Gun shows targeted by Clinton

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Grayfox

New member
Today "Slick" and company announced that the new target for gun control would be gun shows. They are concerned because 30 to 50% of the sellers are not licensed dealers and therefore not required to make Brady checks. They want all gun sales to be checked by Brady. This would include private sales between individuals. The claim is that criminals, drug addicts and mental deffectives can walk into a gun show and buy anything they want.
What really PO's me is that this arrogant SOB is so sure of himself that he can start a new gun control campain while congress is still debating his fate. I know congress will let him off, but at least he could act worried.

Anyway, boys and girls, once again it's time to be heard. Call, write, e-mail or whatever. Let your elected officals know how you feel about this. The voice of the people must be heard.
 
For more on this story, stop by CNN's web page (www.cnn.com). While they explain everything there, here's what cought my attention when I heard it on tv today:

---------------------------------
Their 60-day review of the issue centered on a survey of 314 recent ATF investigations involving 54,000 firearms linked in one way or another to gun shows.

Nearly half of the investigations involved felons buying or selling firearms, and in more than one-third of the cases, the firearms in question were known to have been used in subsequent crimes, the review found.

"It shows conclusively that gun shows are a forum for gun traffickers, a cash-and-carry convenience store for weapons used to maim and kill," the president said.
---------------------------------

I'm sure I'm not the only one that finds all this hard to belive - that there are that many felons buying firearms at gun shows and that more than one-third of these guns were used in crimes. (perhaps all the guns shows they monitored were in the basement of some gang members drug house) Either way, its unfortunate but with the media not showing things fairly from both sides, far too many people will belive what they heard today. If only these people could get out to a gun show and see that things aren't the way they are told they are.
 
First You have to know what "Use in a Crime" is to the leftists. If you get into a load arguement with the wife and the people next door call. The Police show up and tell you to quite down and you do. In the mean time one of the Officers sees your gun safe. He ask what you have ( he may be just being Friendly) The other officer make up the report and includes in the report that there were weapons in the house. Your weapons were just present at a crime, ie. "Used in a Crime" The Crime? Disturbing the peace. Charges none. But the stats. won't report that. Also a gun is "Used every time a Felon is arrested in Possession of a fire arm wheither it was brandished or not. I think you get the drift.
 
Typical anti-figures.
"Recent"-In the eyes of the anti's recent could date back to 1974. It would mean more if they gave exact dates.
"Linked in one way or another"- One guy sells 1 hot gun and the other 25 he owns legit are linked. Too many variables to draw a conclusion here. This is like saying 1 poster in here gets arrested for drunk driveing and the rest of us are linked in one way or another. Absurd.
" Nearly half of the investigations..."- I would hope that whatever they were supposed to be investigating had some basis for an investigation. Just what the hell was it in the first place that they were investigating?If they were investigating 1 person for illegal sales, and that person committed 158 offences( Not too far fetched, we had a recent conviction in my area for an individual selling 470 guns over a 2 year period, mostly at gun shows, none were stolen, he sold none to a felon or minor. His crime? He sold too many guns. ATF busted him for being a dealer instead of a private seller. He was convicted of a felony. All 470 guns could be considered in a round about way of being tied to subsequent crimes, since he also faces state charges after his ATF conviction(operating a business without a licence and failure to collect sales tax)).
"Convience store for guns..."-Well that is pretty close to the truth. Most shows do charge convience store prices(High).
The sad truth is this article is full of $hit, but is believed by so many.

------------------
A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined;
George Washington Jan 8,1790--There can be no doubt about the Second Amendment.
 
Gun shows are phony, stupid, and a complete rip-off. I think we should let Clinton, ATF, and HCI have this one. Buy your guns from a stable, reputable dealer with a decent retail space who will be there when you need him.
 
Gun shows also provide a place:
-- for the "little guy" to advertise his goods & services;
-- to find old, out-of-date items that dealers don't stock;
-- to "fondle" :) all kinds of neat things we'll never buy;
-- to show our kids a variety of arms, gear, and accessories they will find absolutely nowhere else; and
-- to show newbies & family members the great diversity of gun-related "stuff" and people!

Okay, okay. Gun shows are just fun (for some of us)...

And who the H... is Herr Klinton to shut'em down?
 
Trevor, I strongly disagree. 'Gun shows are phony, stupid, and a complete rip-off.': (1) What could be phony about them? Are they selling fake guns. Does the ammo not fire? OK ... sometimes the hotdogs aren't good, I'll grant you that. (2) Stupid? They can be a good place to buy ammo in bulk, as mentioned above, it is often possible to find items there that are otherwise out of stock or obsolete, they are a good place to see a large variety of guns old and new. I could go on and on. Don't like 'em? Don't go. (3) A complete rip-off? Well, sometimes I find good prices, sometimes not. However, I often find new vendors I want to become aware of, and we make a deal after the show. Sometimes for guns, often for related gear. Caveat emptor - I need to be a smart consumer at gun shows just as in the rest of my life.

