Here's What You Can Buy At The Biggest Gun Show In The Southeast{image warning}

[xchrom]

http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-show-pictures-2013-9?op=1



Despite recent attempts to pass new national gun control legislation, the gun lovers of America are winning.

This couldn't be more apparent than at the Lakeland Gun Show, the biggest gun show in the Southeast and one of more than 5,000 gun shows held in the U.S. each year, where you can buy an incredible variety of guns and weapons, as well as military surplus gear and military artifacts.

These gun shows are particularly controversial because they allow individuals to buy guns from other individuals without going through background checks.

Dealers like "Shoot Straight" bring plenty of brand new weapons to these shows.


... and pistols. Most are held down by cables so they cannot be stolen.


In Florida and many other states, high capacity magazines can be legally purchased, although even the president has called for their ban.


You can even find body armor. The man selling these had tons of military stuff, since he operated an Army-Navy store.

[Ohio Joe]

1. The business of fear is booming - nt

[deutsey]

14. We got two choices...and we have chosen...poorly.

"It's only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings of money. Just a simple choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your doors, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love instead see all of us as one. Here's what we can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride. Take all that money we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would pay for many times over, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace." Bill Hicks

[badtoworse]

2. Wow!! Guns and ammo!!

What would you expect to find at a gun show?

[EOTE]

10. Certainly not regulations or anything approaching sanity or decency.

Ever think that may have been the point of the OP?

[hack89]

21. The laws governing guns are the same inside a gun show as they are outside a gun show.

they are regulated - just not as much as you wish.

[EOTE]

22. Regulated so much that any random psycho can pick up just about any arm he wants from a

private seller without a background check. Just as the gun nutters want.

[hack89]

25. We definitely need universal background checks

my state has them and they work fine.

Many cities and states require all gun show purchases to go through a background check. Other shows do not allow private sales. There are things that can be done at the local level.

[EOTE]

39. They work fine until some psycho in one of those states decides to travel to another state.

The gun show loophole shows how worthless anything other than federal law is. Universal as in countrywide is what's needed. Otherwise, it's entirely too easy to get firearms in this country.

[hack89]

41. That's what I meant when I said "universal"

I was just pointing out that I am familiar with UBCs and think they work fine without inconveniencing gun owners. Relax - I agree with you.

[Duckhunter935]

27. depends on the show

many do prohibit private sales.

Same as all laws outside the gun show that is right. FFL sales= background check. Private sale two individuals same state=background check not required unless by state law.

[EOTE]

30. Uhhh, the gun show in the OP does, indeed, allow private sales.

And that is what this thread is about. And the mere fact that ANY state allows private sales at gun shows is beyond fucked up. You are aware that people can travel from state to state, right? Hardly anyone in this country is more than a hundred miles or so from picking up just about any firearm they want, legally. Terrorists are even explicitly instructed to utilize this loophole. I can't believe I see this shit defended even here.

[Lee-Lee]

43. Of course private sales in another state are already illegal

So a person doing such already is breaking the law.

Stacking another law on top of that won't make them respect the law, just shift patterns and gain what they seek by other illegal means.

There are more effective ways to fight guns in the wrong hands, that won't cost us politically.

[EOTE]

46. There are plenty of states where private sales are perfectly legal.

Hence it's rather easy for just about anyone in this country to pick up a gun. Mentally stable or not. The law needs to be federal. The gun show loophole needs to go, it's just insanity that it's still here.

[Lee-Lee]

53. I don't disagree

As long as it is done in a way that individuals can run a check, like a smart phone app. Not the current proposal that requires going to a dealer who treats the transaction as if he bought and resold the gun and charges a fee- among other bad flaws.

But don't pretend it will really change much. They will just shift to theft or straw buyers- and while straw buying is very illegal it is rarely punished. Heck, the straw buyer who provided the guns for Columbine never saw punishment.

[Hoyt]

70. Needs to go through FFL, who will maintain records, be accountable for following rules, etc.

Otherwise, your neighbor could get you identifying info and run a check on you to see if you have ever done anything that would prohibit you from owning a gun.

It will change something -- the guy who can't pass a BG check can't wait for the next gun show to arrive and go down and ask around to find a table run by a "dealer" (who is not deemed a "dealer" because he doesn't traffick guns often enough to meet the criteria). That is just flat wrong.

I'd even go as far as to require BG checks for transferring a gun to relatives, friends, etc.

Thus, NRA President Keene -- who raised his son in the gun culture -- would have to run a background check on his son to give him a gun when he gets out of prison for shooting a motorist in a road rage incident.

[Bay Boy]

119. There is no need to wait for a gun show...

...for a person to purchase a weapon from a private individual. All they have to do is check the local newspaper for someone selling off a gun. He may not have as wide a selection that way but he'll be able to find something.

[Hoyt]

133. Agreed. That's a problem too. The "Private Sales Loophole" needs to be closed.

[sir pball]

160. So can we agree to DEfocus on "teh ebil GUNSHOWZ!!!1!" and work

On fixing the entire "unregulated private sales" (I prefer that term, it feels more accurate than "loophole" IMO) shitshow? I'm 100% behind doing Every. Single. Transfer. (yes, even family) through an FFL. I don't sell anything any other way and don't want anybody else to, either.

[Hoyt]

176. +1. When I finally sold off my dad's guns -- target and antiques mostly -- went through FFL.

Very easy, cost me at most $35 per transaction.

Some of the antiques were sold to people with a special license (called Collector of Curios and Relics, I think).


Calling it "unregulated private sale" is OK with me, but "loophole" is as applicable as what many people call the "mortgage loophole" that allows one to deduct mortgage interest to lower income taxes paid. Loopholes are not necessarily illegal.

Personally, I just don't like gun shows. The ones I went to years ago seeing if any dealers were interested in buying my dad's guns -- needed the money to help my mom -- were really depressing. Mostly a bunch of right wingers drooling over guns, and dealers pandering to their baser instincts.

[sir pball]

200. It's the only way any rational person should dispose of a firearm

If for no other reason than self-interest...if a firearm I've ever owned turns out to have been used illegally and is traced to me, I have incontrovertible proof that I passed it on legally and what was done with it beyond that point isn't my responsibility. That's not the only reason I do it, but it might make a good argument for rightwingers - they're always looking out for their own asses, the rest of the world be damned. I'd be fine with liability laws covering un-checked sales as a reinforcement for UBCs.

I mostly take issue with the "gun show loophole" term because it's misleading in a way that minimizes the problem. The phrase in the OP: "These gun shows are particularly controversial because they allow individuals to buy guns from other individuals without going through background checks" is a problem for me because it gives the impression that all gunshow sales are unregulated, but more importantly there's an implication that all sales outside of gunshows ARE regulated. I personally know several people who think exactly that; one of them literally did not believe that I legally bought a gun (bolt-action .243, nothing scary) out of the paper, in some guy's living room. Other than that it's a purely semantic argument as to what to call it...I've always heard the mortgage example called an "exemption"; I think at most it makes a distinction as to whether or not the particular skirting of the law is intentional or a literal "hole in the loop". Either way, private sales, anywhere and everywhere, need to be regulated.

+1 on the gunshows. They don't creep me out as such, but about all I've ever had any use for at one is powder, to save the $20 hazmat shipping fee or 90-minute drive to Cabela's. Wouldn't make a whit of difference to me if they stopped existing.

[Eleanors38]

240. I support UBCs. Be aware that even with such, you run into the dynamic of

prohibition. You will never get rid of black markets in guns. If the power of American "gun culture" and its history has a tenth of the credence given it, a powerful, deeply-corrupting black market will ensue. I think, however, a non-registration UBC can divert LEO resources to breaking up some of this black market trade, esp. as it involves yet another prohibition, Drugs.

If course, the phenomenon of mass shootings/killings would probably be wholly unaffected by UBC or a meaningless ban on a weapon type. This kind of thing, if it is to be dealt with, is "custom" and quite site-based, and will involve heavy screening and more people with more guns.

Folks should seriously address the celeb/entertainment aspect of mass murders. So far, we only hear gripes about video games & movies.

[badtoworse]

29. Unless I'm mistaken, private sales are still subject to state regulation...

and it doesn't matter whether the sale takes place at a gun show or not.

[EOTE]

31. You are mistaken.

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).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States#Controversies

[badtoworse]

34. I said state law

The federal government does not have authority to regulate incidental, private sales between citizens of the same state. That power is reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment

[EOTE]

36. Ahhh, so private sales are still subject to state laws which don't exist.

Just as the gun nutters want it. What part of the gun show loophole don't you understand? Why the fuck do gun nuts think that it's acceptable for some random psycho to legally purchase a firearm from a gun show WITHOUT a background check?

