Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Gun Control & RKBA

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)

15. not really

Reply to Mosby (Reply #12)

Thu Sep 1, 2016, 06:12 PM

Sep 2016

just like internet sales. Funny, I have purchased several weapons via the internet and they had to be shipped to an FFL, and a background check performed. That language is used purposely to confuse. Why not just say "private sale", funny how the shorthand is longer, lol.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

41 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

This message was self-deleted by its author [View all] Mosby Sep 2016 OP

The Devil's in the details. JonathanRackham Sep 2016 #1

Apparently all you have to do to is be a anti-gun preacher. oneshooter Sep 2016 #10

Yes, it's one of the exemptions. Straw Man Sep 2016 #11

Which version of "Universal Background Checks"? DonP Sep 2016 #2

OT: side question discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2016 #3

Some of them already know the results they want before they draft the questions n/t DonP Sep 2016 #4

And, in addition... discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2016 #5

Create your own scary definition ... to support our prejudice. DonP Sep 2016 #6

The survey places I've worked for and been involved with... discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2016 #8

Add that registration will be a part of it (so called UBC) and see how it polls. beevul Sep 2016 #7

Correction. Straw Man Sep 2016 #9

how is it a myth? Mosby Sep 2016 #12

rhetorical shorthands are buzzwords are propaganda gejohnston Sep 2016 #13

"Weapons of war", "weapons meant for war", "weapons meant for the battlefield". beevul Sep 2016 #14

whats "assault-style weapons" Duckhunter935 Sep 2016 #16

They have no clue what a "weapon of war" is.. virginia mountainman Sep 2016 #17

not really Duckhunter935 Sep 2016 #15

Here's how. Straw Man Sep 2016 #18

so what? I couldn't care less about the way gun shows are percieved Mosby Sep 2016 #21

What evidence is there, that private sales are a problem in need of a solution? beevul Sep 2016 #24

you don't support background checks on principle? Mosby Sep 2016 #25

I support private property rights on principle, so I'll ask you again... beevul Sep 2016 #27

can't answer the question? Mosby Sep 2016 #28

I asked you first. beevul Sep 2016 #29

"who do you support?" beergood Sep 2016 #34

Would that support change if they tell you registration is included? N/T beevul Sep 2016 #35

i live in CA beergood Sep 2016 #36

Obviously. Straw Man Sep 2016 #30

"the "gun show loophole" language is rhetorical shorthand or private party to party gun sales." pablo_marmol Sep 2016 #19

I think gun shows should be banned in the US Mosby Sep 2016 #22

Actually, they aren't brave gejohnston Sep 2016 #23

Great suggestion mainstreetonce Sep 2016 #26

If only social policy was based on 'feelings' rather than *facts*?! pablo_marmol Sep 2016 #39

Why? Straw Man Sep 2016 #31

"I 'think' gun shows should be banned in the US." pablo_marmol Sep 2016 #32

less guns, less death. Mosby Sep 2016 #37

"less guns, less death." Unproven according to at least 3 liberal criminologists. pablo_marmol Sep 2016 #38

".......which is why I avoid it." pablo_marmol Sep 2016 #40

get a grip. Mosby Sep 2016 #41

I have a slightly different take on the issus you raise... Eleanors38 Sep 2016 #20

My nomination for Thread Winner. pablo_marmol Sep 2016 #33