One last point. I won't recite the whole story here, but after World War II someone said something along the lines of: 'The Nazi's came for the gypsies, and I didn't protest, since I wasn't a gypsy ... the Nazi's came for the Jews, and I didn't protest, since I wasn't a Jew. By the time they came for me, there wasn't anyone left to protest.'

Trevor, there is an obvious pattern here. Yesterday it was 'assault weapons', hi-cap mag's, misdemeanor convictions for marital strife ... tomorrow it's gun shows. The day after, ...? Don't give up anything to these fools. This isn't paranoia - it is simply the power of observation.

[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited 02-07-99).]
 
Indeed. Good lord. The truth is, we (advocates of freedom) are locked in ideological combat with collectivism and socialism. We can't let any legislation slide. We can't give them anything, because everything they put forth is a check mark in their agenda. Every victory on the part of the anti-gun lobby makes their position stronger in the eyes of the people, and makes our position seem less reasonable and more difficult to defend. Has anyone ever seen that old Thompson ad where the cowboy is using an M-1928 to defend his livestock from rustlers? That sort of occurance would be difficult to defend nowadays, unfortunately. That is because of the victories of propaganda.
 
Sorry. See new thread, "Another Man Shot at Gun Show"


[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited 02-08-99).]
 
The merits of gun shows aside, my main point is that I agree with Clinton: No background check, no gun. No seller or buyer of a firearm anywhere should be exempt from this requirement. I am sorry if this position offends you, but I live in an area (Reno, NV) that has just experienced two nasty gun incidents. One was a freeway sniper. The other was the murder of 33 wild horses out on the Virginia Hills range. In both cases, the suspects are young white males with small intelligence and less maturity. I am not saying that a background check would have prevented their misuse of firearms, but it is evident (to me, at least) that American society has declined badly since the 1960s, and we have raised too many moral monsters who have no compunction about doing evil for whatever whimsical reasons they may have. People cannot be trusted anymore: A background check is one way to find out who someone may be and whether he is a person with a propensity for violence. To go along with this plan, I would have every gun owner licensed by his state in the way that I was certified and checked out for my concealed carry permit. So you say (citing slippery slope arguments) such policies are collectivism or socialism; perhaps you claim analogies to Nazis. These are kneejerk reactions by people who think America is still in the 1950s. Forget it. The U.S. is a sick society that needs some major re-tooling to survive. We can no longer afford casual or easy access to firearms. I would add, by the way, I think the same of so-called "free speech" and other cherished civil liberties as well. Our "freedoms" are killing us. By the way, the government only continues to let us have guns because it knows implicitly that it cannot protect us from the evil around us. No one is going to take way the right to bear arms. It will be tempered though by the fact that no one can be trusted. Stay safe, practice with your legal firearm, and keep your powder dry: The worst is yet to come.
 
Trevor:
Your argument for background checks suffers the same flaw that all such arguments do. It assumes that those intent on misdeeds are going to follow the law. The same argument applies to cars and car insurance. Those without insurance can't legally drive. That doesn't stop them. All the background check in the world will not stop someone intent on getting a gun. If they are intent on using a gun to commit a crime, they sure aren't going to be slowed down by following a law to buy one legally. Treat the disease, not the symptom.

------------------
A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined;
George Washington Jan 8,1790--There can be no doubt about the Second Amendment.
 
Trevor,
No I don't think America is still in the fifties. We know all too well the dangers that lurk out there. But, "a sick society", I think not. Sick individuals certainly, They're called criminals and they are the problem, not society. Americans as a whole may be confused, mislead or uncertain, but I believe that the majority of us are still good and decent people. Don't judge everyone by the horrid acts of a few. To do so plays right into the hands of those "sick" individuals who would steal our freedoms.

BTW: In many places the comments you made would be enough to turn down your firearm purchase. Consider that possibility.
 
Trevor,
I cetainly agree that America is in need of major re-tooling to survive attacks by moral monsters. However, I do not agree with you and President Clinton that the tools needed are more firearms control legislation. We presently have over 20,000 ineffective laws on the books. I would suggest just three new tools liberally and publicly applied: the whip, the branding iron, and the noose. History teaches us that they were effective in the past, and I believe they will solve our current problems.
 
Trevor,

First, let me welcome you to TFL. As you may have noticed, most of us (at least that post) are pro-gun and pro-gun-rights. Glad to see that you agree with us on the former at least.

You really provide your own best counter in your last post. Your desribe an incident which offends you, but you know it would not have been stopped by background checks.

So, your position begs the question:

"What crimes/acts do you believe would be stopped by the abolition of legal private sales w/o Background Checks ??"

Furthermore, since the BGC's alone will not curtail crime, what steps do you think are warranted in order to stop crime as relates to gun control?

