A person-to-person sale was never intended to have background checks. That is why there are provisions that note selling to known felons is against the law, however there is no law that states a individual must do their due diligence (in otherwords, 100% back ground checks). This is very intentional and the complete opposite of a loop hole. In order to effectively do a 100% background check, you would essentially need gun registration. Without gun registration, the law would have no teeth, and as you like to put it, full of loopholes. Without gun registration, you can't prove who owns a gun and who doesn't. Basically, I can "gift" my new found friend on craigslist a $1000 bucks for being a great new friend, and since he's my new friend, I am going to loan him my new AR15. Why bother making a law with no teeth? As a dealer, the dealer is required to track all serial numbers on a purchase. They do not need to turn them over to the state, but they are required to log them. If a legit dealer does not abide by the laws, he will be punished if caught. Its simply too risky for a dealer to break the law to make $50.00 on a gun sale. He is subjected to random inspections and audits. However yes, I do agree that there is much ambiguity on what constitutes a dealer or a private seller (loopholes). I understand the concept on if someone is not a dealer, why would they need a booth at a gun show to sell guns? Personally I have never seen a booth that did not require a background check. However yes, as you're milling around and you bump into a random guy with an AR15 slung on his back, you can most certainly buy it off him with out a background check, just as you can walk around and random ask people if they will sell you a gun, whether its at walmart, grocery store, the mall, sports store or a gun show. Private to private sales are not regulated ... by intention. Unless you can convince America that we need to do gun registration, this will not change. This is why the burden of responsibility should be placed on the seller, regardless if you're a dealer or private individual. If you want to sell a gun to bobby jo's nephews dogs trainer, you should do your due diligence on ensuring he is not a threat or else be held liable.
I'm embarrassed that this is the best we can do. Trump is a damned fool and Hilary is just such a sleaze bag. Foolish or Sleazy. That's our pick.
Whereas you have it for brains. You just got Trumped bro. Keep on with the false equivalences because you have an inability to distinguish between the candidates except in know nothing, "common sense" terms.
You try to sound intelligent but your bias shows otherwise. Your like a a first year philosophy student trying to piece enough terms he read in a book to get to that 1000 word count on his paper. In the end your points make no sense and everyone is dumber for it. You are so brainwashed that if a hamster ran for president as a democrat you would be arguing the merits on how great this hamster is compared to Trump. You don't have the wherewithal to understand that the hamster and Trump aren't qualified to run this country. Go back to reading your buzzfeed and watching your news on CNN.
It actually did not take her this long. Trump was nominated in July. Polling data already show Clinton as a clear favorite in June and that lasted through mid July. The gap was closed in late July. After the conventions, Clinton took a huge lead again, bigger than the lead in June, but the gap start closing again. After the 1st debate, Clinton took a huge lead again, but not as large (yet) as when she lead shortly after the conventions. So, as you see, it has somewhat been a sea saw, with Clinton always holding a small to huge lead. We'll see how it end up, but my guess is that gap is going to increase in Clinton's favor. Also, when you start throwing out ****, whether it lands or not (not), your hands are full of it.
In reality, the hamster would have Democratic advisors and, unlike Donald Trump, would actually listen to them and have them make decisions since he would be just a hamster. It's still an obvious choice which candidate would be better in this scenario.
I'll try to communicate in **** based common sense hamster terms in the future so I don't offend your everyman ignorance. Sorry about that. It doesn't take a first year philosophy student to understand Clinton is vastly more qualified, knowledgeable, and experienced to be President. There are reasons for her not to be President but a comparison of qualifications isn't one. That's the true **** by the way.
I've already decided that if I'm supposed to go to my cousin's house for Thanksgiving...then I'm cancelling my Thanksgiving because they are Trump supporters and I can't even stand to look at them right now. I'll freaking eat a Swanson's turkey and mashed potatoes TV dinner for my Thanksgiving. That's right...Trump is splitting apart families.
By Thanksgiving the election will be over and his diehards will have already had 1 or 2 epic meltdowns and gotten it out of their system. They should be normal by then.
Oh, I'd go anyway. Sit there and listen to them rant. Take it all in. then, when you leave, you say to yourself, "Thank God I'm not in that world."
Thanks for talking to me in terms i can understand. I know it must have been hard for you dumb down your response so that I,an everyman, can understand. What you fail to understand is my point that regardless of qualifications, both are unfit to be President. We can go on and you can try to convince me why the brown shiet is better than the green shiet, but it still doesn't change the fact that they are both shiet.
But only one person can be elected....One has actually been busted for pay to play, one hasn't. It seems it's not about whether one like brown poop or green poop, but if one believes in Santa Claus or that Christmas is heavily commercialized.
Thats a fair point. One person has to be elected,but to cram one candidate down my throat and then get offended if i dont choose her is what i find disturbing.
