Let's ALL Go To The GUN SHOW

[lame54]

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/watch-nra-heads-explode-al-qaeda-spo

That popping sound you hear is the heads of NRA loyalists exploding from massive cognitive dissonance, all because of the release this week of a video showing a spokesman for Al Qaeda, Adam Gadahn, urging would-be jihadis to go out and stock up on as many guns as they can get their hands on -- through the gun-show loophole:

"America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?"

Of course, we've previously discussed how the gun-show loophole is an open invitation to criminals, particularly in the context of the the drug-cartel violence along the Mexico border, which is in fact being heavily fueled by guns purchased legally in the USA, many of them at gun shows.

As Chris Brown at Media Matters observes:

At gun shows buyers can purchase guns from private sellers without passing a background check. An investigation by the City of New York showed that even buyers that identified themselves as people who "probably couldn't pass a background check" were able to purchase guns at gun shows. The investigation also showed the wide variety of guns available at gun shows.

In addition, people on terrorist watch lists are not forbidden from purchasing guns and many have done just that. Gadahn's instructions come in the wake of Associated Press reporting that showed that more than 200 people with suspected terrorist ties bought guns legally in the United States last year. Following the AP report Representative Mike Quigley introduced an amendment to the Patriot Act that would give the Attorney General the authority to block gun sales to individuals on terror watch lists. The amendment was voted down.

Of course, the NRA remains adamantly opposed to closing the gun-show loophole. Indeed, they also remain opposed to bipartisan efforts to make it tougher for terrorists to buy guns.

One can only conclude that they are objectively pro-terrorist.

[lemonnn]

1. Went to a gun show today. All were hoping a few of Gadahn's friends showed up...

Yup, I think 99.9% of the 1,500 or so law abiding gun owners a this small midwest show this afternoon were HOPING a few of Gadahn's "friends" showed up to "buy a few guns"...

[lame54]

2. I'm sure they were there

[JoePhilly]

3. How would you know what percentage of these folks were law abiding?

Did you do a background check? I'm betting no.

Oh wait ... I forgot that you can tell by looking at some one if they are a terrorist.

Fox news and Glen Beck have explained this in great detail.

Welcome to DU ... Enjoy your stay.

:rofl:

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[friendly_iconoclast]

13. Were you helping with Operation Gunwalker at the time?

[lemonnn]

18. No, that would be our attorney general's game..

You know, the same one saying 85% of Mexican crime guns THAT CAN BE TRACED are traced to the US. Oops. That CAN BE TRACED aspect leaves out all those military weapons from China, Venezuela, Russia, North Korea, etc. etc. etc. that comprise about 80% of the guns USED by Mexicans in crime in Mexico.

[MyrnaLoy]

60. oh

yeah that NRA-cbs news dead horse. The BATFE busing tons or weapons across the border LOL. I wish you luck with that one.

[friendly_iconoclast]

77. And the Arizona Star and ABC News- and 31 Democratic US Representatives:

They seem to think that equid is just fine, thank you very much...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x424416

House Democrats urge White House to come clean on Gunwalker
Friday, June 03, 2011

Today, 31 U.S. House members -- all Democrats -- wrote to President Barack Obama, urging him to end Administration stonewalling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' "Project Gunrunner," and the "Fast and Furious" program under which border state dealers were encouraged to sell thousands of guns to suspicious buyers.

In the letter, spearheaded by Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pa., the lawmakers called the investigative tactics "extremely troubling" and found the Justice Department's failure to provide information to congressional investigators "equally troubling." Saying that Americans deserve "prompt and complete answers," the letter concluded with a call for the administration to help "get to the bottom of this serious allegation of federal law enforcement misconduct."

Still claiming there's nothing to see?

[PavePusher]

40. Where in the fuck did you get that from?

Accusations of racism spring pretty freely from you, without any evidence whatsoever.

[TheCowsCameHome]

14. You must have spent all your time questioning the dealers and patrons.

But that's not the only reason you went, is it? :rofl:

[Ian David]

4. How about the gun sale at the church?

Gun Sale at the Church
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0npOg8TvJuE

[Fla_Democrat]

6. I will donate $1000 to the Brady Center...

if anyone can show me what a gun show loop hole is. What law, either does not apply at the gun show, that normally applies any where else. Or, what law does apply at the gun show that does not apply anywhere else.


