NRA was pro-gun control when it came to Black Panthers

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Call it whatever you want. You might be all stuck up on this term. I am not. What I am and have been saying is that as long as there are avenues to purchase guns w/o having to undergo a background check, there are effectively no background checks in force in this country. And THAT is the main problem. THAT is how people unsuitable and ineligible to possess firearms get them. THAT needs to be fixed legislatively. You can dispute whether it's a loophole all you want. I don't really care what you call it. It must be fixed. Everyone and anyone purchasing or otherwise obtaining a firearm from whoever MUST pass a background check. PERIOD. The NRA has and will continue to fight any such legislative effort and is thus NOT interested in gun safety as falsely claimed in these dbates.

See ...Very good. You are right on this one.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

See ...Very good. You are right on this one.

I know that we agree on this point. If you would pay attention, you'd actually find that we're not that far apart on gun control issues. We split on assault rifles and high capacity magazines which I believe are not particularly useful in civilian hands but I've said time and again that those are not the priority issue to me. The priority issue is to ensure that guns - any guns - are not sold or transferred in any way to individuals that are unfit and/or ineligible to have them.

[Danno 1,228]

Call it whatever you want. You might be all stuck up on this term. I am not. What I am and have been saying is that as long as there are avenues to purchase guns w/o having to undergo a background check, there are effectively no background checks in force in this country. And THAT is the main problem. THAT is how people unsuitable and ineligible to possess firearms get them. THAT needs to be fixed legislatively. You can dispute whether it's a loophole all you want. I don't really care what you call it. It must be fixed. Everyone and anyone purchasing or otherwise obtaining a firearm from whoever MUST pass a background check. PERIOD. The NRA has and will continue to fight any such legislative effort and is thus NOT interested in gun safety as falsely claimed in these dbates.

1. Misusing terms such as "loophole" highlights the dishonesty of the debate, if you want to implement a new law or policy just say it... don't act like people are "getting around" a law that never existed.

2You say people are "getting around" some law to carry out mass shootings. Who got around anything, in the cases that come to mind these people used guns that where bought through gun stores... and had the check you are talking about.

This is the problem with this debate, your solutions are feel-good measures, which have not basis in helping the situation and that is what is so frustrating for results oriented people like me.

Q: Are you willing to have a secure data base of people who are are mentally not capable of owning firearms, those on medication, who have some history? A data base which can be discreetly and rapidly check by gun sellers and cops on the street when they encounter a gun situation?

It is very much a LOOPHOLE!

Don't just bump your gums, make your case... how was it a loophole?

[Danno 1,228]

The 2nd amendment does NOT grant you the right to sell your gun to anyone of your choosing! The intent and spirit of the majority of the populace wanting background check laws does not provide an exception for private parties to circumvent whatever good such laws may accomplish. Additional legislation is necessary to accomplish this. Our elected representatives DO have both the right and the responsibility to follow the wishes of the majority of the citizens of this country to pass such laws and remove your ability to legally sell your guns to anyone before background checks can be performed!

Who is spreading misinformation about guns for ants?

This is not about the second amendment, this is about the misuse of the term loophole- suggesting that a law was ever passed to background check gun buyers in private transaction.

QUOTE THAT LAW... TEACH ME.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Q: Are you willing to have a secure data base of people who are are mentally not capable of owning firearms, those on medication, who have some history? A data base which can be discreetly and rapidly check by gun sellers and cops on the street when they encounter a gun situation?

Yes, absolutely. That said, entering one's name into that secure database should be entirely voluntary and not the default option. Should be like voter registration in a way - your choice. Don't register, then you don't get to vote. Don't get into the database, then you don't get to acquire a firearm. Not opting in means that I cannot pass the required background check to acquire a firearm. Done.

Rapidly check? I'd rather a background and eligibility check takes a week or two - or a month even - than even one gun being sold or transferred to a person that shouldn't have one. I don't buy into the notion that a background check for a gun purchase must be done in 24 or 48 hours. What's the rush?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Yes, absolutely. That said, entering one's name into that secure database should be entirely voluntary and not the default option. Should be like voter registration in a way - your choice. Don't register, then you don't get to vote. Don't get into the database, then you don't get to acquire a firearm. Not opting in means that I cannot pass the required background check to acquire a firearm. Done.

