Three Men Arrested After Buying Gun At Gun Show In OKC

[IndVet]

I agree. There is going to have to be a "slight" compromise on this, or I fear we may lose it all.

That's right jakeman, but the compromise doesn't have to be a gun ban (not directed at you).

The compromise could in the mental health area, or the background check area, or somewhere else. Fighting for no compromise is a losing proposition.

 

[okiebryan]

A cop saw evidence of a crime being committed, followed a lead and made a bust. Bad guys in jail. That system.

If this was purely a private transaction, why does there need to be any more of a "system" than that? Whether it took place at a gun show or not? Gun show promoters are free to self-police and only allow licensed FFLs if we/they think this is such a huge problem. Why do we need the .gov to step in?

A cop saw something that at best gave him RAS to investigate. The evidence came after the traffic stop. But still, it was luck that this happened in his sight. Luck is not a system. That's like depending on the lottery for your retirement plans.

 

[Shadowrider]

Sorry, but views like this are the greatest threat to 2A rights we have. When you claim to own the truth, you have declared yourself irrelevant to the argument. When you say there is no middle ground (or compromise) you are irrelevant to the argument. They can ban all long guns and let you have a .22 pistol. Then you own a gun, and therefore your right to own a gun has not been infringed. Extremism on both sides is the enemy.

I'm not saying that I'm willing to have some of my weapons taken from me. I'm saying that this is the problem that has infected the government right now, no compromise. We see where this gets us, haven't we?

Far be it from me to side with kd5rjz on anything political, but he's right on this one. The 2A originates from our God given rights and no man or government can take those away. Every time we've "compromised" on our right to own guns we've lost ground. FDR knew that banning machine guns wouldn't pass constitutional muster. So he taxed them. He didn't BAN them at all. Then we "compromised" and got the GCA '68. We did some more "compromising" and got FOPA, and more with the AWB in 1994. Every one of these whittled some of our rights away.

I take a simplistic approach to my view. If a felon can't be trusted to have a gun, why do they walk among us? I guess I could "compromise" and give you that a person convicted of a VIOLENT felony shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. But the 2nd time they get caught? They get life in prison or they give their life. Personally I'm sick of "compromising" because it's not compromising at all, it's just handing over our rights when we are talking about the 2A. "Compromising" is for other issues. God I hate that word, now I'm gotta to go take a shower or something...

 

[IndVet]

Far be it from me to side with kd5rjz on anything political, but he's right on this one. The 2A originates from our God given rights and no man or government can take those away.

Call me crazy, but I haven't read the part in the bible that references our right to own guns. That is a right given to us by our forefathers.

I did say that the compromise didn't have to include "what" guns we own, but "who" owns them. Are you saying anyone can own anything? Sure sounds like it. I'm telling you that's not a winnable argument, that's all.

 

[SMS]

A cop saw something that at best gave him RAS to investigate. The evidence came after the traffic stop. But still, it was luck that this happened in his sight. Luck is not a system. That's like depending on the lottery for your retirement plans.

But it's not our retirement plan. It's private property and our Constitution.

I am not required to make sure someone has a driver's license and insurance to sell them a car and watch them drive away in it. Why should I have to do something similiar with a gun purchase?

I'm not calling you an idiot...and I actually see the desire to "meet them halfway" or react on some emotional level...I feel it too, but I am resisting that desire. It will NOT placate them and will only lead to more strict measures.

 

[jakeman]

That's right jakeman, but the compromise doesn't have to be a gun ban (not directed at you).

The compromise could in the mental health area, or the background check area, or somewhere else. Fighting for no compromise is a losing proposition.

I don't want to ban anything, and I don't want FTF person to person transactions to be regulated, but guys that are selling hundreds of guns at gun shows are dealers that are just skirting the law, and it makes us all look bad. I agree, if we just stand here with our middle finger raised, we're gonna lose, and it might be big.

 

[okiebryan]

The compromise could in the mental health area, or the background check area, or somewhere else. Fighting for no compromise is a losing proposition.

I think the problem is that so many are entrenched in a fighting mindset... and for good reason, we can't allow these gun bans to happen...that they cannot even consider for a second that anything might be a good idea.

It's becoming clear that felons buying at gun shows is not a one off event. The word is out on how to score a gun at a gun show. I talked to an FFL friend today, I asked him how many turds try to buy guns at his (very busy, high volume) gun store. He told me that last year he had only 30 denials for the whole year. 10 of those were during one gun show where he was a vendor. Felons aren't going to the gun store. They are getting stolen guns off the street, and buying guns at shows.

If we made it nearly impossible for them to score at a gun show, they wouldn't come to gun shows anymore. Gun shows aren't for felons, they are for gun enthusiasts.

If you like having the freedom to unknowingly (wink wink) sell to felons, then I can see why you would oppose this. (See how I can take your stance and turn it around to attribute a totally different motive that what really exists? It's easy...just be intellectually dishonest to yourself long enough and eventually you believe it yourself).. point is that having ideas about how to make a meaningful difference in the problem does not make one some commie pinko liberty hating gun grabber.

 

[okiebryan]

But it's not our retirement plan. It's private property and our Constitution.

I am not required to make sure someone has a driver's license and insurance to sell them a car and watch them drive away in it. Why should I have to do something similiar with a gun purchase?

I'm not calling you an idiot...and I actually see the desire to "meet them halfway" or react on some emotional level...I feel it too, but I am resisting that desire. It will NOT placate them and will only lead to more strict measures.

But it's not a felony to 1)own a car if you are not licensed and insured. (it's only required to DRIVE it) or 2)Knowingly sell a car to an unlicensed driver. Your comparison is not really all that similar.

 

[WTJ]

How is that there are so many repeat DUI/DWI arrests? Do these people get additional charges for using an inanimate object in the commission of a crime? Is there a NICS system to buy a motor vehicle that weighs several thousand pounds, kills many people every year, and is a massive threat to public safety in the wrong hands?

 

[Blade]

Call me crazy, but I haven't read the part in the bible that references our right to own guns. That is a right given to us by our forefathers.

Luke 22:35-36

35

And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.

36

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Just something to think about...