The Denver Post published an advertisement from the father of a Columbine victim in Tuesday’s paper urging Sen. Mark Udall, a Democrat, to sign Senate Bill 843.
The ad said, “On the 11th anniversary of the Columbine tragedy, I urge you to stand with Senator Bennet and the vast majority of Coloradans by working to close the Gun Show Loophole.”
A “Gun Show Loophole,” does not exist, period. What gun control advocates want to change, they wrongly-identify and sensationalize as a loophole.
In reality, what they seek is to require all transfers of firearms between private individuals under government control; those are the only transactions at gun shows not already subject to current firearm control laws.
He says the gun control folks are wrongly identifying and sensationalizing the situation by calling it a "loophole." He prefaces that explanation with the point-blank statement that the "“Gun Show Loophole,” does not exist, period."
I find this extremely tedious. Everyone involved in this debate understands perfectly well what is meant by "gun show loophole." By taking issue with the wording, we are diverted from the issue. By claiming that the wording, is somehow purposely utilized to make it sound worse, is just silly. If anything, it has the opposite effect now. If "loophole" ever had a negative connotation, it's been diluted by overuse.
The bottom line is continuing to allow anyone and everyone to buy guns without a background check is unacceptable. Gun rights advocates know this. That's why they try everything they can to divert us from the issue by any means they can.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.