Rapidly check? I'd rather a background and eligibility check takes a week or two - or a month even - than even one gun being sold or transferred to a person that shouldn't have one. I don't buy into the notion that a background check for a gun purchase must be done in 24 or 48 hours. What's the rush?

Its probably easier to just have certified mental illness issued to the county court. That way it uses the same database that current background checks use. Likewise when or if the illness passes or is treated, it also is issued to the court for removal.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Its probably easier to just have certified mental illness issued to the county court. That way it uses the same database that current background checks use. Likewise when or if the illness passes or is treated, it also is issued to the court for removal.

Whatever works. Let's just recognize that the current background checks aren't solid so whatever we build on them we need to make sure that whatever holes are in them are closed. If there in fact aren't any, fine. Don't think that's the case, though.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

This is not about the second amendment, this is about the misuse of the term loophole- suggesting that a law was ever passed to background check gun buyers in private transaction.

QUOTE THAT LAW... TEACH ME.

So you are saying that there is need for legislative action, then?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

So you are saying that there is need for legislative action, then?

No, he is stating that the law is enforced as intended.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

No, he is stating that the law is enforced as intended.

Then we need to admit that there are effectively no mandatory background checks in place today. You can't guard the front door while the goods are taken out through the back door which you purposely leave wide open and then claim that you've got sufficient controls in place.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Then we need to admit that there are effectively no mandatory background checks in place today. You can't guard the front door while the goods are taken out through the back door which you purposely leave wide open and then claim that you've got sufficient controls in place.

True there are no mandatory checks for private party sales in the majority of states, I just wouldn't call it a loophole.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

True there are no mandatory checks for private party sales in the majority of states, I just wouldn't call it a loophole.

As I said, I don't care what you call it or don't call it as long as that back door gets sealed tight.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

True there are no mandatory checks for private party sales in the majority of states, I just wouldn't call it a loophole.

Maybe not a loophole, but definitely a huge hole in the fence, as are "straw" purchases and "shadow" sales.

[Danno 1,228]

Maybe not a loophole, but definitely a huge hole in the fence, as are "straw" purchases and "shadow" sales.

It'a not a "hole in the fence" either.

You speak as if the bulk of guns have not always been transferred from private party to private party.... it is so common that .....few gun owners don;t have a gun passed down to them or will pass a gun to a son or daughter or gift it to a friend or make a trade.

To call this a "hole in the fence" is inaccurate at best.

Now you have to ask yourself this...... and I know this is tuff for lefties...... what percentage of school shootings or mass shootings would this have stopped, not very many.

You have a solution looking for a problem.

Our problem isn't me buying a gun off my friend and then killing people........ the problem is

HOW DO WE KEEp MENTAL CASES FROM BUYING GUNS.

Q: WHAT ARE YOU willinG TO DO ABOUT THE REAL PROBLEM?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It'a not a "hole in the fence" either.

You speak as if the bulk of guns have not always been transferred from private party to private party.... it is so common that .....few gun owners don;t have a gun passed down to them or will pass a gun to a son or daughter or gift it to a friend or make a trade.

To call this a "hole in the fence" is inaccurate at best.

Now you have to ask yourself this...... and I know this is tuff for lefties...... what percentage of school shootings or mass shootings would this have stopped, not very many.

You have a solution looking for a problem.

Our problem isn't me buying a gun off my friend and then killing people........ the problem is

HOW DO WE KEEp MENTAL CASES FROM BUYING GUNS.

Q: WHAT ARE YOU willinG TO DO ABOUT THE REAL PROBLEM?

Are people making private deals qualified to make the call whether the acquiring party is a mental case, a criminal or a person otherwise ineligible to acquire a firearm? Of course not. And that is why background checks MUST be extended to any and all acquisitions of firearms. Period. Otherwise, the background checks that gun retailers must perform on buyers are necessarily ineffective and do not prevent any ineligible person from obtaining a firearm. You can't demand that we must keep "mental cases" from buying guns while advocating that private transfer transactions remain as they have. Well, you can. In fact you did. But that makes your argument an obvious attempt at diversion.