Oh, and..... You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card. is fucking bull shit. If someone has evidence of people selling legal, title 3 weapons over the counter, at gun shows, through their local paper, or on craig's list, with out the paper work...time to put up.

[HankyDubs]

16. semantics

if anyone can show me what a gun show loop hole is. What law, either does not apply at the gun show, that normally applies any where else. Or, what law does apply at the gun show that does not apply anywhere else.

So let's call it the "private seller loophole." That's what it is. Laws that apply to licensed dealers do not apply to private sellers. Now if a "private seller" was only selling a gun or two to an acquaintance or relative, s/he wouldn't be able to do enough volume to make a real profit. That's why people call it the "gun show loophole." As you can see, these so called "private sellers" have dozens of guns and other related items for sale:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv2u7l8rKrQ

So instead s/he goes to a gun show, where they can really do brisk sales, just as a licensed firearms dealer can, while completely ignoring all the laws that a reputable gun dealer would have to follow.

I think what irks the gun crowd is that this douchetool is essentially correct, though some of the details are wrong. For anyone wishing to commit a terrorist act with a firearm, gun shows are a great place to get your murder weapon.

[gejohnston]

20. correct my ass

That ill written piece of shit that would have gotten an F in remedial comp. He was correct about nothing.

[HankyDubs]

23. actually

if you are a loony intent on murdering folks and you want to buy a gun without all those pesky background checks, the gun show is the place to go!

And you know it.

[krispos42]

24. If you're an unknown loony, the best place is a regular firearms dealer.

If you're a known loony, the best place is a private seller that can't access the information that you're a known loony.

[HankyDubs]

25. why bother

going to a reputable dealer?

Either way, the best place to go to get your murder weapon is a gun show.

[krispos42]

37. I'll tell you why.

Because you can get exactly what you want from a dealer, instead of browsing through newspaper ads, estate sales, and websites trying to find something workable.


But nearly all the dealers at a gun show are federally licensed dealers. Some have storefronts, some work from their kitchen table. But very few non-FFL people at a gun show are selling guns. Gun accessories, shooting accessories, even refreshments. But not guns.

[HankyDubs]

38. i didn't know murderers were so picky

I'll have to defer on that one.

Gun accessories, shooting accessories, even refreshments. But not guns.

Do you need to see the Bloomberg video again?

[krispos42]

54. The variety of guns is considerable

And if you're buying used, you need to shop around to find a good example of what you need. Some guns have lousy sights. Some don't feed hollowpoint bullets. Some jam a lot. Some have lousy accuracy. Some have a nasty habit of giving the user hammerbite. Some are too powerful, or not powerful enough. Some are in hard-and-expensive-to-obtain calibers. Some are slow to reload. Some have lousy ergonomics.

Plus there's simply what you're used to. If you're used to handling, say, a 1911, then you can have a problem using another gun that operates differently and has different controls.


Not that I'm endorsing murderers here, but the analogy is that a getaway driver for a bank heist looks for the same features that a sport-car aficionado does.


As to the Bloomberg video, I give that about as much credibility as the ACORN/pimp videos.

[PavePusher]

43. Not according to the available crime stats and surveys.

Unless you have evidence to the contrary...?

[HankyDubs]

46. sure do!

enjoy!

http://www.csgv.org/storage/documents/VIRGINIA%20GUN%20SHOW%20DATA%20PAPER.pdf

[PavePusher]

50. Two things that undercut the credibility of your "evidence"....

1. No stats for sources of other crime guns, just the claim of the title.

2. The credibility of ATF "testimony" seems to be null and void, considering their past history. If you had some secondary verification, it would help their case.

3. CSGV? Seriously? Come on, you can do better than that.

[HankyDubs]

52. attacking the source

doesn't mean you can dispute the evidence.

[PavePusher]

53. Attacking the source based on their previous history of lies and murder.

Huh, what ever would make me want to distrust them?

Again, a secondary source would strengthen the claim.

[gejohnston]

57. actually yes

Called impeaching the witness. It is not based on empirical evidence, simply a claim made by a mouth piece that may or may have not match what is in the congressional record.

[HankyDubs]

63. right

you can't dispute the facts, so you attack the messenger

[gejohnston]

85. unless of course

the ATF never said it or if it is in context. Do I think Brady would just make stuff up? Yes. Paul Helmke is a teddy bear version of Newt in his ability to lie and make stuff up on off the top of his head. There is a youtube video where Helmke tells eight lies in a few minutes, including that Brady is not a gun control organization.

