I've just read about this crazy gun loophole:
Florida has no law requiring background checks of any kind if a private
individual - as opposed to a licensed gun shop - sells to another
private individual. This is often referred to as a "gun show loophole".
"If you go to a gun range and the guy next to you says, 'Oh, I love your
gun,' you can sell it to him without going through a background check,"
says Adam Winkler, author of Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear
Arms in America and a professor at UCLA School of Law.
Stop this shite. The bad guys get their gun over
here the same way they get them everywhere else:
from the black market. The same guys that sell drugs
sell guns too. Same as in England.
Gun laws only affect the law abiding, not the
criminal, be they in the government or private
I guess you don't pay attention to the news. The guy who murdered
people in Florida bought his guns at a gun shop. He was suspected of
terrorists ideas and watched by the FBI for a year, but after they
decided there was no evidence except his spouting off, they stopped
watching him and the background check on him didn't show his affection
for al queda and hezbollah. Maybe they'll change that.
And your boy Rump doesn't care about the facts. He claimed the killer
was born in "Afghan" (He doesn't seem to know the difference between
the name of the country and the name of a person who lives there.) In
fact he was born in NYCity, only a few miles from Rump.
Anyhow, your basic argument, and Monster's, is that because it's not
possible to Constitutionally stop all imprudent gun sales, then why
bother to stop any? It's this kind of thinking that really impresses
me about you two.
I know you're serious. I could tell in your first post too. I'm
serious too. I finally got around to asking my friend from NYC how
he managed to own a gun in Manhattan, and he said he followed all the
rules (which might be a little stricter now but still wouldn't be a
big problem), and he didn't have a permit to carry it, except back and
forth from a gun range or a repair shop. He's also a lawyer and I
asked him about the gun show loophole and based on things he read in
the news (and of course you don't have to be a lawyer to read the
news, but he's pretty smart too), he said that he didn't think there
was one, because they do or are supposed to do background checks when
people buy guns at gun shows. And your very example was at a gun
range, not a gun show.
So two things: 1)The big loophole seems to be the private sale
loophole, and this may include people who don't sell enough guns (say,
per year) to qualify as a gun dealer, but who still might set up a
booth a gun show to sell whatever the maximum is for which one is
still not a dealer**, but even though one of the two situations here
is a gun show, and you are by far not the only one who calls it the
gun show loophole, I think it's clear that it should be called the
private sale loophole.
It seems absurd and hard to believe that this is actually a mistake on
so many people's parts, and yet, background checks are required for
dealers at gun shows.
2) There is a gun show loophole aiui in that, while most replies on
gun checks are within a few seconds, some take much longer, and if
they don't get an answer to their background check within 2 or maybe 3
days, I forget, they are free to sell the gun without hearing back one
way or the other. I don't really know why some checks take days.
And of course Dadioh's comparison's with cars is pointless. How many
people go out and buy a car with the intention of killing other
The "problem" with you three is that you've never had a close family
member murdered by someone with a gun, so you don't care about others
who have had that. You've probably never had a not-close family
member or "friend" murdered by someone with a gun, or maybe you have
but didn't really care.
Define imprudent (as anything objective). This guy wouldn't have
been stopped because the FBI had suspected him, but found no cause to
arrest and closed the case. His wife never got around to actually filing
charges. So, like many, this wasn't an imprudent gun sale except in
How many buy a gun with the intention. Most get it for protection
and hope not to have use it.
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 07:07:26 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman"
I don't know if a second look at him would have found anything or not,
but the argument you too must be reaching for here is that if we can't
stop, or can't be sure to stop, some killers, then we shouldn't have
procedures that can stop any of them.
About 100 times higher than buy cars for that reason. Count the
number of murders with guns versus with cars. And then deduct the
murders with guns where the person had no intention of murder when he
bought the gun, and you'll see what I mean.
murder people with one, and they ought to put some effort into
achieving such a goal, instead of just thinking about when called on
it, but instead the attitude seems to be, "I want my gun, I don't want
rules interfering with my getting my gun and the hell with all of
Micky, your argument is one of trying to make your
opponent look absurd. I have little respect for
peole who try to put words in others mouths (or
One way to stop mass killers is to have armed citizens
on site. When the mass killer goes into action, a
citizen can stop the killing with a well placed shot.
It's happened before. A citizen onsite can stop a
msss murderer sooner than a policeman who has to
come from another call, some distance away.
No what I AM saying is that we should have procedures that there is
some indication actually work before we start them. Otherwise we are
doing something just to be doing SOMETHING without any idea they would
The question is how to define success. Based on the
actual, emprical results of gun prohibition laws
(look at Chicago, IL, or Australia, or UK), I wonder
if that's what the politicians want for the USA?
