General Discussion

rl6214

(8,142 posts)

84. I cannot post in that thread because on ONE question I asked in that forum but

Thu Sep 19, 2013, 10:21 AM

Sep 2013

How do ANY of those things mentioned in that OP translate to a gun registry? Even if the NRA purchased any of those lists, that does not mean any of those people purchased any guns. It just means they went to a gun show to look, took a safety class because it may be required for hunting or any of a nimbler of other things.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

130 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

So it turns out that pro-gun proponents don't really support background checks after all [View all] BainsBane Sep 2013 OP

I've heard these pro-gun folks claim that most states require background checks......... rdharma Sep 2013 #1

They are doing it right now in both linked threads BainsBane Sep 2013 #3

But there is also no background check for private sales not at gun shows. PoliticAverse Sep 2013 #6

You are misrepresenting what we are saying hack89 Sep 2013 #13

Not true ........ at least it wasn't that way in Colorado until recently. rdharma Sep 2013 #14

That is exactly what I just told you. hack89 Sep 2013 #16

No. Private sales are NOT private sales regardless of location. rdharma Sep 2013 #18

What do you think is the gun show loophole hack89 Sep 2013 #19

Exactly what was stated in that link I gave you. rdharma Sep 2013 #22

Yes. Can you explain it in you own words because it is not clear you understand it. hack89 Sep 2013 #25

You're just being obtuse..... rdharma Sep 2013 #33

But they can also do that in the parking lot, or in their driveway, or in their house hack89 Sep 2013 #79

What if they are NOT "large numbers" but are just a few guns? rl6214 Sep 2013 #83

I'm waiting for the definition of "large numbers" rdharma Sep 2013 #92

You cannot make a living selling guns - it has more to do with the frequency. hack89 Sep 2013 #103

Where is that "once a month = dealer" law? rdharma Sep 2013 #104

Here are some legal definitions. hack89 Sep 2013 #106

Might I ask, how DO the states that require background checks at gun shows rl6214 Sep 2013 #82

The "honor system" rdharma Sep 2013 #88

No professional dealer is going to risk their livelyhood Mojorabbit Sep 2013 #109

You have the figure of private sales vs. FFL dealer sales that take place at gun shows? rdharma Sep 2013 #113

Have you ever been to one? Mojorabbit Sep 2013 #114

So you can tell the FFL dealer from the Private Seller/Dealer........... rdharma Sep 2013 #117

It gives you an idea of the ratio of professional to private sales in the show. nt Mojorabbit Sep 2013 #120

And how about the parking lot? And those guys walking aroung with a gun that has a price tag on it rdharma Sep 2013 #124

You asked a questions about proportions and I answered Mojorabbit Sep 2013 #125

Fair enough. rdharma Sep 2013 #126

Yall are technical as shit. It makes you look desperate in your arguments. morningfog Sep 2013 #29

I support UBCs. My state has had them for years. hack89 Sep 2013 #30

I can't see how you can say that of the replies. They are facts. Mojorabbit Sep 2013 #110

The problem is it had nothing to do with gun shows Recursion Sep 2013 #42

Why go to a yard sale when there is a MUCH better selection at a gun show. rdharma Sep 2013 #45

Why go to a show when there's even more guns in Uncle Henry's weekly swap-and-sell paper? sir pball Sep 2013 #127

Thanks for proving my point! rdharma Sep 2013 #128

I generally don't use the term "x-sales loophole" either. sir pball Sep 2013 #130

Because using "gun show" in this context is misleading. krispos42 Sep 2013 #115

Private "dealers" do not require background checks at gun shows. rdharma Sep 2013 #116

I doubt it's that high. krispos42 Sep 2013 #118

Here it is. krispos42 Sep 2013 #119

I just wish we people would call the NRA for what it is, EVIL. hrmjustin Sep 2013 #2

Thank you BainsBane Sep 2013 #4

+100 nt LiberalEsto Sep 2013 #5

I do, every chance I get! etherealtruth Sep 2013 #9

Redundantly redundant post by poster. pintobean Sep 2013 #7

That group will say and do anything to protect gunz etherealtruth Sep 2013 #8

... Robb Sep 2013 #10

Yep, that's exactly it BainsBane Sep 2013 #11

We all know that there is one type of sale that does not require a background check hack89 Sep 2013 #12

some are very dense Duckhunter935 Sep 2013 #15

The myth of the law-abiding gun owner mwrguy Sep 2013 #17

Because the majority of gun owners are law breakers? hack89 Sep 2013 #20

Only 99.2% or so are law abiding, but folks love them some bias, unless of course The Straight Story Sep 2013 #23

Yay for math! Decaffeinated Sep 2013 #27

The loophole is private sale or transfer. Gravitycollapse Sep 2013 #21

And it is not a loophole. ManiacJoe Sep 2013 #26

I've been to enough gun shows to know that those selling don't give a shit about background checks. Gravitycollapse Sep 2013 #28

That is what happens when existing laws go unenforced. ManiacJoe Sep 2013 #31

It is virtually impossible to convict someone of illegal sale of a firearm... Gravitycollapse Sep 2013 #32

