Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said Sunday that the “gun show loophole” doesn’t exist, pushing back against gun control advocates’ call for background checks in all guns sales.If I were a gun-rights fanatic, I'd fight against this tooth and nail too. I might even pretend to not understand what the gun show loophole actually means and thereby render the discussion as tedious as possible.The alternative is to admit that once we have universal background checks, licensing and registration are right around the corner. Nothing short of a comprehensive and complete approach to gun control will have the desired effect.
“You know, there actually isn’t the so-called ‘gun show loophole,’” Cruz, a gun-rights advocate, said on NBC News’s “Meet The Press.” “That doesn’t exist. Any licensed firearm dealer who sells at a gun show has to have a background check. It’s a requirement that applies to every licensed firearm dealer. What it doesn’t apply to is personal sales one on one. And that’s true whether it’s at a gun show or not.”
President Obama unveiled a sweeping slate of gun control proposals last week, including a call for Congress to pass a law requiring universal background checks for gun sales, including those between private citizens that don’t involve licensed gun dealers, which are currently not subject to checks.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a leading gun control advocate, said on the same program that the proposal to require universal background checks “is the sweet spot in terms of actually making us safer and having a good chance of passing.”
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
And what's right around the corner after licensing and registration? Confiscation. Again, Mikeb, we can't trust your side. We can't believe you when you say that you don't want to take away all guns.
ReplyDeleteBut Cruz is correct. The law as written exempts private sales. Those aren't limited to gun shows. The term, gun show loophole, is designed to create the impression that gun shows are the focus of all evil in the firearms world. But the only wickedness that I've seen at them are cases when someone tries to sell a Mosin Nagant with a cheap scope for $400.
The law applies to every licensed firearms dealer. Private sellers are specifically exempted, regardless of where the private sale takes place. "Gun show loophole" is nothing more than a manipulative phrase specifically designed to create support for greater gun control legislation. Otherwise, it would be just as easy to simply say "we want to regulate private sales just like we do sales by licensed dealers". We could call it the "Private Firearms Sale Regulation Act" and publicly specify exactly what the requirements would be for each and every individual who dared to sell his father's old Browning "Sweet 16".
ReplyDeleteI don't think it was a conspiracy "designed to create support for greater gun control legislation," but maybe it was. The fact is everyone involved in the gun debate knows what we're talking about. I myself often refer to it as the "private sale loophole" in order to save myself from the inevitable silly comments that always follow "gun show loophole."
DeleteThe fact is that many in this debate have no clue what they're talking about. How else can we explain Carolyn McCarthy's "shoulder thing that goes up"? Most people who favor gun control are ignorant of guns--how they function, their uses, the rights related to them, and so forth.
DeleteMy evidence? All the gun control people I've talked to. All the ones I've read or listened to. Many years ago, when I was on your side, I knew nothing about guns. Then I learned. Logic and knowledge are on the gun rights side.
That's too broad a brush you're painting with there, Greg. I'd say there are some gun control folks active in the debate who don't know as much as the average gun owner, but not most. Many of us have been gun owners ourselves. Most of us are fairly intelligent and can read. What's really funny is when you talk about Senators and Congresspeople as if they're stupid. It's superficial self-aggrandizement on your part, nothing more.
DeleteI mock elected representatives because I read about their actions and hear their words. Take a random sample of bills proposed in Congress. More times than not, it'll sound like jibberish.
DeleteBut here's a challenge to you. Show me one gun control advocate on the national stage who can speak in a manner that gun experts would call intelligent and informed. I'll even be impressed if you can find one on lesser levels of exposure.
Dan Gross.
DeletePlease, don't put words in my mouth. I said it was a manipulative phrase. I neither stated nor implied a belief in a conspiracy. The two are not the same. Manipulation, in and of itself, does not a conspiracy make.
ReplyDeleteThat's a pretty fine line you're drawing there. Manipulation to achieve a hidden agenda sounds a lot like conspiracy to me.
DeleteNot really all that fine a line. I simply used the words to mean precisely what I meant and nothing more. Words are important, MIke. They have the power to influence and persuade, clarify or obscure and enlighten (or darken if you will), if the right ones are used at the right time. None of which suggest a conspiracy.
ReplyDelete