Exposing Obama's Gun Show Loophole myth


Can you point out in the video where it explains that guns can be purchased at a gun show without a background check. If I missed it, I’d be happy to recant.

The very first line of the video is “I thought at gun shows you didn’t have to do a background check”. You can’t see that as dishonest? The guy that made the video know it and even if he didn’t, someone at the gun-show explained it to him, yet he made the video anyway and never explains it to his audience leading people to bevel something that’s not true, That is propaganda.

The truth is that there are some private sellers at some gun-shows that you can buy from without a background check., the video distorts this fact no matter what you think about the issue, the video makes it seem as though private sellers don’t exist at gun shows.

Then the vid makes it seem as though you can’t buy fully automatic weapons. We both know you can. None of the clips that he puts in the video of Obama, CNN, Clinton or Sanders is factually inaccurate. If something is wrong, show me where and I’ll admit I’m wrong. Because none of them says that fully automatic weapons are available everywhere, in that video.


You don’t pay all that close attention, do you? I’ve never claimed that you couldn’t go to a gun show and buy (or sell) a gun without a background check being involved, but that’s not unique to gun shows alone so there is NO SUCH THING as a “gunshow loophole.” It’s a made-up term designed by anti-gun bug-witted morons to “scare” people away from gun shows–we’ve seen just how effective THAT has been with gun shows proliferating all over the place since Obama took office. Last time I looked, there is no Constitutional right to own or trade in Anthrax, explosives, pot or pesticides. There IS a Constitutional right for people to own and carry arms–which presupposes the right to ACQUIRE them other than by building them themselves.


I can lead horses to water, but I can’t make them drink…I have posted plenty of stuff to refute the claims of other posters backed by credible non-biased sources. People simply move goal-posts or change the subject, or focus on one line of a paragraph and ignore the parts where I’ve shown they were wrong…

You are calling me, in effect, a lair, why not find in the OP’s vid where they make it clear what the “so called” gun show loophole is. You and I both know that you can buy a firearm without a background check from a private seller at a gun show. I conceded that the term “gun show loop hole” could be considered a euphemism. How is that being untruthful?

I own firearms, I’m just being honest about them, the OP’s video was not unless I missed something…


I don’t think I said that you made the claim that you couldn’t buy a gun at a gun show without a background check. I said:

The point, a point that you gloss over, is that the OP’s video insinuated that you could not buy a firearm at a gun show from a private seller without a back ground check. That is factually false.

Where did I accuse you or anyone else other than the video the OP posted.

I already addressed your “rights”.

The right to own, isn’t the right to sell to whomever you want, right?

The right to free speech isn’t unlimited, is it?

The right to religion doesn’t allow you to make human sacrifices…

Do you believe that marriage is between a man and a woman?

So because “marriage” isn’t a right defined specifically by the Constitution then the government can regulate it, just like it regulates explosives, anthrax, and pesticides, right? Yet this is what government lead by the right has tried to do when it comes to marriage.


Issues that aren’t covered by the Constitution as being the province of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT are, by default, the province of the people or the State governments. The Constitution gives limited and specific powers to the federal government and the Bill of Rights LIMITS what the federal government is permitted to do…all else being powers reserved to the people or to the States. Our government has, for over 150 years, systematically IGNORED its limitations and done pretty much what the politicians have wanted to do–only rarely challenged by either the States OR the people.


csbrown28, you are ignoring where you’ve been shown that you are wrong. Nobody disputes that private sales don’t require background checks.

The point of contention here is that you are continuing to perpetuate the lie of a gun show loop hole. There is no such thing. It is a liberal construct for a means to ban the private sale of firearms. There is no loophole.


No I’m not…I already conceded to you, twice now that the term “gun show loophole” is a euphemism…I simply didn’t understand how you defined the term. Once you told me what the term mean to you, I conceded it. I learned something. I’ll make sure and point out to my liberal friends that we need to re-think how we address this point. I mean, really it’s just a point of semantics, but acknowledging it makes it easier to have discussion…

However, my confusion stemmed from the fact that the video the OP posted claims that you CANNOT buy a weapon at a gun show without a background check. It also makes it seems as though you can’t buy fully automatic weapons at gun shows either, so I thought that is what the OP’s vid was calling the “gun show loop hole”.

