The article is poorly reasoned and rather ignorant, but the comments are excellent.
1 posted on
10/30/2009 8:29:37 AM PDT by
marktwain
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
To: marktwain
ignorantI would say intentionally dishonest rather than ignorant, but that's just my opinion.
2 posted on
10/30/2009 8:35:08 AM PDT by
from occupied ga
(Your most dangerous enemy is your own government,)
To: marktwain
The background check is basically non-existent at events like gun shows forums where private sellers convene for a great American pastime: lusting after guns.
Stopped right there.
Pure bullshit.
3 posted on
10/30/2009 8:35:15 AM PDT by
SJSAMPLE
To: marktwain
This “journalist” has done absolutely NOTHING to qualify any of their statements, and they’ve obviously taken every talking point from the likes of the Brady campaign. Gun shows are legal gatherings of like-minded gun owners trading, selling, bartering, and buying modern and not-so-modern weaponry. Vendors who work these shows are required to conduct background checks and adhere to waiting periods as proscribed by local and state governments.
This article is typical liberal claptrap and the write should be made to account for sources.
4 posted on
10/30/2009 8:35:59 AM PDT by
rarestia
(Confutatis maledictis, voca me cum benedictis)
To: marktwain
I wonder just how many of us could go up to a private seller, tell him or her that we could not pass a background check and walk out of there with a firearm.Sounds to me like the author, Husna Najand, should give it a shot and report back.
5 posted on
10/30/2009 8:39:52 AM PDT by
VeniVidiVici
(Keep your dog. Get rid of a Liberal.)
To: marktwain
You know that the right thing to do is to return your friends gun to him or her if you have taken it. But should you return it if you know that person is mentally unstable and would use it against others? I don't have any friends like this. I doubt many people on this forum do either. The question also has to be posited: How or why would I have this "friend's" gun anyway?
Also, if I go to cash a check and tell the teller I'm going to go buy a gun or drugs with it, should they stop me? How would they know I'm not joking? Do we want to turn that teller into an agent of law enforcement, requiring them to report my remarks to law enforcement?
The "evidence" presented in this article is all anecdotal, and was "gathered" by one of the most anti-gun mayors in the world. I'm sure every word of it is complete, accurate, and reliable. Videotaping these interactions gives them only slightly more credibility.
6 posted on
10/30/2009 8:41:33 AM PDT by
Hardastarboard
(Maureen Dowd is right. I DON'T like our President's color. He's a Red.)
To: marktwain
I do agree that the mentally incompetent author of this article should not have a gun.
Besides that, it’s (can’t determine gender from name) probably a mohammadan and shouldn’t be allowed to have a gun in the U.S. until it renounces its religion.
To: marktwain
Biggest pile of BS I read on gun shows. Anything coming from Michael Bloomberg has to be followed by a BS rating.
8 posted on
10/30/2009 8:51:34 AM PDT by
Logical me
(Oh, well!!!)
To: marktwain
There are over 200 million guns in American hands and, except for in the black community, these guns are remain silent except when taking to the gun range or on a hunting trip.
9 posted on
10/30/2009 8:55:39 AM PDT by
BertWheeler
(Dance and the World Dances With You!)
To: marktwain
How bout the same checks and requirements for people requesting gov’t handouts.
10 posted on
10/30/2009 9:02:16 AM PDT by
Neoliberalnot
((Freedom's Precious Metals: Gold, Silver and Lead))
To: marktwain
To expose gun shows for their lax take on background checks, Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City commissioned a sting operation that went beyond its borders. Investigators equipped with hidden cameras went to seven different shows across the country, including one in Reno, Nev.It is clear that Mayor Michael Bloomberg ordered and paid for a number of straw purchases that crossed State lines. Where is the Prosecution?
11 posted on
10/30/2009 9:15:02 AM PDT by
Petruchio
(Democrats are like Slinkies... Not good for anything, but it's fun pushing 'em down the stairs.)
To: marktwain
To preserve public safety, it is imperative that guns not be sold to established criminals, future criminals or mentally unstable persons in such an open and easily accessible arena.We should also muzzle ignorant, lying leftist journalists to protect the public from being exposed to total BS in written form. Some people will believe anything they read. Mental instability in such an open and accessible arena as the internet should not be tolerated.
12 posted on
10/30/2009 9:20:04 AM PDT by
Myrddin
To: marktwain
13 posted on
10/30/2009 9:24:31 AM PDT by
HuntsvilleTxVeteran
((B.?) Hussein (Obama?Soetoro?Dunham?) Change America Will Die From.)
To: marktwain
The ATF controls these shows. Every single agent in Nevada is at a Nevada gun show. They work with the promoters, they have straw buyers trying to trip up sellers, they have informants by the ton they don’t even have to pay - like this anti-American and anti-Constitutional useful idiot.
To: marktwain
I think that a bigger concern right now is the fact that voters have put an unqualified marxist into the White House without an adequate background check. And he is the Commander in Chief of a military with far more firepower than one would ever see at a gun show.
15 posted on
10/30/2009 9:48:04 AM PDT by
meyer
("I went to Europe to buy the Olympics for Chicago and all I got was this silly Nobel")
To: marktwain
I thought this was going to be about a gun maker inside the state, only selling for use in the state.... :(
16 posted on
10/30/2009 10:29:45 AM PDT by
xmission
(www.iwilldefendtheconstitution.com)
To: marktwain
Yeah, the comments are great. Author taken to the woodshed.
17 posted on
10/30/2009 10:56:17 AM PDT by
Eagles6
( Typical White Guy: Christian, Constitutionalist, Heterosexual, Redneck. (Let them eat arugula!))
To: marktwain
But should you return it if you know that person is mentally unstable and would use it against others? There's a difference between already having clear evidence, vs. going on "fishing expeditions". The more accurate question is: But should you return it if for all you know that person is mentally stable like anyone else and "would not hurt a fly" (save only to defend innocent life)?
Stopped there. If the author has to be mortally suspicious of his own friends, his further opinions are not worth my time.
18 posted on
10/30/2009 11:37:33 AM PDT by
ctdonath2
(End the coup!)
To: marktwain
The background check is basically non-existent at events like gun shows Author is either ignorant or dishonest. The premise is false.
Rest of the article is pointless.
19 posted on
10/30/2009 11:41:29 AM PDT by
ArrogantBustard
(Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
To: marktwain
20 posted on
10/30/2009 12:18:01 PM PDT by
SuperLuminal
(Where is another agitator for republicanism like Sam Adams when we need him?)
To: marktwain
I dont see how any rational person would have a problem with getting rid of the loophole. Yeah, but I'm not rational.
Hell, DHS thinks I'm a possible terrorist.
21 posted on
10/30/2009 1:04:10 PM PDT by
SIDENET
("If that's your best, your best won't do." -Dee Snider)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson