Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Minnesota Gun Shows Under Attack

The NRA-ILA made the announcement.

With Minnesota’s 2010 legislative session coming to an end, anti-gun State Representative Michael Paymar (DFL-64B) intends to offer an amendment to a yet unknown bill, which would severely regulate the sale of firearms at gun shows in Minnesota. Representative Paymar has until the last minute on Monday, May 17 to attach this amendment, so it is important that you once again urge your Representative to block his continued anti-gun agenda.

His proposed amendment would force all private sales conducted at gun shows across Minnesota to go through a background check. Gun prohibitionists, such as Representative Paymar, falsely claim that many criminals get their guns from gun shows, but the most recent federal study puts the figure at only 0.7 percent. This effort is a stepping stone for anti-gun advocates seeking to ban all private sales, even among family and friends.

Is it any wonder that pro-gun folks accuse everybody else of lying and distorting the facts when their own NRA writes things like this?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Posted by at
Labels: , ,

19 comments:

  1. FatWhiteManMay 12, 2010 at 1:50 PM

    "Is it any wonder that pro-gun folks accuse everybody else of lying and distorting the facts when their own NRA writes things like this?"

    Which part is the lie and distortion?

    ReplyDelete
  2. UnknownMay 12, 2010 at 2:06 PM

    FWM, just in case you're serious I'll explain.

    "which would severely regulate"

    The word "severely" is an exaggeration.

    "urge your Representative to block his continued anti-gun agenda."

    Urging this before they even know what the proposed legislation is, is evidence of what we often say about you guys. You oppose anything and everything from our side, regardless of merit.

    "Gun prohibitionists, such as Representative Paymar"

    He's not a "prohibitionist," that's inflammatory and exaggerated.

    "[they] falsely claim"

    This depends on what poll you look at. The word "falsely" is false.

    "This effort is a stepping stone for anti-gun advocates seeking to ban all private sales, even among family and friends."

    This, finally, may be true. It's just that the "family and friends" nonsense gives a false impression of the motivations of the "prohibitionists." All they want is to prevent disqualified people from buying guns, but instead of accepting such a reasonable motivation and discussing how to accomplish it, you claim not to believe it and fight against every initiative tooth and nail.

    You guys are way wrong on this one.

    ReplyDelete
  3. FatWhiteManMay 12, 2010 at 3:53 PM

    The word "severely" is an exaggeration.

    You are right, "severely" is subjective. Perhaps "absolutely regulate" would have been better.

    "Urging this before they even know what the proposed legislation is, is evidence of what we often say about you guys. You oppose anything and everything from our side, regardless of merit"

    Yes, you are correct. We do oppose any and all legislation from your side (anti-gun side) and very little you ask for has any merit.

    He's not a "prohibitionist," that's inflammatory and exaggerated.

    He seeks to prohibit private gun ownership. The term "prohibitionist" is accurate, not inflammatory.

    "[they] falsely claim"

    I don't know about any polls, however the ATF gave us the less than one percent number. So how is it not flase if the prohibitionist claimed athat a significant source of criminal guns come from gun shows while the ATF says only 0.7%. Who then is wrong?

    "This, finally, may be true. It's just that the 'family and friends' nonsense gives a false impression of the motivations of the 'prohibitionists.'"

    Unless the said legislation exempts family and friends from the control, then that is hardly a false statement.

    I understand you disagreeing with the NRA on this but if you are going to accuse the NRA of lying in that statement they made, then you are going to have to do better.

    Now you see why Jade doesn't even bother to try and give explanation when he accuses the NRA of lying.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mike W.May 12, 2010 at 4:56 PM

    What part of that was factually incorrect?

    Of course I'm asking someone who we all know is incapable of determining truth from falsity...

    If he wants to prohibit people from buying arms (which a ban on private sales most certainly does) then he is, by definition, a "prohibitionist"

    All they want is to prevent disqualified people from buying guns.

    100% grade A bullshit. Disqualified people are already prohibited by Federal law from buying guns.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousMay 12, 2010 at 5:08 PM

    Actually, every sentence in the NRA blurb was a distortion or lie with the exception of the first sentence of the second paragraph.

    --JadeGold

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousMay 12, 2010 at 6:37 PM

    Let's debunk this--step by step:

    1st sentence, 1st para calls Rep. Paymar "anti-gun." This is a lie because Paymar's legislation--closing gun show loopholes is supported by AHSA and a majority of NRA members.

    2nd sentence, 1st para again calls Paymar "anti-gun." Again, this legislation is supported by the vast majority of gunowners.

    2nd sentence, 2nd para: refers to Paymar as a "gun prohibitionist." Yet, nothing in Paymar's legislation would prevent or prohibit law-abiding citizens from buying or selling guns. Same sentence claims latest federal study shows only .7% of criminals got their guns from gun shows. Actually, the study referred to 1997 inmate survey where .8% of inmates claimed to have bought guns from gun shows. The DoJ who conducted this study noted this study did not attempt to verify the firearms reported in the survey or trace them to determine their chain of possession from original retail sale to the time they were transferred to the inmates surveyed (in cases where inmates were not the original retail purchaser). Subsequent studies consistently show about a third of crime guns are purchased at gun shows.

    Last sentence claims "steppingstone" to ban all private sales. Again a lie unless the NRA can claim some secret mindreading skillz like FJ.

    --JadeGold

    ReplyDelete
  7. FishyJayMay 12, 2010 at 6:44 PM

    Last sentence claims "steppingstone" to ban all private sales. Again a lie unless the NRA can claim some secret mindreading skillz like FJ.

    I claim to be able to read mikeb's mind on this particular.

    Oh, okay -- I admit that THIS helped:

    mikeb: "This, finally, may be true."

    ReplyDelete
  8. UnknownMay 12, 2010 at 7:16 PM

    Banning all private sales cannot really be thought of as a gun ban, in the sense we use it in these discussions. This is another example of how the pro-gun crowd use exaggerated terms to distort the intent and understanding of the argument.

    What we're talking about is disallowing unregulated transfers of firearms. We're talking about requiring background checks on all of them. That's not banning anything.

    ReplyDelete
  9. AnonymousMay 12, 2010 at 7:19 PM

    Banning all private sales

    The fact is banning of private sales is not being discussed. Private sales could continue, albeit only to law-abiding citizens.

    --JadEgold

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mike W.May 12, 2010 at 9:21 PM

    Banning all private sales cannot really be thought of as a gun ban.

    Hmm, funny, because a BAN ON GUNS is a BAN ON GUNS among us thinking folks.

    Jadegold lies his ass off again. A ban on private sales is exactly what "closing the gunshow loophole" means. There is no such loophole. What such proposed legislation does is bans all private sales, specifically those done amongst the law-abiding.

    ReplyDelete
  11. FatWhiteManMay 12, 2010 at 11:11 PM

    Jade said:
    "closing gun show loopholes is supported by AHSA and a majority of NRA members."

    Wrong. First of all, AHSA was just a political creation with no real members. Secondly, they went out of business after the 2008 election. Finally, the majority of NRA members do not want an assault weapons ban nor do they believe there is a gunshow "loophole".

    Jade is as sharp as a turd, tapered on both ends.

    ReplyDelete
  12. RuffRidrMay 12, 2010 at 11:15 PM

    The fact is banning of private sales is not being discussed. Private sales could continue, albeit only to law-abiding citizens.

    How exactly would that happen, since the NICS system is only open to licensed FFL holders?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mike W.May 12, 2010 at 11:19 PM

    ASHA was a joyce funded anti-gun group.

    Thankfully they are now defunct, like many other anti-gunners are nowadays.

    I love that it's hard to drum up monetary support for outright bigotry.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mike W.May 12, 2010 at 11:21 PM

    Y'know, Jade's lies are so blatant and obvious it's laughably easy to refute them.

    It's really sad that you support this kind of crap MikeB.

    Then again, when you have as little support as you do I suppose beggars can't be choosers, and Jade, Laci Demo etc. are the folks you get.

    Definitely people of honesty, integrity and generally good character for you to pal around with. (That's sarcasm BTW)

    ReplyDelete
  15. AnonymousMay 13, 2010 at 1:06 AM

    AHSA is anti-gun? Wow.

    For an anti-gun group they seem to own an awful lot of guns. They even supported your side on Heller--more than the NRA.

    --JadeGold

    ReplyDelete
  16. Mike W.May 13, 2010 at 2:52 AM

    Yup AHSA is anti-gun. He'll, their heller brief called DC's gun ban a "laudable effort" and made one of the same arguments DC did, that since DC isn't a state the Constitution doesn't apply to them.

    As usual Jade is intellectually dishonest

    ReplyDelete
  17. TSMay 13, 2010 at 7:11 AM

    Jade: “The fact is banning of private sales is not being discussed. Private sales could continue, albeit only to law-abiding citizens.”

    Private sales are banned in CA. They started on this path there and ended up banning all private sales, and continued on to ban the Cow Palace gun show completely.

    Just drop the “gun show” talk, support opening the NCIS to all, and maybe you will actually have support from NRA members. And that covers a lot more sales than just gun shows.

    ReplyDelete
  18. UnknownMay 13, 2010 at 11:33 AM

    RuffRidr asked, "How exactly would that happen, since the NICS system is only open to licensed FFL holders?"

    I can think of two ways right off the bat. One, they open up the system to everyone. Two, they require the buyer to visit an FFL guy and complete a background check with him prior to taking possession of his privately transferred gun.

    ReplyDelete
  19. RuffRidrMay 13, 2010 at 3:09 PM

    I can think of two ways right off the bat. One, they open up the system to everyone.

    Why wait for a ban on private sales to institute this? Institute it now. You just may find that a lot of people will do this willingly. No, the gun banners want to make it as inconvenient as possible. It is part of your incremental approach.

    Two, they require the buyer to visit an FFL guy and complete a background check with him prior to taking possession of his privately transferred gun.

    That's not a private sale anymore. You are involving a third party who is most likely going to charge for his special lookup privileges.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)