Gun show loophole commercial

[THUNDERCHIEF]

I just saw a commercial on TV asking everyone to call Scott Brown to tell him to support some bill that will close the "gun show loophole". I guess this is a bill that is comming up for a vote soon. I thoght I was gonna throw-up when the commercial was over.

WE ALL need to call our senators (no matter what state you live in) to tell them to NOT support this bill. Call them ASAP people!

/JohN

 

[pbearperry]

Most of the people who support that commercial,probably couldn't tell you what the so called loophole is.

 

[Larry Legend]

Most of the people who support that commercial,probably couldn't tell you what the so called loophole is.

You mean other than a scary term meant to induce a knee jerk reaction?

 

[JackDaniels]

So be responsible citizens, call your reps and urge them not to support this bill. Or be beaten by socialist scumbag panty waste pieces of slime who are stealing your country, not slowly, but rapidly. Yes, MA residents this applies to all of you. And, any of you MA residents who don'l call your reps ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

 

[Turbocharged]

That's the commercial that says that the Columbine shooters got their guns by exploiting the so-called "gun show loophole", right?
Words cannot express how much the misinformation in that ad pisses me off. The fact that they are lying and know it infuriates me to no end, but what's worse is the fact that people are SO STUPID, that they take the commercials statements as facts.

 

[Zappa]

That's the commercial that says that the Columbine shooters got their guns by exploiting the so-called "gun show loophole",

I saw it too, what a crock.
The Columbine shooters got some of their guns through an illegal "straw" purchaser and the rest were stolen. BTW, the straw purchaser was never tried for any crime relating to this incident.

 

[MACGYVR]

Why doesn't GOAL or the NRA make a counter ad to run during the same time slots? Can't let the antis control the microphone.

It seems nobody gets the info that they are lying in the ads because nobody ever counters the ads!

 

[M1911]

Why doesn't GOAL or the NRA make a counter ad to run during the same time slots? Can't let the antis control the microphone.

It seems nobody gets the info that they are lying in the ads because nobody ever counters the ads!

For two reasons. First, running TV ads is hideously expensive. Second, the mainstream media generally refuses to run ads from pro-gun organizations in general, and the NRA in particular.

 

[Zappa]

Why doesn't GOAL or the NRA make a counter ad to run during the same time slots? Can't let the antis control the microphone.

It seems nobody gets the info that they are lying in the ads because nobody ever counters the ads!

Producing a counter ad is a waste of money because the leftist MSM will never let it air.

 

[THUNDERCHIEF]

And, any of you MA residents who don'l call your reps ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

the law that is comming up for vote is a NATIONAL law, not just a state law. That's why residents of ALL states should be calling their senators and reps. Scott Brown is a state senator at the National level.

/John

 

[JuergenG]

You mean other than a scary term meant to induce a knee jerk reaction?

What he said
Good one !

 

[Exousia]

Since the commercial said to call Senator Brown at 617-565-3170 and to check out the website http://www.closetheloophole.org/, I did both. The website wanted me to sign a petition, I respectfully declined. The call to Senator Brown was interesting. The nice man that answered the call seemed confused when I started talking about the "closing the loophole" issue. When I told him that I suspected that they had been receiving lots of calls about it, he said, "oh, yes, we did get a few last week. It then took a while to convince him that I wasn't in favor of it. Finally he said; "So you aren't in favor of closing the loophole then..." My response was; "there is no gun show loophole." Okay, thank you, goodbye.

I guess he needs to hear from more of us.

 

[Serapis]

Since the commercial said to call Senator Brown at 617-565-3170 and to check out the website http://www.closetheloophole.org/, I did both. The website wanted me to sign a petition, I respectfully declined. The call to Senator Brown was interesting. The nice man that answered the call seemed confused when I started talking about the "closing the loophole" issue. When I told him that I suspected that they had been receiving lots of calls about it, he said, "oh, yes, we did get a few last week. It then took a while to convince him that I wasn't in favor of it. Finally he said; "So you aren't in favor of closing the loophole then..." My response was; "there is no gun show loophole." Okay, thank you, goodbye.

I guess he needs to hear from more of us.

Kind of scary the response you got.

 

[zeppelinfromled]

I'll admit that I'm not very knowledgeable about the "gun-show loophole."

