[QUOTE=stpauler]
From Kerry’s website:
What “Gun Show Loophole?” People at gun shows are required to attend to all the legal requirements that anyone else buying a gun anywhere else in any state must attend to.!
BS!
Wow, I’m liking Kerry more and more all the time.
Yeah, it pretty much does.
No, fuck, actually, you, you cracksmoking, inbred, microcephalic, permanent acid tripping, aluminomillinery motherfucking jackass. I’d venture to say that I have more fucking guns than you do, dumbass. As soon as I save the cash, I’m buying an AK-47 and an AR-15.
Yes, the myopic dumbass collective known as the NRA tends to put a slant on things. If you’ll note my second reply, I provided details on the sky-is-falling bullshit that they were spewing, proving that they were indeed batshit insane. Hell, they reviewed American Beauty and denounced it as anti-gun propaganda!
I like guns, but I tend to value my first and fourth amendment rights over my second. Mainly because they’ll never have my guns, neither in theory of law or in person by force. Voting freedom means just that, not voting gun. Keeping America respectable in the eyes of the world is more important than a folding stock, for the time being. Get out of the clusterfuck wars, then elect representatives who will fight for your second amendment rights.
Ok, if you believe it does, then explain precisely how.
Cause it seems to me that even at first glance, most of the data comes from a neutral source, that being the actual senate voting record. Methinks you’re being a wee bit of a jackass.
Except that in most states, they don’t. In 32 states, you can acquire a gun while avoiding a criminal background check by making your purchase at a gun show, because the Brady law doesn’t apply to secondary sales. No background check, no waiting. Cash and carry.
Which kind of makes the “hassle” that law-abiding folks who buy their weapons at licensed gun shops go through kind of pointless, since anyone who wants buy firearms without getting tripped up by that pesky stalking conviction knows where to go.
See, what’s happened above is that your talking point got garbled in translation. You’re supposed to say “People at gun shows are required to attend to all the legal requirements that anyone buying a gun in their state is,” which only implies that they have to provide ID and wait for their background check to be processed. But in most states people aren’t legally required to go through any of that stuff to pick up a gun at a show. Which is why it’s called a, you know, loophole.
Translation: Kerry voted with the majority to add two amendments to the bill which would extend the assault weapons ban for another ten years and to require criminal background checks for people purchasing weapons at gun shows. The bill ultimately failed to pass.
Translation: Co-sponsored another bill to extend the assault weapons ban, that also included prohibitions against certain semiautomatic shotguns. “A semiautomatic shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General.” Also semiautomatic shotguns with pistol grips, folding stocks, detachable magazines, or revolving chambers. Does that cover them all?
Translation: Voted for an amendment to existing legislation which expanded the definition of “armour-piercing ammunition” to include “a projectile for a centerfire rifle, designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability, that the Attorney General determines, pursuant to section 926(d), to be more likely to penetrate body armor than standard ammunition of the same caliber.”
Translation: The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence agrees with 100% of Kerry’s votes on gun issues, which makes sense since he votes for measures which have no significant impact on hunters and sportsmen, but are targeted at reducing gun violence. As for PETA, they did indeed, along with many less loonie groups, praise Kerry (and the other members of the Senate Oceans and Fisheries subcommittee) as heroes for their work on the popular International Dolphin Conservation Program Act which was passed into law in a 99-0 vote.
Yeah, Kerry’s bad news for sportsmen. Well, sportsmen with their hearts set on hunting dolphins with military-style shotguns or armour-piercing rounds, anyway.
O.K. - because the NRA is a collection of rabid, thick-headed, disingenuous, mouth-breathing assholes.
Suck my dick.
Excellent deconstruction. You may now make two jokes that I don’t get before I get all humorless on you again.
Well that’s a no-brainer, since I have consistantly posted here that I do not own guns.
Gee, Ilsa, you and your nasty language are so scary!
Well, if that is true, then I’m on the same side as people who say, “Close the gunshow loophole!” Cause that is stupid. Which is why it’s so hard to believe.
And since it’s so hard to believe: Cite?
Since I’m a card-carrying member, can I take this to mean that you are calling me a rabid, thick-headed, disingenuous, mouth-breathing asshole?
It does cover one of the ‘duck hunting’ guns that Kerry’s posed with in photographs.
Which would ban, to be technically accurate, every round more powerful than .22 short. The 30-06 round? The 30-30 Winchester? The .280 Remington? All of those are used for hunting deer, and all of them will pierce a kevlar vest.
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence? Are you kidding me? Everything they advocate is about making life harder for law-abiding citizens. Criminals don’t follow laws.
There’s no such thing as a gun-show loophole. It’s illegal to sell a firearm to someone who is prohibited by law to own one, it’s required that all sales from FFL holding dealers to citizens involve a NICS check, even at gun shows, and the only exception to this rule is that in some states, private citizens may sell their long guns to other private citizens (provided the buyer can legally purchase a firearm) without a NICS check. Handgun sales have to be accompanied by the proper BATF 4473 and NICS check. The so-called gun show loophole has nothing to do with gun shows, and it’s not a loophole.
Sueing gun manufacturers for the actions of criminals using guns is targeted at reducing gun violence? I think it’s targeted at moving more jobs overseas.
Banning hunting ammunition would have no significant impact on hunters and sportsmen? No, of course not, please excuse me.
Banning weapons that are almost never used by criminals but which look scary is targeted at reducing gun violence? Maybe you mean violence against guns?
