Me, I think they should tone it down a little. The cool down period didn't do anything IMO.
But they shouldn't be taken away altogether.

 

it usually is when you post

 

Yeah. Although I know nothing about the loophole other than what you said. If it is a way that guns can be sold/traded illegally then I'll agree the loophole should be closed. If it's going to be for legal purposes and purchased/traded at a gun show, then I suppose there's no reason for it to go undocumented anyway. What do legal buyers/traders have to hide after all.

 

Ugh.


There is no gunshow loophole. As I stated earlier, all sales must follow the federal and state laws where the transaction is taking place.

 

Okay great. The laws in 32 of the 50 states allow for private individuals to sell guns at gun shows without any kind of license, no background checks, and no records kept. People can and do exploit this opportunity to illegally traffic in firearms.

So explain how that is not a loophole.

 

Here you go, straight from the ATF:

Gun shows were a major trafficking channel, involving the second highest number of trafficked guns per investigation (more than 130), and associated with approximately 26,000 illegally diverted firearms. The investigations involved both licensed and unlicensed sellers at gun shows.

http://www.atf.treas.gov/pub/fire-ex...n_internet.pdf

 

Pg. 27 "Gun shows are a special case of the retail sale of firearms. Unlike at other venues, both federally licensed dealers and unlicensed sellers sell guns at gun shows. While federally licensed firearms dealers perform background checks, unlicensed sellers are not required to do so. Gun shows are also places where buyers can choose to buy from the primary (firearms sold by FFLs) or secondary (firearms resold by unlicensed sellers) firearms markets. Secondhand firearms are far more difficult than new guns for law enforcement officials to trace to the most recent seller. This is because secondhand firearms likely have left the hands of FFLs, who are required to keep records, into the hands of unlicensed persons who are not required to keep records. Even if the secondhand guns are resold to an FFL, they are untraceable, because the trace will effectively end at the last sale in the unbroken chain of licensed sellers. The access to anonymous sales and large numbers of secondhand firearms makes gun shows attractive to criminals. In the ATF trafficking investigations reviewed here, gun shows were associated with the diversion of approximately 26,000 firearms. Trafficking of firearms at and through gun shows was more prevalent in the trafficking investigations submitted by the Southwest (22 percent) and Western (21 percent) regions when compared to trafficking investigations submitted by the Central (15 percent), Southeast (12 percent), and Northeast (8 percent) regions of the United States. A prior review of ATF gun show investigations shows that prohibited persons, such as convicted felons and juveniles, do personally buy firearms at gun shows and gun shows are sources of firearms that are trafficked to such prohibited persons. The gun show review found that firearms were diverted at and through gun shows by straw purchasers, unregulated private sellers, and licensed dealers.22. Felons were associated with selling or purchasing firearms in 46 percent of the gun show investigations.23. Firearms that were illegally diverted at or through gun shows were recovered in subsequent crimes, including homicide and robbery, in more than a third of the gun show investigations.24"

Pretty much there in black and white. Zero documentation required to accompany guns sold by private citizens/unlicensed dealers. Many of which were subsequently recovered from violent crimes. Seems like something that should be stopped to me.

 

There is a problem with the gun shows, that is in the terrorist handbook as a good place to get strapped.

Benjamin, I sincerely was trying to make a constructive comment, building on your comment that the conservatives sound like idiots when they get so strident, I do it too, I was just pointing out that you sometimes come across like that too. I was not saying you are an idiot, meant no offense.

Qbacca, I don't see the right to bear arms as being dependant on a standing militia. You are not reading it correctly, it is not a dependant clause. The black man being 3/5 a person got changed when the document was amended. Once again, if you don't like what it says now, do something about it.

 

Okay, English major to the rescue.

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.

Let's break it down, shall we? The logic implied by the grammar is a basic syllogism, as follows:

Major premise: A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State.
Minor premise: The only way to maintain a well regulated militia is to give the people the right to keep and bear arms.
Conclusion: Therefore, because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, and the only way to maintain a well regulated militia is to give the people the right to keep and bear arms, the right of the people the to keep and bear arms is necessary to the security of a free State.

One may render a syllogism invalid by proving one or more of its premises false. In this case, the premise in question is whether or not the only way to maintain a well regulated militia is to give the people the right to keep and bear arms. One may argue then, that because a well regulated militia exists in the form of the National Guard, there is a method of maintaining a well regulated militia without giving the people the right to keep and bear arms.

But of course, humans are particularly invulnerable to logic, so who cares?

 

Personal story segment...

A guy my brother graduated with and whom I knew in college just had his parents shot dead in Fairfield, CT last week when a person came in to rob their jewelry store. Being unarmed they cooperated with the individual and were rewarded by being shot and killed. Had either or both of the parents been armed the outcome probably would have been a lot different.

Moral. As long as there are cold blooded killers out there I will carry a gun, atleast to give myself a fighting chance at protecting myself and my family. Laws don't mean squat if there are people out there breaking them.