so sorry, I must have been looking at a different item when responding, but I still see the gun-show loophole as a significant problem.

We HAVE "common sense" regulation.
 

In historical context the reference to "a well regulated militia" was understood to mean a well equipped militia. That's why people could keep and bear their own firearms. There was no provision for an armory full of firearms from which the militia could draw when needed.

The firearms that the citizens were authorized to own were the current weapons of war. The firearms keep up with the times. Contemporary writings by the Founding Fathers clearly demonstrate that the people were authorized to keep and bear arms to protect themselves from their own government if it should become tyrannical.

Virtually any rifle larger than a .22 rim fire, and many pistols, fire rounds capable of piercing the bullet resistant vests that are worn by most law enforcement officers. If you advocate forbidding private ownership of all those rifles, you end most hunting.

I value your 20 years as a paramedic/firefighter, but in my 40 years in law enforcement I also have rendered life saving attention to victims of gunshot, car crashes, people overcome in fires, and others in distress. And, I always arrived on the scene before the firefighters. You are not entitled to claim the moral high ground of compassion just because of your service.

You characterize my point of view as confrontational. I believe it is actually a realistic assessment of the facts. In virtually every high profile mass shooting since the Columbine High School incident there have been proposals for new "gun control" legislation, and none of those proposals would have corrected the situations that led to the shootings.

You keep calling for a discussion of sensible gun control laws. We are having it. You have made a couple of suggestions that I have pointed out are already the law of the land. You simply don't like what I have to say.

Carl in Tampa

.

Not really a Gun Show issue.
 

It is actually not a "Gun Show loophole" so much as it is a "Private sale" loophole. It became characterized as a Gun Show loophole because so many private sales were being made at gun show venues, where complete strangers met to buy and sell guns.

Federal law can regulate "businesses" engaged in interstate commerce. Interestingly, the federal government has never settled on a specific number of gun sales at a gun show, or in a particular period of time, which would trigger the requirement for a person to have a Federal Firearms license.

Regulation of private in-state sales is more problematic, and is best addressed by the individual states. The residents of different states have different views.

Carl in Tampa

.

You are absolutely right, Carl. I have been to many gun shows and ALWAYS had to fill out background paperwork to purchase a new weapon. EXCEPT if I had a CCW where there was already an extensive background check on file.

When someone commits a crime using a gun, there are those that insist that we need new gun laws. When someone runs through a crowd in a car or truck, should we make new traffic laws? We have laws.

The private sale law also only applies to the transfer of a firearm between family members. Private sellers are also supposed to do background checks.

The fact is that we have ATF agents at gun shows trying to crack down on private sales because they are not legal.

It's interesting that you mention cars. Over 40,000 in the US were killed in car accidents last year while 11,000 were killed by guns. I heard a woman on television say that we need to pass whatever laws we can even if it were only to save one life. So should we pass more automobile laws?

About 13,000 people were killed as the result of drunk drivers. Do we need to make more laws against drunk driving?

Most people would say no to these questions. The answer is usually, we need to better enforce the laws that we have. I would argue the same thing for guns and gun laws.

More laws won't prevent more deaths. LAWS DON'T PREVENT CRIMES.

We have laws against drunk driving and 13,000 people were killed by drunk drivers. People break the laws. People commit crimes. If all laws were followed, very few people would be killed by a gun. People who commit gun crimes are already breaking several laws.

So how is making it more difficult for, good responsible, law-abiding citizens to obtain guns going to help this problem?

What we need to do is enforce the gun laws that we already have. We need stiffer penalties for people who commit crimes with guns. But even that is not going to prevent people like the LV shooter from acting. He went into this hoping to die. How do you defend yourself against someone who wants to die? They are like the Japanese Kamikaze pilots. Threats do not deter them and that is all that laws do. They present the threat of going to jail or being put to death.

They regulate "private" car sales....and do so effectively.

Hmmmm....idiots are not limited to menopausal women.

Try reading some of the articles you are posting links for...Why don't you suggest we don't "jump all over" the numerous things we disagree on??

You know nothing about guns or the sales of guns. You just keep google searching links to post, you don't even take the time to read them, because they have nothing to do with your erroneous claims...you are an idiot PERIOD!