[PavePusher]

44. Not according to the available crime stats and surveys.

Unless you have evidence to the contrary...?

[gejohnston]

27. even easier at the local drug connection, since gun shows are not every day

so what's your point?

[HankyDubs]

31. my point is that the private seller loophole exists

And it does exist, beyond all doubt. Gun shows are a great place to purchase a gun if you can't pass a background check.

[gejohnston]

33. Since it is a law that congress intended, it is not really a loophole

to me a loophole is something that defies the spirit of the law even though it follows the letter of it. The sort of thing you hire tax lawyers to find.

[HankyDubs]

36. except it most surely is a loophole

to me a loophole is something that defies the spirit of the law even though it follows the letter of it.

The intent of our laws is to prevent criminals and the mentally unstable from purchasing firearms, and this is a loophole that allows thse purchases to be made.

The intent was not to criminalize the transfer or sale of one or two firearms for people who are ACTUALLY private sellers, not people who make their living by exploiting this loophole.

[krispos42]

39. Incorrect

The intent of the background check law was to prevent criminals from buying firearms from dealers. It does that. The background check system was never intended to be used by private citizens; ergo, there is no loophole when a private citizen unknowingly sells a gun to a criminal.

The intent of the "felons can't own or possess a gun" law is to prevent felons from buying, owning, or possessing a gun. The background check law is a part of that process in that in actively checks to see if a purchaser is legally able to buy a gun before the gun dealer sells it to him. However, since it was intended, designed, and executed in such a way as to be available only to federally-licensed dealers, it is not a loophole (another word for "mistake") that a private citizen such as myself cannot access the NICS.

If you want to put all private gun transactions through the NICS, then simply say so. Call it the "Uniform National Background Check Act" or something.


But don't pretend there's a loophole, a mistake in the law, when in fact one does not exist.

[HankyDubs]

45. nope

The intent of the background check law was to prevent criminals from buying firearms from dealers.

According to you, but not according to the FBI. If only you were a reliable source of information!

"The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, is all about saving lives and protecting people from harm—by not letting guns and explosives fall into the wrong hands. It also ensures the timely transfer of firearms to eligible gun buyers

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics

it is not a loophole (another word for "mistake") that a private citizen such as myself cannot access the NICS.

I'm not talking about you, really, unless you're a disreputable arms dealer selling dozens of guns at these shows while pretending to be a "private seller." Again, you could watch the bloomberg video again. Tables full of weapons being sold by so-called "private sellers." I could see how that would make it more difficult for legitimate private sellers, but we could surely find a way to make the system more accessible for those people.


If you want to put all private gun transactions through the NICS, then simply say so.

Yes. I thought that it was abundantly clear that I want all gun transactions to go through NICS.

There clearly is a loophole here that is routinely exploited by dishonest individuals. If the pro-gun folks had any sense, they'd work to close this loophole rather than fighting tooth and nail to keep it open.

This is an easy way for criminals to purchase guns...aren't you against criminals purchasing guns? You should be, this is potentially disastrous for you folks. Take Tommy Taliban here, with him exhorting terrorists to buy guns and start rampaging. He's just blowing smoke and making threats of course, but what if this started to happen en masse? You might get more restrictions than even I would support if that were to happen.

[gejohnston]

47. I think many do, some are ambivilant on how it would or could be enforced

Again, you could watch the bloomberg video again.

When I saw it, the names James O'Keefe and ACORN came to mind. I really want to see the edited out part of the video. Besides, for all you know that could have been the sixth "might not pass" being a smart ass joke of the day. Most likely, the part "why do you say that" has been cut out. According to BATFE statistics, criminals rarely go to gun shows. As for unlicensed dealers, why isn't the ATF going after them instead of sending guns to Mexico?

[HankyDubs]

49. I agree that many do, my issue is with those who don't

Besides, for all you know that could have been the sixth "might not pass" being a smart ass joke of the day.

What would that prove? That one in six or one in ten private sellers is perfectly willing to sell a gun to a person who can't pass a NICS check?

As for unlicensed dealers, why isn't the ATF going after them instead of sending guns to Mexico?

Well technically they aren't breaking the law...

[gejohnston]

55. If they are gaining an income selling, not the one or two time private seller,

they are breaking the law. I noticed you ignored the James O'Keefe/ACORN angle.

[HankyDubs]

65. by no means did I ignore it

As I said (but you somehow failed to read) let's assume that they edited out 10...nah lets say 20...guys who refused to make the sale.