So when I said the gun show loop hole exists I was addressing those points. If you concede that you can buy these items at gun shows, great, then I hope you can admit the OP’s video is misleading as it trys to make it’s veiwers think that you can’t buy guns without background checks at gun shows and that you can’t buy fully automatic weapons at gun shows. Both of these points are factually false.

Now I admit that I think there is a debate to be had about the selling of guns without a background check that is worth having, but that is separate from the point of this thread.

I’ve pointed out that the right to own does not imply the right to sell without regulation any more than the right to free speech allows you to yell fire in a crowded theater.


…except you CAN “yell fire in a crowded theater.” The only penalty that you are likely to have imposed is **if **a panic ensues and **if someone is injured and if **someone else rats you out as the person who yelled it, causing a panic and injury.

I gave my son a 30-30 Winchester rifle and a double-barrel 12 gauge shotgun and a 9mm pistol and didn’t subject him to a background check. I gave a foster son a 12-gauge semi-auto shotgun and didn’t subject HIM to a background check. I gave my grandson (who lives in another State) a .20 gauge single-shot shotgun and a .22, single-shot rifle and when he turned 18, a .303 British Enfield rifle and didn’t subject HIM to a background check. I gave my foster granddaughter a .38 Special, S&W “Lady Smith” pistol and didn’t subject HER to a background check and gave my daughter a Ruger P89DC 9mm semi-auto pistol and didn’t subject HER to a background check either. Do you think I sweat the BATFEO to come knocking on my door with an arrest warrant?


That’s what pro-gun folks have been trying to say for years. Guns are going to be obtained illegally regardless of what laws are implemented. Generally speaking, they are obtained illegally by criminals or people who have nefarious reasons for having a gun. The small minority of people who purchase guns illegally through gun shows, as you pointed out, could not account for the murder rate in this country. Guns, like drugs, are huge profit-makers for foreign drug kingpins and gun-runners. To think (or proclaim) that more gun laws will remedy the murder rate in this country is an indication of a very limited thought process or an ulterior motive.


Which is why you don’t have the “right” to do it, even though you have the right of free speech. I never said that you couldn’t do it, I said you didn’t have the RIGHT. The point was, even though free speech is a right specifically outlined in the Constitution, it can be regulated and limited.

Now I’m all ears if you or someone else can explain to me why the government doesn’t have purview to regulate firearms, specifically the transfer of them, but it can regulate other rights specifically outlined in the Constitution.

That’s super, but what does any of this have to do with anything I’ve said?


csbrown: You must think we’re all a bunch of stoopids.


No just you :smile:

Totally kidding!!!


It’s not that I believe that more laws are going to solve the problem. First, the quantity of laws is irrelevant. I suspect you could create 1 new law and drop 5 older laws, but that’s not really the issue here.

Honestly, I’ve been saying for a very long time that firearm ownership is such a decisive issue that laws aren’t the answer, despite the things I’ve said above. I don’t think that changing background check laws will really substantially change very much. The problem isn’t the system of laws, it’s the culture, on both sides.

We live in a culture that get’s 99% of what it thinks it knows from watching TV. Anyone that shoots a firearm has to chuckle when someone dives behind a couch to shield themselves from gunfire, or when someone fires a .45 in an enclosed space and doesn’t immediately bend over in agony as if their ears were bleeding from the sound…

I trained to be a cop for 2 years and I can’t tell you how much it irritates me when someone watches a video of a person who is actively trying to kill others is shot and killed and they ask, why didn’t the cop shoot him in the leg?

The point I’m making and I’ve made to many a liberal, is that they need to stop trying to solve this problem via law. Laws are too often abused, by both sides as a way that one group forces another to do what they want. Now it’s usually not a big deal unless the groups are diametrically opposed. People are very passionate about their right to own a firearm. In this case I would like to see gun owners as a group do more to police themselves, to change their own culture. This is why the 1950’s and 60’s was different than today. The problem is that when moderates on both sides come to talk about the issue, the radicals are standing behind them screaming so loud a conversation can’t take place. Then people like you brand people like me as “radical liberals” rather than recognizing that I’m a moderate. I mean, whatever…I don’t care. It changes nothing for me, but that is the reality.

