OMG Politics, I'm over it already.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tig said:
:lol: Come to any gun show in Texas.
Click to expand...
Love to, I like TX... and gun shows.

There are background checks for all table sales at gun shows here. Same with online sales; there is a background check performed at the ffl who receives and transfers the gun to the purchaser.
 
8d2073a4476b8a2b53a0219687275e30.png
 
wagdog said:
Love to, I like TX... and gun shows.

There are background checks for all table sales at gun shows here. Same with online sales; there is a background check performed at the ffl who receives and transfers the gun to the purchaser.
Click to expand...

I think the loophole she is referring to is private sales at gun shows where nothing passes through the background system. I don't actually care about fixing that, as I'm not a criminal. Fix it. A more serious issue to gun regulations is the curio and relic and non-firearm status of a huge number of reasonably modern guns from WWI era falling outside of regulations based on age. Maybe fix those issues.

Fwiw, I'm a gun owner and ccw permit holder. I'm an odd liberal in that I own and like guns. Hillary's gun position really lowers my opinion of her, as I remember the crazy Clinton assault weapons ban legislation.
 
Last edited:
Bob Schieffer said it all; wrestlemaina
Tiltsta said:
I think the loophole she is referring to is private sales at gun shows where nothing passes through the background system. I don't actually care about fixing that, as I'm not a criminal. Fix it. A more serious issue to gun regulations is the curio and relic and non-firearm status of a huge number of modern guns from WWI era falling outside of regulations. Maybe fix those issues.

Fwiw, I'm a gun owner and ccw permit holder.
Click to expand...

The 'gun show loophole' only exists in certain states that permit a private individual (not a licensed dealer) to sell a firearm to another private individual (also not a licensed dealer) with out a background check. It's called that because that was and might still be the venue where many of those sales would happen, around a gun show.

IIRC there are only a handful of states that permit this anymore (and these laws are defined at the state level so some see this as a state's rights issue too)

....Lets not forget that it is still a Federal felony for anyone to knowingly sell a firearm to a prohibited person, background check or no background check.
 
Tiltsta said:
I think the loophole she is referring to is private sales at gun shows where nothing passes through the background system. I don't actually care about fixing that, as I'm not a criminal. Fix it. A more serious issue to gun regulations is the curio and relic and non-firearm status of a huge number of modern guns from WWI era falling outside of regulations. Maybe fix those issues.

Fwiw, I'm a gun owner and ccw permit holder.
Click to expand...
I hear you.

I know what they're talking about. Calling it a "gun show loophole" makes people think that gun shows are free-for-alls - they're not. Call it what it is and maybe I won't think you're (Hillary, not you) being dishonest about your intent.

I don't believe private property sales (of anything) need to be subjected to background checks.

I'm a gun owner, and live in a state that pretty much has no gun laws and wish to keep it that way.
 
wagdog said:
I hear you.

I know what they're talking about. Calling it a "gun show loophole" makes people think that gun shows are free-for-alls - they're not. Call it what it is and maybe I won't think you're (Hillary, not you) being dishonest about your intent.

I don't believe private property sales (of anything) need to be subjected to background checks.

I'm a gun owner, and live in a state that pretty much has no gun laws and wish to keep it that way.
Click to expand...

Agreed, her language does very little to put me at ease that she doesn't intend to unravel private firearms ownership in a step wise manner.
 
Tiltsta said:
I think the loophole she is referring to is private sales at gun shows where nothing passes through the background system. I don't actually care about fixing that, as I'm not a criminal. Fix it. A more serious issue to gun regulations is the curio and relic and non-firearm status of a huge number of reasonably modern guns from WWI era falling outside of regulations based on age. Maybe fix those issues.
Click to expand...

Is there a real black market supplying curio and relic guns to criminals? I’m not sure how to interpret the regulations: does the curio exemption allow people to sell vintage semi-auto pistols, AK-47s, or machine guns without background checks? Or is it limited to old bolt-action rifles?
 