[badtoworse]

42. "Just as the gun nutters want it"

Nope. That's the way the framers of the constitution wanted it. They had reasons for passing the 10th Amendment and looking at what the federal government has become, I would say they were wise men.

[EOTE]

45. Bullshit, they wanted a "Well regulated militia".

Which is nothing like the way the 2nd amendment has come to be interpreted. Regulated as in maybe we shouldn't allow any random fucking psycho to pick up a gun without the slightest bit of issue. Fuck, you even mention the word "regulation" to a gun nutter and he becomes apoplectic. But waddabout meh freeduummmmmssss!!

[badtoworse]

50. Have you considered decaf?

Didn't the SCOTUS deal with "well regulated" and "militia" in Heller and McDonald?

[EOTE]

54. Ahhh, so not what the founders wanted, but what Roberts and Scalia wanted.

Now that makes a bit more sense. So in your mind, when the founding fathers said "well regulated militia", they meant "Any murderous fuck who wants a gun shall be able to get one without hesitation." Yep, that totally makes sense to me.

[Bay Boy]

129. To be honest...

...isn't that how it was in the 1790s also. No background check, just walk into (whatever passed for a) gunstore at the time, plunk down your money and leave? The recent ruling just clarified that.

[EOTE]

139. Funny how things are capable of changing in 200 plus years.

If only our founding fathers had the slightest bit of prescience and used words like "well regulated". I can't believe how many nutters exist, on a site like this, who think it's perfectly fine for anyone, regardless of mental health or criminal status, to buy a gun. It's a sickness.

[Bay Boy]

259. I've certainly not advocated for

mentally ill or criminals to have access to guns.
In fact I'm in favor of even stricter limits on civil liberties for the mentally ill.

[Lizzie Poppet]

158. Nice straw man. Does it keep the crows out of your garden?

If the Framers had wanted to restrict the RKBA to militias, that's what they'd have written: "...the right of the militia to keep and bear arms..." They instead ascribed the right to the people. I don't think that was an accident.

[EOTE]

159. And where does the "well regulated" part come in?

Were the founders just talking out of their ass on that one? Did they just intend for it to be ignored? Funny how the gun nuts won't even acknowledge that part of the only amendment they give one fuck about.

[Lizzie Poppet]

164. That qualifier is ascribed to the militia.

I believe the Framers' concern was that the militia be "well-regulated," a concern that makes perfect sense.

FWIW, I also don't remotely consider the RKBA to be a completely unrestricted right. There are plenty of sensible regulations that do not constitute "infringement." Many are already in place, and many more could be, without compromising the individual right to keep and bear arms.

[EOTE]

167. And what is "well regulated" about giving any psycho who wants one a gun?

And just what would happen if a bunch of those psychos got together to form a militia? I just wanted to make sure that the official position of the RKBA crowd is that it's perfectly fine for the mentally insane and violent criminals to be provided guns.

[Lizzie Poppet]

184. I think you're seeing/hearing what you WANT to see.

"I just wanted to make sure that the official position of the RKBA crowd is that it's perfectly fine for the mentally insane and violent criminals to be provided guns."

As should have been painfully obvious to anyone paying the slightest attention, no one in the "RKBA crowd" wants any such thing. Did you even bother reading the second paragraph of my last response? I'm clearly wasting my time here. Have a nice life...

[EOTE]

193. Really? The RKBA crowd doesn't want any such thing?

So long as they keep propping up the gun show loophole they do. So long as they scream any time sensible legislation is proposed they do. So long as they KEEP PUSHING FOR THE RIGHT OF FELONS AND THE MENTALLY ILL to own guns, they certainly do.

[Lizzie Poppet]

209. See above. Repeat as needed.

You're seeing what you want to see, not what's actually being said by the "RKBA crowd." You claim we are pushing for the right of felons and them mentally ill to own guns? Cite some verifiable examples or STFU. I don't know a single gun rights advocate who makes any such claim...and I bet you don't, either.

[EOTE]

212. So, tell me what the RKBA crowd is doing to prevent violent criminals from owning firearms.

Other than screaming every time common sense firearms legislation like universal background checks comes up.

[Lizzie Poppet]

217. Still not bothering to read what I write, I see.

I've stated many times my support of universal background checks, as have many other pro-RKBA posters here on DU. There is considerable support for mandating firearms security measures, too (a lot of us consider such things to be intrinsic to responsible exercise of one's 2nd Amendment rights).

Many of us also support ending the inane War on Drugs, which is a huge contributor to sustaining the violent, dysfunctional gang culture that is implicated in such a large percentage of gun-related homicide in this country.

[EOTE]

218. If by universal, you mean federally mandated, then you and I agree.

But the ridiculous piece-meal approach of "let every state decide on their own" is almost worse than advocating for no change at all.

[Lizzie Poppet]

222. I do, yes.

Doing something like that state-by-state is useless.

[EOTE]

224. Then you're not the norm for the RKBA crowd.

A number of them are on this very thread crowing about how federally mandated universal background checks for firearm purchases are an affront to their constitutional rights.

[Eleanors38]

241. Actually, the UBC has been and IS discussed by the "RKBA crowd" regularly

in the OPEN group on DU. One discussion is in progress now, and enjoys wide support. What you are saying is wrong on its face.

You are also wrong when you assert that gun owners don't want restrictions on felons and adjudicated mental incompetents. I have seen (and many on DU have seen) how many controller/banners keep pushing doctrine and ideology in the face of fact, hoping that massive repitition will win the day.

It hasn't. I hope you don't choose this path.

[EOTE]

243. What I've heard a number of times from the gunners here is that by "Universal Background Checks"

they mean that they believe each state should decide to implement background checks, but it should not be done on the Federal level. That's pretty much worthless.

And if gun owners want restrictions on felons and the mentally incompetent owning guns and non-owners want the same, why the hell isn't there UBC? The reason there's not is because of the NRA and other pro gun groups. If gun owners wanted such things, we'd have it already.

[Eleanors38]

258. A ready explanation: The gun-controllers have poisoned the well

with their constant talk of bans, their campaigns of personal attack, their reliance on regionalism and negative stereotype. For starters. Frankly, gun-controller/banners made the modern NRA, and to this day continue to feed the beast because of the reasons I just cited. And now, we both have to contend with that organization. That is hard truth.

The state by state notion of UCBs has credence because of the Commerce Clause restrictions. I am assuming a proposal can be made to "get around" those, but one cannot be intellectually honest and not consider the possibility of a court challenge.

In the mean time, nothing is stopping you from acting at the state level. If you are an activist.

[oldhippie]

187. Logic Alert. Logic Alert. Logic Alert.

"Ahhh, so private sales are still subject to state laws which don't exist."

Subject to laws that don't exist? Ok.

[EOTE]

191. You're telling me that there are no states in which anyone who wants one can walk into a gunshow

to buy a gun without a background check? THAT is what I'm talking about when someone props up the idiotic "But they're still subject to state laws", meme. Yeah sure, any rapist murderer in Florida is subject to those state laws. The state law that says if you're a violent felon, you can't buy a gun. But if you walk into a gun show and ask to buy a gun from a private seller, so long as he doesn't think you're too shady, he'll go ahead and do so. You're really not one to talk about logic, son.

[oldhippie]

202. I rest my case ......

[EOTE]

203. You do know that "I rest my case" is usually preceded by some form of logic or facts.

When some random half-wit on the internet says it without the slightest of the above, it becomes rather meaningless.

[oldhippie]

37. No, he's not mistaken, and neither are you ......

You quote the federal provision correctly. But States can place further restrictions on sale and transfer of firearms. Some states do, some don't. California for one prohibits private transfers between individuals, and all transfers must go through an FFL with a background check. Other states go with the federal regs.

[EOTE]

38. States CAN place further restrictions.

But they quite frequently DON'T, which makes those state laws effectively worthless. Any moron can get a cheap and shitty fake ID and travel to another state. And the fact that there are plenty of states that have pretty much no restriction on private sales means that any psycho living there can easily obtain firearms without even having to go through the trouble. Just as the gun nuts like it.

[oldhippie]

40. Choice ....

And any one (I won't use that vulgar word) can make up hypothetical illegal scenarios where people go out and do illegal things and commit felonies and atrocities. So what?

Some states do things and others do not. There are lots of other things in which state laws differ. Some of them I don't like, either. So what?

[EOTE]

44. There are some things which shouldn't be left up for states to decide.

We used to provide states with the "choice" to own another person. Now we're giving states the "choice" to provide guns to depraved psychotics whenever they want them. That's a choice the state should not have. And what the gun nuts don't understand is that these atrocities are NOT hypotheticals. They're a daily occurrence in this country. Just the price of doing business according to the nutters.

[hack89]

47. Like gay marriage or marijuana laws? That is a two edged sword you are swinging there. nt

[EOTE]

49. Do you disagree that there are some things the state shouldn't have the ability to decide?

Regardless of what you think about gay marriage or marijuana, do you think states rights are absolute? I think as a country we've had this discussion before. Were you not satisfied with the outcome the first time around?