My understanding of it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that, in most states, a gun dealer has to do a background check before selling a gun to you. But private sales can happen just like they can in MA (minus the registration paperwork). And the idea of the gun show loophole is that some sales at gun shows don't require background checks because they're private sales. So basically, the idea of closing the gun show loophole is that they want to limit the places where you can do private sales? That seems dumb.

If I am wrong, could someone please tell me what an anti-gun person would tell me if I asked what the gun show loophole is? And then could you please explain why the gun show loophole doesn't exist or why it's okay that it exists.

 

[Underwhere]

I'll admit that I'm not very knowledgeable about the "gun-show loophole."

My understanding of it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that, in most states, a gun dealer has to do a background check before selling a gun to you. But private sales can happen just like they can in MA (minus the registration paperwork). And the idea of the gun show loophole is that some sales at gun shows don't require background checks because they're private sales. So basically, the idea of closing the gun show loophole is that they want to limit the places where you can do private sales? That seems dumb.

If I am wrong, could someone please tell me what an anti-gun person would tell me if I asked what the gun show loophole is? And then could you please explain why the gun show loophole doesn't exist or why it's okay that it exists.

I think you get the gyst of it.

The "loophole" is that private sales can take place which may not require a background check.
The reason it is not a loophole is that private sales can take place anywhere...and not require a background check.

 

[red87930]

And the reason MA does not have this so called loophole is because we (gun owners and prospective purchasers) have already been vetted by the process and fact that we have LTC's or FIDs. Which are required to purchase a firearm from a dealer or in a private sale. This is the most important part that most non enthusiast citizens (sheep/media) fail to understand. We have all gone through a process to be able to excercise our 2A right. We don't just choose to buy a gun. We have all been checked out and deemed suitable.

I think you get the gyst of it.

The "loophole" is that private sales can take place which may not require a background check.
The reason it is not a loophole is that private sales can take place anywhere...and not require a background check.

 

[MisterHappy]

I'll admit that I'm not very knowledgeable about the "gun-show loophole."

My understanding of it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that, in most states, a gun dealer has to do a background check before selling a gun to you. But private sales can happen just like they can in MA (minus the registration paperwork). And the idea of the gun show loophole is that some sales at gun shows don't require background checks because they're private sales. So basically, the idea of closing the gun show loophole is that they want to limit the places where you can do private sales? That seems dumb.

If I am wrong, could someone please tell me what an anti-gun person would tell me if I asked what the gun show loophole is? And then could you please explain why the gun show loophole doesn't exist or why it's okay that it exists.

From the point of view of the Antis, it's smart. Instead of a broad prohibition, it an incremenatal "reasoanble restriction."

The outright ban was tried with booze.....didn't work
With Tobacco, it's incremental....first raise the tax to modify behavior, then reduce the places where it can be used. Next, restrictions on where smokes can be sold (no more machines, drug stores no longer permitted to sell them (as they're bad for you - so a drug store shouldn't have them). Now, private cigar bars will not be re-licensed.

If private sales at gun shows are stopped, as a "reasonable restriction", the next, obvious step will be to eliminate private sales, as if it can't be done at the "more controlled environemnt" of a gun show, then a kitchen table is right out. Of course, the .gov will make the process easy, and reasonable, just like FA-10 forms here. Those work well, no?

 

[Pete85]

I saw it too, what a crock.
The Columbine shooters got some of their guns through an illegal "straw" purchaser and the rest were stolen. BTW, the straw purchaser was never tried for any crime relating to this incident.

Not only that, but I remember right after the incident she was speaking with several people on a talk show (Sarah Brady was there) telling everyone her story. She (Robyn Anderson) went to several gun shows with Harris and Klebold until she found a someone who was willing to sell to her without showing ID or running a background check. When they finally found someone willing to sell to them, Anderson purchased three rifles that Harris and Klebold had selected. She initially claimed that she knew of their intentions for the Columbine massacre, but then changed her story when police started grilling her. She claimed that is she knew what she was doing was wrong (straw purchases, providing a firearm to a minor that is not her child, providing ammunition, murder, assault with a deadly weapon, attempted murder) that she never would have done it. She claimed her innocence even after the police found her fingerprints on several of the IEDs that she helped Harris and Klebold make. She was never arrested for any of her crimes (35 in all which would have held consecutive sentences that would have put her away for life, and that's before any accessory to murder, conspiracy to commit, etc). After hearing her story, Sarah Brady hailed her as a hero...as the unwilling accomplice to two deranged mass murderers.

The person who sold them the handgun they used was charged and convicted of it, but Anderson remains free today.