The farther one side moves from the perceived middle, the farther the other side will move to counter it. In the end, if we can’t learn to agree on some common sense stuff were going to end up with absolutely no restrictions, whatsoever or were going to end up with complete and total bans. It depends on who wins the culture war, because that’s what it is.

Most people would like to see some common sense applied and meet somewhere in the middle.


If you ever WERE in law enforcement then you have to know that 95% of the gun murders in the US are gang or “turf” related and take place primarily in the inner parts of cities historically under the exclusive control of liberal Democrats who, for the most part, don’t think we should be punishing criminals, but should be “treating” them as if they have cancer and who ENCOURAGE minority families to be comprised of single-parent households so they’ll stay on the dole and continue to elect their liberal “benefactors.”


[quote=“csbrown28, post:30, topic:48168”]
Which is why you don’t have the “right” to do it, even though you have the right of free speech. I never said that you couldn’t do it, I said you didn’t have the RIGHT. The point was, even though free speech is a right specifically outlined in the Constitution, it can be regulated and limited.
[/quote] Of COURSE I have “the right” to do it. Just because the government has claimed the authority to “regulate” my speech, doesn’t mean I’ve lost my right at all. It just means that the government has–once again–exceeded its constitutional authority.

Now I’m all ears if you or someone else can explain to me why the government doesn’t have purview to regulate firearms, specifically the transfer of them, but it can regulate other rights specifically outlined in the Constitution.
Simply put, the explanation is that the federal government asserts regulatory authority that the Constitution doesn’t give it and the Founders never intended for it to have. For example, the phrase “…shall not be infringed.” in the 2nd Amendment does NOT go on to include the codicil “…except when Congress DOES decide that the right to keep and bear arms CAN be infringed.” And, make no mistake about it, what Congress now takes the word “regulate” to mean is ALWAYS an infringement of those rights.

That’s super, but what does any of this have to do with anything I’ve said?

According to what you seem to believe, I should be arrested for transferring ownership of some of my guns without doing a background check. Why do you suppose I don’t worry about such nonsense?


Ok, so I want to be careful here…I never said I was in law enforcement, I said that I trained to be in law enforcement. I took criminal justice classes for 2 years and spent 9 months in a ride-along-program. At the same time I was in what I’ll call “para-enforcement” work doing things like providing security at concerts sporting events…While I eventually made the decision not to pursue law enforcement as a career, I did continue to work with police teaching unarmed and non-lethal combat techniques until I was in my late 20’s.

I don’t recall in my training ever seeing the statistics you cite, however given that most of the nations population is in cities, it makes sense that most of the violence occurs there.


So it would appear the crux of this argument is (and a much more interesting conversation), where do we as citizens get our rights from?

What do you think?


Okay, something I’m noticing here (although I’m not sure of the origin) is the issue of freedom of speech. Fact is, the Constitution does not specify freedom of speech as a right. The 1st Amendment does say that Congress shall not make any law abridging it, and the 14th (although vague and not specifying what it protects) has been cited as a protection of such; but “freedom of speech” combined directly or indirectly with the term “right” is not found.

However, the 2nd Amendment clearly states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Period.


So I think you’re splitting hairs a bit, and missing the larger point that I was making…

Having said that the first amendment does refer to rights of speech…

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Furthermore, all of this is in a document referred to as “The Bill of Rights

With respect to the second amendment, I don’t see a background check as unreasonable infringement. You may disagree and that’s cool.


Oh, and speaking of how well “gun control” laws work? When I lived in Pekin, IL, there was a shooting up the road in Peoria. The shooter was a 13-year-old girl. The gun she used was one called a “Saturday night special,” which means that it was a cheap gun, with questionable safety - and that it had been sold “illegally” in the first place. The girl’s grandmother had bought it. “Anti-gun” law broken (twice, by the seller, and by the buyer). And the girl stole it from her grandmother. A second law broken, and of course, the shooting was also breaking the law. What makes anyone think that any crime can be eliminated by laws? In any case, anti-gun laws aren’t really intended to eliminate crime; they are intended to disarm law-abiding citizens - so that they won’t call the non-law-abiding government to account.