arma virumque cano (et alia)
Sheriff Joe Takes Aim at Mayor Bloomberg: MyFoxPHOENIX.com
"Republicans for Gun Control"We call those RINOs.
"'Republicans for Gun Control,' yeah, baby."Yes, I am afraid the mental illness of hoplophobia is not restricted to those of a certain political influence. There are many of them in the Republican party too. Even the Ohio Governor and Attorney General suffer from the malady. Psychiatric help is available once they admit they have a problem.
Does this "loop hole" actually exist? I have heard conflicting stories. On the face of it, it sounds reasonable but I wonder, is this a real problem in the US or is it just another Gun Control myth/half truth/lie... ?BTW I'm from Australia so I don't have any first hand knowledge of this particular topic.
Cybic, It certainly does exist, the only problem is its being called a "gunshow loophole." The better way to describe it is the "private sale loophole." Even then some of our gun friends argue at great length about the work "loophole."Whatever you call it, the fact is unless you're buying a gun from a licensed gun dealer, you don't have to submit yourself to a background check. This is what gun control folks object to.
Cybic,Because their arguments are usually devoid of logic, the anti-freedom crowd likes to use terms that are misleading. In this case they are using the word "loophole" to describe part of the law they do not like.A "loophole" is an unintentional characteristic of a law that allows the law to be skirted or exploited as is the case with many tax laws. In the case of private sales, there is no such flaw or characteristic but rather the law is clearly written to exempt private transfers specifically. It is not a "loophole" but rather it is a feature. The original law never intended to apply to private sales or to require background checks that were legislated 25 years later. To refer to the absence of background checks and not applying the law to private transfers as a "loophole" is not only misleading but an outright lie. Of course, Bloomberg and the other anti-freedom people are used to needing lies to make their argument as the truth is seldom on their side.
Wow, thanks for info. It makes more sense now. Private sale of guns without government control is interesting. I can see the arguments for it and against it. I wonder if this is how criminals actually get their guns as implied by the gun control advocates? If it was the case I'm sure they would be quoting the stats on it. Interesting one.
Cybic, I've got you figured out now. You really a pro-gun extremist from the States who's pretending to ask questions you already (think you) know the answer to.Well, FWM really appreciates the opportunity.Just tell me this. How's it work where you come from? When two people disagree over the meaning of a word, let's say "loophole," does that mean one of them is lying? I wouldn't think so, I'd call that "mistaken" or just plain "wrong." What do you think?
MikeB,Bloomberg can be "mistaken" once but once he was corrected and continues to promote the same falsehood over and over I would say he is lying.He knows that the GCA'68 didn't intend to ban private transfers, in fact it specifically exempts them from being included. The act also did not require background checks that it took almost 3 decades to achieve. In fact, had the GCA'68 not exempted private sales and call for background checks, it never would have passed. He lies.
"I wonder if this is how criminals actually get their guns as implied by the gun control advocates? If it was the case I'm sure they would be quoting the stats on it."Not only are the stats not there, they point the other way. According to the FBI, fewer than 1% of all guns used in crimes were obtained at a gunshow.
Sorry FWM, but I have to say bullshit and bullshit to your last two comments. I think you're being overly precise about the meaning of "loophole" in order to justify your ridiculous enjoyment in calling Bloomberg a liar. And I don't believe that 1% stat for a minute. They're lying - no that's a joke. What they're doing is compiling a faulty statistic and you're using it. Think about it for a minute, Do you really think 99% of guns in criminal hands come from other sources than gun shows when gun shows are such a good source? The obvious explanation is their 1% is the ones that were PROVEN to have come from gun shows, and they're not counting the ones that came from gun shows and passed through a few criminal hands before being picked up for tracing. In other words they're not considering that all guns started out with a legitimate owner.
Well, what I mean to say is that I'm used to anti gun nuts lying about so called facts. Hence my question.The word extremist gets used far too often by the left or anti gun people. I believe we should all have access to guns for sport and self defense. If people don't like guns then they don't have to have one. A simple view to life and one which I wouldn't consider extreme.Further, you're claim that all guns start of legally owned is false. Where is your evidence? We still have gun crime here with guns that are not legal and never have been but criminals still get them. There was a case recently in QLD a northern state of Australia, where a group setup an illegle production site of firearms to sell to criminals. No loophole required there. Just like banning alcohol in the US didn't work.
Cybic, The percentage of guns produced illegally is negligible. You know that. The 99.9% of guns used criminally were formerly the property of lawful citizens or gun dealers. Proper laws can constrain you guys to hang on to your guns.