Bloomberg Says Interpretation of Constitution Will ‘Have to Change’ After Boston Bombing

[kelpdiver 2]

i don't see a definition here, Bill.

Let me counter.

"Hey, are you a dealer or a private citizen?"
"The latter"
"Oh, ok, can I look at that Glock?"

You want to argue there is a background check loophole, you have a better argument. There's no gunshow loophole...just part of the attempts to convince ignorant Americans that gunshows are the modern bazaar for criminals.

[kelpdiver 2]

Andy, I cannot give any respect to that coalition...their actions are too egregious to treat as equals with an opposing viewpoint.

I'm more prone to referring to them as the Brady Fucks, so this was close to neutral.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

the Brady Fucks

Yeah, that'll go over well, too. What many moderates will see, especially those who were already of age when Reagan and Brady were shot, and so remember when that happened, is people showing irrational insensitivity toward the victim and family of the victim of somebody who was lobotomized by a bullet in the civil service of his country. Much the same as those currently doing some pretty ugly name calling at Gabrielle Giffords (and her mil-vet, astronaut husband), another person who was lobotomized by a bullet in the civil service of her country. Dumb, just dumb.

[billvon 2,396]

>"Hey, are you a dealer or a private citizen?"
>"The latter"
>"Oh, ok, can I look at that Glock?"

Correct. He has identified the loophole.

So has Wikipedia:

=================
U.S. federal law requires persons engaged in interstate firearm commerce, or those who are "engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, to hold a Federal Firearms License and perform background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System maintained by the FBI prior to transferring a firearm. Under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, however, individuals "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale (although even private sellers are forbidden under federal law from selling firearms to persons they have reason to believe are felons or otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms).

Those seeking to close the "Gun Show Loophole" argue that it provides convicted felons and other prohibited purchasers (i.e., domestic abusers, substance abusers, those who have been adjudicated as "mental defectives," etc.) with opportunities to evade background checks, as they can easily buy firearms from private sellers with no accountability or oversight.
=================

So have trade publications:


==================
Universal Background Checks
Business Insider
Walter Hickey
Jan. 30, 2013, 11:37 AM

In 1999, the ATF published a study of recent gun show investigations.
What they found was widespread abuse of the Brady background check law, and other flagrant violations of gun control laws.

The report found that many non-licensed gun traders — the kind that don't need to carry out background checks — often made that a selling point for people looking to avoid the check:

Many non-licensees entice potential customers to their tables with comments such as, “No background checks required; we need only to know where you live and how old you are.” Many of these unlicensed vendors actively acquire firearms from other vendors to satisfy a buyer's request for a specific firearm that the vendor does not currently possess. Some unlicensed vendors replenish and subsequently dispose of their inventories within a matter of days, often at the same show

What's more, the ATF reviewed 314 investigations involving gun shows throughout the country. Felons buying or selling guns were involved in more than 46 percent of these investigations, and straw purchases, illegal sales, avoided background checks, and failure to keep accurate records were alarmingly common.

. . .

The conclusion of the 1999 report was simple: Brady Act background checks have been successful in preventing felons and other prohibited people from buying firearms, but gun shows leave a major loophole.
================

So have gun supporters:

==============
View from a Pro-Gun Supporter...
By M.R. Chase
Thu Apr 18, 2013

*NOTE* The author is a life long hunter, shooter, and gun collector. He supports Second Amendment rights for all law abiding citizens. He is the owner of multiple assault-style weapons and hand guns.

Even with nine out of ten polled voters supporting legislation making back round checks mandatory and more effective it has failed. Even with bi-partisan support and the support of our President, it has failed.

And I think it's a mistake. At the risk of sounding like a broken record I have owned guns all my life. I have a large collection though more than three-quarters of them are antiques that are never fired. I own and employ assault rifles as light, handy, effective tools ideally suited for long distance camping. I am a fanatic about gun safety, my guns are so securely stored as to be nearly theft proof. I have never been in trouble with the law and never once violated a gun law. I believe gun ownership is a right and a privileged. I am not a "gun nut" who believes we should be able to do as we please, own what we want.

