Why you personally should not carry.

[Rucker61]

So the GOP should put its money where its mouth is and allow full carry at all its conventions and Trump rallies. Show us scaredy cat Libs how real Americans do it!

It's not up to them. The Secret Service says "no".

 

[calamity]

It's not up to them. The Secret Service says "no".

What a bunch of Snowflakes.

 

[TurtleDude]

That's fine. But I still don't understand what this has to do with The fierce resistance against closing the loophole on selling guns to known gang members and felons.

its illegal for ANYONE to sell or give a firearm to KNOWN felons.

 

[TurtleDude]

Not everyone is like the Right who are so afraid of Muslims that they wish to ban them. We can actually reason. Which means that we can understand that just because we do not trust ourselves to carry a gun that should not mean no one should be trusted to carry one.

strawman argument.

 

[VanceMack]

I figure there are lots of answers to the posed question.

1-Cuz I dont want to. I dont need a reason.
2-Cuz I dont feel the need.
3-Just cuz...bite me.
4-Cuz Im afraid I might just shoot the first person that pisses me off.
5-Cuz the Russians.
6-Cuz the cops can take care of the criminals.
7-Ciz I dont think I could use one even if I needed one.

and a bunch more. But at the end of the day...just like those that carry...its their prerogative to not.

 

[BretJ]

That's fine. But I still don't understand what this has to do with The fierce resistance against closing the loophole on selling guns to known gang members and felons.

Gave you a potential solution but have not seen a reply. Did you not like the idea?

 

[Gaius46]

I should be able to but getting a carry permit but, as I told the cop who lives next door while we were having a beer the other night, in Suffolk County getting one is a tedious, long, expensive pain in the ass and I just don't have the patience to deal with the bull****. As well I don't really think I need one. I've never once felt threatened on the street and having a target permit gives me access to the firearm where I care about it the most - at home.

He did offer to write me one of the 4 mandatory character references should I change my mind which I thought was cool.

 

[ataraxia]

There is no loophole.

Wow. So this is what gaslighting is like.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole

 

[ataraxia]

Re; Open carry at GOP conventions:

It's not up to them. The Secret Service says "no".

The Secret Service can only make recommendations. They cannot dictate anything. Trump and other GOPers could easily override their recommendation if they wanted. Are they hiding behind mommy's dress now and trying to act all brave? "Oh I would allow everyone to come in with machine guns. But those darned liberal Secret Service agents won't let us! Meanies! Waaah!"

 

[ataraxia]

its illegal for ANYONE to sell or give a firearm to KNOWN felons.

You won't know unless you can ask and check.

Seller: So you want that AR-15 with high capacity magazine clips? Sure. She's a beaut, ain't she? But first, may I ask what is your name?

Buyer: Muhamma.... I mean, er, uhhh... how you say in your country?.... mmm..., Timmy Johnson. Yes! Timmy Johnson! That's it.

Seller: Okaaay. Are you a terrorist or a criminal?

Buyer: AllahuAkbar, God willing,... no, of course not. (Looking nervously away)

Seller: arrrrighty then, Mr. Johnson. Here is your new AR-15! Enjoy!

Buyer: Thank you. Oh, and could you point me to the nearest crowded mall in this part of your country? My white unmarked truck parked outside is loaded very heavy and can't drive too far.

 

[Thumper]

Wow. So this is what gaslighting is like.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole

Verywell explain to me exactly what this loophole is please.

 

[BretJ]

Re; Open carry at GOP conventions:



The Secret Service can only make recommendations. They cannot dictate anything. Trump and other GOPers could easily override their recommendation if they wanted. Are they hiding behind mommy's dress now and trying to act all brave? "Oh I would allow everyone to come in with machine guns. But those darned liberal Secret Service agents won't let us! Meanies! Waaah!"

Given the capacity for violence and hostility the left has towards those who have differing views, I think it was prudent. Btw, I gave you a reasonable solution to UBC which would cover your loophole concern yet have not had the courtesy of a response. Was there an issue with the proposal?

 

[TurtleDude]

You won't know unless you can ask and check.

Seller: So you want that AR-15 with high capacity magazine clips? Sure. She's a beaut, ain't she? But first, may I ask what is your name?

Buyer: Muhamma.... I mean, er, uhhh... how you say in your country?.... mmm..., Timmy Johnson. Yes! Timmy Johnson! That's it.

Seller: Okaaay. Are you a terrorist or a criminal?

Buyer: AllahuAkbar, God willing,... no, of course not. (Looking nervously away)

Seller: arrrrighty then, Mr. Johnson. Here is your new AR-15! Enjoy!

Buyer: Thank you. Oh, and could you point me to the nearest crowded mall in this part of your country? My white unmarked truck parked outside is loaded very heavy and can't drive too far.

the problem with gun banners like you is that you make up unrealistic scenarios and then scream for laws that you pretend will address your unrealistic scenarios and when we tell you that your schemes mainly harass honest people, you turn a deaf ear and pretend we obstruct your feel good but malignant anti gun schemes

 

[ataraxia]

Given the capacity for violence and hostility the left has towards those who have differing views, I think it was prudent.