Victim disarmament, and higher crime. Perhaps there
is a hidden agenda, that the pols are pushing, but
which we aren't being told. For example, maybe the
pols want higher crime?
Same tactic as got us Obama Care. They make a
total mess of some thing and claim that only
a severe and draconian law will help.
Only in this case, they want to confiscate all
legal guns, instead of forcing everyone into
government health care.
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 07:51:31 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman"
My mistake. Sorry.
Well, by now you've snipped what I said so someone reading only your
post might think I suggested "SOMETHING without any idea they would
actually work." I didn't do that. I didn't suggest anything. I only
criticized T's attitude and that the man he supports, that Rump,
again, doesn't care what the truth is.
So I didn't suggest anything and you didnt' suggest anything that
would help. Do you think there is nothing that can be done to
alleviate the problem of people murdering others with guns?
It's not pulled from a hat. It's correct. There are 33,000 deaths
by firearms in the USA in a typical year, including over 11,000
murders. Are you saying there are more than 110 murders by car each
year? If so, how many? I say there are fewer and my 100 times as
many murders by guns as by car is conservative.
You can't tell that by what they say. Few even pay lip service to
the problem of people murdered by guns.
Sure, take away their access to guns. Well, you can't, but maybe take
away *everyone's* access to guns.
The problem is that crazies bent on murder can accomplish the same with
pepper spray. People have a tendency to trample each other to death at
the slightest provocation. A colostomy bag full of gasoline and a bic
lighter could have easily killed even more people than the so-called
assault rifle did. Dumping ammonia bleach, available just about
anywhere, into the ventillation system of a crowded nightclub would be
just as deadly I suspect. Deadly gas can be manufactured in the privacy
of your own home, as can slower acting poisons and biological weapons
like bacteria and viruses to be put in food, air, or water supplies.
You can't address the problem by controlling the tools used, you have
to address the tool users.
Blaming the religion they purport to follow, publically, does nothing
more than make the good followers of that religion (if there indeed are
any) make the choice to embrace the murderous Islamic Extremists out of
self-preservation against the hate-mongers who also want to incite
rebellion against religions other than their own. Yes, I'm talking
about good Ultra-Conservative Christians (if there indeed are any) who
think that their mantra 'love thy neighbor' doesn't apply to Muslims.
On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 9:59:45 AM UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
I see, more of the PC nonsense. Calling muslim terrorists what they are,
muslim terrorists, is somehow going to make all those good muslims hate
us and become terrorists. Well, if they can't understand that muslim
terrorist doesn't apply to them, then I guess they can't be that good.
"self-preservation against the hate-mongers who also want to incite
rebellion against religions other than their own. "
Only ones I see doing that in the world today are muslims.
No, that's not at all what I said. I'm all for including Islam and/or
Muslim when describing a terrorist group which identifies itself with
that ideology. It is, after all, what they are.
I agree with that also, I don't want *them* here either. I want
Americans who believe in the American way of life to be in America. If
they would rather have their previous culture here than be part of
American culture, then they shouldn't come here - stay where their
previous culture made it so comfortable for them. It even bothers me
when I hear them say "Muslim American" as if Muslim comes first and
American comes second. Same with the Mexican Americans.
Then you need to open your eyes a little wider. Surely the Muslims are
the most 'in your face' about it right now, but they are not the only
On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 8:44:06 AM UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
Ok, I thought you were buying Obama's line that saying muslim terrorist
was going to incite all the good muslims against us. But beyond that,
there are serious problems with the muslim religion itself. When you
have whole muslim countries that following Sharia law put gays to death,
it's not hard to see how it's just one more step for Mateen to wind up
doing what he did.
I meant in the sense of across the whole world and to the extent that
muslims are doing it. Of course I recognize that there are some others
inciting rebellion based on religion, but nothing like the extent of the
problem with ISIS. Give us the religion based terrorist organizations
operating in the world today, other than muslims? Compare their carnage
to the muslims. Any attacks in the USA?
Indeed. Just look at the state they all seem to be in whether it is the
societal system or the direct result of the religion or lack of
separation of church and state - they all seem to be a real mess IMO.
Why they want to escape from conditions there and bring the cause of
the mess here I cannot fathom. IMO their religion does need a serious
Yes, they definitely get top billing in that respect. IMO they're not
doing it strictly because of Islam, but to start a holy war. What kind
of established "Islam" would condone the killing of other Muslims based
on not being "real" Muslims or just not Muslim enough to suit their
unique interpretation of Islam.
One thing I really do like about Trump is that he is pushing back
against the out of control PC crap that the liberals have been pushing.
On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 9:28:30 AM UTC-4, Micky wrote:
That's the problem. You libs just say we need to do *something*, but don't
offer anything specific that would have made a difference. Doing something
just for the sake of doing something doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
IDK, you're the one that wants to do something, so it's up to you
to come up with whatever that would be.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.