There must be reasonable laws to protect us from people attaining guns who should not have them and any improvement to the back round check system would have been a good first step. With a good nation wide system in place the inconvenience to we law abiding owners would be, at worst, negligible. I've always believed closing the gun show loophole (though it's not as big a hole as people think it does exist) needed to happen.
=============================

And so have doctors:

=============================
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
October 2012
Daniel W. Webster, MPH, ScD

. . . .
A systematic observational study of gun sales at gun shows
found anonymous undocumented firearms sales to be ubiquitous, and illegal straw sales more
than six times as common in states that do not regulate private sales, compared with California,
which does regulate such sales. Separate research shows that states which do not regulate
private gun sales, adopt permit-to-purchase licensing systems, or have gun owner accountability
measures, like mandatory reporting of gun thefts, export significantly more guns used by
criminals to other states that have constrained the supply of guns for criminals by adopting strict
gun sales regulations. Broad adoption of these policies could greatly enhance our ability to
keep guns from those most likely to use them in crime.
A common response to calls for stricter gun control laws from opponents of reform is that
there is no need to change our gun laws; we just have to enforce the laws on the books. But we
do not have to choose between needed reforms and better enforcement. Effective enforcement of
gun control laws can deter illegal gun trafficking, but loopholes, high standards of evidence,
and weak penalties make it difficult to enforce laws designed to keep guns from prohibited
persons. Stronger gun laws will lead to better enforcement of those laws.
==============================

If you have reached the stage in the argument where you have to try to redefine terms to try to win, well - have a good day.

[regulator 0]

Quote

Quote

the Brady Fucks

Yeah, that'll go over well, too. What many moderates will see, especially those who were already of age when Reagan and Brady were shot, and so remember when that happened, is people showing irrational insensitivity toward the victim and family of the victim of somebody who was lobotomized by a bullet in the civil service of his country. Much the same as those currently doing some pretty ugly name calling at Gabrielle Giffords (and her mil-vet, astronaut husband), another person who was lobotomized by a bullet in the civil service of her country. Dumb, just dumb.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly to the kind words they told to this man while they were taking his guns when they screwed up and had the wrong person altogether?

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/foxs-megyn-kelly-reports-on-new-york-state-confiscating-weapons-from-law-abiding-citizen/

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

If you have reached the stage in the argument where you have to try to redefine terms to try to win, well - have a good day.

I see you again failed to actually supply a definition. Wrote a lot of citations, but avoided the actual question again.

Redefining has been a sport for the gun control forces- see assault weapon, militia, regulated, along with "shall not."

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

the Brady Fucks

Yeah, that'll go over well, too. What many moderates will see, especially those who were already of age when Reagan and Brady were shot, and so remember when that happened, is people showing irrational insensitivity toward the victim and family of the victim of somebody who was lobotomized by a bullet in the civil service of his country. Much the same as those currently doing some pretty ugly name calling at Gabrielle Giffords (and her mil-vet, astronaut husband), another person who was lobotomized by a bullet in the civil service of her country. Dumb, just dumb.

I sense the lady protests too much here.

Note the plural in Brady fucks, I didn't say that Brady asshole. (though even in that case, at this point, over 30 years after the shooting, the asshole would be Dan Gross, not James Brady)

Let's not insult each other with lies about this organization's mission. HCI formed with the express goal of the elimination of the right to own a handgun, primarily using incremental methods (hence showing no interest in 'reasonable compromise') In 2000 they renamed themselves the Brady Coalition, essentially draping the body of that lobotomized man over their mantle. Having cost Gore the election, they now pretend to be interesting in a safer America with guns.

You can choose for yourself - I don't have respect for lying fuckers who want to subvert constitutional rights.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

I don't have respect for lying fuckers who want to subvert constitutional rights.

Fair enough, but then how do you feel about lying fuckers who don't want to subvert constitutional rights?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

I don't have respect for lying fuckers who want to subvert constitutional rights.

Fair enough, but then how do you feel about lying fuckers who don't want to subvert constitutional rights?

probably wouldn't sit back when someone tries to drop Sarin gas overhead.

