEPT holders of a FFL? genius
Because your statement is false. People who don't have FFLs can and do sell guns at gun shows.
Obviously you have never been to a gun show or you would know there are booths set up to sell things!
Yes, there are booths set up to sell things. Some of the booths also buy things. And there's nothing to stop someone who hasn't got a booth from selling to someone who hasn't got a booth. It'll be inconvenient--the buyer will probably have to pay in cash--but there's nothing to stop it from happening. Further, there's nothing to stop me, an (otherwise) law-abiding citizen from buying an AK-47, and then turning it around and selling it (for cash) to some guy I just met who's willing to pay me an extra fifty bucks. Since I'm not an licensed dealer, I don't have to run a background check on this guy (which is probably why he wanted to buy the AK from me, for cash, rather than from a licensed dealer). This is what you call a loophole.
Perhaps you'd like a diagram?
I do not have to read all that to know you don't get it. There are no guns being sold at a gun show except by holders of a FFL!!! It is not happening. The people putting on the show DO NOT ALLOW THAT. Why? Because it intrudes on the people who paid for their booth. Any private sales inside a gun show are being conducted by persons who have an FFL, there is no need for a background check, they have been cleared up the wazoo!
It is legal for me to sell a gun anywhere I want, that has always been the case, it is not a loophole, it is my right.
However, I will not be able to sell my gun in a gun show for the reasons already stated BECAUSE THAT IS THE RIGHT OF THE GUN SHOW PROMOTER. The sale could be conducted elsewhere, say at a Wal-mart, McDonalds, in front of your house! Call it what it is.
A LEGAL PRIVATE SALE OF A FIREARM!I do not have to read all that to know you don't get it.
Perhaps you should read it, because I do get it: you're wrong. Guns do get bought and sold by non FFL holders at gun shows. You can pretend that it never ever happens, but it does happen. People who aren't FFL dealers come to gun shows to buy guns.
Different people who aren't FFL dealers come to gun shows to sell guns.
Sometimes someone from column A sees that someone from Column B has exactly the gun he was looking for, and offers to buy it. There is no law that prohibits Column B Guy from selling his gun to Column A Guy for a mutually agreed-upon price, and there is no law requiring Column B guy to even ask Column A Guy if he's got a record. That's what a loophole looks like.
This next passage is downright hilarious: you make yourself look ridiculous by undermining your own argument again! Look:
There are no guns being sold at a gun show except by holders of a FFL!!! It is not happening. The people putting on the show DO NOT ALLOW THAT. Why? Because it intrudes on the people who paid for their booth.
Yeah, yeah, you've said this before. It's not true, but that's okay. This next bit is the funny part:
Any private sales inside a gun show are being conducted by persons who have an FFL, there is no need for a background check, they have been cleared up the wazoo!
Wait...didn't you just get through telling us that there are no private sales at gun shows, because the show organizers won't permit them? But now you're telling us that okay, yes there are private sales, but only between people who have an FFL license*, so even if a background check were required (there isn't, 'cos it's a LOOPHOLE) everyone buying and selling guns on the down-low would pass, 'cos they all have FFLs?
Are you even listening to the nonsense you're saying? Or have you not been carefully proofreading your posts?
It is legal for me to sell a gun anywhere I want, that has always been the case, it is not a loophole, it is my right.
Yeah, it's still a loophole. You can call a cat a dog, but that won't make puppies come out of her.
However, I will not be able to sell my gun in a gun show for the reasons already stated BECAUSE THAT IS THE RIGHT OF THE GUN SHOW PROMOTER.
Yes, you will totally be able to sell your gun at a gun show. You might decide not to, because for whatever reason you seem to respect the decrees of a gun show organizer more than you respect the law of the land, but your decision not to sell your gun at a gun show doesn't mean you can't do it. You can, and there's very little that the gun show guy can do to stop you. Further, in spite of your numerous false statements to the contrary, people can and do buy and sell guns at gun shows even if they haven't got a table or an FFL.
The sale could be conducted elsewhere, say at a Wal-mart, McDonalds, in front of your house!
Yeah, it could but it's usually done at the gun show, because that's where the people who want to buy and sell guns are.
Call it what it is.
I have been: it's an exploitation of a loophole in the law.
