When will you gun nuts stop comparing weapons and cars?
Cars weren’t designed to kill people!
You’re more dead when you’re shot.

soundingboard on January 13, 2013 at 1:40 AM

Driving a car is not a right it is a privilage, however, you don’t see ANYONE trying to take away driving privilage’s permanently.

Why do “gun nuts” compare weapons and cars probably because of the fact that cars were not made to kill people but MORE people get killed by cars than by guns.

You’re more dead when you’re shot.

Seriously? I hope you had a “here is your sign” moment.

I understand now what you were trying to say. But there are libtard trolls on this site who actually say things like that – and actually mean it seriously.

I feel your pain though – I’m not sure everyone always gets my brand of sarcasm either – and it took me awhile to catch onto some of the “sarc masters” like Bishop.

dentarthurdent on January 13, 2013 at 10:35 PM

Lol. I hear ya. I was actually channeling some Facebook friends of friends with my original comment.

I wonder if Bishop is available for sarc training? ;)

I keep using his symbol…/…does it not mean what I think it means?

soundingboard on January 13, 2013 at 10:19 PM

I understand now what you were trying to say. But there are libtard trolls on this site who actually say things like that – and actually mean it seriously.

I feel your pain though – I’m not sure everyone always gets my brand of sarcasm either – and it took me awhile to catch onto some of the “sarc masters” like Bishop.

Didn’t pick up he sarc in “more dead”? Or see the post immediately following?
That’s OK. I don’t post often.
You are correct about “The Princess Diaries”, I wasn’t using that as a reference.

Now, who’s Bishop? /

soundingboard on January 13, 2013 at 10:19 PM

Well no – because the quote in The Princess Bride (from Miracle Max) was “he’s only mostly dead, and mostly dead means he’s still slightly alive”.
Sorry to have to say this, but The Princess Diaries was a very different movie.

Bishop is a long time regular. There’s a running joke with many that if they get to make the first post on a new thread they put “BISHOP!!” – I guess because he has a history of being the first to comment.

SPQR on January 13, 2013 at 10:12 PM

Read the other posts.
It’s not my term – I use it only to take part in the debate.
It’s one of those vague made up terms the libs like to use to confuse the issue.
What it REALLY means is the libs just haven’t gotten total control of everything yet.

dentarthurdent on January 13, 2013 at 8:24 PM

Didn’t pick up he sarc in “more dead”? Or see the post immediately following?

That’s OK. I don’t post often.

You are correct about “The Princess Diaries”, I wasn’t using that as a reference.

Now, who’s Bishop? /

The GCA of ’68 and the Brady Act did not intend to regulate these transfers, so that they happen without a background check is not a “loophole”.

The Colorado law is so ridiculous, and so vague, that gun clubs in Colorado have to forbid their members from even discussing sales of firearms at club events for fear that they might create legal liability as a “gun show”. Like my club’s holiday potluck dinner.

The phrase “unlicensed dealers” is a misnomer since legally there is no such thing. Someone selling a few guns from his collection is not a “dealer” under the law. A firearms dealer is specifically defined in the law. An “unlicensed dealer” is also known as a “felon”.

single stack on January 13, 2013 at 9:40 PM

Ya – that’s the problem with this entire debate on gun control and the 2nd Amendment. Far too many people (mostly the liberals) don’t understand the terms they keep throwing around, and they keep writing laws that don’t do what they claim they’ll do and always have far different (unintended) consequences.

dentarthurdent on January 13, 2013 at 9:14 PM

This is the sort of thing I was referring to when I wrote this:

State laws have nothing to do with it [meaning the Brady Law's background check requirement], though some states do regulate private sales.

The phrase “unlicensed dealers” is a misnomer since legally there is no such thing. Someone selling a few guns from his collection is not a “dealer” under the law. A firearms dealer is specifically defined in the law. An “unlicensed dealer” is also known as a “felon”.

Now that is going to work real well, “unlicensed dealers”? Are they going to arrest all the gang bangers now? or just the sportsmen?

stormridercx4 on January 13, 2013 at 9:26 PM

Typical vague and clueless wording from liberals writing unconstitutional laws. It allows the people in power to enforce the law however they want to – and on whoever they want to.

Before a gun show vendor transfers or attempts to transfer a firearm at a gun show, he or she shall require that a background check, in accordance with the national instant criminal background check system, be conducted of the prospective transferee, and obtain approval of the transfer from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation through a licensed gun dealer. It is also unlawful to transfer a firearm if any part of the transaction takes place at a gun show, unless a licensed dealer first obtains a background check on the prospective transferee. This does not apply to firearms defined as antiques, curios or relics under federal law.