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You misunderstand it...they wanted the PEOPLE to be the militia. They wanted NO standing Army. They wanted citizen soldiers. "ARMS" means EVERYTHING an Army would have...the people would have. They wanted the people to be "well organized" in their local militia. You see...there wasn't supposed to a a federal "Army" for anyone to have to fight to change the government when it inevitably became too tyrannical...like it is now.

The difference between a citizen and a slave? A citizen can defend himself and his property.

What stops people from driving into a crowd? Nothing. And you're starting to see it. Ban one thing and another takes its place.

IF you were in a diverse area...you know then that MINORITIES are a FAR larger problem than these lone crazy white people. The percentage is...90% of killings ARE done by minorities.

Exactly...the people were to form well regulated local militias who would be equipped with "arms"...everything an Army would have. They were meant to be defensive in nature.

They WANT us to be slaves and not citizens...THEY want to call ALL the shots.

Minorities are responsible for 90% of shootings and killings. Ban THEM from having guns. Would you let your dog play with guns? A chimp? Well then...why do we let another species play with them?

You have a RIGHT to bear arms...that is why the regulation is at a minimum. Are ALL swap meets regulated? You can buy bows and arrows, knives, axes, all kinds of things that can harm...without regulation.

Minorities, the inner city thugs who commit 90% of the crime and killing...don't go to gun shows to buy their weapons. They get stolen guns from their fellow thugs.

You CAN'T stop someone who is determined.

For the tax money. If guns sold for multiple $ thousands...they'd be all over it.

Besides...owning a car isn't in the Constitution as a right.

Purchasing a car is not a Constitutional Right.

Proof?
All the immigration laws did not/do not /has not/ will not prevent illegal entry to the USA....proven every single day.

An intelligent conversation about guns will never happen
if certain liberal Democrats are involved.
A lot them shoot their mouth off half cocked! :blahblahblah::blahblahblah:

They are afraid that they might be shot by Joe Citizen when they are breaking into his business during a protest. They are real good at protesting guns and protesting COPs shooting criminal thugs. Their "intelligent conversation" consists of rehashing laws already in existence. But, they will also defend Obama's Fast and Furious gun program.

One would think an easy bi-partisan action would be to outlaw bump stock and have manufacturers modify their product to not accommodate the modification.
And of course outlaw the kit to make the modification.
Seems like an easy opportunity to show an action being taken.

Wow, amazing! First incident of bump stock killing and this is your answer for crime and killing. I have done the same exact thing with a large rubber band and you think that making a law will keep this from happening again? Hey, NEWS FLASH, he had bomb making material and could have blown up the whole hotel if he wished. If he didn't have a gun, he would have. Is there any doubt?

No, the answer is to prosecute every little gun related crime like President Ford wanted to do. Give an ADDITIONAL five years to anyone using a gun in the commission of a crime. Will that stop this kind of killing? NOPE. Nothing would have stopped it. You cannot regulate mental illness. And many mentally ill are functioning in society. There is NO absolute solution for violent behavior, other than keeping everyone drugged.

According to PEW, there are now half the gun related deaths than in 1993. AND there is twice the amount of guns owned as about that same period. Does it mean anything? Probably not, but it is an interesting question.

That actually makes too much sense...so it will never fly.

The extreme gun nuts will scream at the NRA..."you're acquiescing on my right to bear arms!" :ohdear:

Typically, those that do not understand guns, other than they go BOOM, will jump on any bandwagon, just to be doing something. Hysteria is predominant on the left.

One incident of this modification and we must have a law related to it. Like I said above, I can do it with a large rubber band so go ahead and waste time making new impotent laws. Laws do not matter to the left anyway. Laws infringe on their rights.

Thank you for proving me correct. :thumbup:

And so darned quickly at that. :ho:



Deepest Sincere Wishes: :wave:

You have NEVER been RIGHT. You are a libtard and they are ALWAYS left and wrong. What a dumb@ss!

Corrections.
 

Your first three assertions are quite simply not correct.

1. Florida has no law generally requiring a background check for a Private Firearm Sale In Florida or on the purchaser of a firearm when the seller is not a licensed dealer.

2. Perhaps you come from a state where private sales of firearms can only be accomplished between family members, but that is not the case in Florida.

