0

Squawk of the Day 28 Dec 2012

The private gun show loophole for background checks is so big that Hurricane Sandy could go through it.

For more squawks, pick up a copy of today's Albany Herald.

To submit a squawk, Click here.

Comments

Sister_Ruby 2 years ago

So could your Fat Head and Fatter Ego, Squawker. Don't get confused when you load your blunderbuss.

1

RedEric 2 years ago

Wow, that's a really big loophole! I can't wait for the next assault weapon show. I need a machine gun for the west side of the house. You low information people sure come up with hard hitting squawks.

1

Merlin 2 years ago

I just now applied for my Georgia Weapons Permit . Drivers license, SS number, fingerprinted, photographed, background check, $67.00 dollars later I will have my carry permit. It's kind of funny though. I was a gunner on a M 60 tank, a M 551 A1 Armored Recon vehicle, and as a M2A1 Bradley commander. I have fired more ordinance than anyone could possibly believe. I go to gun shows, I buy guns and ammo, I sleep comfortably. Yes, I have an AR 15, also an AK 47, SKS, M91/30, SVT40 and lots more. The point is, in my dealings with gun show people, they will never sell to one who is suspect.

0

Jimboob 2 years ago

Someone who is suspect... Like an ATF agent?

0

waltspecht 2 years ago

The so called gunshow loophole deals with sales between private individuals. Just like if you bought the gun from the Classifieds in the paper. The Dealers at the shows have got tofollow all laws and procedures. Especially dealing with background checks. Why don't you get your facts straight before you squawk?

2

chinaberry25 2 years ago

Have you ever been to a gun show? How many guns do you own? Most guns that are used in crimes have not been owned by a person who bought them legally anyway. You also fall for the squeeky wheel gets greased. More children die every year in fires started by cigarettes, drunk drivers, gang activity on and on. But now the politicians are focusing on guns. Not gonna happen. The second amendment will not be repealed. They cannot agree on what toilet paper is used in the bath rooms, do you think this will matter? The real problems are much worse than the guns, so the smoke and mirrors hocus pocus.

0

Jimboob 2 years ago

He said "New gun laws won't help". We had a pretty good "Gun Law" that was killed by the Bush administration. How many of the horrific gun related killings would have been eliminated if that law was still in effect? It's true that you can't put the cat back in the bag but you can close the bag to keep the rest of the cats in it.

0

USTPC 2 years ago

I would argue that none of the gun related killings would have been eliminated with that law in effect. Numerous experts have said that the 10 year ban on certain types of weapons that you tout as a pretty good gun law had little to no effect on the number of killings that took place during that 10 year ban.

0

Jimboob 2 years ago

All the mass killings were done with assault type weapons or high cap mags. Most gun related homicides would not be effected because only a few rounds were needed. It's when 8 to 30 people are killed would the law have helped.

1

LoneCycler 2 years ago

Again, your facts seem to be lacking here. The so called "assault weapons ban" signed into law Sept 13, 1994 expired on Sept 13, 2004. Laws are passed by the congress, not instituted on high by whatever president is in office. As you seem to be a progressive you might not know that President Bush had nothing to do with the expiration of the ban; this was part and parcel of the original law. You and many others are apparently still suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome. If you want to blame someone for this blame congress. They are the ones that did not renew the law.

1

FryarTuk 2 years ago

There is no legitimate civilian need for any firearm that holds over 10 rounds of ammunition. They should not be manufactured, they should not be owned, they should not be sold, they should not be transported. I have no firearm that holds over 10 bullets and I sleep very peacefully every night. I have friends who own no firearms and they sleep peacefully every night as well. The second ammendment is safe but the population is not with the flooded firearm accessibility.

1

VSU 2 years ago

Same here! I am happy with just my .38 special. I am not looking to shoot up the neighborhood. Just want to be able to defend myself against uninvited guests.

0

Sherwood_Eagle_Alum 2 years ago

I thought you were against gun control.

0

VSU 2 years ago

I am against total gun control. I don't want my .38 Special taken away. I have no problem with them banning machine guns and other guns that shoot multi rounds. Ones that don't need to be on the streets.