[hack89]

57. Every state has to respect the civil rights of their citizens

per the constitution and it's interpretation via case law and precedence. So we have a line over which the states cannot cross - they can grant their citizens more rights but they cannot take away basic rights. This is the fundamental means by which states rights are constrained - it is the mechanism by which the federal government gets involved with state laws.

The Federal government has power over interstate issues which is how they justify their laws and regulations regarding guns. Which is fine - gun manufacturing and sales that cross state lines is a legitimate federal interest. Private sales within a state that do not cross state lines is purely a state issue.

So no, state rights are not absolute. But it is not for the federal government to arbitrarily decide which rights the states cannot have.

[EOTE]

62. I believe one of those rights is "life".

Which can be kind of hard to have when you allow any random psycho to have a gun. And what the fuck is arbitrary about deciding that states shouldn't have the right to arm convicted violent felons?

[hack89]

65. Show me a state law that permits convicted violent felons to buy guns.

it is illegal everywhere in America to sell guns to felons.

Right to life? Where have we heard that slogan before? Could you imagine what a repuke president and congress would do to abortion in America in the name of protecting the right to life?

[EOTE]

68. Sure, it's illegal to sell guns to felons in every state.

But in quite a few states, it's legal for just about anyone to sell to a convicted violent felon without finding out a damned thing about them.

And Roe V Wade has already determined the balance of right to privacy and right to life as it pertains to abortion. That hasn't stopped republicans everywhere from trying to tear it down. So you seem to be saying that because republicans are fighting so hard for really shitty things, we shouldn't try at all to get anything constructive or good done.

[hack89]

75. The Federal government does not get to decide how states enforce their own laws

they don't get to override local laws just because they don't like them.

Of course we have to try to get good things done. We just have to do it within the limits of the Constitution. And like it or not, states have sovereign powers that the Federal government has to respect.

[EOTE]

79. Yet somehow they got to decide that you can't purchase fully automatic weapons.

Or firearms greater than .50 caliber. Or various high explosives. Somehow they were able to decide how states enforce their own laws.

[hack89]

96. You can purchase them - there are 32,000 legal machine guns in VA alone

it is expensive and requires extensive background checks but it is perfectly legal. Same for .50 cal weapons.



http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/10/virginia-leads-nation-in-the-number-of-legally-owned-machine-guns-81304.html

[EOTE]

98. You mean, the government REQUIRES those background checks? TYRANNY!!!!!

Funny how the nutters get destroyed by their own arguments. If the government can require a background check to own a machine gun, they can require a psychotic person or violent criminal to get a background check before getting a gun.

[hack89]

103. ok. nt

[derby378]

272. That's a little false equivalency right there

The "background check" needed to own an automatic weapon in America includes an interview with ATF agents, a $200 transfer fee, a minimum 60-day waiting period (in reality, more like 6 months), and a signature from either a judge or your county/parish sheriff.

If you want to argue this legal framework should be preserved for automatic weapons, I'm inclined to agree with you. But for a .22LR squirrel rifle? Not a chance.

That said, I don't want psychotics getting access to squirrel rifles, either - not unless they can be cured of their afflictions.

[EOTE]

276. The background check doesn't need to be that extensive.

But the fact that there are many states that require NO background check whatsoever for psychotics, rapists and murderers is well beyond insane.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

278. None officially. But there is one State with a large city with street gangs that turn out the vote

for local politicians, and with members that act as snitches and suppliers of illegal drugs, with the result that some cops and some judges can look the other way (or soften the punishment) when the convicted violent felons buy guns and engage in further gun-related crimes.

This results in a de facto approval of selling guns to favored felons.

Recently in Chicago, for example, four gang members shot a 3-year old boy and 12 other people.

"One of the men, Tabari Young, 22, who has been arrested more than a dozen times, used a military-grade weapon in the shooting"
...
"Emanuel called for a three-year minimum prison sentence for illegally carrying a gun on the city's streets. "One of the shooters should have been behind bars rather than in Cornell Park," the mayor said in a statement.

"Champ had been convicted of unlawful use of a weapon in July 2012 and sentenced to boot camp, an alternative to prison, at a Cook County facility.

"He received boot camp for that gun crime and was back on the streets to be a part of this senseless shooting. That is unacceptable," said {Police Chief} McCarthy.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/24/us-usa-chicago-shooting-idUSBRE98M1C020130924

The gangs do some good for some people, including buying milk for neighborhood kids. They can turn out the vote. They can snitch on marijuana users and competitors.

What kind of illegal drugs can they supply to the police? Where, for example, do the Chicago behemoths get their steroids?

[Bay Boy]

124. Are you arguing against abortion now?

Kind of sounds that way.

[EOTE]

144. The not so good at reading crowd might get something like that.

Perhaps the English as a third language crowd as well. But I can't imagine a regular person thinking something like that. Right to privacy vs. right to life has been settled via Roe v. Wade and it incorporates BOTH. I strongly support a woman's right to have an abortion. But let's not miss an opportune chance to derail a good gun fest.

[Eleanors38]

242. You're thinking of the 14th Amendment, exercised in McDonald.

[EOTE]

244. Nope. Not at all. nt

[Eleanors38]

260. Unfortunately for you, the 14th clears up a lot of the arguments you've proffered.

[EOTE]

267. Unfortunately for you, you have no idea of what I'm talking.

Gun nutters aren't friends with facts and logic. They just cite cases they believe prop up their view point and use that as their miserable excuse for continuing America's epidemic of violence. Gun nutters are simply not good people. Anyone who cares more about their toy than actual human lives is a small shell of a human being.

[Eleanors38]

269. Keep up your culture war. Makes it easy for the "nutters." nt

[EOTE]

274. Easier to what? Plan their next murder?

Easier to have no accountability for their actions? Easier for their child to find one of their unsecured guns and kill themselves? The nutters seem to be having a very easy time with this to begin with.

[oldhippie]

51. Exactly what I expected .....

We're all for choice, except when we're not.

[EOTE]

59. Wow, so you believe we should have the choice to own another person?

That's really fucked up. You also think we should have the "choice" to give a rapist/murderer on parole a firearm. People who talk about "choice" so romantically are typically very simple thinkers. Choice is sometimes good and sometimes bad, it's not like anything wearing the halo of choice is automatically awesome. It's just platitudes and bullshit. I'm NOT pro-choice, I'm pro-abortion. I think women should have the RIGHT to an abortion. Do the gun nuts get to take the mantle of pro-choice as well? After all, they want states to have the CHOICE to provide guns to murderers.

[oldhippie]

185. Posts that start with "So you believe ..." about something I don't believe, ...

Won't get a response.

It will just be noted that you are anti-choice.

[EOTE]

201. And you are anti-life.

You think it's fine for violent felons, rapists and the mentally ill to obtain firearms and won't do a damn thing to stop them. You are anti-choice as well, you just won't admit that. But worse than being anti-choice, you are anti-decency.

[oldhippie]

204. "You think ...." ....

And you're telepathic too?

[EOTE]

205. No more than you.

With your idiotic claims of me being "anti-choice" and all. The only difference is that I used a bit of logic to arrive at my conclusion.

[badtoworse]

52. "Now we're giving states the "choice" to provide guns to depraved psychotics..."

Don't they teach civics anymore? We're not giving the states anything they haven't always had.. The power to regulate private, intrastate sales was never given to the federal government.

[EOTE]

55. But it IS given to the federal government, which is exactly what we should be doing.

States certainly haven't been doing their jobs in terms of regulating sales, Florida will give a gun to any psycho who wants one. Hence the federal government needs to close the gun show loophole. But that won't stop the gun nutters from screaming about their rights being trampled on. They think background checks are tyranny. Sick fucks those nutters are.

[badtoworse]

58. "But it IS given to the federal government"

Where?

[EOTE]

60. What part of "well regulated militia" don't you understand? nt

[badtoworse]

64. That was the stated reason for DENYING a certain power to the federal government

How do you get to regulating private, intrastate sales from there?

[EOTE]

66. So, just so we're clear here.

By "well regulated militia", you believe the founding fathers meant that states have every right to provide guns to anyone who would simply ask and pay for one regardless of their past history, mental status or crimes. Just wanted to be sure of that one.

[badtoworse]

69. Why don't you do your own research and look up what "militia" meant to the founding fathers?

[EOTE]

73. No need. You've already informed me.

Clearly the founding fathers meant "Any random asshole who wants a gun." When the gun nutters' arguments lie so insanely to the right of rational people, even moderate, reasonable arguments seem radical to them. Nope, certainly can't have something as reasonable as universal background checks, that would interfere with the founding fathers visions of giving fully auto .50 cals to anyone who wants one!