*You never did say how you know this--perhaps you own a crystal ball?"I do get it: you're wrong. Guns do get bought and sold by non FFL holders at gun shows. You can pretend that it never ever happens, but it does happen. People who aren't FFL dealers come to gun shows to buy guns."
Thats true, and when they buy them at a gun show a background check is done.
Different people who aren't FFL dealers come to gun shows to sell guns.
Sometimes someone from column A sees that someone from Column B has exactly the gun he was looking for, and offers to buy it. There is no law that prohibits Column B Guy from selling his gun to Column A Guy for a mutually agreed-upon price, and there is no law requiring Column B guy to even ask Column A Guy if he's got a record. That's what a loophole looks like.
Lets say that happens, what does that have to do with the gun show? Happens everyday on craigslist you going to call that a craigslist loophole?
There are no guns being sold at a gun show except by holders of a FFL!!! It is not happening. The people putting on the show DO NOT ALLOW THAT. Why? Because it intrudes on the people who paid for their booth.
Yeah, yeah, you've said this before. It's not true, but that's okay. This next bit is the funny part:
Because you say it isn't true? Would you like to show me the proof of this?
Wait...didn't you just get through telling us that there are no private sales at gun shows, because the show organizers won't permit them? But now you're telling us that okay, yes there are private sales, but only between people who have an FFL license*, so even if a background check were required (there isn't, 'cos it's a LOOPHOLE) everyone buying and selling guns on the down-low would pass, 'cos they all have FFLs?
Those sales/trades are being conducted by the participants of the gun show, the ones who have FFL's When you have an FFL there is no background check necessary. Where is the loophole?
It is legal for me to sell a gun anywhere I want, that has always been the case, it is not a loophole, it is my right.
Yeah, it's still a loophole. You can call a cat a dog, but that won't make puppies come out of her.
Where is the loophole? What you mean to say is there is no law barring it, once again there is no loophole.
Yes, you will totally be able to sell your gun at a gun show. You might decide not to, because for whatever reason you seem to respect the decrees of a gun show organizer more than you respect the law of the land, but your decision not to sell your gun at a gun show doesn't mean you can't do it. You can, and there's very little that the gun show guy can do to stop you. Further, in spite of your numerous false statements to the contrary, people can and do buy and sell guns at gun shows even if they haven't got a table or an FFL.
What law of the land? I can sell my gun in a gun show, BECAUSE THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST IT. as long as I sell it to an FFL holder who is a participant of the gun show.
The sale could be conducted elsewhere, say at a Wal-mart, McDonalds, in front of your house!
Yeah, it could but it's usually done at the gun show, because that's where the people who want to buy and sell guns are.
No, not usually at the gun shows, guns are bought and sold all day everyday far removed from gun shows. Gun shows are not happening everyday.
By the way, I'm done with this because its clear you have never been to a gun show and like most who argue hear you rely on that bastion of truth wikipedia.Thats true, and when they buy them at a gun show a background check is done.
That's only if they buy the gun from someone with a booth at the gun show.
Lets say that happens, what does that have to do with the gun show?
Gun shows are places people gather to buy and sell guns. It's hardly the same thing as a guy trying to sell his gun at a garage sale or at McDonald's.
Because you say it isn't true? Would you like to show me the proof of this?
I have seen people--not people with booths, but visitors--walking around gun shows with a gun over their shoulders with a stick in the barrel that has a little paper flag on it saying "FOR SALE" and an asking price. I've also seen such guns changing hands in exchange for cash AT GUN SHOWS.
THAT is how I know you're full of garbage. THAT'S how I know that people who aren't FFL sellers can and do sell their guns at gun shows.
Those sales/trades are being conducted by the participants of the gun show, the ones who have FFL's When you have an FFL there is no background check necessary.
Not all of them. Some of those sales are being conducted by guys with no FFL who showed up at the gun show looking to sell a gun.
Where is the loophole?Right there, genius, where the non FFL holder sells a gun to somebody at a gun show and doesn't do a background check.
Where is the loophole? What you mean to say is there is no law barring it, once again there is no loophole.
The law says when guns are sold at gun shows, the seller has to do a background check--but private sellers can get around this requirement with a cash transaction, because there's no way to check up on them.
By the way, I'm done with this because its clear you have never been to a gun show and like most who argue hear you rely on that bastion of truth wikipedia.
Wrong. I've been to several, where I've seen guns and money changing hands between people in the aisles, neither of whom had a booth.