3. The ATF agents at gun shows are not there because private sales are illegal, but rather because they are looking for sellers who are pretending to only be doing a small volume of private sales when they are actually selling in numbers that should require that they have a Federal Firearms License.

Carl in Tampa

.

Attachment 71905

use facts, not opinions

A well regulated militia is.....so regulate!

Attachment 71906

Attachment 71907

Attachment 71908

Attachment 71909

Gun show loophole faq
 

Please provide verifiable proof of that statement......




Attachment 71910


Again, Please provide verifiable proof of that statement......

More drunk drivers have been arrested, and taken off the road because of laws. No law will exact a universal solution because dirtbags break the laws, and morons defend those who break the laws (like the above statement). And, since more Americans have been killed by gun violence in the past 3 years than ALL of the Americans who died in the Vietnam War, we should look at the fact that the present laws are inadequate, not being enforced, or have too many loopholes to be effective.

GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE FAQ:Gun Show Loophole FAQ - The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

Minorities do 90% of the killing in America. Whites have gone fro 90% to 49%...minorities have gone from 10% to 51%...THAT is the reason gun related deaths are rising.

Local militias are made to look like a bunch of KKK wackos.

You mean doing noting when minorities kill more and more each year? How many killings in the black parts of Chicago already this year?

And they ALSO specified...ARMS...meaning ALL weaponry. You miss the whole point of the 2nd amendment...WE the people are supposed to be the "Army". WE are supposed to be organized into local militias.

WHY do they let sub-humans buy/have guns? THEY do 90% of the killing. These 60 people are a holiday weekend of killing in Chicago's black areas.

You expected someone with a gun to be in his room with him?

Freedom is messy. That's the way it is. If you want the ultimate in security...stay home.

A couple of points regarding this thread:

How can we have an "intelligent conversation regarding guns" when it seems that at least half those involved know NOTHING about guns? Isn't "intelligence" supposed to be synonymous with knowledge?

Another point is that the gun related death rate has gone down to half of what it was in 1993 and yet the gun ownership in America has doubled. Figure that one out.

Also something to consider: OVER half the gun related deaths are suicides.

Already mentioned: What law would you have created that would have stopped any of the past mass shootings?

We do not have a program like the "Minority Report" movie. We cannot predict a crime and we cannot stop a crime before it happens based solely on a theory. In most cases, you cannot arrest a person until he commits a crime. A crazy can purchase a gun with the intent to commit a crime with it, and in most cases you cannot do a thing about it. Some folks seem to be perfectly stable for decades and then something just sets them off and they start a killing spree. That's life. Look at road rage as an example.

Sure, you can argue some of the points I made, but the reality is that you cannot eliminate crime. It is human nature. You can make deterrents or put obstacles in the way, but you cannot stop some crime from happening.

Of course, you can always drug everyone into submission. That might work. I think that the CIA had some study on that at one time.

When ever there is a mass shooting, the left jumps in there with the ban guns demand. Sorry, but that ain't gonna happen. Thank goodness for the NRA.

No it hasn't...killing in America has never been higher...but it's MOSTLY happening in the inner city slums so it really doesn't affect us. Chicago, E St Louis, Memphis...they make new murder records every year. Violence has never been higher.

Bullsh!t...they're minority gangs shooting each other.

A complete banning of ALL firearms AND ammunition. A gun/ammunition "Rapture". But then, the next mass killing would be driving a loaded semi truck at 80mpg into that crowd...killing even more.

Sure we can...90% of violent crime is committed by minorities. Ban them.

These "white guys" who make the news when they snap...they're literally a drop in the bucket when it comes to killings in America. Similar to how people fear plane crashes and yet they're VERY uncommon...you SHOULD be fearing the quick drive to the store where deaths occur much more frequently. You SHOULD be fearing the minority majority...it IS much more deadly.

Intelligent Conversation is one-sided.
 

You have contributed some intelligent views to the "intelligent conversation" on gun control.

I agree that at least half of the people who jump into the discussion appear to know little or nothing about guns. Every time there is a major shooting incident there are cries that we must "do something," but in almost every case the proposed new measures would not have prevented the shooting. But, the logic of this fact escapes the emotional imperative to "do something."