However I still maintain the main culprit is the psychos that use the guns for the wrong reasons.

0

FryarTuk 2 years ago

We are not talking about gun control, we are talking about weapons of terror and assault. Gun control is an entirely different subject.

0

Sherwood_Eagle_Alum 1 year, 12 months ago

Silly me, I must have a misunderstanding of what "gun control" means. I thought it was regulating the sales or ownership of guns.

0

USTPC 2 years ago

It is totally illogical to pass a law impacting 80 million gun owners because of what a handful of crazy people do. If the prevention of deaths of innocent people is the goal then why are you not clamoring for legislation making it illegal to drive a vehicle because vehicles kill 3-4 times as many people as guns do every year. Or at the very least pass legislation making it illegal for a vehicle to exceed 35 MPH. Or are those deaths acceptable because only 3-4 people die at a time instead of 15-20?

Ban baseball bats as well. Bats are the number one weapon used in violent non-gun related deaths. Or are those deaths acceptable because they only happen to 1-2 people at a time?

Gun control and limiting law abiding citizens rights is not the answer to the problem.

0

VSU 2 years ago

These gun control hypocrits makes me laugh. I wonder if they believe the world is flat.

0

LoneCycler 2 years ago

Just as an “assault rifle” is not a rifle with a pistol grip, a flash suppressor, an extended magazine and black plastic furniture there is also no gun show loophole. Claiming otherwise is simple ignorance of the facts. The 2nd Amendment is not a right to go hunting. It is an inalienable right recognized by common law and natural law for citizens to keep and bear arms, intended to maintain an armed citizenry for mutual defense, and most significantly to protect against the tyranny of our own government. Progressives do not trust citizens with arms, and this is telling of their true motive for gun control. They would establish a tyranny where all rights are given by the government not by God, and that can be changed at whim depending on the circumstances. These people are the true danger to America, not firearms.

2

USTPC 2 years ago

Agree 100% but a large segment of the population has been brainwashed to believe that guns are bad and guns are the cause of violent crimes. The 2nd amendment is there for exactly the reason you stated and the big question is why does our government want its citizens unarmed?

0

FryarTuk 2 years ago

This is just a bunch of irrational blather. The 2nd ammendment along with the other ammendments in the Bill of Rights was an afterthought by middle and southern colonist who wanted private rights enumerated out of fear they would be washed aside by the larger colonies. The Bill of Rights had nothing to do with mutual defense or tyranny of our own government. They were to identify and clarify what they had just won from England and standardized in the US Constitution. Most of the northern and Atlantic colonies thought their inclusion was unnecessary but went along to get things signed. If the Constitutional authors and representatives had been concerned about tyranny they would have said so and allowed folks to take cannons, mortars and howitzers home with them. This paranoid prattle about the government taking guns is absurd.

0

USTPC 1 year, 12 months ago

Really? Because that is exactly what Feinstein is asking for in the bill she is going to introduce to congress on January 3rd. Here is the link to the article if you care to read the whole thing.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2012/feinstein-goes-for-broke-with-new-gun-ban-bill.aspx

0

Jimboob 2 years ago

Goodness Me... What have you been smoking?

1

Cartman 2 years ago

Assault weapons are singled out because they look evil to some folks and they think they will be an easy target to prohibit. While they are described as bringing devastating firepower, by their nature assault weapons fire an intermediary sized round. Bigger than a pistol round and smaller than an infantry rifle round. Very few crimes are committed with assault rifles compared with pistols which are far more concealable and hunting rifles which are more accurate with more hitting power.

The elimination of assault rifles would have very little if any impact on crime. And it would not be the end. It's never enough. The immediate followup would be to restrict or eliminate some other type of firearm.

So I say nip it in the bud and leave the laws as they are. Lest we become England where thugs roam at will, terrorizing helpless old folks. Along with millions of Americans who own assault rifles and did not shoot up a school, I did nothing wrong and do not need others to figure clever ways to infringe on my rights. Leave it be.