I'm really glad you're done with this, because you haven't said a single thing that's true since you joined the discussion. I have to assume you're making all these false statements out of some kind of naive faith that nobody ever breaks the sacred Gun Show Code (tm), because unless you yourself have never been to a gun show--or unless you're either visually impaired (in which case how do you shoot?) or willfully ignoring your surroundings--you know that people who aren't dealers routinely buy and sell guns at guns shows. It's not the same people, but guns get bought and sold without background checks at guns shows all the time.
Guess you don't want to answer those type of questions.
Or, maybe I've got stuff to do other than hang around on the forum all the time.
So your response to the snowballing effect of persecution of the Jews from the Germany Government, which eventually lead to herding Jews like animals into large ovens is to state that...really? Good argument there (heavy sarcasm).
But the true funny thing here...is well...wiki it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
I guess you should have read the whole law before posting that... ;-)
"The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering known mainstays of Nazi Germany such as genocide, eugenics or racial superiority, nor, more debatably, to a discussion of other totalitarian regimes or ideologies,"
And it even covers what you did Uninvited Writer :-)
"While falling afoul of Godwin's law tends to cause the individual making the comparison to lose their argument or credibility, Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate."
Since my post was about the snowballing effect of the persecution law against the Jews which eventually lead to their genocide I think I can safely say I didn't run afoul of Godwin Law...but stating...and then saying argument over...well foul play, try again.I didn't see that in the Thatcher is Hitler thread. I guess you trot it out when it serves your purpose.
I have personally never compared her to Hitler and won't, it's ridiculous. The same as people bringing up Nazi Germany any time someone wants to have better background checks on guns. Last time I looked, Canada and most other Western countries have not become members of the Third Reich.
I didn't say you did, but you didn't introduce Godwins law into the mix either. As for background checks there is not a single bill before congress that is solely a background check bill, they all ban some type of weapon.
I have a question for those who are focused on the statistics for human death, my question is How Much Is a Single Life Worth?
Threads that devolve to debates about the US constitution, the bible and Adolf Hitler should trigger an forum automatic ban.
Just ignore the source and watch the first video its pretty funny.
http://www.infowars.com/californians-si … -firearms/If just 2 people (men) approached this guy wielding a box cutter (for christ's sake), I think less than 4 or 5 people would be cut. I guess these were skinny jean wearing guys who just spectate and are not athletic enough to subdue him. I just could not see this happening in a college class I attended. Like another guy here said, he would not have done that much back in our days.
Related Discussions
- 2
What is the name of this movie where a women gets stabbed and ends up loosing th
by maryanncharlton 13 years ago
What is the name of this movie where a women gets stabbed and ends up loosing the use of her of movewhats the name of the movie where a women works at a hotel cleaning then gets married has a child then her husband ends up stabbing her badly
- 7
A student was stabbed to death today in Houston.How do we stop the violence in s
by Michelle Orelup 10 years ago
A student was stabbed to death today in Houston.How do we stop the violence in schools?One student was killed and three others were injured. Police suspect this was gang violence. How can we change the mindset of youth that race and territory are not a matter of life and death?Link:...
- 12
Man stabbed by female roomate - refuses to press charges
by ptosis 12 years ago
My buddy Mark, lives in Honolulu, I live in Arizona. I get a call from him while he is at Queen's hospital. He tells me that he almost died because that bitch he lives with stabbed him and missed his heart by less than an inch. She thrusted upwards the knife from underneath his lowest rib. That's...
- 4
In a recent creepy clown sighting, a boy was stabbed to death
by Stevennix2001 7 years ago
According to various reports, a young 16 year old boy was stabbed to death in a recent creepy clown sighting. This report followed various other incidences, where children have claimed to have been chased down the street by creepy clowns, while one even said he was followed by one carrying a...
- 2
I was stabbed in the back
by idon'tcare 13 years ago
I was stabbed in the back I fell down and was stabbed by a teenage boy in the back about 3 times and I had 3 t-shirts on and it did not hurt and they were covered in blood and later on in my dream my back hurt!!
- 2
What is the name of this movie where a women gets stabbed and ends up struggling
by maryanncharlton 13 years ago
What is the name of this movie where a women gets stabbed and ends up struggling with movementswhats the name of the movie where a women works at a hotel cleaning then gets married has a child then her husband ends up stabbing her badly