[dmcoco84 4]

Quote

Quote

The Brady Bunch

Just to digress a sec, the fairly frequent use of that vaguely mocking term is going to be viewed as rhetorical chickenshit - a sort of thinly-veiled name-calling - by the large number of as-yet undecided moderates and fence-sitters. Bad form and counter-productive, and (IMO) beneath someone like yourself, who is blessed with intelligence and the ability to articulate well.

Just a little coaching; and you don't even have to cover my slot.

I would have to agree, in a broad sense. Doesn't at all help the case of those who desire maximum freedom. Defeating an argument with logical and reason is far more effective.

Call them what they ARE... Progressives.

Calling them anything else, is no different than all the improper terminology use with firearms.

[dmcoco84 4]

Quote

Andy, I cannot give any respect to that coalition...their actions are too egregious to treat as equals with an opposing viewpoint.

I'm more prone to referring to them as the Brady Fucks, so this was close to neutral.

If you had to... I would instead use something like, the "Brady Effect".

Brady Effect... the making of completely irrational decisions based purely on emotion.

[dmcoco84 4]

Quote

>"Hey, are you a dealer or a private citizen?"
>"The latter"
>"Oh, ok, can I look at that Glock?"

Correct. He has identified the loophole.

So has Wikipedia:

=================
U.S. federal law requires persons engaged in interstate firearm commerce, or those who are "engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, to hold a Federal Firearms License and perform background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System maintained by the FBI prior to transferring a firearm. Under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, however, individuals "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale (although even private sellers are forbidden under federal law from selling firearms to persons they have reason to believe are felons or otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms).

Those seeking to close the "Gun Show Loophole" argue that it provides convicted felons and other prohibited purchasers (i.e., domestic abusers, substance abusers, those who have been adjudicated as "mental defectives," etc.) with opportunities to evade background checks, as they can easily buy firearms from private sellers with no accountability or oversight.
=================

So have trade publications:


==================
Universal Background Checks
Business Insider
Walter Hickey
Jan. 30, 2013, 11:37 AM

In 1999, the ATF published a study of recent gun show investigations.
What they found was widespread abuse of the Brady background check law, and other flagrant violations of gun control laws.

The report found that many non-licensed gun traders — the kind that don't need to carry out background checks — often made that a selling point for people looking to avoid the check:

Many non-licensees entice potential customers to their tables with comments such as, “No background checks required; we need only to know where you live and how old you are.” Many of these unlicensed vendors actively acquire firearms from other vendors to satisfy a buyer's request for a specific firearm that the vendor does not currently possess. Some unlicensed vendors replenish and subsequently dispose of their inventories within a matter of days, often at the same show

What's more, the ATF reviewed 314 investigations involving gun shows throughout the country. Felons buying or selling guns were involved in more than 46 percent of these investigations, and straw purchases, illegal sales, avoided background checks, and failure to keep accurate records were alarmingly common.

. . .

The conclusion of the 1999 report was simple: Brady Act background checks have been successful in preventing felons and other prohibited people from buying firearms, but gun shows leave a major loophole.
================

So have gun supporters:

==============
View from a Pro-Gun Supporter...
By M.R. Chase
Thu Apr 18, 2013

*NOTE* The author is a life long hunter, shooter, and gun collector. He supports Second Amendment rights for all law abiding citizens. He is the owner of multiple assault-style weapons and hand guns.

Even with nine out of ten polled voters supporting legislation making back round checks mandatory and more effective it has failed. Even with bi-partisan support and the support of our President, it has failed.

And I think it's a mistake. At the risk of sounding like a broken record I have owned guns all my life. I have a large collection though more than three-quarters of them are antiques that are never fired. I own and employ assault rifles as light, handy, effective tools ideally suited for long distance camping. I am a fanatic about gun safety, my guns are so securely stored as to be nearly theft proof. I have never been in trouble with the law and never once violated a gun law. I believe gun ownership is a right and a privileged. I am not a "gun nut" who believes we should be able to do as we please, own what we want.