Many folks have that belief. ManiacJoe Sep 2013 #41

What makes you think I ever supported universal background checks? nt rrneck Sep 2013 #24

I don't know that I did think that BainsBane Sep 2013 #34

You've made another hyperbolic leap of logic rrneck Sep 2013 #35

What registry? BainsBane Sep 2013 #36

I don't think the NRA has a list of rrneck Sep 2013 #37

They've got a whopping database BainsBane Sep 2013 #38

How would you prosecute an illegal transfer to a felon without chain of custody documentation? nt rrneck Sep 2013 #39

I'm not sure BainsBane Sep 2013 #40

That's an interesting question. rrneck Sep 2013 #43

Why do guns occupy a different cultural space? BainsBane Sep 2013 #44

Because guns are made to kill. rrneck Sep 2013 #54

That is all the more reason they should be subject to checks BainsBane Sep 2013 #55

I even italicised it. rrneck Sep 2013 #56

statistically BainsBane Sep 2013 #57

Statistics are useless rrneck Sep 2013 #58

What did you want to know when you asked who they killed? BainsBane Sep 2013 #59

This is just an internet message board. Who gives a shit about percentages. rrneck Sep 2013 #60

No, I don't recognize that good has been done with guns BainsBane Sep 2013 #61

Like I said.. rrneck Sep 2013 #62

Look at Saristaka's thread in the gungeon BainsBane Sep 2013 #63

I posted in it. rrneck Sep 2013 #64

He is saying there is going to be no requirement for federal registration BainsBane Sep 2013 #65

It appears to me rrneck Sep 2013 #66

Look, you can set up a system where you feed in the info BainsBane Sep 2013 #67

Fine by me. rrneck Sep 2013 #68

Throw the fucker in jail BainsBane Sep 2013 #69

Great. rrneck Sep 2013 #70

They get a confirmation number and receipt to keep BainsBane Sep 2013 #71

The government cannot possibly prosecute anyone rrneck Sep 2013 #72

Well, what you're prosecuting is the absence of a check BainsBane Sep 2013 #73

Yes, the absence of a check, rrneck Sep 2013 #74

The political will is a function of you BainsBane Sep 2013 #75

"What you are really saying is that the lives that could be saved aren't worth the bother." rrneck Sep 2013 #86

You specifically said the declining crime rate made expanded checks unnecessary BainsBane Sep 2013 #89

Your response is innaccurate. rrneck Sep 2013 #100

Um, you have that backwards BainsBane Sep 2013 #102

So, rrneck Sep 2013 #107

statistics Niceguy1 Sep 2013 #78

Properly applied, yes they are. nt rrneck Sep 2013 #81

I cannot post in that thread because on ONE question I asked in that forum but rl6214 Sep 2013 #84

How do background checks constitute a registry? BainsBane Sep 2013 #93

I never said it did. rl6214 Sep 2013 #123

Your subject line is a misrepresentation of reality. cherokeeprogressive Sep 2013 #46

Good for you BainsBane Sep 2013 #47

I don't care what the other two threads say. You made a blanket statement. It was wrong. cherokeeprogressive Sep 2013 #48

So you read that to mean cherokeeprogressive doesn't support background checks BainsBane Sep 2013 #49

"pro-gun proponents don't really support background checks after all" cherokeeprogressive Sep 2013 #50

I'll also note that few of the people BainsBane Sep 2013 #51

I don't speak for anyone else. You made a blanket indictment. It was wrong. cherokeeprogressive Sep 2013 #52

This is pointless BainsBane Sep 2013 #53

Again, we agree! Eleanors38 Sep 2013 #87

So you admit you were not being truthful BainsBane Sep 2013 #95

"Bwah-ha-ha-ha," he said to da Inquisitor. Eleanors38 Sep 2013 #97

I'll take that as a yes BainsBane Sep 2013 #99

"...the man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" - P. Simon Eleanors38 Sep 2013 #121

I'm bored with the games BainsBane Sep 2013 #122

Well, you keep posting replies. Eleanors38 Sep 2013 #129

Gun nuts don't support ANY gun laws... Ohio Joe Sep 2013 #76

So I have discovered. BainsBane Sep 2013 #77

I have come to the same conclusion as you, BB... CTyankee Sep 2013 #96

Oh no BainsBane Sep 2013 #98

I have engaged them on the "grassroots" argument, too. But the NRA label is there CTyankee Sep 2013 #101

Just because I support something doesn't mean I'll give it away for nothing. badtoworse Sep 2013 #80

You are comical! Sissyk Sep 2013 #85

watch yourself clffrdjk Sep 2013 #90

Ah! Case in point. nt Eleanors38 Sep 2013 #94

Now, if I had said that I would have been MIRTed to the Eleanors38 Sep 2013 #91

This may help explain pintobean Sep 2013 #105

fuck all that we need to get rid of guns period gopiscrap Sep 2013 #108

Well, I was trying to compromise BainsBane Sep 2013 #111

An honest gun controller. hack89 Sep 2013 #112