Really?  Would a 17 year old be able to legally easily purchase a firearm?

 

Of course they can't answer because it was already illegal and happened anyway. There is no way to prevent what happened with that kid by simply creating another law.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Unless you work for the Clintons, ammirite?????


I'll be here all night, folks

 

Well, 50 known associates agree.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

In Tennessee, a person selling guns at a gun show is considered a private seller if his or her main income source is not from gun sales, and if they are classified as a private seller no background check is required. I believe the same holds true in Florida. That's the loophole.

 

The thing is, you can go online and find a seller willing to sell as a private owner.  It's not the gun shows that spread illegal weapons.  It's people.

 

Me personally, and I would think that I speak for the vast majority of NRA members/permit holders of firearms, I would not engage in the sale/transfer of a firearm with somebody unknown.

 

The problem with the whole "gun control" thing is that it targets law abiding citizens and doesn't address the real problem, that being illegal guns.  I certainly doubt that the thug shooting down an opposing gang member bought his weapon at a gun show.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

A restriction by commercial requirements is simply a de facto regulation, which is a law, which is an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.


This isn't complicated, a rose by any other name and such.

This should just ban manufacturing for sell, and gun folks. Then they can make their own muskets!

---

The thing is, you can go online and find a seller willing to sell as a private owner.  It's not the gun shows that spread illegal weapons.  It's people.

 

The way the law is worded, it allows "private" sellers at gun shows as long as their main source of income is not from gun sales. It's a well known loophole used quite often here in Tennessee, according to the gun owners I know. They have bought guns at gun shows without a background check. The gun shows don't spread illegal weapons, they just make it easy.


 

Me personally, and I would think that I speak for the vast majority of NRA members/permit holders of firearms, I would not engage in the sale/transfer of a firearm with somebody unknown.

 

It's not the vast majority of any group that is the problem.


 

The problem with the whole "gun control" thing is that it targets law abiding citizens and doesn't address the real problem, that being illegal guns.  I certainly doubt that the thug shooting down an opposing gang member bought his weapon at a gun show.

 

Given my replies above, what's to stop him/her, and how would a background check restrict a law abiding citizen?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Really?  Would a 17 year old be able to legally easily purchase a firearm?

Oddly enough, he's gone awfully silent on the subject.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Of course they can't answer because it was already illegal and happened anyway. There is no way to prevent what happened with that kid by simply creating another law.

Well, they could make it illegal to illegally possess a firearm illegally. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

This should just ban manufacturing for sell, and gun folks. Then they can make their own muskets!

 

It must be great to offer nothing of value to a conversation.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

It must be great to offer nothing of value to a conversation.

Yeah.


I am going to be a bigger man.


But clearly you have zero sense of humor.

---

Pretty rich coming from you. Don't you have more hate to spew?

I'll wait for you to find your safe space.  We wouldn't want to offend the little snowflake.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jagibelieve" data-cid="783932" data-time="1470949313">
<div>
The thing is, you can go online and find a seller willing to sell as a private owner.  It's not the gun shows that spread illegal weapons.  It's people.

 

The way the law is worded, it allows "private" sellers at gun shows as long as their main source of income is not from gun sales. It's a well known loophole used quite often here in Tennessee, according to the gun owners I know. They have bought guns at gun shows without a background check. The gun shows don't spread illegal weapons, they just make it easy.


 

Me personally, and I would think that I speak for the vast majority of NRA members/permit holders of firearms, I would not engage in the sale/transfer of a firearm with somebody unknown.

 

It's not the vast majority of any group that is the problem.


 

The problem with the whole "gun control" thing is that it targets law abiding citizens and doesn't address the real problem, that being illegal guns.  I certainly doubt that the thug shooting down an opposing gang member bought his weapon at a gun show.

 

Given my replies above, what's to stop him/her, and how would a background check restrict a law abiding citizen?

 

</div>
</blockquote>
 

The thing is, you don't find a whole lot of "private sellers" at gun shows other than the ones that might want to "trade or upgrade" a firearm, at least from what I have seen.  Most of the time the "private seller" is dealing with somebody that has a booth who is more likely to be a dealer not a private buyer/seller.  Do transactions take place between private sellers/buyers at a gun show?  I'm sure it does happen, but in most cases it's not going to be for a cheap handgun used in a killing over a drug deal gone bad.

 

My point is that liberals need to get off and get away from the "gun show" part of their argument.  I would bet that the vast majority of transactions that take place at a gun show are between law abiding citizens.

 

As far as the restrictions currently in place, it's already difficult enough for law abiding citizens to obtain firearms.  Why do we need more regulations against them?  How about addressing the real problem?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

It's not a loophole, it's a private sale, the same as buying a paperback book at a yard sale.

 

Paperback books are different than guns.

 

It's a background check loophole, because of the gray area defining whether or not a vendor is a private seller.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

<p class="">https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150904...al-sources

<p class=""> 

<p class="">Numerous studies conducted by academic researchers and by the federal government have shown that criminals do not use legal markets to obtain guns. And now we have more evidence of this reality, this time looking at criminals in Chicago.

<p class=""> 

<p class="">Philip J. Cook, Susan T. Parker, and Harold A. Pollack conducted interviews with criminals being held in the Cook County Jail.  Their primary findings were that criminals get guns from their “social network,” i.e. friends and persons known to them, but generally not from the various legal sources available to them.