So now its 1 in 20 "private sellers" that are unscrupulous SOB's who will happily sell guns to people they know can't pass a check. Too many.

You can also watch videos from the 2009 Gun Show Undercover Investigation where 19 of 30 private sellers - 63% - broke the law by completing a sale to a buyer who they thought could not pass a background check.

http://www.gunshowundercover.org/

I don't find anywhere a concise definition on how many sales a "private seller" has to make before they are considered lawbreakers, but clearly both the 2009 sting and the 2011 stings show "private sellers" offering dozens of weapons for sale.

[Euromutt]

69. The fact that "in the business" isn't defined does not work in private sellers' favor

Because it gives the ATF considerable discretion in prosecuting individuals whom it deems to be "in the business" of trading in firearms without a Type 01 FFL.

<...> clearly both the 2009 sting and the 2011 stings show "private sellers" offering dozens of weapons for sale.

It's not uncommon for several private sellers--particularly ones who already know each other--to rent a table together to defray expenses. So your table with "dozens of weapons" could represent, say, four to six guys who each brought six to ten guns to sell.

Also, you have no idea how often the sellers depicted do this, or how many guns they actually manage to sell. Basically, you're making a whole bunch of inferences based on what you're already inclined to believe, aka confirmation bias.

[krispos42]

58. Yes.... FROM FEDERALLY LICENSED GUN DEALERS

Next paragraph, please!

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, is all about saving lives and protecting people from harm—by not letting guns and explosives fall into the wrong hands. It also ensures the timely transfer of firearms to eligible gun buyers.

Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998, NICS is used by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to instantly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy firearms or explosives. Before ringing up the sale, cashiers call in a check to the FBI or to other designated agencies to ensure that each customer does not have a criminal record or isn't otherwise ineligible to make a purchase. More than 100 million such checks have been made in the last decade, leading to more than 700,000 denials.

boldface mine

Yes. I thought that it was abundantly clear that I want all gun transactions to go through NICS

That part is clear. The disingenuous part is that you're making the reason for this to be fixing some mythical loophole that doesn't exist, and you're attributing special powers to gun show transactions to rally support.

Say the law is weak. Say it needs expansion. That's fine, and that's a viable and defensible to have. But don't keep saying things that don't exist.

[gejohnston]

59. But the FBI is not congress. Congress wrote the law

They made it illegal for private individuals from using NICS and is the spirit and letter of the law. That is why it is not a loophole. Contrast this with the dictionary definition of Loophole. Since a private seller is prohibited by law from using NICS, and there is no ambiguity in the wording. When you call, the FBI asks for your FFL number. Assuming you have the phone number, no FFL number and the FBI will hang up on you. There is no ambiguity in that.

loop·hole (lphl)
n.
1. A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance.

[pipoman]

70. You do, of coarse, know

that the private seller issue would have been addressed a decade ago if it weren't for that pesky Constitution, no? The Federal Gov. has no jurisdiction over private, intrastate commerce of legal items, none, never have. States rights thingy. Some states have statutes requiring background checks for private sales. This will never be law at the federal level, it would be struck down as a no-brainer by a traffic court judge and would never gain an appeal.

Why is the NICS not even available to me, in some affordable or free form, to verify a potential buyer? Why are the Brady's not at least taking that cause? Because they really don't want to fix the issue, they collect too much money harping on 'gun show loophole', that's why.

[gejohnston]

61. Then call the ATF on their happy asses and have them checked out

You are describing a crime violating the Federal Firearms act of 1938 and Gun Control Act of 1968. If they are indeed making a living or an income without an FFL, taking away business away from a local dealer playing by the rules, then I am not going to defend them. Although I would like to know who their wholesalers are if these guys are as you claim.

[one-eyed fat man]

86. It is already against the law!

{b]"...who make their living by exploiting this loophole."

Anyone who makes a living at selling guns is "in the business" and required by Federal law to have a license. Your taxes pay for a great and wonderful website where you can find out what the law really is instead of repeating misinformation you like to believe.

http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf

If there is a seller who travels from show to show selling guns and making a living at it as an "unlicensed dealer" he is a felon the ATF should be investigating and arresting instead of spending their time walking guns to Mexico.

[rl6214]

73. So is your local newspaper, craigslist, gunbroker.com

and a number of other places that are NOT gunshows with NO loophole.