[hack89]

61. Is this a power you want to give a repuke president and congress?

What if they decide a state is doing a shitty job of regulating marijuana sales? Can they ignore the will of the people and shut down marijuana dispensaries?

Can you imagine how the repukes would use such power to eliminate abortion in pro-choice states?

[EOTE]

63. We're not talking about one state, we're talking about federal law.

We're talking about a federal law mandating background checks for all firearm sales. This is something you said that you support. Now you think this is a bad thing?

[hack89]

72. I support it. It just requires each state to pass a law.

regulation of the 2A amendment is constitutional - it doesn't mean that the Federal government can regulate transactions that have traditionally been a state issue.

The Commerce Act is the basis for Federal gun control law. It does not allow the regulation of purely intrastate activity.

Drug laws are similar. While there are Federal drug laws, the vast majority of drug arrests are state arrests. The Federal government simply convinced all the states to take Federal drug laws and make them state laws. Why do think states have gun laws in the first place?

[EOTE]

74. So what you're supporting is NOT universal. It's "whenever the states get around to it".

You notice how the ACA wasn't voted for on a state by state basis? And drug laws aren't terribly similar. There are plenty of busts for people who have broken absolutely no state laws. Our government has lots of time for that, yet can't keep states from handing out guns to any murderous fuck who wants one. That's idiotic and needs to change.

[hack89]

86. If the ACA was restricted to a single state with no interstate component

than you might have a point. The ACA is a nation wide program deemed constitutional under Congress's power to tax - not the commerce clause.

And lets not forget that a big portion of the ACA (expansion of Medicaid) was found unconstitutional as an infringement on states rights.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1002&pid=3727142

[EOTE]

90. Yes, the ACA was a nationwide and LEGAL act passed for the benefit of all.

Just as we need a nationwide and LEGAL act to remove the gunshow loophole. But apparently you think that can't be done because the government can't tell any state what they should do about guns. Just like they can't tell any state not to sell fully automatic weapons.

[hack89]

97. You do realize that you can legally own fully automatic weapons?

it is expensive and a pain in the ass but there are tens of thousands of legal automatic weapons in America.

I think it is time to wrap up this exchange. It is clear your mind is made up.

[EOTE]

100. But with mandatory federal background checks.

The very kind you said that government absolutely could not force upon the states. I would have thought this exchange would have been done a good long time ago as well. But some minds are more inflexible than orders.

[badtoworse]

105. "But some minds are more inflexible than orders." - Mr. Kettle, meet Mr. Pot.

I'm done with you as well. You might learn some civility. The other side's opinions are just as strongly held as yours. You'll never get anywhere with insulting, emotional blathering.

[EOTE]

109. Sure, the other side's opinions are probably even MORE strongly held as mine.

Such is the mind of the zealot and the fanatic. Facts are useless to them, they KNOW they're right, so that's all that matters. The gun nutters always look at facts and figures as emotional blathering. Their arguments "But the founding fathers!" and "Derp, freedummms!" are all the facts and figures that they need.

[hack89]

114. The Feds basically wrote the law as a tax bill under their power to tax

The way the Feds handle it is to make manufacturers register the guns not owners - it becomes a commercial transaction involving a registered item. It also becomes by definition an interstate transaction.

The National Firearms Act (NFA), 72nd Congress, Sess. 2, ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236, enacted on June 26, 1934, currently codified as amended as I.R.C. ch. 53, is an Act of Congress in the United States that, in general, imposes a statutory excise tax on the manufacture and transfer of certain firearms and mandates the registration of those firearms.

Congress does not have the power to do that regarding private sales withing a state - they do not have the taxing power to do so.

[EOTE]

136. There is nothing that prevents them from doing the same thing with all firearms.

The NRA crowd acts as if every single piece of common-sense legislation regarding guns is unconstitutional and that their right to own arms is absolute and limitless. But the fact is that common-sense legislation was passed in the past out of necessity and somehow it was done within the bounds of the constitution. It will have to happen out of necessity in the future as well, unless we want the third world to have a better control on gun violence than we do.

[hack89]

137. How? Time for you to get specific

how can the feds mandate background checks for private intrastate sales using the powers given to them by the constitution.

Commerce clause? Power to tax? Pick one and tell me how it would apply.

[EOTE]

141. It's in the 2nd amendment.

The right to bear arms is dependent upon the well regulated militia. You take away the well regulated part and the right does not exist. So states would have the option of enacting the regulations themselves or the government can regulate for them.

[hack89]

147. The Bill of Rights is a limit on government power

it does not grant Congress any powers what so ever.

[EOTE]

152. And any state cannot take for granted a right something that is NOT in the constitution or bill of

rights. And NO WHERE in either does it say that states can allow anyone, regardless of mental health or criminal status, to buy a gun.

[hack89]

170. Show me the words abortion or privacy in the Constitution - and think about what you are saying. nt

[hack89]

148. The president and the Democratic party platform says otherwise

both agree that the 2A amendment protects an individual right.

[EOTE]

155. Even for criminals and the insane? nt

[hack89]

172. We were talking about the 2A giving powers to the Federal government

The president says no, it protects an individual right.

[EOTE]

177. That right is predicated on being well regulated.

The president and many democrats disagree, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be persuaded to move to more rational gun policy. Rational gun control HAS been established in the past and it will be needed even more so in the future.

[hack89]

183. And of course you can point out the case law that supports this?

perhaps some legal scholars that agree that the Bill of Rights grants legislative powers to Congress?

If you can then I will consider your argument. Deal?

[EOTE]

188. There's nothing to consider.

You seem to be under the impression that the federal government is unable to regulate firearms. They already do. There's nothing in the constitution preventing them from doing more, just lack of will. There were people like you screaming about how nothing could be done to regulate machine guns as well. They were wrong, just like every idiotic, conservative idea for the pass few centuries, but that didn't keep them from screaming.

[hack89]

192. So the 2A gives Congress the power to pass any gun law they want.

Ok. If you say so.

[EOTE]

194. So, the 2A gives anyone the right to own any arm they see fit.

Ok. If you say so.

[hack89]

195. No - the 2A can be restricted. Didn't you read Heller?

the question is who can do the restricting. There are state issues and there are federal issues. Intrastate gun sales are a state issue.

[EOTE]

196. So, it can be restricted, but not to the point where we say they can't be sold to violent felons.

Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

[hack89]

197. It is against the law to sell guns to violent felons.

in no state in the union is it legal.

[EOTE]

198. And do you HONESTLY think that prevents them from being sold in states where there are no background

checks for private sales? I know the gun nutters are good at playing obtuse, but they truly can't be THAT stupid.

[hack89]

208. That is not the issue at hand

the question is not whether we can require background checks on all gun purchases. It is whether or not the Congress has the constitutional power to regulate intrastate private sales.

That is what we are talking about.

You think the 2A allows Congress to write any gun law they want. It is patently not true. If it was, you would be able to show me legal presence or a legal dissertation that agrees with you. You cannot.

[EOTE]

211. They had the ability to regulate SOME firearms.

Your ilk was saying the same thing then. Your constitutional right to own a machine gun CAN'T be infringed. The same thing could be done with a universal background checks law. You think there was something innate about .50 cals and machine guns that made them regulatable? It was decided that they simply posed too great a threat for anyone to just be able to grab one. It's high past time that we decided that random crazies having access to any firearm they want simply can't be tolerated.

[hack89]

213. The Congress used their power of taxation to regulate automatic weapons

we have gone over this before.

Congress does not have these amorphous powers that allows them to do what they want to do. They can only do what the Constitution allows them to do.

You keep coming back to automatic weapons. OK then - show me how Congress can use their powers of taxation to write a law requiring UBCs for private intrastate gun sales.

If you cannot ground your answer in a specific provision of the Constitution then you have no solution.

[EOTE]

214. Automatic weapons and a number of other weapons.

At the time, what powers did congress possess that allowed them to regulate automatic weapons? Your same crowd would have said they didn't exist then, yet somehow we managed. Is there something inherent in automatic weapons that makes them taxable and semi-autos not?

[hack89]

215. Their power of taxation. Didn't you read what I wrote?

the question you need to answer is how that applies to UBCs for intrastate private sales.

You really to educate yourself on what the law regarding automatic weapons says.

[EOTE]

216. What is there to prevent another National Firearms Act?

I've asked this question or a variant of a number of times and you haven't come close to providing an answer. Why is it that the government has the ability to tax and regulate "gangster" weapons, but not other weapons? Are you going to even attempt to answer this question?

[hack89]

219. Because UBCs for intrastate private sales is not a federal taxation issue?

It is simple. Go read the NFA and its history. It is it explains all the constitutional issues they had to deal with.