<p class="">They do not buy guns in gun stores.  They do not get guns at gun shows. They do not buy them from Internet sources.  The study even found that criminals only rarely steal guns.

<p class=""> 

<p class="">Cook and colleagues also found that criminals do not often buy guns on the used market, as they have a fear of buying a gun from a source they do not know.  Fear of police stings, or from being turned in by law-abiding gun owners leads them to obtain guns from sources they trust, most often, family, fellow gang members, and other criminals. They also found that criminals do not hold guns for a long period, fearing that a gun could be traced to a specific crime.

<p class=""> 

<p class="">The findings were clear.  Criminals do not engage in activities that would make them subject to any sort of a "universal" background check requirement or any of the other common proposals put forth by the anti-gun crowd.  As usual, this study illustrates that laws and regulations only impact the law-abiding.  

<p class="">So what did these findings lead the researchers to conclude?  If you thought the “obvious,” you’d be disappointed.  

<p class=""> 

<p class="">They concluded that since criminals do not hold guns long, “disrupting” the supply chain would have a positive effect on criminal gun use. That seems like a safe conclusion driven more by common sense than any evidence from an expensive academic study.  But how this “disruption” can be achieved is not spelled out or suggested.

<p class=""> 

<p class="">Of course, the authors refuse to offer the obvious conclusion many will draw from their results: expanding background checks would have no impact on the criminal acquisition of guns.  Since these criminals do not use gun stores, gun shows, or even legal private gun sellers, there is no point in the criminal supply chain where a background check would make any difference whatsoever.

<p class=""> 

<p class="">But these researchers could not admit that glaring reality.

<p class=""> 

<p class="">Instead of admitting that their own research argues against the primary goal of the anti-gun movement right now — expanded “universal” background checks — the authors reveal their pre-established bias.

---

The thing is, you don't find a whole lot of "private sellers" at gun shows other than the ones that might want to "trade or upgrade" a firearm, at least from what I have seen.  Most of the time the "private seller" is dealing with somebody that has a booth who is more likely to be a dealer not a private buyer/seller.  Do transactions take place between private sellers/buyers at a gun show?  I'm sure it does happen, but in most cases it's not going to be for a cheap handgun used in a killing over a drug deal gone bad.

 

My point is that liberals need to get off and get away from the "gun show" part of their argument.  I would bet that the vast majority of transactions that take place at a gun show are between law abiding citizens.

 

As far as the restrictions currently in place, it's already difficult enough for law abiding citizens to obtain firearms.  Why do we need more regulations against them?  How about addressing the real problem?

 

Is it really that difficult for law abiding citizens to purchase a gun? In Tennessee you get fingerprinted, fill out a form, pay $10 for a criminal history check that takes about 15 minutes, then you can buy a gun. That's difficult?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Is it really that difficult for law abiding citizens to purchase a gun? In Tennessee you get fingerprinted, fill out a form, pay $10 for a criminal history check that takes about 15 minutes, then you can buy a gun. That's difficult?

 

All those steps are unconstitutional infringements.  And the background system is often swamped so the gun dealer calling it in may not even get through.  If you make a mistake filling out the form, it's a felony.  There's also a 3 business day waiting period before you can actually walk out with it.  Yes, it's difficult. 

 

When I was a kid you could order a 20mm anti-tank Solothurn and cases of belt-fed ammo through the mail.  No age requirement. 

 

---

LOL

 

Hurls a 1/3 lb armor piercing shell up to 4 miles! 

 

Will cleanly penetrate 2" of finest steel armor plate!

 

Legal to own with no licenses required!

 

Order yours today, kids!

 

Ah, the good old days!

---

Paperback books are different than guns.

 

It's a background check loophole, because of the gray area defining whether or not a vendor is a private seller.

True, the right to own a book isnt specifically enumerated in the BoR.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

All those steps are unconstitutional infringements.

 

I take it you think barring felons convicted of violent crimes from owning firearms is unconstitutional. If so, this conversation will end here. There are reasonable restrictions and none of those steps infringes anyone's rights.


 

 And the background system is often swamped so the gun dealer calling it in may not even get through.

 

Everything I could find on the Tennessee system says otherwise. 15 minutes.
 

 

If you make a mistake filling out the form, it's a felony. 

 

So? Guns are dangerous., and the information required in Tennessee isn't extensive. Proof reading isn't hard.


 

There's also a 3 business day waiting period before you can actually walk out with it.

 

Not in Tennessee.


 

Yes, it's difficult.

 

No, it's not. I was recently in a sporting goods store with my cousin. He bought a gun in an hour, most of that time was spent shopping the options.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

 

[color=#ff0000]I take it you think barring felons convicted of violent crimes from owning firearms is unconstitutional. If so, this conversation will end here. There are reasonable restrictions and none of those steps infringes anyone's rights.

Yes it is.


No there aren't.


Yes they do.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I take it you think barring felons convicted of violent crimes from owning firearms is unconstitutional. If so, this conversation will end here. There are reasonable restrictions and none of those steps infringes anyone's rights.

 

Very sorry to see you bow out of the conversation, RJ. 

 

What are those violent felons doing out of prison?  They paid their debt to society by either serving their full sentence or by convincing a parole board they were no longer a danger.  I believe they should have all rights restored, including voting rights. 

 

Young males can be rather stupid, impulsive and violent.  If a guy goes in at age 20 and comes out at age 40 he still has a lot of years of life left in this unpredictable world.  Doesn't he have a right to self defense, defense of his home, property and family? 

---