:wally
Kerry’s votes, as represented in the Senate rolls, are consistantly anti-gun. Teddy Kennedy, the Mass. Nutjob who make outright lies in his anti-gun propaganda, is Kerry’s #2 hero, and Kerry is his puppet.
The thing that bothers me most is that Kerry pretends he is pro-gun. Just watching him handle a gun shows he’s either not a sportsman or he’s very poorly trained. If someone hands you a gun, you do not grab it by the grip and put your finger in the trigger well, like he did on national TV. First, you have the person clear the gun and hand it to you with the action open. It’s one of the most basic rules of firearm safety. It prevents firearm accidents.
Kerry is a phony, and a liar. Gee, I guess, by definition, that makes him a good politician!
(So is G.W. Bush, but we’re not pitting him here.)
Kerry’s a Teddy Kennedy worshiper who will use his time in office to restrict gun ownership as much as possible. Check back in four years (despite what the polls say, I’m pretty sure he will be our next pres.), and if I’m wrong, I’ll apologise.
How do you propose I hunt dolphins? Anything else is ineffective.
Larry, you’re talking out your ass. As a resident of Texas, I’ve purchased over a dozen guns (rifles and shotguns) in Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Missouri and Oklahoma.
All of those purchases were at weekend gun shows, and only one was without a background check; it was a “private sale” (the secondary sale you alluded to) that I could have read about in a newspaper ad and bought from the guy at his own home.
What the fuck does anyone need a semi-automatic shot gun for?
Sometimes, them ducks go crazy on you and you have got to put the smack down on them bastids.
And don’t say you want one because it’s your right to own one, what the fuck do you need it for?
Semiauto shotguns are popular in skeet and trap shooting. When two “birds” are up, it makes it a lot easier to shoot both, if you don’t have to pump. It saves time and is a little bit less distracting.
…and the stupid thing about attempting to ban them is that someone skilled with a pump shotgun is almost as fast as a semi-auto shottie.
Skeet shooting, Zebra. It’s great fun!
Zebra:
Fuck You! BY what right do you question my right?
I don’t “need” anything but food, air, water, shelter and clothing. Same goes for you.
Right to Speech? Fuck You.
Right to Trial? A Speedy Trial? Fuuuck You!
Right to Assemble? FUCK YOU!
Right to Reasonable Bail? Eat Shit, ASSHOLE!
Right To Worship Freely? Get In The FUCKING Oven, God-boy!
Right to Property? Fuck You! I Gotta Badge and a Judicial Writ, Whaddayou GOT?
Defend your “need” to any one of those!
None of them are designed or marketed as armor piercing ammunition, so they would be totally unaffected. The 30-06, for example, is designed for long-range accuracy. Just because it can penetrate Kevlar doesn’t make it an armor-piercing round, as designated by the amendment to the legislation that’s under discussion.
That’s pure sophistry. The loophole is that people (in most states) can sell guns at trade shows and flea markets without holding a dealer’s license, and if you don’t hold a license, you don’t have to do a background check or even ask your buyer for ID. This means there are plenty of places for sketchy folks to go to get a rifle with no questions asked. Absolutely no impediment. Most of the proposed fixes for this involve something along the lines of required attendees to submit to a background check by one of the licensed dealers at the show before making their purchase. They also are uniform in that they seek to regulate the sale of firearms at gun shows more closely, without affecting Joe Blow’s ability to sell his rifle to neighbor. Here’s an example. What possible objection could any reasonable person have against such legislation? It’s specifically intended to make it harder for criminals to acquire guns, and delicately avoids stepping on anyone’s toes. Private citizens would still sell their guns with no problems-- even at gun shows.
Oh, right. I forgot. I guess our quality of life wouldn’t be impacted at all if we woke tomorrow to total anarchy, then.
First off, you are phrasing this as if Kerry voted to get people to sue, instead of voting against legislation that would give dealers and manufacturers of firearms blanket absolution in civil courts. They don’t need protection from frivolous lawsuits. A case’s frivolity is protection enough, which is why only eight senators voted for this ill-conceived bill. The vote is pretty unsurprising in the context of the suit which inspired the bill – in which family members of some of the victims of the Beltway snipers sued the dealer and manufacturer of the Bushmaster rifle used in the killings. Although the case was settled without going to trial, it’s clear that they had a strong case. The store couldn’t account for more than 200 guns. Either they were sold with no record of the sales, or they had a serious problem managing shoplifting. The manufacturer was apparently at fault for continuing to supply the store in spite of their history of “losing” guns. Muhammad acquired a weapon which he was legally prohibited from possessing, in the best case through the dealer’s negligence, possibly through their criminal action. I don’t think the case against them was all that frivolous. Apparently neither did the defendants, since they determined it was in their interest to settle.
ExTank, I’m talking out of my ass because most of your purchases at gun shows were from licensed dealers, and you only bought one gun without a background check? Hello, the idea is that you shouldn’t be able to walk into any venue and walk out with a gun without providing ID and submitting to a background check. Nobody is saying that there aren’t licensed dealers at gun shows. Just that unlicensed sellers can sell there, too. Nobody is saying that gun shows are bad.
Can anyone explain why some gun enthusiasts get so worked up about mention of a “gun show loophole?” What rankles about requiring background checks for all sales at shows and conventions? It’s very clearly defined, and shouldn’t bother anyone except for those (allegedly non-existent) people who want a convenient place for felons to shop for guns.