Shouldn't matter, right? Didn't you know that gun free zones are the most unsafe places? The more guns there are, the safer it should be, right? If criminals want to bring in guns to a convention, they will figure out a way. All you are doing is keeping the good guys with a gun from having a gun when that happens. If that thinking is good enough for our elementary schools, it should be good enough for our brave patriotic conservatives.

Btw, I gave you a reasonable solution to UBC which would cover your loophole concern yet have not had the courtesy of a response. Was there an issue with the proposal?

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult. Honest. But I must have missed it. Could you tell me what it was again?

 

[ataraxia]

Verywell explain to me exactly what this loophole is please.

Seriously? You really gotta get better at this gaslighting stuff. You are still obviously an amateur. But anyway,

"Gun show loophole, gun law loophole, Brady law loophole (or Brady bill loophole), private sale loophole, and private sale exemption are political terms in the United States referring to sales of firearms by private sellers, including those done at gun shows, dubbed the "secondary market".[1] The term refers to the concept that a loophole in federal law exists, under which "[a]ny person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the state where they reside, as long as they do not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms".[2][3][4]

Under federal law, private-party sellers are not required to perform background checks on buyers, whether at a gun show or other venue. They also are not required to record the sale, or ask for identification. This requirement is in contrast to sales by gun stores and other Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders who are required to record all sales and perform background checks on almost all buyers, regardless of whether the venue is their business location or a gun show. Access to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is limited to FFL holders and FFLs are not issued to persons that only sell firearms at gun shows.[n 1]

...Federal "Gun show loophole" bills were introduced in seven consecutive Congresses: two in 2001,[12][13] two in 2004,[14][15] one in 2005,[16] one in 2007,[17] two in 2009,[18][19] two in 2011,[20][21] and one in 2013.[22] Specifically, seven gun show "loophole" bills were introduced in the U.S. House and four in the Senate between 2001 and 2013. None passed. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole

 

[Rucker61]

Wow. So this is what gaslighting is like.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole

Its not a loophole. The Democrats who wrote the law, who voted on the law in Congress, who signed it in the White House and the liberal majority SCOTUS knew exactly what the law did and didn't cover. Everyone knew that the Brady Act did not require background checks for private transfers. "Loophole" is a deceit from from anti-hunting lobby to try to get universal background check law in place, a law the the Department of Justice told us would be ineffective and unenforceable.

 

[Rucker61]

Re; Open carry at GOP conventions:



The Secret Service can only make recommendations. They cannot dictate anything. Trump and other GOPers could easily override their recommendation if they wanted. Are they hiding behind mommy's dress now and trying to act all brave? "Oh I would allow everyone to come in with machine guns. But those darned liberal Secret Service agents won't let us! Meanies! Waaah!"

"Title 18 United States Code Sections 3056 and 1752 provides the Secret Service authority to preclude firearms from entering sites visited by our protectees, including those located in open-carry states," Secret Service spokesman Robert K. Hoback said in a statement. "Only authorized law enforcement personnel working in conjunction with the Secret Service for a particular event may carry a firearm inside of the protected site."

 

[Thumper]

Seriously? You really gotta get better at this gaslighting stuff. You are still obviously an amateur. But anyway,

"Gun show loophole, gun law loophole, Brady law loophole (or Brady bill loophole), private sale loophole, and private sale exemption are political terms in the United States referring to sales of firearms by private sellers, including those done at gun shows, dubbed the "secondary market".[1] The term refers to the concept that a loophole in federal law exists, under which "[a]ny person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the state where they reside, as long as they do not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms".[2][3][4]

Under federal law, private-party sellers are not required to perform background checks on buyers, whether at a gun show or other venue. They also are not required to record the sale, or ask for identification. This requirement is in contrast to sales by gun stores and other Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders who are required to record all sales and perform background checks on almost all buyers, regardless of whether the venue is their business location or a gun show. Access to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is limited to FFL holders and FFLs are not issued to persons that only sell firearms at gun shows.[n 1]

...Federal "Gun show loophole" bills were introduced in seven consecutive Congresses: two in 2001,[12][13] two in 2004,[14][15] one in 2005,[16] one in 2007,[17] two in 2009,[18][19] two in 2011,[20][21] and one in 2013.[22] Specifically, seven gun show "loophole" bills were introduced in the U.S. House and four in the Senate between 2001 and 2013. None passed. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole

Yeah. There is no gun show loophole. And no. Im not gaslighting.

Id also like for you to define gang please.

I ask because eventhough I am a law abiding citizen prominent business leader in my community, had a TS-SCI when I got out of the Corps I am a gang member according to the Federal government because I am a patched member in a Motorcycle Club that wears a three piece patch.

 

[ataraxia]

Its not a loophole. The Democrats who wrote the law, who voted on the law in Congress, who signed it in the White House and the liberal majority SCOTUS knew exactly what the law did and didn't cover. Everyone knew that the Brady Act did not require background checks for private transfers.

Fine. But that doesn't explain why we can't fix it now.

"Loophole" is a deceit from from anti-hunting lobby to try to get universal background check law in place, a law the the Department of Justice told us would be ineffective and unenforceable.

