Democrat buys semiautomatic rifle at Va. gun show in under 10 minutes - Polidicks

I think I'll just go on buying and selling since it's been 100% harmless for me and anyone involved, so far. The same as it is for the overwhelmingly large majority of buyers/sellers at shows. I don't have any stats, but I'd be fairly surprised if any large number of crimes involved weapons bought through the heinous gun show loophole.

The only one trying to obfuscate the issue is the one going around secretly recording legal transactions with a hidden camera and throwing around words like "assault rifle" to describe things that are obviously not assault rifles in order to confuse people who don't know better.

To me, it doesn't matter what kind of gun they buy, whether it's an AR-15 or a break action shotgun, people should not be allowed to circumvent background checks legally; they should be mandatory for ALL gun purchases. THAT is the issue here. What kind of gun he bought, and if he used the correct terminology is not important.

If he's running for Congress with the intent to create and enact laws that will obviously need to be enforced, the fact that he can't button down basic terminology is very important.

That's the problem you see in all of this? The fact that it actually isn't a full blown army issue assault rifle? It isn't gonna kill any less just because its internals aren't as fancy as its big boy counterparts. Considering theres already been crazies doing sprees with simple handguns. I think the bigger issue here is that the same crazies that have commited crimes could easily walk in, get a gun, walk out, and ready up for shit.

No, you're once again obfuscating and you still refuse to touch on the essential point. If he wants to pass a bill through congress that bans all non FFL gun sales, it doesn't matter if he knows the difference between an AR-15 and a Glock, since ALL guns would be covered. You still refuse to have the discussion that needs to be had: Do you think people should be able to buy/sell guns without a background check?

Are you even trying to read then? Because he's answered you.

Sorry you're right, I was focusing on the asinine lettuce comment

I mean it's still stupid, but I can see his point. Make it illegal, the right way, instead of making it illegal through appeals to emotion, disregarding of facts and identity politics. It's not hard but neither side politically is willing to do it.

The problem, is that while people are getting their heads finely wrapped about the subject, shit happens, and keeps on happening. The people who want drastic changes are mocked and disregarded because "freedom to bear arms", the people who want minimal change as "feel good tactics" to make people sleep well at night till the next episode are either bought and controlled to not mess with the people who profit from gun sales or just say whatever people want to hear for own agendas, bla bla bla. You get the picture. It's a never ending cycle of getting nothing done due to how far the US is into weapons, of which people will rebel for because of rights, when other more important rights aren't even there. It's madening to even think about it imo.

When your whole shtick is i am an army man I know about weapons of WAR and then proceeds to disprove that its incredibly relevant But I guess you don't actually need to know what yourr talking about as long as you use your feefees use more powerfully bold and UNDERLINED WORDS to demonstrate your unassailable point.

This is exactly what I hate about gun politics, and politics in general.

The problem isn't that specific bill he wants to pass, the problem is what other gun-related bills he'd pass while in congress.

You're attacking me now? For using bold words? Instead of talking about the topic? This is how strong the conservative side of politics is: no substance, all rhetoric. Sure attack me for my "feefees". That sure doesn't make you sound 12

As it turns out, exposing things to the public is a good way to motivate legislative change. In fact, it being totally legal and normal is a good reason to record and expose it. For what other activity/item would socially dangerous actions be brushed under the rug?

Why are you ignoring my first point? I'm poking fun at you for trying to use gimmicks to bolster a weak argument.

I mean holy crap, you even say that people who don't know about this "loophole" are ignorant, how the fuck they gonna learn that if no one should record it because it's old news? This is dishonesty, plain and simple.

When you present what you're doing as some dishonest or sketchy way of doing business, it's inherently a dishonest way of pushing your ideas. It's similar to when vice did a hit piece on gun owners, and their idea of the typical private sale was two sketchy looking dudes meeting in a dark parking lot at night with ominous music playing the whole time. If you want to argue that unregulated private sales are contributing to crime by using real world examples of situations like this leading to a large number of homicides or gun violence, or provide statistics supporting that point, that's one thing. Going out of your way to make it look like you're doing something illicit when you're not because you don't like that people can do X thing is a pretty dishonest way to go about presenting your idea.

Man he literally walked into a gun show and bought a gun with no questions, where's the dishonesty? What does crime have to do with this when people simply want gun regulations to be a little normal, where you need a background check to ever get one.

Mine doesn't even email me back at all.

Dunno. The whole hidden camera and going off THIS IS WHAT I USED IN AFGHANISTAN! SO I DONT NEED A BACKGROUND CHECK?? NO SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER?? AN ARBITRARY DISTANCE AWAY FROM A SCHOOL?!?! kinda strikes me as trying to present it as something besides just a guy buying someone else's property and more as some scary, dangerous process to the uninitiated. Maybe that's just me.

It isn't a scary and dangerous process that someone can just go into a show and buy a gun with no background check, no social, no legal oversight at all? You don't see the obvious implications of such lax laws? It isn't just "someone else's property" it's a particular type of property, and different types of item classifications have different laws pertaining to them, this type of property should be heavily regulated, or at least that's what people have been trying to argue. Guns are not innocuous.

What makes it scary and dangerous is the thing being bought, which is inherently scary and dangerous.

The people pushing for the limiting of private sales seem to forget that them existing was an agreed upon compromise at one point, and for good reason. This is a private exchange of legally owned property between two private individuals just like any other. If you want to adjust how private sales work, you need to ensure that it is done in a way that is impossible to build a registry off of, allows the public to access the services for free so they can continue to do private sales but conduct background checks themselves, and includes exemptions for transfers and sales between family members - you shouldn't have to run a background check on your own son for example.

Or maybe guns are a heavily regulated item that has a lot of red tape involved and you just have to deal with it in order to get one?

Or we could just not infringe on peoples rights needlessly (unless, again, you can demonstrate that guns from private sales are contributing to some increase in gun crime in the US)?

I would argue a registry would not prevent the 'inevitable taking of all our guns' to begin with. If the state was so interested, they'd simply go house to house and sniff the powder out - that'd get the majority of them, making it easier to track the remainder. A gun registry is as much a barrier to the government knowing you have a gun as your vote being private was a barrier to the government selling who you're liable to vote for to the highest bidder.

Not really, considering I know a staggering amount of people who have bought guns privately, or received them as inheritance and have managed to not shoot people. It's not a scary process unless you think that someone getting a gun is going to turn them into someone on the hunt for infants to slay with their new AR bumpazine. And that's an opinion borne of ignorance, not one that I can help.

"This seamine has been a part of my family for generations. It's never hurt nobody, which means it never will."

Too bad the people buying guns are not all your friends, eh?