There must be reasonable laws to protect us from people attaining guns who should not have them and any improvement to the back round check system would have been a good first step. With a good nation wide system in place the inconvenience to we law abiding owners would be, at worst, negligible. I've always believed closing the gun show loophole (though it's not as big a hole as people think it does exist) needed to happen.
=============================

And so have doctors:

=============================
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
October 2012
Daniel W. Webster, MPH, ScD

. . . .
A systematic observational study of gun sales at gun shows
found anonymous undocumented firearms sales to be ubiquitous, and illegal straw sales more
than six times as common in states that do not regulate private sales, compared with California,
which does regulate such sales. Separate research shows that states which do not regulate
private gun sales, adopt permit-to-purchase licensing systems, or have gun owner accountability
measures, like mandatory reporting of gun thefts, export significantly more guns used by
criminals to other states that have constrained the supply of guns for criminals by adopting strict
gun sales regulations. Broad adoption of these policies could greatly enhance our ability to
keep guns from those most likely to use them in crime.
A common response to calls for stricter gun control laws from opponents of reform is that
there is no need to change our gun laws; we just have to enforce the laws on the books. But we
do not have to choose between needed reforms and better enforcement. Effective enforcement of
gun control laws can deter illegal gun trafficking, but loopholes, high standards of evidence,
and weak penalties make it difficult to enforce laws designed to keep guns from prohibited
persons. Stronger gun laws will lead to better enforcement of those laws.
==============================

If you have reached the stage in the argument where you have to try to redefine terms to try to win, well - have a good day.

Funny stuff.

That Pro-Gun Supporter, sounds equally as stupid as the "Hunter" in the Bloomberg ad.

I bet this person did the interview with their finger on the trigger as well.

[dmcoco84 4]

Quote

Redefining has been a sport for the gun control forces- see assault weapon, militia, regulated, along with "shall not."

Redefining... is the name of the game for Progressives.

The Little Blue Book

http://www.amazon.com/The-Little-Blue-Book-ebook/dp/B007WT31BM


"Just change the wording"...

Progressives are Cowards... because if they speak the truth about their desires, their ideas are rejected.

[dmcoco84 4]

Quote

You can choose for yourself - I don't have respect for lying fuckers who want to subvert constitutional rights.

But the way to beat them is through education and awareness of the Cancer that is... Progressivism.

http://www.amazon.com/American-Progressivism-ronald-william-pestritto/dp/0739123041/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1367015410&sr=1-1

[dmcoco84 4]

Quote

Quote

I don't have respect for lying fuckers who want to subvert constitutional rights.

Fair enough, but then how do you feel about lying fuckers who don't want to subvert constitutional rights?

Sigh...

[dmcoco84 4]

If what you are trying to explain, IS, the truthful desire...

A SINGLE page bill could fix this...

But lets speak honestly, Bill.

Quade... wants a panel of experts.

You (may want this too), within knowing all the other arguments to date are lost, are sticking with BGCs.

You... want any sale of a firearm, by anyone, at any time, of any kind, to be put through a background check (checking for felony convictions and mental adjudication).


And like with panels of experts... its not going to happen.

And it is not because of the NRA.

All Congress (those members who want more laws) would need to do is write a one page bill... clear and simple language, and any issues regarding gun shows, would be solved.

But that is not what Progressives want... they want power and control.


Its that simple... so enough with the 90% and all the BS you keep posting, like the above, from "Pro-Gun Supporters".

Speak the truth, first...

...which is not happening.

Only through manipulative means are any actions being pursued currently.

[dmcoco84 4]

PS... Fuck Mark Kelly.

Feel horrible for his (Progressive) wife...

...and since then, have lost any level of respect for him.

[OHCHUTE 0]

The gun sales industry reports current state of supplies are going to exist for awhile. Although many debate having a gun, using a gun, the fact remains: buying ammo and guns are a challenge due to demand, plus states are unable to keep up with handgun transfers. Around here it now takes 4 months to buy a hand gun due to backlog which may actually be promoting more private sales.

[regulator 0]

Quote

PS... Fuck Mark Kelly.