2

agirl_25 2 years ago

What about guns that are sold at estate auctions on private property? Is it in the gun show loophole too? I had a relative's personal items sold at auction because as Administrator of the estate it was the easiest way to dispose of his property, and the guns were coveted by many so auction was the best way. There was just too much property and he had no relatives, other than me and a few nephews and nieces and he named me Administrator. The auction house handled everything for me and when the guns were sold (he had probably 75-80 guns in a collection that spanned 50+ years of collecting) a Sheriff's Department rep and a Georgia State Patrolman were there on the property. I am sure they did instant background checks.

1

LoneCycler 2 years ago

Most likely they did not do background checks. As the Administrator of the estate, you held title to the firearms, not the auctioneer, and since you are not regularly engaged in the sale of firearms, you did not need a federal firearms license to sell them. The sales were private transactions that fall outside the purview of the firearms laws. The Sheriff's department and State Patrolman were most likely at the auction simply to provide security to a large group of people with valuables and money on hand.

0

LoneCycler 2 years ago

I should have added that the Sheriff's dept. and State patrol probably also placed bids in the auction -- LEO appreciate fine weapons and often own several themselves.

0

agirl_25 2 years ago

So the people that bought the guns and ammunition cannot hold me responsible for anything?.....that seems like a very easy way for some nutcase to buy a gun and do harm to someone and then have a gun traced back to my relative doesn't it, then have it traced back to me...kinda spooky...doncha think? Btw, there were some truly fine guns there too (his collection had been written about in several gun magazines) so maybe you are correct, maybe it was because of the valuables.

0

bubbasmithredneck 2 years ago

I got a BB Gun and a stick.......wassup!

0

VSU 2 years ago

Need to turn it in. You might shoot your eye out....as they say to Ralphie on A Christmas Story.

0

agirl_25 2 years ago

That is the best Christmas Movie of all time.....in my opinion and I am entitled to an opinion..

1

VSU 2 years ago

I'm glad you like that movie. My family members are split down the middle. Me and my nephews love the movie, but my sisters and neices think it is the dumbest movie ever made.

0

agirl_25 1 year, 12 months ago

If you grew up in the late 40's and 50's you identified with that movie and if you had a Mother who always said "you'll shoot your eye out" and an attic full of things she won by entering contest you can understand why I loved the movie. As a matter of fact, my Mother has been gone for over 35 years and I still have an Oster blender she won in a contest 48 years ago and would not part with it for anything. When she passed away my 7 siblings and I went in her attic and cleaned out years and years of contest winnings..just like Raphie's crazy father had won over the years........she had a crazy swan lamp, not as ugly as his dad's crazy woman's leg lamp, but crazy.........so it will always be my favorite. As a military brat always moving, my Mom made Christmas the best time of the year, even when my Dad was gone. I can still hear her too......."you'll shoot your eye out"......

0

USTPC 1 year, 12 months ago

Today you are allowed to your opinion.....tomorrow? Who knows.

0

Sixty 2 years ago

Why does it matter what kind of gun and how many rounds a clip holds???? The second amendment is for the use against a rogue government. If you were using your gun for the reason the constitution intend, you would need the more advanced weapon. Why do people mention hunting when talking about the 2nd amendment?

0

FryarTuk 2 years ago

Why does it matter what kind of gun and how many rounds a clip holds???? Jared Loughner (Gabby Giffords incident) was subdued trying to reload his clip he had killed 6 and injured 13. Read the account of the CT mass murder where 10 and 12 bullets were pumped into the tiny bodies of six year olds. 12 girls, 8 boys, six women riddled with bullets without pause or hesitation.

Where do you get the second ammendment is for the use against a rogue government. The majority of the Constitutuional representatives had no idea why the Bill of Rights including the 2nd ammendment were introduced. They were complete afterthoughts.

0

USTPC 1 year, 12 months ago

I do not believe anything in the constitution was an "afterthought". If you think the second amendment and the bill of rights are afterthoughts then you clearly need to study the correct history of our founding fathers. To quote just a few:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" - Thomas Jefferson

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good" - George Washington

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms." - Joseph Story

Does that really sound like the 2nd amendment was an afterthought?

0

USTPC 1 year, 12 months ago

"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Mohandas Gandhi, an Autobiography, page 446.

0

Sign in to comment