[Euromutt]

30. If you have no prior criminal history, and haven't been adjudicated "mentally deficient"...

...why should you give a toss about "those pesky background checks"? You'll pass them anyway. How many mass shooters, of the Cho and Loughner varieties, acquired their firearms from a private seller at a gun show? Klebold and Harris come to mind, but even then, they used straw purchasers.

[HankyDubs]

32. well for one thing

it's easier to track where your murder weapon came from if you buy it at a reputable dealer, as opposed to a shady gun runner who presents themself as a "private seller" at a gun show.

But thanks for pointing out that gun shows are a great place to make straw purchases as well. I agree.

Between 2002 and 2005, more than 400 firearms sold at Richmond-area gun shows
were recovered in connection with criminal activity. More than 300 of these guns were
recovered in the Richmond metropolitan area.1 As disturbing as these numbers are,
they certainly understate the scope of the problem. According to Michael Bouchard,
Assistant Director/Field Operations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives (ATF), “these figures do not take into account firearms that may have been
sold at Richmond area gun shows by unlicensed sellers, as these transactions are
difficult to track."


http://www.csgv.org/storage/documents/VIRGINIA%20GUN%20SHOW%20DATA%20PAPER.pdf

Does the private seller loophole exist? Yep. Yep it does. Next?

[gejohnston]

34. CSGV? So how about if someone comes back with something from the NRA?

So I can go to BATFE or some neutral source and get same information? Usually not the case. I will reserve judgment until I check it out.

[HankyDubs]

35. how about it?

Practically every single word that comes out of pro-gun people on this forum is taken verbatim from the NRA (a right wing organization engaged in massive legalized bribery). I've got no problem with that. Fire away!

[gejohnston]

48. Yeah but we can back ours up from DOJ, CDC etc

your guys are usually debunked by those guys. Besides, VPC is also right of center (to the right of me anyway) and would be engaged in legalized bribery if enough people believed their bullshit to give money.

[HankyDubs]

51. when you come up with something

make sure to let me know.

[gejohnston]

56. I will, just like we always have in the past. Which you never answer with facts

if you answer.

[HankyDubs]

62. except that I did

and you're coming up empty.

[Straw Man]

66. Not so fast, Hanky.

Between 2002 and 2005, more than 400 firearms sold at Richmond-area gun shows were recovered in connection with criminal activity. More than 300 of these guns were recovered in the Richmond metropolitan area. As disturbing as these numbers are, they certainly understate the scope of the problem. According to Michael Bouchard, Assistant Director/Field Operations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), “these figures do not take into account firearms that may have been sold at Richmond area gun shows by unlicensed sellers, as these transactions are
difficult to track."

As per your quote, the guns that were recovered had been purchased from licensed dealer, meaning NICS checks had been done and the guns were therefore bought by straw buyers. This can be done anywhere guns are sold: at your local gun shop, at Bass Pro, at Gander Mountain, at Dick's Sports, at Wal-Mart... There is nothing unique about gun shows that enables straw purchasing. It just requires a person with no criminal record who is willing to break the law.

The last part of the statement from Bouchard is nothing but conjecture: "firearms that may have been sold...by unlicensed sellers." Pure speculation. He is attributing guns of unknown provenance to those "unlicensed sellers" at gun shows based on nothing but an article of gun-control faith.

Private sales are not a "loophole" -- the options were deliberately left in the law so as to would be to either allow non-dealers to have access to the NICS system, require all private sales to go through an FFL, or outlaw private sales entirely. I would advocate the first. The second would be acceptable if fees were capped at a reasonable price and dealers were required to perform these checks as a condition of their licensure. Many now refuse to do the check unless you are buying the gun from them, or they charge exorbitant fees for it: as much as $100 for what is 10 minutes of work for them. The last option is totally unacceptable to any but the most hard-core gun-banners.

[Euromutt]

68. Excuse me, but weren't you talking about "loonies"?

Why yes, you were:

if you are a loony intent on murdering folks and you want to buy a gun without all those pesky background checks, the gun show is the place to go!

So how come, when we look at where "loonies intent on murdering folks" actually acquire their weapons, so very few of them buy them at gun shows? It may have something to do with the fact that your average mass shooter doesn't care whether his firearm can be traced, because in all likelihood, the cops are going to recover it from his corpse after he's been shot by the cops or, more likely, shot himself. The only reason Klebold & Harris used straw purchasers was because they weren't 18 yet when they acquired the firearms.