Feel horrible for his (Progressive) wife...

...and since then, have lost any level of respect for him.

----------------------------------------------------
I feel the same about john mccain. He went from a POW to a POS.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, however, individuals "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale (although even private sellers are forbidden under federal law from selling firearms to persons they have reason to believe are felons or otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms).

Funny how your references whine "illegal" when addressing these types of sales.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

If you have reached the stage in the argument where you have to try to redefine terms to try to win, well - have a good day.

You mean like the people who came up with calling semi automatic small caliber rifles "assault weapons"? Or calling all magazines capable of holding over 20, 12, 10, 7 rounds "high capacity"? Or intentionally trying to confuse the public into thinking semiautomatic firearms are machine guns? Or trying to make the public think there is any time when a gun dealer doesn't have to conduct background checks? Or how CNN or that Florida news channel intentionally edited footage to lie to the public about what guns are and what they do? Or calling the law a loophole when it was intentionally written as an exemption. Or ... hell I'm to tired to give you more, but they're out there, and you get the idea.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

>Your poll makes me wonder if people don't know that gun dealers are
>ALREADY required to conduct regular background checks at gunshows.

I suspect that they do; that's why it's called a loophole. Dealers do have to conduct background checks; there's a loophole that allows ordinary Joes to sell guns at gun shows with no background checks whatsoever. Most people understand the meaning of "loophole."

> There are plenty of uniform folks out there who can be taken advantage of
>without even needing to use leading questions or biased sampling.

Sure, you can assume most people are ignorant of such things. I find that's generally a mistake.

It's not a loophole if it was specifically written to exemption citizens and only apply to businesses. If you want to change the law, go ahead. I disagree and will work to stop you. But don't lie about it, and don't mislead people.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

The Brady Bunch

Just to digress a sec, the fairly frequent use of that vaguely mocking term is going to be viewed as rhetorical chickenshit - a sort of thinly-veiled name-calling - by the large number of as-yet undecided moderates and fence-sitters. Bad form and counter-productive, and (IMO) beneath someone like yourself, who is blessed with intelligence and the ability to articulate well.

Just a little coaching; and you don't even have to cover my slot.

Can I call them Handgun Control, Inc? That was their first name after all, and a much more honest declaration if intent and purpose.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The Brady Bunch

Just to digress a sec, the fairly frequent use of that vaguely mocking term is going to be viewed as rhetorical chickenshit - a sort of thinly-veiled name-calling - by the large number of as-yet undecided moderates and fence-sitters. Bad form and counter-productive, and (IMO) beneath someone like yourself, who is blessed with intelligence and the ability to articulate well.

Just a little coaching; and you don't even have to cover my slot.

Can I call them Handgun Control, Inc? That was their first name after all, and a much more honest declaration if intent and purpose.

Another one of their precursor names was Center to Prevent Handgun Violence. Insidiously seditious, eh?

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

Can I call them Handgun Control, Inc? That was their first name after all, and a much more honest declaration if intent and purpose.

Another one of their precursor names was Center to Prevent Handgun Violence. Insidiously seditious, eh?

Actually, yes, it is. That is where they changed from being honest about their intentions to hiding behin a bullshit veneer of "it's about safety". That is one micron short of "it's for the children". Those are disgusting rhetorical devices.

And then there is the lying:
(1) The Brady Campaign contends that self-loading and select-fire weapons are virtually identical, since a semi-automatic rifle may be fired rapidly.
Yes, they see no difference between semi automatic and full automatic, and actively work to confuse the public.

(2)Additionally, the Campaign has in the past called for a ban of "plastic guns", after becoming concerned about the emergence of polymer-framed handguns by Austrian weapons manufacturer Glock Ges.m.b.H.
OMG, plastic guns! They'll go through airport security! Please. The guns are more than 80% metal, including the slide, the barrel, and the springs and internal workings.
Et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam.

Anything they can do to demonized guns or gun owners, they do. Anytime Rey can tell a lie to increase the chance of passing gun control, they lie (not safety measures, gun control; there is a big difference).

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*