Even more to the point, the recent incident has resulted in emotional calls for gun control laws that already exist. Other posts include statements about gun laws that are not true. It is frustrating to the point of exhaustion to try to keep up with the mis-information and correcting it.

When asked what specific new laws might be proposed that would have prevented the mass shooting under discussion, the "do something" proponents propose...........nothing. Because, as you point out, not all crime can be permitted; particularly by just passing more laws.

Carl in Tampa

.

How about a REAL answer?
 

I have taken the liberty of numbering your paragraphs to make it clear which area of your post I am responding to with each of my points.

1. Thank you for acknowledging that the points in my earlier post were valid. I strive for accuracy. Your reaction to the recent shooting, that we must "do something" is a common emotional response, but it ignores the fact that there is virtually no law that you can propose which would have stopped the shooting. If you have such a law in mind, please post it.

2. The level of firearms technology at the time of adoption of the Second Amendment is not relevant to the conversation unless you are proposing that we should be limited to possession of firearms of that era. Surely you know the courts and the legislature would never permit that.

3. There is a lot contained in paragraph three. First, it is immaterial how many cartridges were found at the scene. A person could make small purchases over a period of several years in order to build up a large supply.

Who knew about bump stocks? Well, several million Americans did. They are gun hobbyists, gunsmiths, police officers, gun show attendees, and just about anyone who has seen them demonstrated on youtube videos. Obama's Bureau of ATF also knew about them, and ruled that attaching them to rifles to make them fire at a rate approaching the rate of full automatic rifles, was LEGAL.

No, fully automatic weapons are not outlawed. They never have been. They are, however, very heavily regulated. Background checks on people who apply to purchase a Class III (automatic) firearm are extensive; storage rules for keeping them are stringent; the cost of the weapons is quite high; and there is a $200 tax stamp that must be purchased from the government before the sale is final.

4. There has been a call for an outright ban of bump stocks. This seems extreme since fully automatic weapons are not banned, and they only mimic those weapons. The NRA has called for bump stocks to be "regulated as a Class III item, just as fully automatic weapons are regulated."

How would you limit the amount of ammunition that an individual owns? You might limit the amount of ammunition that can be made in an over the counter purchase, but purchases can be made and ammo accumulated over several years.

5. Your point 5 is a bit vague. I'm not sure whether or not you blame the shooting on Colorado being an open carry state. If so, I don't see the relevance.

6. This point is nonsense. Trump did not "rescind Obama gun checks for the mentally ill." Obama's Social Security Administration unilaterally, without Congressional approval, declared that retired people receiving Social Security benefits, who had designated a surrogate to deal with Social Security regarding their financial issues, were ineligible to own firearms.

Congress passed a bill, and President Trump signed it into law, forbidding Social Security from their illegal violation of the Second Amendment.

7. I take your remark in #7 as a challenge to the saying that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun, which is true.

Actually, it is quite commonplace that when an active shooter is confronted by the police, or other armed obstacle to his shooting, he usually takes his own life. That happened in this case. But, interestingly, it wasn't even a "good guy with a gun," it was just a "good guy."

The police in Las Vegas report that when an unarmed security guard approached the suite where the bad guy was located, the bad guy fired through the door, striking the security guard in the leg, and there was no further gunfire from the suite........ever. It is conjectured that the bad guy took his own life at that point.

I don't know about your Colorado Springs shootings, but if they were stopped by having the bad guy shot, the odds are that it was done by a good guy, either a civilian or a cop.

Now. Again. What law would you propose that would have prevented the shooting in Las Vegas?

Carl in Tampa

.

Good post. It's obvious by now that the left when faced with a crisis will immediately run in circles flapping their arms like chickens. They want action even if it does not produce solutions. To them, success is measured by laws they can pass, not whether or not they work or regardless of repercussions/cost. In this case, their answer is ban guns. Even when this action has resulted in MORE gun related deaths where such a law exists. You cannot have an "intelligent discussion" with those that are ruled by hysteria.

You don't understand..."laws" that are voted on...are FRONTS...facades...for the REAL "meat" that is hidden inside.

A "law" that should be a paragraph or a page at most...becomes 3,000 pages long. Why? Because everyone who helped in the campaign, the rich and powerful, are getting their payback. LOTS of people profit with EVERY "law" that is passed.