A Colorado resident who is otherwise qualified can purchase or receive delivery of a rifle or shotgun in a state contiguous to Colorado, so long as the sale fully complies with the legal conditions of sale in both states and the purchaser and seller have complied with federal law applicable to interstate transactions.

The interpretation of the part I highlighted is that it applies to ANYONE who sells a gun AT a gun show. So if you walk into a gun show to sell your gun and someone there wants to buy it, you have to get a dealer to do a background check on the buyer.
If however you make the sale at your house or anywhere else, and you are not a licensed dealer – no check required.

I’m just pointing out the facts of how it currently works in Colorado. It doesn’t mean I agree with the gun grabbers.

Now that is going to work real well, “unlicensed dealers”? Are they going to arrest all the gang bangers now? or just the sportsmen?

single stack on January 13, 2013 at 9:02 PM

From 2001, when this took effect:

http://www.wnd.com/2001/04/8681/

A new Colorado law that requires background checks for firearms purchases at gun shows has taken effect, though critics say the law will do little to stop gun-related violence.

The law, which took the form of a state constitutional amendment, passed overwhelmingly last November, the Denver Rocky Mountain News said yesterday. Passage of the law was boosted after news reports said Columbine killers Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris used weapons that were purchased by others at a gun show.

Under federal laws, all gun dealers — who are licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms — have long been required to perform background checks on potential buyers. The information is sent to an FBI facility in West Virginia built especially for the purposes of complying with the federal requirements.

The paper said the new Colorado law extends the requirement to collectors, hobbyists, sportsmen and other “unlicensed dealers” who, in the past, could sell their guns to others without subjecting them to a check.

The paper added that some antique and collectible firearms are still exempt from the new law.

I believe the gun show loophole actually might exist at the federal level.

It doesn’t. The Brady Law requiring a background check to buy a firearm is a federal law. The phrase “gun show loophole” is a lie created for propaganda purposes.

Some states, such as Colorado, have already closed that loophole years ago. In Colorado the same background check is required at a gun show as at any other gun dealer – at least if the seller is a licensed firearms dealer – which many/most of the sellers at gun shows are – in my personal experience. I don’t think the Colorado requirement applies to private person to person sales – i.e. no licensed firearms dealer involved.

No, Colorado didn’t close anything. Background checks by anyone “engaged in the business” of selling firearms, ie, federally licensed firearms dealers, ie, FFL (Federal Firearm License) holders, are required by federal law everywhere in the country – no exceptions. Where the sale takes place, whether it’s a brick-and-mortar store, a gun show, or the dealer’s home is irrelevant.
The Brady law does not require utilization of the NICS for people who are not engaged in the business of selling firearms and are selling a few guns (limited to 6/year, if memory serves) from a private collection.
State laws have nothing to do with it, though some states do regulate private sales.

dentarthurdent on January 13, 2013 at 8:32 PM

The “loophole” is a citizen to citizen transaction. no dealers, no table, no background check. people take their firearms they want to trade or sell and walk around the gun show waiting to make a deal with someone. I usually see guys in camp with a hunting rifle slung over a shoulder with a price sticking out of the gun barrel. there would not be a background check if you walked up to him and offered cash. he would write a bill of sale and you would part ways.

GWB on January 13, 2013 at 1:36 AM

I believe the gun show loophole actually might exist at the federal level. I think it depends on who is selling the firearm at the gun show. Some states, such as Colorado, have already closed that loophole years ago. In Colorado the same background check is required at a gun show as at any other gun dealer – at least if the seller is a licensed firearms dealer – which many/most of the sellers at gun shows are – in my personal experience. I don’t think the Colorado requirement applies to private person to person sales – i.e. no licensed firearms dealer involved.

When will you gun nuts stop comparing weapons and cars?
Cars weren’t designed to kill people!
You’re more dead when you’re shot.

soundingboard on January 13, 2013 at 1:40 AM

Haven’t you guys ever seen the “Pricess Bride”?
listens2glenn on January 13, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Yes – but soundingboard did a VERY poor job of referencing Princess Bride if that’s what was intended.
Look at his post and tell me how easily we’re supposed to get the Princess Bride “mostly dead is still partly alive” quote out of that.
Clearly not a Bishop level sarc master…..