[EOTE]

220. And why couldn't it be?

What is it innate in machine guns that made them a federal taxation issue? It was MADE one by act of congress and there's absolutely no reason it couldn't be done again.

[hack89]

223. Because the states have sovereignty that prevents it

do you really think Congress has the power to tax anything and any transaction in America that they wish? Do you have any clue how America works?

[EOTE]

225. But why didn't they have the sovereignty to prevent the regulation of machine guns?

What was inherently different from machine guns that allowed them to be regulated and semi-autos not? Your circular reasoning is utterly ludicrous. Firearms can't be regulated because of the 2nd amendment. But what about machine guns? Oh, they can be regulated because they can be taxed. Oh, but why can't other firearms be taxed? They can't be taxed because they're not machine guns. You haven't explained in the slightest as to why machine guns can be regulated but other weapons can't. You haven't even attempted to do so.

[hack89]

226. Because it was not an intrastate commerce issue.

The states have certain powers and states have others. There is a reason I keep saying "intrastate" over and over again. Do you understand what that word means?

[EOTE]

227. And there is absolutely no reason the same couldn't apply for all firearms.

And you haven't even attempted to explain why not. In 1934, you'd have been screaming just like now. Talking about everyone's inalienable right to own machine guns.

[hack89]

229. We are talking about transactions. That is the distinction that you refuse to grasp.

the federal government presently regulates all gun related transactions it legally can. Congress cannot regulate intrastate transactions. It is in Constitution.

[EOTE]

231. So you're telling me that congress can't regulate intrastate transactiopns in terms of machine gun

sales? That seems to be what you're saying. That there are states where any rando can walk in and buy a machine gun without regulation. You also seem to be suggesting that congress can't regulate the characteristics of those intrastate transactions. Both of which are bullshit.

Congress has outlawed a number of different types of weapons. They've also regulated the possession of a number of other different weapons. That this can't be done for other weapons is a fantasy that exists only in your mind and the minds of others in the NRA crowd.

"the federal government presently regulates all gun related transactions it legally can." Uh, it legally regulates those gun related transactions because of the National Firearms Act. There's no reason why we couldn't have another such act.

[hack89]

232. ok nt

[oldhippie]

199. This whole sub thread shows that .....

... you cannot have a meaningful discussion with someone who has no clue as to how the Federal system works.

The poster will not point out any case law that supports anything s/he is saying.

"I just want it the way I want it" only goes so far.

[Eleanors38]

245. You could affect state laws, too. If you had the support.

[EOTE]

246. You'd need to affect state laws in all the remaining states at once for that to be worth anything.

If it's not done at a federal level, people will just go to other states to get their guns.

[Eleanors38]

261. Less than 30 yrs ago, few states had "shall issue" CCW. Now, over 40...

...accomplished state-by-state.

[EOTE]

266. That's called regress. I suppose you'd prefer if it were unrestricted nation wide?

Once again, this is really not very hard to understand. Without federally mandated UBCs, the gun show loop hole remains open and deadly. This is not something that could be done state by state, because there will be a holdout of several of your "shall issue" states like Kansas, Florida, Kentucky etc. who will backwardly hold on to the fucked up practice of providing guns to felons and the mentally unstable. Those states will become the go to places for people who shouldn't own guns but want to get them. But then again, that's exactly what the gun nutters want.

[Eleanors38]

270. Re-read my post regarding the commerce clause...

If you have a cogent argument which would defeat the clause, present it.

Of 80,000,000+ gun-owners, how many would you consider "nutters?" Just a rough est.

[EOTE]

275. Probably at least half of them.

And the commerce clause is completely irrelevant. No one has even come close to explaining why standard firearms couldn't be treated like machine guns. Prior to the late 30's, there was nothing that allowed the government to regulate machine guns, yet somehow they managed. The nutters of their time ensured that something needed to be done and shocker, something was done. Just because the gun psychos are a good deal louder now doesn't mean that the same thing couldn't be done.

[NM_Birder]

277. I see you like calling people "gunnutters"..

"gun banning ding dongs" can never understand why indefensible gun banning argument, poorly worded and ignorantly splattered across public opinion never has the desired effect. Thus I can go and buy nearly any firearm I want at any time, the only inconvenience gun banning ding dongs have accomplished is that my hobbies are a little more expensive, they are annoying but ignorable.

Actually, gun banning ding dongs, INCREASE firearm ownership, INCREASE donations to firearm legislative activists, INCREASE interest in most firearm sports and all the while make zero progress toward any real positive change.

If gun banning ding dongs, would could step up to the level of responsibility that the 80 or so million of us "gunutters" hold, they would see that most all of us "gunutters" 100% support reasonable, effective, rational and responsible firearm legislation without infringing on my rights as a "firearm enthusiast". But they can't, because.................to gun banning ding dongs..........guns are bad, especially the scary black ones....M'kay.

[EOTE]

279. I see. So it's those calling for sensible regulation who are causing these mass murders.

And not the actual gun nuts going around murdering people on a daily basis. It's not surprising to me that wingnuts are incapable of taking responsibility for their actions. Seeing the monsters they've become can really be an unpleasant thing.

[NM_Birder]

280. if you drive a car, yet are unable to stop drunk drivers....

from mass slaughtering people on a daily basis your argument is that of a spoiled child. Crush your car and walk you hypocrite.

[EOTE]

283. Cars are strongly regulated.

And if you have enough infractions, your car will be taken from you. If there was a large segment of the population fighting for the right of repeat offender drunk drivers to own and drive cars, you might have a tiny bit of a point. But considering how large of a portion of the NRA and its lackeys is doing everything it can to stop universal background checks, your point is missed.

[NM_Birder]

285. your car is manufactured, advertised and sold

With a specific ability to break mandated speed limit laws. Your regulation argument is null. Unless you own a car that cannot exceed the mandated speed limit.

I know my point is missed, hypocricy clouds judgement of "truth talkers".

You say you and 80 million other drivers don't drive drunk and run over innocent children every day. I say if cars were banned (because the is mo constitutional right to own nor drive a car) then nobody would be murdered in vehicular chaos every....single...minute...of every....single....day.

Every bar has a parking lot, if you drive a car its as if you are murdering children. Same argument as with firearms, how does it feel ? Are you a vehicular murder approving lackey ?

[samsingh]

81. the regulations don't appear to be working

[hack89]

87. Pressure needs to be put on the states to require UBCs. nt

[Lizzie Poppet]

88. How so? Gun-related crime has been trending downward for years.

Not, mind you, that I don't support certain sensible additional regulations like universal background checks and mandatory secure storage for weapons. I most certainly do.

[samsingh]

264. people are getting killed with guns all over the place

[NickB79]

281. Gun deaths have been cut 50% in the past 30 years

But, as this article points out, very few people seem to realize that: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/05/07/181998015/rate-of-u-s-gun-violence-has-fallen-since-1993-study-says

"Firearm-related homicides dropped from 18,253 homicides in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011," according to a report by the federal , "and nonfatal firearm crimes dropped from 1.5 million victimizations in 1993 to 467,300 in 2011.

[samsingh]

284. that's no consolation to the people being killed with guns today

[DisgustipatedinCA]

71. It looks like a collection of some of the least able people on the planet

Seriously, it looks like a large inbreeding accident took place and the victims ended up at this gun show. But I don't like guns.

[samsingh]

83. yes it does

[samsingh]

80. a lot of dim witted people who don't care about innocent people being slaughtered.

[ileus]

182. scary guns and man killer ammo.

Can't believe what they're trying to get for that glock mag...that's just dumb.

[Mojorabbit]

262. I know right! nt

[Duckhunter935]

4. Article pushing an agenda

"These gun shows are particularly controversial because they allow individuals to buy guns from other individuals without going through background checks"

Yes that is technically true but any dealer by federal law must conduct background checks even at gun-shows and most tables are manned by an FFL dealer. So I buy a gun at any of those tables full of guns would require a background check.

You missed a photo, I do give them credit here.

When a sale is made, buyers needs to fill out paperwork and go through a background check.



They're warned against being "straw purchasers" — people that legally purchase a gun intent on giving it to someone who can't, like a convicted felon.



older, antique weapons that interest collectors.



Here are some others.

[longship]

56. Granted. But if one takes the high side, one must also admit the hind side.

That's where the politics on this issue disappears. Someplace between a hunting rifle and a thermonuclear bomb there is a line. Someplace between unrestricted access to purchase any weapon and no weapons for anybody there is a reasonable middle ground.

The gun shows seem to flaunt any demarcation (from the reportage). Many states seem to be willing to enable such things.

The only sensible solution for this highly emotional issue is for reasonable limits aligned along the premise that not everybody should be able to own such a destructive weapon as a firearm. And that there is a demarcation line between a BB gun and a thermonuclear weapon which reasonable people can agree on.

That's the way I think of these things.

