McCain appearing in Anti Ad

G

Gusgus

New member
John McCain was just interviewed on GMA, where they showed his new TV ad. In the ad, McCain states that criminals are obtaining guns through the "gun show loophole". McCain wants all private sales made illegal.

During the interview, Charles Gibson stated that Texas' CC law allowed over 400 criminals to obtain permits, an obvious attack on Bush. McCain never refuted the numbers, just stated that the problem was with Texas' enforcement of their CC law, another jab at Bush.

Just thought you McCain supports would like to know.

BTW, I tried to post this in L&P, but it wouldn't allow me, even though that forum in suppose to be up & running.
 
He's full of $#!%: Here's what he said at the DrumMajorInststute ( it's in the forum section) :
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Congress, like the American people, continues to be divided on the issue of controlling firearms as a means of addressing the appalling level of violence, which besets our nation. I do not believe, however, that we can depend upon traditional proposals to restrict firearms as a means of achieving our goals. Criminals by definition, have a patent disregard for the law. It would be dangerously naive to assume that they would abide by gun restrictions. Washington, D.C. is an excellent case-in-point. The District has the strictest gun control laws in the nation, and yet one of the highest violent crime rates as well. I will work to stop violent crime and those individuals who have or would abuse their Second Amendment rights, while ensuring that the rights of honest citizens are not abridged. - John McCain [/quote]

I was told the other day by a pilot that he is trying to push a new law that would institute a user fee system for all non commercial flights utilizing all airports. This is backed by the commercial industry, they think it will boost their business. He's trash.

[This message has been edited by scud (edited October 05, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Long Path (edited October 05, 2000).]
 
I'm not surprised. McCain's schtick is to actively champion issues which are near and dear to big media's heart. Campaign finance reform as posted by McCain will effectively surrended political discussion to the media creating a monopoly. In exchange for surrendering part of the first amendment, McCain gets fawning coverage from big media. Only trouble is, campaign finance reform does not rate in a list of issues of concern to the voter.

Since its clear CFR is not an issue and McCain still wants the coverage, what can he give away? Well, lets go to the next right in line, the second amendment. Since big media determined the gun show loophole to be bad, hge had no choice but mouth the party line. What I can't understand is how can this stance benefit him in view of the state he represents. AZ is not known as a gun-hating state.

------------------
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Barry Goldwater--1964
 
Could someone please clarify this issue for me? I attend a lot of gunshows and have purchased several guns from these private dealers. I see the same private dealers at every gun show selling different guns each time. They are a magnet for those who want to avoid background checks. My question is: If these private dealers are forced to do instant check does that also mean that I would be required to do the same, even if I were selling one or two guns. How does this also relate to my selling or giving a gun to a relative? I have not read anywhere that these two things are related and yet everyone claims that control of these private dealers will be the end of private sales. I would think that the biggest supporters of this law would be real gun dealers that lose sales to these so called private sellers. Just curious.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ATTICUS:
Could someone please clarify this issue for me? I attend a lot of gunshows and have purchased several guns from these private dealers. I see the same private dealers at every gun show selling different guns each time. They are a magnet for those who want to avoid background checks. My question is: If these private dealers are forced to do instant check does that also mean that I would be required to do the same, even if I were selling one or two guns. How does this also relate to my selling or giving a gun to a relative? I have not read anywhere that these two things are related and yet everyone claims that control of these private dealers will be the end of private sales. I would think that the biggest supporters of this law would be real gun dealers that lose sales to these so called private sellers. Just curious. [/quote]

Atticus,
The short answer is yes. You, as a private individual seller would be required to perform a background check inorder to participate in a sale.

This is comming to the rest of the country. In Massachusetts, both the seller and the buyer are responsible to make sure that the other is not banned from owning or possessing firearms and longarms, even in a private sale.

I'm so happy McCain isn't the Candidate. :|

------------------
~USP

"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
 
It would be just like in california where you would have to go to an ffl to get your gun transfered to the new owner. The ffl would get a fee, and do the background check on the person buying from you.
 
No "loophole" folks - BTW, if we use that word, we grant it legitimacy...

If an individual habitually deals in firearms, they must have an FFL. If you see Bubba down at every gun show, and he's got a table and he's selling his "collection," but it never seems to get any smaller, there's something going on. The question here is - Why ain't F-Troop doing something about him?
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bogie:
If an individual habitually deals in firearms, they must have an FFL. If you see Bubba down at every gun show, and he's got a table and he's selling his "collection," but it never seems to get any smaller, there's something going on. The question here is - Why ain't F-Troop doing something about him?
[/quote]

Bogie,

Why care about this? If he is, then he's practicing civil disobedience and should be supported. "F" the F-troops. FFL licensing is just another restiction on a right that should have none, beyond consequencial (sp) mis-use.

I would support him.

"Never give up! Never surrender!" (Galaxy Quest) :)



------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!