Lerxst said:
Bob Schieffer said it all; wrestlemaina


The 'gun show loophole' only exists in certain states that permit a private individual (not a licensed dealer) to sell a firearm to another private individual (also not a licensed dealer) with out a background check. It's called that because that was and might still be the venue where many of those sales would happen, around a gun show.

IIRC there are only a handful of states that permit this anymore (and these laws are defined at the state level so some see this as a state's rights issue too)

....Lets not forget that it is still a Federal felony for anyone to knowingly sell a firearm to a prohibited person, background check or no background check.
Click to expand...

Correction, there are only a handful of states that require all sales w/ background checks, several for handguns only and number w/ no background check requirement:
http://consumer.findlaw.com/consumer-transactions/private-gun-sale-laws-by-state.html
 
Kerouac said:
I was hoping she'd come out and grab his cock, instead.


Honestly, a pretty tame debate. Trump did himself no favors, especially when it came to admitting he and Pence haven't talked much or are on the same foreign policy page. He looked tired and beaten down. Hillary stuck to the questions for the most part, but didn't have the acerbic bite-back I was hoping for.
Click to expand...
I thought it was her debate to lose and she didn't. Trade and emails were her weak points, but no big HUGE points made by him on that, other than to the faithful to him. She did not need to be more acerbic toward him. His stumbling around, and physically trying to intimidate her (which failed BTW) and his gaffs on foreign policy and not being even on the same page as his running mate, did not help him. Nor did trying to victim blame for Bill's crap. I thought she did what she needed to do. Flashier was not going to help her much more, and could have hurt if it went badly.
 
Last edited:
sunvalleylaw said:
I thought it was her campaign to lose and she didn't. Trade and emails were her weak points, but no big HUGE points made by him on that, other than to the faithful to him. She did not need to be more acerbic toward him. His stumbling around, and physically trying to intimidate her (which failed BTW) and his gaffs on foreign policy and not being even on the same page as his running mate, did not help him. Nor did trying to victim blame for Bill's crap. I thought she did what she needed to do. Flashier was not going to help her much more, and could have hurt if it went badly.
Click to expand...

Pretty much every woman I know simultaneously lost their shit and the way he was "creepy" on her. His body language the entire night was very aggressive, to her and the audience.

Also notice that Trump spoke to the cameras, while Clinton talked to the people asking the questions. Just like Bill in '92.
 
sunvalleylaw said:
I thought it was her campaign to lose and she didn't. Trade and emails were her weak points, but no big HUGE points made by him on that, other than to the faithful to him. She did not need to be more acerbic toward him. His stumbling around, and physically trying to intimidate her (which failed BTW) and his gaffs on foreign policy and not being even on the same page as his running mate, did not help him. Nor did trying to victim blame for Bill's crap. I thought she did what she needed to do. Flashier was not going to help her much more, and could have hurt if it went badly.
Click to expand...

Is it really anyone's debate to win or lose?

Strident supporters of either candidate will always think their candidate won
Tepid supporters are most likely doing the lesser of two evils choice and that's not going to change
3rd party supporters, well, you know
Undecideds? Is there really such a thing in an election this incredibly polarizing?
 
jp_nyc said:
Is there a real black market supplying curio and relic guns to criminals? I’m not sure how to interpret the regulations: does the curio exemption allow people to sell vintage semi-auto pistols, AK-47s, or machine guns without background checks? Or is it limited to old bolt-action rifles?
Click to expand...

I have no idea. I just see C&R SKS advertised all over. The SKS isn't exactly a Nagant bolt action. I'm not advocating that one shouldn't be able to own one, and I have two, but the rules
Regulating antiques were written back when antiques were black powder, and time moved on so now antiques are semi autos.
 
Lerxst said:
Correction, there are only a handful of states that require all sales w/ background checks, several for handguns only and number w/ no background check requirement:
http://consumer.findlaw.com/consumer-transactions/private-gun-sale-laws-by-state.html
Click to expand...
Idaho front and center again. And no permit required to carry concealed, and gun rights to carry preserved on college campuses. So that professors can shoot themselves in their own foot. :wink: (It happened, it really did). I do not really disagree with you guys that are responsible gun owners on your position. My state happens to be a bit reckless IMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top