My own opinion, fully automatic firearms should be licensed and very difficult to own, if at all. Collectors are fine, but they should be rare, and licensed as such.

CC should be fairly rare as well. Not many people are in such danger that they have to be armed. Paranoia is no justification.

There's room for negotiations here. But that's where I see things.

[Jenoch]

95. Your opinion on ownership of

full-auto firearms has been federal law for 79 years.

[samsingh]

84. the agenda is to safe lives from gun nut insanity

[aikoaiko]

5. Someone somewhere is legally selling someone a gun.

[BainsBane]

7. The handy thing about guns shows is that it is all legal

felons can buy to their hearts desire. Then we have the felons in waiting like the guy at the top in the homicidal tshirt.

[Duckhunter935]

8. He looks like my

grampa.

[BainsBane]

9. I am sorry to hear that

I am glad to say my grandfather spent his life saying lives as a neurologist rather than looking for ways to take them.

[Duckhunter935]

16. I am glad my grandpa

worked many years as a union tradesman and never killed anyone and also hunted for food during the fall. Think of him every time you use water or bathroom. Clean water and sanitary facilities saved many more lives.

[BainsBane]

17. So why did you choose to equate him with someone who is clearly homicidal?

[Duckhunter935]

19. I am glad you can diagnose over

the internet. I have a Bud shirt does that make me an alcoholic even though I rarely drink?

[BainsBane]

20. What does the shirt say?

I can read. I assumed you could too.

[Duckhunter935]

23. I can

Do I know if the guy wearing it will carry it out, no. He may be looking at antique firearms and his wife bought the shirt. Do not want to upset the wife. But I guess you know more of him than I do.

and if you look he is not even at a gun table

[Lee-Lee]

26. The shirt expresses a disdain for the police and their services- a sentiment held by most of DU

Just do a search for "police", nobody here likes or supports police either.

[BainsBane]

28. So the reaction to this tee shirt would be a perfect example

of the gun worshippers defending any and everything related to owning and using guns.

[Jenoch]

99. Actually, anyone defending the t-shirt

would be a perfect example of someone defending the 1st Amendment.

[Lee-Lee]

12. No, it is still illegal for felons to buy. And illegal to sell to them.

But that doesn't stop you from consistently misrepresenting what gun laws are in this country in almost every post you make about it. Either through blatant lies or the more subtle misrepresentation and hyperbole here.

"The handy thing about guns shows is that it is all legal felons can buy to their hearts desire" is a garbage statement that blatantly misrepresents the truth- like almost every post you make about guns seems to be. Almost all gun sales at shows go through dealers, and gun shows even hire and have unformed police working the doors. If you are a felon wanting a gun, you don't go buy at a place where there will be lots of police- you steal it or buy it on the black market.

You should really sit back and ask yourself why you have to engage is such behavior to argue your point. You have blatantly posted false info about gun laws before, and taken offense when I called you on it, and consistently engage in these more subtle misrepresentations of the truth and exaggerations like this one.

If your point not strong enough that you can make it in an honest, straightforward argument, not engaging in the kind of garbage post like this that sounds more like the crap right wingers spew- maybe you really don't have a very strong point.

[BainsBane]

265. As usual, you ignore the reality of private gun sales

in favor of a transparent pretense that the so called law actually governs everything that goes on at gun sales. Moreover, you become enraged that others actual care about the reality of gun sales rather than the theoretical law gun lobby propagandists pretend is controlling.

Private sellers operate at gun shows. They don't do background checks. They are not required by law to do background checks. The pro-2A host of the Gungeon admits that in this very sub thread. But you aren't concerned with reality. You become enraged when people talk about the world as it is. Felons, illegal arms traffickers, and drug traffickers get steady access to arms through gun shows. The ATF has shown that, as have any number of other sources.

You instead focus on your mindless contention that the "law" is all anyone needs to know. Yeah, it's illegal for felons to buy guns? So fucking what? The laws are ignored, and since private sellers aren't required to do background checks, it's easy to pretend a buyer isn't a felon and/or running arms into Mexico. The reason the law isn't enforced is because of shills for the gun lobby who devote themselves to the spreading propaganda, pretending the laws on paper are adequate and unlicensed and untracked sales are not commonplace. They are common because that is how the merchants of death and their lackeys want them. They are common because gun reactionaries tirelessly work to deceive the public by pretending some abstract law that doesn't even effectively control private sellers means anything. They work day in and day out to deceive the public in the interests of the profits for Murder Inc.

So no, I will not sell my soul to the gun lobby. You and Wayne LaPierre will never, even when hell freezes over, like anything I have to say. I wear that as a badge of honor. I will always value the public good and human rights over gun lobby profits. I'm a human being with a conscience. Deal with it. This is a Democratic site and I have a right to support the Democratic Party on guns. I am not interested in your pro-gun lobby view of the world. I can log onto the NRA to see that anytime without the vitriol that characterizes your posts.

So just assume everything I saw will piss you off. As long as you sign on to Democratic Underground you are going to be faced with the horror of running into Democrats who don't stump for Murder Inc. Deal with it. You can save yourself the horror of having to be exposed to people who actually care more about human life than gun industry profits by not reading our posts. In fact, it is in your best interests to leave me alone entirely. That means I expect you will not respond to this or any future posts of mine.

remdi95

[pintobean]

268. That is hilarious.

Your usual over-the-top framing is always amusing, but this:

In fact, it is in your best interests to leave me alone entirely. That means I expect you will not respond to this or any future posts of mine.

made me laugh out loud.

[NickB79]

282. Perhaps things have changed since 2001

But the Bureau of Justice Statistics puts gun shows WAAAAAY down on the list of where criminals obtain firearms: http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

[Tommy_Carcetti]

24. Let's hope it's not James Holmes, Jared Loughner, Sueng Hui Cho or Aaron Alexis. nt

[Lizzie Poppet]

93. Thus the need for universal background checks...

...with better access to mental health records.

[BainsBane]

6. That tee shirt says it all

Florida, where seniors go to kill.

[pintobean]

11. Yeah, there's a shoot-out every night in the retirement communities.

Last edited Wed Sep 25, 2013, 08:49 AM - Edit history (2)

[HockeyMom]

33. My 72 year old neighbor

could have used that against his 68 year old WIFE who shot him dead in his wheelchair, after shooting up their house too. Forget against intruders. Protect yourself against your FAMILY!!!!

[jpak]

13. I would like to invent a giant flying mechanic hand

That could swoop down and grab it all.

Yup

[morningfog]

15. I see paranoid rednecks.

[CTyankee]

32. wow, geezer in first photo needs either to do some arm workouts or wear a little longer sleeve...

and I'M a geezer myself! I have the same problem and wouldn't be caught dead wearing so short a sleeve...LOL

[Turbineguy]

35. A nice place for Americans itching

to shoot other Americans.

[spin]

150. Possibly. But if so, I find it strange that gun violence in Florida is now at the lowest levels ...

Last edited Wed Sep 25, 2013, 12:38 PM - Edit history (1)

on record.

Florida firearm violence hits record low; concealed gun permits up
Debate continues over relationship between guns and crime

By JACOB CARPENTER
Posted January 6, 2013 at 5:15 a.m.

In the so-called Gunshine State, home to the most gun permits in the country, firearm violence has fallen to the lowest point on record.

As state and national legislators consider gun control laws in the wake of last month's Connecticut school shooting, Florida finds itself in a gun violence depression. The Firearm-involved violent crime rate has dropped 33 percent between 2007 and 2011, while the number of issued concealed weapons permits rose nearly 90 percent during that time, state records show.
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2013/jan/06/fla-firearm-violence-hits-record-low/

The reality is that only a few of these firearm will ever be used to injure another person but instead will be used for hunting, target shooting or just exist as "safe queens."

[Turbineguy]

174. It would do that yes.

It also make those who are not committing crimes afraid to go out. So the fear is working.

[spin]

228. I live in Florida and I don't know anyone who is afraid to go out. ...

That's possibly because all violent crime in the state has fallen dramatically in recent years.

Violent Crime for Florida, 1992 - 2012

Violent crime includes Murder, Forcible Sex Offenses, Robbery, and Aggravated Assault. From 1992 to 2012, Florida experienced a decrease in the number of reported Violent offenses, down 41.7 percent from 161,137 reported offenses in 1992 to 93,965 in 2012. The overall Violent crime rate has had a significant decrease of 59.0 percent from 1,200.3 offenses per 100,000 population in 1992 to 492.6 in 2012. Florida's population increased 42.1 percent during the period.
http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/FSAC/Menu/Crime-Trends/Violent-Crime.aspx

[Turbineguy]

235. Actually

I'm not overly worried about "crime". I've walked around in some of the tougher cities in the world without any problems. I live in the Northwest, but work in south Florida. Under the stand your ground laws, if you get caught in the middle of a gunfight, you are on your own as far as recourse goes. Also, I don't get paid for getting shot. In addition while there I am outside my preferred health providers. The gunhuggers don't seem to give a fuck about pain and suffering of people who get shot as it all seems to be part of the wonderful freedoms we have here.