It doesn't matter whether your speculation Stands To Reason if the empirical evidence doesn't support it.

And that might not apply to regular criminals, e.g. petty drug dealers, muggers and convenience store stickup artists, but then you're moving the goalposts. Besides, for a gun to be traced, it has to be recovered by the cops first, and the aforementioned type of criminal doesn't make a habit of leaving the gun behind at or near the crime scene.

But thanks for pointing out that gun shows are a great place to make straw purchases as well.

They're no better a place to make straw purchases than regular gun shops; the whole reason for using a straw purchaser is that a straw purchaser can pass a background check. Requiring private party sales to go through background checks isn't going to stop straw purchases.

Between 2002 and 2005, more than 400 firearms sold at Richmond-area gun shows were recovered in connection with criminal activity. <...> "these figures do not take into account firearms that may have been sold at Richmond area gun shows by unlicensed sellers" <...>

Which means that the "more than 400 firearms" in question were sold at those gun shows by licensed dealers, and therefore the sales were accompanied by a NICS check, and did not slip through any "gun show loophole," "private seller loophole," or whatever you insist on calling it.

Look, the available evidence (which, I acknowledge, is scanty) does not indicate that criminal "end users" make a habit of acquiring their guns from private sellers at gun shows. What does happen is that arms traffickers scour gun shows for inexpensive used handguns that they can transport to another state and flog on the street (preferably via a local cutout), but those traffickers are smart enough to use straw purchasers because, I reiterate, they can pass a background check. And even then, the bulk of guns "diverted" at gun shows are purchased from FFLs and those sales are accordingly accompanied by NICS checks.

The main problem with "closing the gun show/private seller loophole" is that the most vocal advocates of doing so seem to be interested only in doing so by in effect outlawing private party sales. Given that it's unclear how severe a problem diversion from private sellers at gun shows actually is, it's understandable that pro-RKBA organizations are suspicious that there may be ulterior motives.

[PavePusher]

42. "loophole", my sunburned ass. You don't know what that word means.

It's actually a specific point of law.

And you can't really get machine-guns that way.

"Semantics", indeed....

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

82. Just like a dozen other...

...MISNOMERS artfully created by the pseudo-passionate liberty thieves working for the great anti-rights consortium, the "gun show loophole" is a myth. The term was designed to evoke emotional responses to facts and events that require reason and creative but rational thought.

The "assault weapon" is a myth. Another term designed to evoke emotional responses. It is quite similar to assault rifle. (An assault rifle is select fire and can operate in full-auto mode. Assault weapons are semi-auto.)

I would have to characterize this mode of operating where those publicizing these deliberately confusing terms to a less informed audience while advocating a position without well founded evidential standing is just intellectual dishonesty.

Those that give any credence to this kind of propaganda are "thinking" more with their glands than their brain.

Oh and btw, WHY, in IRAQ, where FULL-auto AKs are found (and allowed) in most every household, is the terrorist's primary tool the IED?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

83. And another thing...

...characterizing the primary issue (gun show loophole) of this thread as "semantics" is just a lie. Developing some new misnomer is no less of a lie.

[Bold Lib]

7. What a load of crap.

"You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?"

Yeah? Try it and see what happens. This is nothing but parroting of Brady bunch talking point bullshit.

[lawodevolution]

8. The Brady campaign is now working with al Qaeda. No surprise.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

9. thanks mods.

good job

[pintobean]

11. Yup

They are pretty quick.

[gejohnston]

28. They were so quick I missed it. What did I miss?

nosey minds want to know.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

71. thread was originally posted in GD - -

swift action taken for proper placement.

tip o the hat to the mods and the good job they do around here.

[krispos42]

72. The new modding system works really fast now.

:party:

[shadowrider]

10. I'll put you in the column of those that support Bush's Patriot Act and Terror Watch list n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

15. I've noticed something about DU Terrah Watch List supporters.

They're like the "respectable" racists who would join a White Citizen's Council because the Klan went a little too far for their

taste. And if you ask them if they supported the blacklists all along, or if they just 'got religion' when gun purchases were

proposed to be added- they never answer.

[PavePusher]

12. Lying liars telling lies.

Just paraphrasing, mind you...

C&L seems to have "jumped the shark", or perhaps just flat out drunk the Kool-ade.

[MicaelS]

17. Terra, Terra, Terra, Terra

The "gun show loophole" might as well be called the "want ad loophole", but that doesn't sound near as sexy does it?

