Liberal Forum

Interstate gun sales must go through an FFL, by federal law, so there should have been an NICS on those sales, so the "loophole" doesn't apply in this instance.

There are 33 states in which private gun owners are not restricted from selling guns at gun shows. Again that only applies to licensed firearms dealers. Right back at you. I live in one of those 33 states, and when I bought my first gun at a gun show, they called the Feds. After that, I got a concealed carry permit, so they no longer have to call it in as the card is proof I passed a background check. People don't run booths at gun shows unless they are dealers. It costs money to set up a booth and run it for 3 or 4 days, and if you want to earn any money you have to have guns to sell. What you WILL see, is the occasional guy walking around with a rifle over his shoulder with a flag sticking out of the barrel with a "for sale" sign on it. Again, you've obviously never been to a gun show, just like the Mayor of New York. Edited by Golfboy, 27 December 2012 - 06:06 PM.

People don't run booths at gun shows unless they are dealers. So you're saying that non-licensed people never sell guns at gun shows? In 33 states, private gun owners are not restricted from selling guns at gun shows. http://civilliberty....a/Gun-Shows.htm Your first statement was "40% of the weapons sold are sold with no backround checks at all", and now that I called you on it, you've changed that statement to "40% of all guns sold are sold on the secondary market". Notice I included your misspelling in the first quote, to ensure you don't try to spin your attempt to change what you said. Okay, this is making me crazy. Which word in my first quote is supposedly misspelled?

And don't think I didn't see that little slight of hand. Your first statement was "40% of the weapons sold are sold with no backround checks at all", and now that I called you on it, you've changed that statement to "40% of all guns sold are sold on the secondary market". Misty: 40% of the weapons sold are sold with no backround checks at all.... Misty: As for my statement that 40% of all guns sold are sold on the secondary market with no backround checks.... Where exaclty is the 'slight of hand', Bunkey? Because in thefirst statement I did not include the term secondary market? ROFL I can't stop you from posting in my thread, but don't be surprised if I ignore your stupidity. You're an obnoxious little person who thinks he knows everything about everything, and you annoy the **** out of me. You have a pesky little habit of splitting hairs. This is the Flying Monkey thread. Not the splitting hairs thread.

So you're saying that non-licensed people never sell guns at gun shows? NEVER? Of course not. But I will tell you that they make up less than 5% of the booths at a show. Your numbers are just wrong, but it doesn't matter how many people explain to you that it's not true. You're going to believe your bias regardless the facts. Another thing that you're not aware of, is a bunch of booths at gun shows don't sell guns at all. Some sell holsters, some sell reloading equipment, others sell jams, jellies and jerky. You started out saying that 40% of gun sales were not checked. That number is a COMPLETE fabrication that is often quoted by "studies" that give no data to support their claims, like this one: http://www.ucdmc.ucd...execsummweb.pdf who says: "Undocumented private party transactions account for asmany as 40% of all gun sales." But where is the data to support that? Later (very shortly later) he says "Current evidence suggests that gun shows account for 4% Inside Gun Showto 9% of all gun sales. Perhaps two-thirds of sales at gun showsare made by licensed retailers." So even if we assume 10% of gun sales happen at gun shows, if 2/3rds of those are done by dealers doing background checks, that means 3.5% of guns sold are not undergoing background checks. How does bloomberg explain away that conflict

Okay, this is making me crazy. Which word in my first quote is supposedly misspelled? I don't pull facts out of my *** Goofboy. When I say something, I can back it up. Maybe, if you ever watched anything but Fox News, you'd have heard these statistics by now. Republican Pollster Frank Luntz recently conducted a poll of NRA members and other gun owners. It showed strong support for common sense gun laws and exposed a significant divide between rank-and-file members and NRA leadership. As for my statement that 40% of all guns sold are sold on the secondary market with no backround checks, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg made that statement recently and Politifact has ruled it 'mostly' true, only because the only statistics available are not very current. Gee, I wonder why current regulations dont allow direct tallies of these sorts of gun sales? Who doesn't want us to know how many guns are being sold with no backround checks? Groups opposed to greater regulation were asked to rebut the mayors assertion and did not respond. Of course they didn't, because they know what he said was true. Yer welcome.

Where exaclty is the 'slight of hand', Bunkey? Because in thefirst statement I did not include the term secondary market? ROFL Yes, because you didn't include secondary market in your claim, not that including that information would have made your claim any more accurate. Youregurgitatedthat story from Huffington Post today, but because you know nothing about the subject, you were unable to do a sanity check on the claims being made. I can't stop you from posting in my thread, but don't be surprised if I ignore your stupidity. You're an obnoxious little person who thinks he knows everything about everything, and you annoy the **** out of me. You have a pesky little habit of splitting hairs. This is the Flying Monkey thread. Not the splitting hairs thread. Suggestions for shutting me up: 1) Be accurate. 2) Know your subject. You failed both. Don't blame me for correcting you.