Then there are the very real dangers of driving a car. South Florida is home to arguably the worst drivers on the planet.

On balance, I prefer to stay in at night.

[spin]

237. I lived in a fairly bad neighborhood in Tampa for many years. ...

I never had any problems. In general if you practice situational awareness and don't do stupid things like go to an outdoor ATM at 2AM, you should have little to fear.

I understand that some areas of South Florida are very dangerous but I have never spend any time on the east coast of that region. The west coast of Florida where Ft Myers and Naples are located seemed nice to me when I used to visit my daughter in that region.

The best way to survive a gunfight to is not to be in one. The best way to avoid getting shot by a person with a concealed weapons permit is to not attack him with the intention of putting him in a hospital or six feet under. Over a million Florida residents currently have a concealed weapons permit. The media would have you believe that "stand your ground" shootings are a daily event in Florida but this is false. The "Stand Your Ground" law has been in effect since 2005 but an in depth report by the Tampa Bay Times identified slightly more than 200 "stand your ground" cases in the 8 years the law has been in effect. I recommend this interactive report as it allows you to examine individual cases and break down these cases in many different ways. http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/

[Eleanors38]

248. "Afraid to go out?" Florida? A sub-tropical tourist state?

[krispos42]

48. And again... factual FAIL

These gun shows are particularly controversial because they allow individuals to buy guns from other individuals without going through background checks.

False.

The existence of a gun show is completely independent of private buyers purchasing from private sellers.

Gun shows are not special zones where what is usually illegal is legal, which is what the article expressly claims.

I can legally buy a gun from a private seller regardless of geographic location, as long as we are both residents of the same state. No background check will be done (at least as required by Federal law; states can vary).

This canard stems from the continuously-repeated "gun show loophole" talking-point.



So you can claim that gun shows "facilitate" criminals, because they can put prohibited persons in close contact with a variety of private sellers to purchase guns. That's fine.

But either the news source or the OPer is factually incorrect with the highlighted line, and is merely repeating an inflammatory falsehood.

[upaloopa]

92. I have been to gun shows. People with a gun to sell

show up with said gun because the potential that a buyer for it showing up is good. There is the exchange of money for said gun and no questions are asked, no records are kept.

[rdharma]

102. Bingo! But the gun huggers pretend like they are unaware of that fact. n/t

[upaloopa]

104. There is good and bad everywhere.

There are good guys with guns. Unfortunately there are a lot of bad guys with guns. I wish we could get to a reasonable place but extremes on both sides preclude this I think.

[krispos42]

108. And that exact same transaction could be done in a McDonald's parking lot...

...after reading an ad on armslist.com or the local newspaper. And it would be just as legal.


Now, granted, you can argue that gun shows (gatherings of independent sellers) can facilitate private sellers (and thus, potentially, sales to criminals) by making access to sellers easier.

But this is a different topic.


For what it's worth, I recently addressed this in an OP of mine, here:

A proposal for universal background checks and reducing arms trafficking

Support or opposition discussion is appreciated.

[rdharma]

115. Sure. But it draws more attention...... and the selection is limited. nt

BTW - Why are you coming over to GD to discuss gun issues? Can't you find anybody to disagree with over in the RKBA group since you banned everybody with opposing views? Odd that, eh?

[pintobean]

123. Gun Control & RKBA group - 2 blocked members

Gun Control Reform Activism group - 25 blocked members

[rdharma]

128. Yes. The RKBA group is just filled with those of diverse opinions!

[pintobean]

131. The numbers speak for themselves

as to which of the two groups has diverse opinions.

About rdharma
Statistics and Information
Account status: Active
Member since: Sun Feb 3, 2013, 12:59 PM
Number of posts: 4,033
Number of posts, last 90 days: 1490
Favorite forum: General Discussion, 705 posts in the last 90 days (47% of total posts)
Favorite group: Gun Control & RKBA, 363 posts in the last 90 days (24% of total posts)

[rdharma]

134. I guess you boys get tired of the "echo chamber".

I bet that's why you're over here on GD posting your gun stuff.

Am I right?

[hack89]

127. Aren't you a regular of castle Bansalot?

how many banned members does that particular group have? 25?

[krispos42]

132. You meant the massive list of 2 members?

Compare to the 25 over at GCRA?

And I'm not the one allowing general gun threads in GD; that's the Admins.

[Robb]

135. 186 people have trashed your forum.

You must be so proud.

[krispos42]

142. And it's still 3x busier than yours.

Ouch.

[Robb]

145. I know it hurts to see all your right-wing gun buddies getting banned.

Hang in there.

[krispos42]

151. I love how...

...you define me completely by my opinion on guns.

I was in the playground yesterday at my kid's elementary school, talking about how now that the Boy Scouts have crawled into the late-20th-century on gay issues I would let my kid join, and the other two mothers were in complete accord with me.

I was in Wal-Mart two months ago, looking for .22 ammo in the sporting goods section, and a guy who was open-carrying a pistol (the horror!) came down the aisle looking at stuff with his girlfriend. I made a passing comment about the scarcity of ammunition, we talked for a little bit, he gave me a pamphlet on open-carry in Connecticut, we talked more, and I wound up giving him a lecture on the evils of globalization and Reaganomics. He got a bit glassy-eyed, but nodded at the appropriate times.

I was in my 19th Century European history class last night, and the professor spend a few minutes on how the Republicans are cutting food stamps (in comparison to Napoleon's government ending price-controls in France 200 years ago). He was very upset at the immorality of this action. I raised my hand and made the point that ¾ of the recipients were elderly or disabled (thanks to EarlG's infographic) and, even if jobs were plentiful, COULD NOT work.

The discussion in the class wandered a bit, and while he was talking about democracy and the Teabagger-induced dysfunction in Washington, I raised my hand again and asked "with Citizen's United and corporate money and lobbyists flowing unchecked into Washington, how long can we call ourselves a democracy?"


But if it makes you feel better to simply think of me as a RW troll, you can go right ahead and do so. Your loss, not mine.


BTW, Ted Cruz finally shut his yap.

[Robb]

157. You are not a RW troll.

[Eleanors38]

249. He thinks I am.

[krispos42]

251. Well, these discussions can lead to a narrow focus.

So it goes. :-/

[Eleanors38]

256. You post here, we post here.

[upaloopa]

210. It's not a different topic

Gun shows make it easier to sell guns without a background check you said so yourself

[krispos42]

230. Illegal versus convenience

The existence of a gun show does not "allow" sales to people without background checks. Background checks are only performed by licensed gun dealers.

Under all circumstances, including gun shows.

It is not illegal for a private seller to sell to a private buyer, including at a gun show.


Under my proposal, it would be, though.

I'm not against universal background checks as a concept. I am against the ongoing misperception that at gun shows, all of a sudden, gun laws don't exist.

[upaloopa]

234. No body is talking about what is legal or not

Guns are sold with no background check is the point.
on edit:
say I have a record for beating up my wife
now she really pissed me off and I want to shoot her and make it look like a break in
I can't buy a gun in my state because of my record
I go to a gun show where i figure someone in the parking lot has one I can buy.

[krispos42]

250. The OP is, which was what I was trying to correct.

The OPer is saying that, if gun shows were no longer allowed, then buying guns without a background check would no longer be allowed either, and that's incorrect.


The internet has made gun shows far from the only means of buying a gun private-to-private. Check out armslist.com.

[upaloopa]

253. OK got it

[krispos42]

254. I appreciate our conversation

I rarely get success; typically civility goes before clarity comes.

[upaloopa]

255. we should remain respectful to one another

Hope to talk to you in the future

[sir pball]

163. I always sell mine via the paper

I can put the ad up online and sit on my ass waiting for somebody to call me, then just drive to the closest dealer to do the sale, with a check and recorded on ATF paperwork of course.

And, were I a felon, I wouldn't go looking at a gun show. Sure, there are quite a few private sellers there as well, but 1. the selection in the paper is usually better and 2. there's usually at least a few cops at a show, no such worries with a deal done in a home or parking lot.

There isn't a "gun show loophole" - there is an "unregulated private sales shitshow" though.

[rdharma]

263. I guess felons know where to get their guns better than you.

Cops at the shows? Really? Ones who check the legal status of buyers? Keep diggin'!

[Lizzie Poppet]

190. A lot of us shooting enthusiasts support universal background checks.

I don't want transactions like that to be legal, either. People will likely still engage in them, but I still want them to be illegal, which would create ramifications for the seller who broke the law if the weapons was subsequently used in a crime by a person who had no right to buy the gun.