As numerous posters have pointed our before on this forum, the NICS is not available to individuals.

And full automatic weapons are NOT easily obtainable at a gun show.

And if it was talking about any OTHER attempt at profiling, people on DU would be screaming about the Constitution and violation of rights. But when guns are involved, any attempt at violating people's rights under the guise of "terrorism" is perfectly acceptable.

[beevul]

64. It is telling though.

"The "gun show loophole" might as well be called the "want ad loophole", but that doesn't sound near as sexy does it?"

While true, that its not as sexy, it also indicates their intent:

The dismantling and destruction of gun culture in America.

Because thats is what stands in their way, and prevents them from enacting what they want enacted.

Yeah, they dance around it, spin it to look like "its for the children" and carefully wordsmith press releases stating this or that, but when you get right down to it, actions speak louder than words.

And their actions spell out quite clearly their intent.



The funny part, is that they really actually and wholly seem to believe that nobody notices.

[gejohnston]

19. my email to editors

Over the top and rambling yeah, but some of the comment posts pissed me off.

Free Republic/Faux News Left?

Seriously, It is hypocritical to call out the right while doing the same thing, but on different subjects. I understand that being against private ownership of firearms is part of the ideology of the "professional left" but at least be half way intellectually honest about such issues. Which beg the question, why are the boards of the major gun control groups mostly or all Republican? Otherwise, how does that make you any different than those on the right? While do not know the AJ source about buying guns in the US, but I do know there are references to other articles that are demonstrably false and have been debunked by BATFE and Wikileaks. The most common is is the myth that most of the guns going to Mexican drug cartels are bought in the US legally. BATFE never said any such thing. Wikileaks dumps show that most of their weapons, which can not be legally be purchased by US civilians, are stolen from Central American militaries and enter though the southern border. Then there is MAIG's Jeff O'Keefe inspired stunt at an Arizona gun show. Sorry, without the uncut footage, I am skeptical. Just like every time a Brady talking point is easily debunked just by going to CDC or FBI statistics. That makes me doubt the source and reality of this video.
Sorry, Mr. Neiwert's post is poorly written and the level of discourse in the comments quite frankly is no less and in some cases more bigoted and just plain ignorant than anything I have seen on the right including free republic, and that takes work. Most of it is directed towards blue collar and rural people, you know the people who vote Republican to their own detriment.
I once turned to C&L for information on political issues not found in the corporate media. Problem is, if you are this dishonest and shoddy on subjects I do know about, how can I trust you on other subjects? A moderate or someone who is on the fence most likely be wondering the same thing, and rightly so. It may surprise you that there are many liberals that are also gun owners and NRA members.

[ChrisBorg]

21. If you believe you can buy a fully automatic assault rifle at a gun show

Then you are as stupid as Adam Gadahn.

[ManiacJoe]

26. Technically, yes, you can.

First you need to be in a state that allows full auto weapons. Then you need to be willing to pay the 10's of thousand dollars for the gun after doing all the federal paperwork and fees and waiting.

Been there, seen that.

[Abq_Sarah]

84. You could take custody of it at a gun show

But that would be months later after you submit the following for the specific item purchased by serial number:

1. Submit two sets of fingerprints and a current photo

2. Swear that the firearm is of "reasonable necessity" and that
when you wish to sell the weapon, it be done so with what is
"consistent with public safety ."

3. A background investigation will also be performed at this time.

4. A chief law enforcement official of the residential jurisdiction must
sign off on the application.

5. Pay $200 for a Tax Stamp

It's not like you can just walk up and say... hey, gimme one of them machine guns. :eyes:

[krispos42]

41. You can, but there will be a background check.

All full-autos are registered with the ATF, so yes, there WILL be a background check on the purchaser that will, at a minimum, involve showing an ID card.

:-)

[aikoaiko]

22. Oh I see your logic. Are people against the Patriot Act pro-terrorist, too?

Are people against warrantless wiretaps pro-terrorist?

Are people who demand due process before denying civil liberties terrorists?

I think not, but your logic leads into squirrely places.

[DonP]

29. Oh good, another fan of Cheney and Bush!

Did you contribute to their campaign too?

Or did you only decide the Terrah Watch list was a bad idea when it involved firearm sales? Funny how some dumb asses that hated the idea of a secret watch list (it still is) when Cheney ran it now think it's a great idea now to apply to firearm sales.