Do you have any references for this? Because I couldn't find any. What I did find was this:

"According to a 1999 report by the ATF, legal private party transactions contribute to illegal activities, such as arms trafficking, purchases of firearms by prohibited buyers, and straw purchases...The report concluded that although most sellers at gun shows are upstanding people, a few corrupt sellers could move a large quantity of firearms into high-risk hands.[36]:17 They stated that there were gaps in current law and recommended "extending the Brady Law to 'close the gun show loophole.'"[37]

In 2009 the U.S. Government Accountability Office published a report citing that many firearms trafficked to Mexico may be purchased through these types of private transactions, by individuals who may want to avoid background checks and records of their firearms purchases.[47][n 4] Proposals put forth by United States Attorneys, which were never enacted, include:[36]:17
Allowing only FFL holders to sell guns at gun shows, so a background check and a firearms transaction record accompany every transaction
Strengthening the definition of "engaged in the business" by defining the terms with more precision, narrowing the exception for "hobbyists," and lowering the intent requirement
Limiting the number of individual private sales to a specified number per year
Requiring persons who sell guns in the secondary market to comply with the record-keeping requirements applicable to Federal Firearms License holders
Requiring all transfers in the secondary market to go through a Federal Firearms License holder
Establishing procedures for the orderly liquidation of inventory belonging to FFL holders who surrender their license
Requiring registration of non-licensed persons who sell guns
Increasing the punishment for transferring a firearm without a background check, as required by the Brady Act
Requiring gun show promoters to be licensed, maintaining an inventory of all the firearms that are sold by FFL holders and non-licensed sellers at gun shows
Requiring one or more ATF agents be present at every gun show
Insulating unlicensed vendors from criminal liability if they agree to have purchasers complete a firearms transaction form"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole

 

[ataraxia]

Yeah. There is no gun show loophole. And no. Im not gaslighting.

Are you saying that a terrorist or convicted ex-con cannot just walk up to an unlicensed seller today and buy a gun with no questions asked?

They can. That's the loophole.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

We have a thread outlining why those who carry do so. It would be interesting to know why those that do not carry feel they should not carry. Assume need is not an issue.

I don't carry because I don't feel the need to carry. I have a gun at home, and some guns at our old family home, but I don't feel the need to carry any other time. The only time I carry a gun out of the house is when I get roped into going hunting with someone, but that isn't very common anymore.

The only time I could see myself carrying would be on backpacking trips in grizzly country, but I always carry bear spray there which is lighter and more effective at thwarting a bear attack in the extremely rare event one were to occur.

 

[ataraxia]

"Title 18 United States Code Sections 3056 and 1752 provides the Secret Service authority to preclude firearms from entering sites visited by our protectees, including those located in open-carry states," Secret Service spokesman Robert K. Hoback said in a statement. "Only authorized law enforcement personnel working in conjunction with the Secret Service for a particular event may carry a firearm inside of the protected site."

So just out of curiosity: do you think this is because the Secret Service is a communist liberal organization which tyrannically oppresses 2nd Amendment loving Conservative Americans' rights? Would you be OK with open carry at GOP conventions if the secret service stepped out of the way?

 

[BretJ]

Shouldn't matter, right? Didn't you know that gun free zones are the most unsafe places? The more guns there are, the safer it should be, right? If criminals want to bring in guns to a convention, they will figure out a way. All you are doing is keeping the good guys with a gun from having a gun when that happens. If that thinking is good enough for our elementary schools, it should be good enough for our brave patriotic conservatives.



I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult. Honest. But I must have missed it. Could you tell me what it was again?

Fair enough. Here it is.
How about an endorsement on a government issued ID/drivers license which shows you are not an alcoholic/DUI offender, violent offender or otherwise legally adjudicated to be a danger to yourself or others. The ID can be checked electronically by any private citizen or business in order to determine if it is still valid. The ID must be presented prior to being served/provided alcohol, firearms or ammunition in either a private setting or commercial transaction. The penalty for providing alcohol, firearms or ammunition to someone without validating the ID or to someone without a valid ID would be so harsh as to be a life changing event. Make it so harsh that no one in their right mind would do so and actually enforce it.

 

[ataraxia]

Fair enough. Here it is.
How about an endorsement on a government issued ID/drivers license which shows you are not an alcoholic/DUI offender, violent offender or otherwise legally adjudicated to be a danger to yourself or others. The ID can be checked electronically by any private citizen or business in order to determine if it is still valid. The ID must be presented prior to being served/provided alcohol, firearms or ammunition in either a private setting or commercial transaction. The penalty for providing alcohol, firearms or ammunition to someone without validating the ID or to someone without a valid ID would be so harsh as to be a life changing event. Make it so harsh that no one in their right mind would do so and actually enforce it.

Hmmmm... that sounds interesting. I would need to study it more, but it's an interesting idea to look into a little more.

Cool. It seems we agree.

 

[Rucker61]

Are you saying that a terrorist or convicted ex-con cannot just walk up to an unlicensed seller today and buy a gun with no questions asked?

They can. That's the loophole.

No, that's the way the Democrats wrote the law. It wouldn't have passed otherwise.