See The Legacy of Gun Control film at: www.cphv.com

Do it for the children...
 
Ive never seen private dealers.
Ive seen individuals who bring their own guns into a show and sell or trade them without you having to first register is with the facist I mean federal government.
And then Ive seen some dealers sell what were their own private firearms on the side without all the paperwork.
This is ofcourse how I prefer to do it.
So far Ive managed to aquire an entire lever action
.357 and a shotgun that cant be traced.
Whoopee Im a real gunsmuggler!
I really find it amusing how easily duped we are into the anti's catch phrases like
'background check'.
Are we really so stupid as to think the anti's and the feds are out to catch criminals?
Hell no criminals dont care what laws the government passses and they would never consider any type of revolt no matter how small for a just cause.
Guess who that leaves?
Are we so stupid (yes again) to be duped into calling these things background checks
WAKE UP! people, your address name social and gun serial are being recorded guess what that amounts to and the FBI and BATF have access to them anytime even if they havent been recorded by the NICS system.
IF a BATF team go's into your local gunstore or wal-mart and sais they need to 'verify'
some sales.Who do you thinks going to stop them.
In the old days it would be me and you but through gunsafety/control ( oh you thought they were reallllly looking after the children didnt you) weve been delegatged to subjects that arent 'allowed' to carry firearms in public so theyll be no chance we can oppose such tyranny and hogwashing of our privacy.
I realize I sound rude to many but to me everytime you say background check as if thats all it is you sound RETARDED TO ME,
if thats all it was they would simply verify your social call it in and if theirs no record sell you the gun without verifying your address or the gun serial.
On Mccain thats olllld news.
And once again it seems were outnumbered.
Mccain is the least of our problems, what we wont overcome is the fact that our 'largest and most effective' gun lobby is supporting the same measure on a federal and state level
(Colorado) or am I the only one that caught onto that.

------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"
 
Some informative and good points on this thread, but let's try to get hold of our passions before we offend each other, who are, after all, ALL on the same side in this battle.

Best,

L.P.
 
I am constantly argueing for gun owners rights, but at times my responses sound a little weak, even to me. So let me play Devils advocate for a while. My question is a serious one. I really don't know what the specifics of the "gun show loophole laws" are and the net is filled with rumour. Personally I feel that if we gun owners don't lead the way in keeping guns out of the hands of kids,psycho's and felons, then we will be dictated to by the politicians. I was under the impression that the "loophole laws" defined gun shows (ex. more than X number of people selling X number of guns etc.) I also thought that the new rules only applied to those unlicensed dealers selling guns from tables at the shows. Can someone point me to a link where I can read the proposed legislation? I am also curious about opinion here. Criminals will obtain guns anyway they can, I realize that, but do you believe that there should be an attempt to PREVENT criminals from obtaining guns or simply punish them after they commit a crime? Saddam Hussein will probably aquire a nuke someday also - so should we just sell him one and then nuke Iraq after he nukes Tel Aviv, NYC or Dallas? As I said in the previous post, I could take you to a gun show (at the end of this month) and show you "private" dealers that have a table set up at every show. I'm not saying this is good or bad, only inconistent. There are also parking lot sharks who are willing to pay far more than retail for guns. Why would they do that? We all know the answer. What does make sense to me is to have more self regulation to keep the government at bay and to protect the innocent. On a side note -At the last show I attended, one of the private dealers preceeded to tell me of his "secret intelligence operation" which he has run for twenty years and includes an Army general and some CIA types. He also claimed to be the victim of a counter intelligence operation. This SOB was absolutly nuts. I will not defend the rights of nuts. There has got to be a middle ground that respects the rights of gun owners and reduces the violence in our society. Criminals will get guns but we should make it as difficult as possible. Blaze away folks.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ATTICUS:
Citizens will get guns but we should make it as difficult as possible. [/quote]


Citizens, criminals...


oh, we're all just one step away aren't we?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>If this be Treason, make the most of it![/quote] -- Patrick Henry
 
Atticus,

Sorry, i probably should have done that more explicitly. I agree... my restatement of your quote <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Criminals will get guns but we should make it as difficult as possible.[/quote] as my interpertation <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Citizens will get guns but we should make it as difficult as possible.[/quote] was pretty convoluted.

But my statement stands. Oh, and i'll add this one in for good measure.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>...shall not be infringed [/quote]

I'm getting alittle sick of having to make it harder for criminals, becuase we allow our judicial system to let criminals keep control.



------------------
~USP

"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
 
In Maryland, all private sales of regulated firearms (handguns and "assault" rifles" must go through the State Police just like dealer sales. There are a few exceptions, but I don't have a copy of the law in front of me, and I am not sure what they are. I seem to recall an exception for members of the immediate family.