All you ignorant hypocrites can just suck it.

[Euromutt]

67. Way-hey, finally the combination of TWO prohibitionists' boogeymen

It's a prohibitionists' dream equivalent of the old Reese's commercial:
"You got your gun show loophole in my terror gap!"
"You got your terror gap on my gun show loophole!"
Both: "Saa-a-a-y!"
Voice over: "Two great scares that scare great together!"
The guys at the Brady Campaign must have spontaneously ejaculated when they heard of Gadahn's video.

But let's have a little reality check here.

For starters, the "terrorist watch lists" are a joke, and a particularly unfunny one at that. The lists don't contain individuals, they contain names without accompanying identifying information; names like David Nelson, John Williams, Robert Johnson, Michelle Green, John Shaw, Mohamed Ibrahim, "T. Kennedy," and thousands of others. Anyone who has the misfortune of having a name that appears on the Selectee ("watch") or No Fly List can get hassled as a result (though the DHS has at long last instituted the Traveler Redress Inquiry Program which magnanimously provides citizens with the opportunity to prove themselves innocent). When the AP reported "247 people on terror watch list buy guns in 2010", what it was actually saying was "247 people whose names are on the list, but are very probably not the specific person the agency reporting the name to the Terrorist Screening Center had in mind, bought guns."

And even if you are the specific person of that name, the fact is that people are put on the list for the shittiest of reasons. Take Daniel Brown, who was put on the list after the TSA detected gunpowder residue on his boots. Leaving aside the fact that there are plenty of legitimate ways to get gunpowder residue on one's footwear (clay pigeon shooting, for example), Brown was at the time a Marine reservist on his way to Iraq, in uniform.

Then there was the revelation in 2008 that the Maryland State Patrol submitted the names of 53 nonviolent activists to the TSC. The activists were primarily involved in protesting the death penalty and the war in Iraq. Other anti-war protestors have also found their travels hampered. Those are the "terrorists" we're talking about!

And here's the filthiest part of all about the Selectee and No Fly Lists: actual suspected terrorists aren't listed on them, because the FBI doesn't want those suspects to be able to find out from some list that's accessible to every airline check-in clerk in the country that they've been identified as such.

Then there's the so-called "gun show loophole," which stretches the term "loophole" beyond breaking point, but more importantly, as far the available evidence indicates, a negligible number of individuals who acquire firearms for nefarious purposes acquire those firearms from gun shows themselves. Dave Neiwert may claim that the "the gun-show loophole is an open invitation to criminals" but it's an invitation remarkably few have accepted. Research commissioned by the DoJ in the 1990s indicated that very few criminal "end users" acquired their guns at gun shows or flea markets. This may seem to conflict with the ATF's report "Following the Gun" (2000), which stated that ~20% of crime guns traced in investigations had been "diverted" from gun shows; however, this included traffickers who acquired guns at gun shows and then sold them on. But here's the thing: the ATF report makes no distinction between sales at gun shows by private seller, and sales at gun shows by licensed dealers (Type 01 Federal Firearms Licensees). Since the report also states that 50-75% of firearm vendors at gun shows are FFLs, and we know that FFLs generally have larger number of guns to sell than private sellers, it follows that the overwhelming majority of firearm diverted from gun shows are bought from FFLs, not from private sellers. It should also be noted that an approximately equal number of firearms were diverted by straw purchases from FFLs' regular storefronts, while the primary source of diverted guns (~32% of the total) was crooked FFLs.

[spin]

75. Very informative post. Thanks. (n/t)

[slackmaster]

74. Nobody should ever be denied a civil right without due process of law

:nuke:

[cleanhippie]

76. Unrec for posting ignorance.

[Remmah2]

79. qualifies for a double unrec. nt

nt

[gejohnston]

78. So when are we going?

While we are at it, let's take Chris Brown and Neiwert see how easy it is to buy a machine gun with no questions asked. I am guessing he just wrote a bunch of crap without even looking up federal guns laws, asking the BATFE, or even showing up at a gun show.

[ileus]

80. I'm ready now...I've had 700 bucks saved up since April...

but haven't found what I'm looking for yet.

[Remmah2]

81. How come there are no restrictions on cars and cell phones to terrorist?

Those seem to be the tools of the trade for terrorist. (ie: car bombs.)

[Hangingon]

87. How does this lame thead make it to the top?

The premise of the artice has been discredited so often.