NEVER? Of course not. But I will tell you that they make up less than 5% of the booths at a show. Your numbers are just wrong, but it doesn't matter how many people explain to you that it's not true. You're going to believe your bias regardless the facts. First you go around demanding links to prove my numbers. When I post them, you insist they are wrong, even though you haven't posted any links to contradict my numbers. Then you pullthat 'less than 5%' number out of your ***, and insist it's right because you say so. ROFLMFAO, do you ever read your own stuff?

First you go around demanding links to prove my numbers. When I post them, you insist they are wrong, even though you haven't posted any links to contradict my numbers. Then you pullthat 'less than 5%' number out of your ***, and insist it's right because you say so. ROFLMFAO, do you ever read your own stuff? You actually didn't prove your numbers, all you did was post a claim from Mayor Bloomberg, which was factually inaccurate. And I guess you didn't read the link to that study I quoted. No worries, I didn't expect you to.

MistyBlue, on 27 Dec 2012 - 18:28, said: Okay, this is making me crazy. Which word in my first quote is supposedly misspelled? MistyBlue, on 27 Dec 2012 - 14:55, said: As for my statement that 40% of all guns sold are sold on the secondary market with no backround checks Yer welcome. How do you spell background? http://www.merriam-w...nary/background

How do you spell background? http://www.merriam-w...nary/background Do you NOT see the difference between "backround" and "background"? Really? In 1st grade they called putting the tale on your "g".

You actually didn't prove your numbers, all you did was post a claim from Mayor Bloomberg, which was factually inaccurate. And I guess you didn't read the link to that study I quoted. No worries, I didn't expect you to. Politifact rated it mostly true. I'm waiting for you to prove your claim that non-licensed sellers make up less than 5% of the booths atgun shows. Where did that come from? Do you NOT see the difference between "backround" and "background"? Holy crap, I even looked it up in the Dictionary and did not see that the g was missing. WTF? I guess it's time for new glasses.

So you're saying that non-licensed people never sell guns at gun shows? Are you implying or claiming if the so-called loophole is closed felons will never acquire guns? How do you spell background? http://www.merriam-w...nary/background Presumably with a "g".

Youregurgitatedthat story from Huffington Post today, but because you know nothing about the subject, you were unable to do a sanity check on the claims being made. I haven't read Huffington Post today. Suggestions for shutting me up: 1) Be accurate. 2) Know your subject. You failed both. Don't blame me for correcting you. I could also put you on ignore you annoying little POS. MistyBlue, on 27 Dec 2012 - 18:56, said: How do you spell background? Presumably with a "g". I could swear there was a g in there. I'm blind as a bat and getting worse every year. I don't think they make reading glasses any stronger than the ones I wear now. Maybe time for a seeing eye dog. MistyBlue, on 27 Dec 2012 - 18:28, said: So you're saying that non-licensed people never sell guns at gun shows? Are you implying or claiming if the so-called loophole is closed felons will never acquire guns? Now that would be just plain silly, wouldn't it?

Politifact rated it mostly true. I'm waiting for you to prove your claim that non-licensed sellers make up less than 5% of the booths atgun shows. Where did that come from? Holy crap, I even looked it up in the Dictionary and did not see that the g was missing. WTF? I guess it's time for new glasses. Politifact is wrong. The 5% came from the study I linked to early by the anti-gun advocate: http://www.ucdmc.ucd...execsummweb.pdf "Current evidence suggests that gun shows account for 4% to 9% of all gun sales. Perhaps two-thirds of sales at gun showsare made by licensed retailers". Since he used a range, I rounded up (twice) to avoid understating the numbers. 4 to 9% I rounded up to 10% and 2/3rds by dealers would be 6.5% leaving 3.5% for the private sales, which I rounded up to 5%. It's funny how the eye sees what it expects to see sometimes, isn't it?

Now that would be just plain silly, wouldn't it? Then you should concede to the fact that felons will acquire guns regardless of the laws prohibiting them from doing so. Another law won't change that fact.

Then you should concede to the fact that felons will acquire guns regardless of the laws prohibiting them from doing so. Another law won't change that fact. No law will stop everyone with bad intentions from getting their hands on a gun, but if we can cut down the number who do, then I'm for it.

I haven't read Huffington Post today. Why would you ever read it? Are you so weak of heart and mind that you need some ultaliberals to tell you you're right now and then? That'd be like me reading Breitbart or something else that pretends to be a news organization when it in reality is a propaganda machine.

Then you should concede to the fact that felons will acquire guns regardless of the laws prohibiting them from doing so. Another law won't change that fact. But that's not the objective. The objective is to disarm as many people as possible. That, and they feel the need to "do something" about the Newtown killings. It doesn't really matter if that "something" works or not, as we saw with the 1994 law, it was useless. Obviously after reading Feinstein's new proposal, they think they just didn't make it strict enough. That fact is that rifles account for very few homicides in this country. Most are done by handguns and they aren't trying to ban those because no one in the public would support that.

MistyBlue, on 27 Dec 2012 - 19:08, said: I haven't read Huffington Post today. Why would you ever read it? Are you so weak of heart and mind that you need some ultaliberals to tell you you're right now and then? That'd be like me reading Breitbart or something else that pretends to be a news organization when it in reality is a propaganda machine. Huffington Post is just a news aggregator. I don't read the blogs.