As for McCain, I knew from past information that he is two-faced and blows with the wind. Maybe he did stand up to the North Vietnamse, but he can't stand up to a talk show host. I think, though, that all the candidates are backing gun show checks of some kind. The most common idea is to give the sponsor an ID number like dealers have and let him/her do the checks for anyone not buying from a dealer.

Gore has not really spelled out anything, but he is supposed to have expressed approval of SB 2099 which would require registration of all handguns and bring transfer under the same law as machineguns, although at only $5. Still the same six months wait, still the same fingerprints, photos and CLEO approval, though. Same ten year sentence for violation of any provision of the law.

Jim
 
Check Legal.I posted todays AZ Republics article with their web site addy.I allso posted Turncoat Mccains email address.I allready sent my email to him and I pulled no punchs.Lets everyone do it and see what the hell happens.
PS-Clue ask him what the going rate for turncoats is.Or is he real cheap or did a make a lot of money at it.

------------------
Bob--- Age and deceit will overcome youth and speed.
I'm old and deceitful.

[This message has been edited by beemerb (edited October 05, 2000).]
 
USP45: Thanks for clarifying that. I don't know what the solution is.. but as they say, "if your not part of the solution, you are part of the problem." I believe that all gun owners and gun organizations need to be the first ones to condem those who misuse guns or abuse the right to own guns. If we don't, the anti-gunners will, and I think they are pulling ahead of us slowly but surely.
 
Current law can nail you for aiding a criminal by supplying someone with the tools necessary to complete the crime if they can prove that you reasonably knew that the person you were selling to was going to use the goods in a such a way. This is true for lock picks, knives, baseball bats, etc. That's a reasonable law to apply to guns. Running a background check on a million guns a year because 1 of them MIGHT be used in a crime is just ridiculous.

By that logic, we should license and register all black males because they're more likely to be involved in a crime (0.5%) than a firearm is.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>If an individual habitually deals in firearms, they must have an FFL.[/quote]

What is amusing about this is that it's not true. It used to be, but no longer. Not only must you "habitually" deal in firearms, but you must also have a storefront. Where before people would get FFLs to buy and sell firearms from their homes, the BATF has since made it illegal to have an FFL without a separate place of business. Not only don't they have to file the paperwork, but they're forbidden by law to do so. What a bunch of boobs!
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I was under the impression that the "loophole laws" defined gun shows (ex. more than X number of people selling X number of guns etc.) I also thought that the new rules only applied to those unlicensed dealers selling guns from tables at the shows. Can someone point me to a link where I can read the proposed legislation? ... ATTICUS[/quote] You raise reasonable questions. Yes, the so-called 'loophole' law did define gun shows, and those new rules would apply to everyone selling at a gun show without an FFL - they already perform background checks, as you know.

I don't have a link to the various bills proposed, but go to the Congressional site and nose around - I believe the Juvenile Crime Bill was the tree they were using for hanging this legislation.

An 'unlicensed dealer' is an oxymoron. If someone is really a firearms dealer, then they need an FFL - this is already legally defined and required by statute. This is an example of 'spin' on this issue - the anti-self defense movement wants you and others to believe that there are hordes of 'unlicensed dealers' who are feeding guns to criminals.

The vast majority of firearms transferred at gun shows are handled by FFL's. And, I too sometimes (rarely) see a guy that appears to be operating a firearms business - if he is breaking the law, then that matter should be handled by the courts, and if it isn't ... then everyone should be asking why BATF isn't upholding the law.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Criminals will get guns but we should make it as difficult as possible.[/quote] Well, there is a balance here. It is already illegal for felons to have a gun. And yet, that law is seldom enforced.

There is a difficult tradeoff here ... at some point, we not only make it difficult for criminals to get guns, but we also make it difficult for honest citizens to get guns, and keep them for that matter. The anti-self defense crowd doesn't care about these problems for honest citizens.

Ultimately, the problem is trust. The anti-self defense crowd and the government claim they only want to make it difficult for criminals to get guns. And yet, the FBI retains ownership records from Brady even though the statute says they may not. California requires citizens to register so-called 'assault weapons', and then confiscates them. The anti-self defense movement claims to only want to close the 'gun show loophole', but you can bet they'll next move to close the private sale 'loophole' (that is you and me, selling / transferring one or two guns at a time) when they find that violent crimes still exist.

Freedom is a messy concept. It involves risk. The irony is that a lack of freedom creates even more risk, from the governments who trade our freedom for short-term security.

ATTICUS, I felt your same confusion at one time. Like so many parts of the firearms debate, the truth is not necessarily so obvious, and always is different than the impression we're given by the media. Your questions are reasonable and understandable.

For much more eloquent discussion of this issue, see David Kopel's work at http://www.i2i.org/CrimJust.htm#Other (find Gun Shows about 2/3 of the way down the page), and specifically http://www.i2i.org/SuptDocs/Backgrounders/gunshows.htm .

Remember ... how can you tell when a gun bigot is lying? When his lips are moving.

Regards from AZ
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top