[BainsBane]

122. here's the deal

Gun shows have lots of guns. They have private sellers who sell to anyone. Because there are lots of guns and private sellers selling lots of guns without background checks, presto wizzo guns end up in the hands of felons, arms runners, and narcotrafficantes.

You see the difference between the gun show and just meeting the guy in the Walmart parking lot is there are lots more guys like him and lots more guns. See how that works?

[krispos42]

130. In my experience there are not "lots" of private sellers;

It's more of convention of area licensed dealers. And often what they're selling are sporting guns, not the preferred hardware of the career criminal. But my experience was in South Dakota.

Yeah, you can argue that gun shows facilitate private transfers. That's fine, and it's a valid point, but that's not what I'm correcting.

Incidently, I've come up with a proposal that I trust would garner your support.

A proposal for universal background checks and reducing arms trafficking

[BainsBane]

146. Yeah, SD is very underpopulated

I would guess, though I have no personal experience, that border area gun shows might be quite different.

I bookmarked your thread and look forward to reading it. Thanks for letting me know.

[krispos42]

156. Well, they still filled a convention hall.

Basically, ever gun dealer within a hundred mile radius comes to buy and sell, so it was busy.

I imagine in the more populous states, there would be one or more every weekend. South Dakota seemed to have on every couple of months.

[BainsBane]

165. I'm not far from you, in MN

[krispos42]

166. I'm in Connecticut, now

Used to live in South Dakota, then in Minnesota. In Apple Valley, and Cambridge.

[BainsBane]

168. that's right. I remember now.

[Jenoch]

236. I don't know how many gun shows you have been to.

I have been to many over the years. There really are not that many private sellers at the gun shows in Minnesota. All of the people with tables are FFL holders. You occasionally see a guy with a shotgun or rifle on their shoulder with a for sale sign on it, but I have yet to see anyone with a handgun in their hand with a for sale sign on it.

I don't go to as many gun shows as I used to. I used to go with my brother and a gun collector friend of his, but they would want to look at every gun and talk to every dealer for at least 15 minutes. My eyes would glass over after just over an hour at those shows, depending on how big it is.

Even in private sales, the seller is supposed to ask the buyer if they are legally able to purchase the gun. If they lie, that is a felony.

Yes, I'm one of those who support UBC. All of my elected representatives are also in support of UBC. I would like to see the bill before I donate any money in support of such a law.

[GalaxyHunter]

67. haha I love the Image Warning in the title.

like we are looking at someone blown into pieces!!


haha, carry on with your distaste for "gun nutters"

[Democracyinkind]

101. I think you misunderstood the intent of that warning. nt.

[GalaxyHunter]

107. I don't think so...

[Democracyinkind]

111. It's a common warning in threads with pics since some people still use dialups.

I have never seen a "watch out, gun picture"- warning, though.

[GalaxyHunter]

117. ohhh.. is that what this is all about...

[Democracyinkind]

120. Probability would suggest so.

Not that you seem to care beyond apparently finding it hilarious... (?)

[GalaxyHunter]

121. laughter all day keeps the doctor away!!!

[Democracyinkind]

125. I'm glad to have offered you a habitat for hilarity. nt

[GalaxyHunter]

126. you're too kind!

[xchrom]

113. You're wrong. People complain about image heavy threads

Because their computers can't handle them.
They have asked to be warned so they don't click on them.

Now beyond that...the images and what they represent are disgusting.

[GalaxyHunter]

118. hahahahahaha

[gopiscrap]

76. This shit needs to be shut down

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. So the place is clearner

But not unlike the Bakara market in Somalia. Sorry, but that is what this reminds me off increasingly.

[GalaxyHunter]

89. your concern is noted.

[nadinbrzezinski]

91. Of course it is, gunnies hate the comparison

but it is on point.

[GalaxyHunter]

94. good thing our streets don't look the same!!

[nadinbrzezinski]

106. And your point? The comparison was to the guns

and just the guns, aka the weapons market, but thanks for your concern. You my friend are in denial as to why this is a problem, not me. And why people around the world shake their heads. We are not exceptional, sorry to bust that bubble. But hey, thanks for your concern.

[GalaxyHunter]

110. I get it. You hate gun.

blah blah blah.

[nadinbrzezinski]

112. And you would be so wrong it is not funny

but I think not only are we done, but you can join your pals in the gun wing of the ignore list.

Good buy

[GalaxyHunter]

116. is that a compliment?

[samsingh]

78. disgusting sight - all harginers of death

[unhappycamper]

82. Fuck the small stuff.

I wants a Davy Crockett Rocket.




Davy Crockett was a recoilless rifle on a tripod for firing the M388 atomic round

Read all about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_device%29

[samsingh]

85. why stop there - that's kid stuff

a fully armed f16 is the only way to travel.

[otohara]

138. Gross & Frightening

We don't go out much anymore knowing there's so many armed freaks out there.

[Robb]

140. Just sat on a jury for this OP, accused of being "gun porn."

Obviously we're all still here.

[Frankie the Bird]

189. What juror # were you?

I also sat on the jury for it.

[Iggo]

206. Me, too.

[Demo_Chris]

143. From the title I expected something dramatic...

All I see are some guns.

[Lizzie Poppet]

153. But don't you know? Those are EVIL!!

[Demo_Chris]

162. Of course, as are all gun owners and the indifferent like me. nt

[ileus]

149. I'd like to pick up a M&P9 or 40.

and if 556 ever gets back to a normal price I need a few thousand to replenish what we've shot this summer.

[Rex]

154. LOL! "We don't call 911." What a line of bullshit.

[Lizzie Poppet]

161. Yep. That shirt is industrial-strength stupid.

I'm not necessarily suggesting people rely solely on 911 ("when seconds count, the police are only minutes away!&quot , but in situations of home intruders and suchlike, calling 911 should be anyone's first move. Using deadly force is any ethical person's last resort, not something to celebrate.

[Rex]

171. Thank you

for saying it better then I ever could! It reminds me of a rap group from the 1980s (maybe 90s) that wrote a song, 'fuck the police' ONLY to find much need of said police a few weeks later! Must have been incredibly embarrassing for them.

[Lizzie Poppet]

186. Oh, wow!

I think that was 2 Live Crew...and I didn't realize something like that happened. Too funny!

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

173. They call it to hurl racist epithets and get their latest kill on record

Fucking sociopaths.

[Rex]

178. If a 'stranger' was walking in their yard

they would have a gun in one hand and a phone (calling 911) in the other. The shirt is part of their Ramboism culture, just like hollywood - fake and poor acting.

[krispos42]

180. Yeah.

It's a dumbass mentality.

I subscribe to a couple of gun magazines, and they of course have some articles on self-defense. No author that I've read is so callous and flippant about the issue. On the contrary, the importance of situational awareness and legal repercussions are stressed.

No serious person subscribes to this dumbass mentality.

[Rex]

181. If that is their mentality, then 'responsible gun owner'

doesn't really sound right. Of course I believe it is all bluster and hype from the people at the gun shows. Most of them probably have 911 on speed dial.

[rrneck]

169. Nobody else has said it yet, so I will,

Zimmerman called 911!
Zimmerman called 911!
Zimmerman called 911!

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

175. I wonder if any black people showed up?

I bet they lock the doors and dive under the tables and shut the lights off when that happens.

[madville]

257. I've seen plenty of black people at gun shows

Many are gun owners and enthusiasts just like anyone else.

[leveymg]

179. Gee. Everything you might need (except Sarin) to commit a war crime.

The USA. It was a nice country.

[Arugula Latte]

207. This crap makes me cringe that I am an American.

[madrchsod]

221. if i had somewhere to shoot....

i`d take the matt black m1 looking rifle. do`t like handguns and i don't care about the other rifles.

[Jefferson23]

233. Guns for everyone! GUN OWNERSIP and FIREARM-RELATED DEATHS

Countries with lower gun ownership are safer than those with higher gun ownership, reports The American Journal of Medicine

http://www.elsevier.com/connect/guns-do-not-make-a-nation-safer-say-doctors-in-new-study



Maybe the guy in the photo is LaPierre's Dad or the Dad, LaPierre always wished for.


K&R

[gopiscrap]

239. welcome to DU

[Jefferson23]

252. Enjoy your time on DU. n/t

[Eleanors38]

247. Xchrom. That "Gunshine State" slogan wielded by the controller/banners:

Beyond some feel-good experiences in small enclaves here and on other sites, do you think it won over any "hearts & minds?" Think the man wearing the shirt took it to heart?

[madinmaryland]

271. Wow! The folks over in the gungeon must be seriously getting off by this display of gun porn.

Wonder who the gungeoneer is shown in the first picture.

[Warren DeMontague]

273. ....A bag of pot?

Ha! Ha! No, that would be ridiculous!!! That shit is dangerous!!!!