search
top

Backwards Facts

From MikeB:

He’s stated that the “bullying tactics” of the NRA simply did not work on him. One of those tactics is to continually describe the so-called gun-show loophole as something other than what it is.

The whole gun show loophole language is not a creation of the NRA or its members. We much prefer to argue on the topic in terms of private transfers. The gun show loophole language is entirely a creation of the gun control movement, because the purpose of the proposed law, the proposed law endorsed by MAIG, goes beyond just banning private sales. I have outlined what the proposed bill on the table actually does on my blog before.

This is not an irrational move on the part of the gun control movement, because they know what we know, that gun shows are an important and vital organizing tool for our community, because it’s a central place where you can expect to find a lot of gun owners. Wouldn’t it make sense, if you were an avowed opponent of homosexuality, to try to outlaw or demonize gay bars?

9 Responses to “Backwards Facts”

  1. Xrlq says:

    I think there is one case – and only one – where it makes sense to talk of a “gun show loophole.” If your position is that federal law should require background checks on all commercial sales but not on private sales unless they occur at gun shows, then in your book, there’s a “gun show loophole.” But if your position is anything else (e.g., background checks for all sales, no background checks for anyone or the current divide between private and commercial sales), there isn’t.

  2. mikeb302000 says:

    Sebastian, That’s a great comparison, gun shows to gay bars.

    I’m sure you’re right that it was the gun control folks who coined the expression. But as to their intention, I’m not so sure. I’ve been thinking that it’s just another sloppy move on the part of disparate and disorganized folks who can’t get their act together. It reminds me of the famous AWB which turned into a joke of superfucial and even aesthetic features of guns instead of what it should have been.

    Regardless of who first used the term “gun-show loophole” and what their intentions were, I’ve seen countless examples of pro-gun folks muddying up the waters of debate and taking advantage of the fact that many people on both sides of the argument don’t know exactly what we’re talking about, again very like the AWB business.

  3. Bob S. says:

    MikeB,

    Prove it. Show a couple of these “countless examples”.

    You make grandiose claims like this all the time but seldom if ever show proof.

    Prove it.

  4. Linoge says:

    For that matter, how is it “taking advantage” of a situation to point out that someone trying to strip you of your rights does not have the foggiest of clues concerning what he or she is speaking about? In reality, the vast majority of people clamoring for the closure of the “gun show loophole” have no idea concerning the specifics of how that would work, or what it would cover… it is incumbent upon them to educate themselves as to the finer points of the cause, and it is incumbent upon me to defend my rights from those who would take them away, bit by bit. I cannot be faulted if the woman with the earrings‘ allies cannot be bothere to do their homework before they open their traps.

  5. Joe Huffman says:

    Bob S.,

    You can’t expect someone who cannot distinguish truth from falsity to contribute facts to a discussion. For you to expect that of him is just as irrational as expecting a rapid dog to be a good pet.

    I know. It’s hard to imagine that such people exist and I frequently fall into the same delusion that “It simply cannot be that someone is that devoid of a connection to reality.” But in my more rational moments I’m convinced it’s hopeless to expect that of him. Sort of like what the character Jonas Blane in The Unit said once (IIRC), “I don’t believe people can change. I’ve seen it. But I don’t believe it.”

  6. Sebastian says:

    just as irrational as expecting a rapid dog to be a good pet

    Greyhounds make great pets :) Just ask all those greyhound rescue groups.

    I know, I know, I’m one to talk with the typos, as Joe well knows :)

  7. Sebastian says:

    MikeB:

    You can’t continually claim there’s no hidden agenda, when you say stuff like this:

    It reminds me of the famous AWB which turned into a joke of superfucial and even aesthetic features of guns instead of what it should have been.

    What should it have been? Do you think the Brady’s are so “disparate and disorganized” that they aren’t also aware the 1994 ban wasn’t everything they wanted it to be? They knew it was worthless too, but it got them at least part of the way there. It set a precedent to regulate in a certain area. Presumably a precedent that would allow them to come back later and fix the problems with the original bill, which they tried repeatedly to do. Do you also think they don’t know what they are doing with the gun show language? Do you really believe they are incapable of understanding the difference between closing the gun show loophole, and private transfers? I can promise you their people know the gun laws as well as we all do. I’ve even been corrected once on a matter of law by Peter Hamm.

    Trust me, they aren’t stupid. I’ve followed these guys for a long time. I disagree with them, but they know what they are doing.

  8. Matt says:

    MikeB,

    It reminds me of the famous AWB which turned into a joke of superfucial and even aesthetic features of guns instead of what it should have been.

    It was EXACTLY what it should have been because it was written by people who had no idea about how firearms functioned. It was superficial because it was designed by people flipping through books and writing down the names of guns that they felt belonged in the military and having no idea about what the guns were.

    It failed because the people it affected, gun manufacturers, actually knew their business and conformed to the letter of the law. There was no “loophole” in the law. It was followed to the letter. An inconvenience, nothing more. Fortunately, others in the process recognized the failure it was and ensued it would not survive. It wouldn’t have been passed otherwise.

    Same for the “gun show loophole”. It isn’t disorganized; it is exactly what it is supposed to be. These people spouting this stuff have NO CLUE what they are talking about, are self-reinforcing their delusion about what they think is reality and foisting it on a public that is likewise clueless. And you expect me to go along with this and then accuse me of taking advantage of the situation? Nothing is further from the truth.

    In fact, all I have to do is tell the truth and let a curious mind ask a few questions on their own. Once that happens, the tide turns. Try it yourself. Ask an average person what the AWB banned. 9 times out of 10, you’ll get the answer it banned machine guns. Then explain to them what it REALLY banned (.22 caliber rifles that LOOK LIKE M-16s but function like Dad’s Remington 597). Then you’ll see them get surprised, shocked and then pissed because they realize what a snowjob has been put over on them by these gun control groups.

    That’s what’s happening here with the “gun show loophole” and why it, so far, has been stopped cold wherever it has been proposed save for pockets of CA. Because the legislators are getting told the truth by people who know and are pissed and getting snowed over and lied to by the gun control folks.

    When all you have is reputation and credibility and you lose it, you have nothing left to fall back on. Even if you’re right, no one will be believe you once you’ve lost those. The Brady Campaign is now in that space and they don’t like. Bloomberg isn’t yet because he’s insulating himself through money but chinks and cracks are appearing. It is only a matter of time before we bury “gun show loophole” along with the ’94 AWB.

    I think you have the advantage of education now. How much longer are you going to be able to hold onto a strict gun control position in the light of facts?

  9. mikeb302000 says:

    Thanks everybody. Those are great points which I will certainly consider.

    I’m especially thinking about what Sebastian just said that the gun control groups are well aware of these things and the poor choice of name in the case of the “gun-show loophole” was no accident. (I think that’s what you said, anyway).

    That is a bit of a departure from what I often hear, but often that’s the case with our host on this blog.

    Thanks again.

top