Your "phony, stupid, and a complete rip-off" statement does not even warrant response.. but If you'd like to give specific examples I'd enjoy a discussion about the value of traditional Gun Shows.


------------------
-Essayons
 
Trevor...
So, you had a couple local incidents and now you wish to make more Federal laws.
Murder, theft and rape have been against the law prior to written history, and golly they still happen.
I have never seen any reputable statistics that gunshows furnish a significant portion of guns to the criminals. It appears to me that your gripe is primarily that you can't get the price, "expert" knowledge and service/warranty you want, so you really want price regulation.

The government "lets us have guns"?? You have some serious homework to do ;). "The government lets us....." phweeeeeew

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"



[This message has been edited by DC (edited 02-10-99).]
 
Wow, Trevor. Where do I start?
1. "I live in an area (Reno, NV) that has just experienced two nasty gun incidents" - there is a legal / political saying that 'bad facts make bad law'. Bad things happen, and it is logical to consider how they might be prevented. However, we don't need 100% solutions to 1% problems.
2. "I am not saying that a background check would have prevented their misuse of firearms" - as has already been pointed out, you make the case against your own argument. You are suggesting background checks / registration not because they will work, but because it feels good to be doing something. This is not a logical approach to the problems cited.
3. "People cannot be trusted anymore" - you will likely see this as an over-reaction, but that statement concerns me more than your sniper or wild horse killer(s). Fascism breeds well with that kind of belief, and it plays right into the hands of a fellow like Clinton and his cronies. By the same token, if you believe that, how can you so cavalierly accept a state keeping track of your name, address, and weapons? I gather you trust them quite well.
4. "These are kneejerk reactions by people who think America is still in the 1950s." - well, people who find the Constitution troublesome always feel those who hold it dear are anachronisms, and just not 'with it'. Do you really believe, in your heart of hearts, that human beings today react so much differently than those who lived 250 years ago? And, if citizens are still wise to be cautious with their safety around BG's and an armed government, how do they square that with being tracked like criminals?
5. "We can no longer afford casual or easy access to firearms. I would add, by the way, I think the same of so-called 'free speech' and other cherished civil liberties as well. Our 'freedoms' are killing us." - well, at least you are consistent in your disdain for the Bill of Rights. Again, for a person who feels that "People cannot be trusted anymore", I find it incongruous that you apparently will be so accepting of government to take care of things properly - without all of those pesky "freedoms".
6. "No one is going to take way the right to bear arms." - really? Most of us who read / write these threads certainly hope so. But, you know, the trend is not good. Tonight we wonder how a Brooklyn jury will handle the gun manufacturers. If the gun manufacturers win, we'll just be concerned about the next lawsuit. And, once one has been lost it could be like the tobacco precedent. The threat to our RKBA is appearing on many fronts, brought by the executive, legislative and judicial branches of our governments. Things usually don't turn out as badly as one sometimes fears, but this is not a time to assume the best, IMHO.
7. "The worst is yet to come." - after reading and re-reading your post, I am actually left wondering what you mean by this statement. Do you mean in terms of government? BG's? RKBA?

I've obviously picked your post apart, but I have tried to discern your true meanings. I don't believe I have misunderstood you, but if so, please correct me.

With all due respect, your post is disquieting and discouraging. If you have an open mind to truly reconsider these arguments, I would offer that there is a great deal of excellent data on the web for RKBA research. DC has a great site at http://www.tcsn.net/doncicci/freedom.htm , also try http://www.jpfo.org/ , and http://www.ddb.com/RKBA/ . There are many others. Thank you.

[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited 02-10-99).]
 
Screw America, screw the government, and screw the Constitution. You and I only exist because Bill Clinton, Louis Freeh, and Janet Reno let us. We are there for their pleasure of abusing us and nothing else. Don't like it? Fine, then do something besides whining about your "right to bear arms" or your "civil liberties." Talk is cheap. By the way, I was born in Iowa, I hold a U.S. passport, and I am a pessimist. It is my job to be a prick--that's why I pack heat. "Hi, I'm Trevor, and I'm a professional *******. Deal with it. What have you done for me lately?
 
Indeed, have a nice life more likely.

TFL made it 6 months without having to remove a member (though one person was asked politely not to be a member...), Trevor may go down in the history books.

Perhaps he has had a bad day and would like to clarify his statement.

TFL exists to facilitate worthwhile converstaion on the topics covered and offer a general forum for people who share a common interest. That interest is the preservation of the american firearms tradition and the freedoms/responsibilities that come with it. As members we have a responsibility to each other to be honest, informative, considerate and civil. I doubt that any of those values were displayed in your last post, Trevor. Furthermore, there is an understanding that our contributions here should be positive, either through questions, answers, observations and ideas, I defintely see nothing positive in you last post.

At best that post was a poor attempt to rally the troops, at worst and much more likely) it was a self-serving cry for attention that isn't worth half the response I've given it.

------------------
-Essayons
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top