obama gun loophole

[Auburn4life 24]

put to real life test.

[alexava 6,974]

that was entertaining.

[tgr4lfe 220]

Bazinga! That was awesome! I imagine most states are like Indiana. I know TN is. The only "loophole" is if a private person is selling to another private person, then there is no background check, obviously. In TN, you can't sell to someone from out of state even in a private sale without going thru FFL, i.e. the person buying would have to have it sent to FFL, who runs background check before the buyer can take possession.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

I'll take Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms over this guy. He didn't go in with a fake Indiana ID and try and purchase from private sellers, or just go in with someone from Indiana.

Lol its not like the Gangsta Disciple's just go over there and say "Yo, I'm GD out of Englwood Illinois. We got Kings moving on our corners. Strap me brah so I can roll and deal with it today".

http://wgntv.com/2014/09/03/indiana-guns-favorite-of-chicago-gangbangers/

All the OP video does is demonstrate that if you go to a FFL dealer you aren't getting a gun without a check. If you announce you are from Illinois you aren't getting a gun. If you walk into a FFL dealer and do stupid stuff like drawing a penis on the paperwork or shouting I need a gun right now, then you aren't getting a gun.

[alexava 6,974]

I'll take Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms over this guy. He didn't go in with a fake Indiana ID and try and purchase from private sellers, or just go in with someone from Indiana.

Lol its not like the Gangsta Disciple's just go over there and say "Yo, I'm GD out of Englwood Illinois. We got Kings moving on our corners. Strap me brah so I can roll and deal with it today".

http://wgntv.com/201...go-gangbangers/

All the OP video does is demonstrate that if you go to a FFL dealer you aren't getting a gun without a check. If you announce you are from Illinois you aren't getting a gun. If you walk into a FFL dealer and do stupid stuff like drawing a penis on the paperwork or shouting I need a gun right now, then you aren't getting a gun.

it was entertaining. it served his purpose. it told a very small fraction of the story. just happens to be the fraction his audience wanted to hear.

[Auburn4life 24]

That's the point though. He is demonstrating what Obama wants tougher gun laws on. The tougher laws Obama is pushing will do nothing to stop "GD out of Englwood Illinois" or "Kings" from getting their illegal guns. There is no gunshow loophole. Again Obama doesn't have a clue.

[cooltigger21 0]

That's the point though. He is demonstrating what Obama wants tougher gun laws on. The tougher laws Obama is pushing will do nothing to stop "GD out of Englwood Illinois" or "Kings" from getting their illegal guns. There is no gunshow loophole. Again Obama doesn't have a clue.

Gun control has never been about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals or mentally ill people. It's always been about restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. Chip away at the 2nd amendment a little at a time.

The proposed legislation to allow firearms and ammunition manufacturers to be sued is an attempt to put them out of business

[AUUSN 823]

May 3, 1994

To Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. Although assualt weapons account for less than 1% of the guns in circulation, they account for nearly 10% of the guns traced to crime.

Every major law enforcement organization in America and dozens of leading labor, medical, religious, civil rights and civic groups support such a ban. Most importantly, poll after poll shows that the American public overwhelmingly support a ban on assault weapons. A 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 77% of Americans support a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of semi-automatic assault guns, such as the AK-47.

The 1989 import ban resulted in an impressive 40% drop in imported assault weapons traced to crime between 1989 and 1991, but the killing continues. Last year, a killer armed with two TEC9s killed eight people at a San Francisco law firm and wounded several others. During the past five years, more than 40 law enforcement officers have been killed or wounded in the line of duty by an assault weapon.

While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons.

Sincerely,

Gerald R. Ford

Jimmy Carter

Ronald Reagan

[Strychnine 1,804]

Incidentally, Columbine happened five years after that ban was passed.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

That's the point though. He is demonstrating what Obama wants tougher gun laws on. The tougher laws Obama is pushing will do nothing to stop "GD out of Englwood Illinois" or "Kings" from getting their illegal guns. There is no gunshow loophole. Again Obama doesn't have a clue.

Good thing I'm talking about ATF, Chicago Police, Republican Senator Mark Kirk (ILL), all those Republicans in the collar counties of Chicago, and the Gangster Disciples themselves referring to it as a loophole and not Obama then.

But if you want to change the terminology to something like exploitation, then fine. I will still support legislation that requires private dealers to conduct business in the same manner as those that are FFL dealers. Loophole, con, exploitation, working the system, deception... how ever you wanna phrase it.

And of course there is no absolute with them getting guns. It will make it a bitch for them though, will have an impact on timing, cost, those willing to be straw buyers etc etc. There is a reason they are going to Indiana, Miss, and Wisconsin to get guns and not just working the system in Chicago. In fact it would severely impact straw buyers (which is the top way they get guns) as it would make them easier to identify and put accountability on them for crimes committed with weapons they purchased. Straw buyers in States with weaker laws are able to skirt trafficking laws.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/Assets/downloads/20151102-Tracing-Guns.pdf

[AUUSN 823]

Incidentally, Columbine happened five years after that ban was passed.

That's why they wrote the fourth paragraph.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

I guess Obama didn't get the word. Some bad guys get them for free from the U.S. DOJ in operations like Fast and Furious.

[Strychnine 1,804]

Incidentally, Columbine happened five years after that ban was passed.

That's why they wrote the fourth paragraph.

In fairness, an assault weapons ban would be pointless unless you're confiscating them, and confiscation is something they couldn't even do in California when they passed their state ban. As was the case in 1994, there are enough out there currently that prohibiting their further manufacture accomplishes nothing really. I don't see confiscation ever passing as federal law. The gun lobby is too large and well-funded, and confiscation is something even most of the moderates among gun owners would never support.

The California ban is probably the closest to something that could possibly be passed. All existing weapons that were banned could be kept, but they all had to be registered to their owners, and could not be legally sold. Existing banned magazines could be kept, but could no longer be sold. Of course, that wouldn't stop a private sale of magazines, or the workaround found with bullet-button AR's.

[cooltigger21 0]

I guess Obama didn't get the word. Some bad guys get them for free from the U.S. DOJ in operations like Fast and Furious.

They even let email have some 50 calibers just to sweeten the deal.

[AUUSN 823]

[Auburn4life 24]

And Reagan is WRONG.

owning guns has nothing to do with Sport, Hunting, or home defense.

"being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

[alexava 6,974]

And Reagan is WRONG.

owning guns has nothing to do with Sport, Hunting, or home defense.

"being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

this is an outdated fact.

[Guest NC1406]

And Reagan is WRONG.

owning guns has nothing to do with Sport, Hunting, or home defense.

"being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

this is an outdated fact.

That is a slippery slope you just traversed.

[AUUSN 823]

And Reagan is WRONG.

owning guns has nothing to do with Sport, Hunting, or home defense.

"being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Reagan was talking about assault rifles......not guns. Stop the fear.

[Auburn4life 24]

Your the one with Fear of Assault weapons.

"being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

[homersapien 11,812]

Your the one with Fear of Assault weapons.

"being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Why does everyone quoting that leave out the modifying phrase of a well-regulated militia?

But Alexava is right. This was written with the assumption we would not have a standing army.

[AUUSN 823]

Your the one with Fear of Assault weapons.

"being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

How about a stinger missile launcher or an RPG launcher, or a mortar tube launcher, or a .50 cal sniper rifle? Are those all needed 'for the security of a free state?'

[Auburn4life 24]

AUUSN here is your badge