Up for Debate: Gun-show loophole

Monday, January 14, 2013 at 1:12am

Do you think the so-called loopholes of Internet and gun-show sales should be closed? Is the system fine as it is?

Filed under: City Voices
Tagged: Up for Debate

52 Comments on this post:

By: Ask01 on 1/14/13 at 4:45

I believe we should enforce existing gun laws to the absolute letter and spirit of the staute.

Weapons advocates clamor for this move every time gun control is mentioned so society should grant their wish.

In that same spirit of ensuring laws are followed, any loopholes peculiar to the gun show circuit and internet should be completely closed. All the law would do is levelling the playing field for licensed sellers and casual sellers at organized events.

Of course, in all fairness, and to appease firearms enthusiasts, who will no doubt trot out their stale, overused rhetoric, this will not stop criminals from obtaining weapons, but will at least remove one avenue.

Of course, this is only a first step. The next step is to ban assault weapons, high capacity magazines, and similar items. Yes, criminals will still obtain what they want, but doing so will be more difficult if this class of weapons is tightly controlled.

Yes, yes, I know. Another of the cliched 'proverbs' of the pro gun crowd is appropriate in this circumstance. How about, 'When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have them?' That may be true, and there will certainly be many more, I fear.

By: Captain Nemo on 1/14/13 at 5:42

Good morning.

Ask01 has covered this subject thoroughly, and there is very little more to say about this. However there will be others to ad to this conversation, including myself.

People use guns to kill other people. There needs to be more restriction to people and leave the poor guns alone.

That sounds kind of budish(sic) don't you think.

By: Ask01 on 1/14/13 at 6:04

Good morning Captain Nemo.

I agree, we need to apply more restrictions to people.

More in depth background checks and psychological testing should be required, paid for by the applicant, of course, of the prospective gun owner and their immediate family residing where the weapon will be stored.

I don't have a problem with guns. I actually enjoy target shooting, and am fairly proficient, in that I can hit center mass every time with a pistol and can zero in on specific points with a rifle.

We need to control certain people's access to weapons, but no law can guarantee zero possibility of stray guns slipping through the net. The answer is to reduce the availability. Fewer assault weapons and high capacity magazines means fewer on the street and a higher price for those going astray.

It is not a perfect answer, but a definite start.

Have a good folks. I must head off to work.

By: Captain Nemo on 1/14/13 at 6:06

Rasputin and other Narcissistic people are covered in a black cloud. Raspy old boy whatever you do is ugly no matter how you dress it up. Ugly is ugly.

By: Loner on 1/14/13 at 6:10

Good morning, Nashville.

I am in favor of abolishing the 2nd amendment....take it from there.

By: Captain Nemo on 1/14/13 at 6:26

Ask01, before the area in which I live got too many homes and the chance of hitting someone or their property. I used to target practice out my front door. I could shoot a Walnut from the high branches.

I could see the Milky Way then too, before Light Pollution brighten the night sky.

Have a good at work.

By: Captain Nemo on 1/14/13 at 6:30

I’m not going to do it, Loner. How are you today?

By: Loner on 1/14/13 at 6:37

We have a priorities problem in this country. The federal government was easily able to outlaw Cannabis (Marijuana) in all fifty states....there were no mass rallies or protests when the unwarranted federal power play went down....people cheered, if anything....the states all acceded to the federal power.

Getting a federal handle on firearms across the country has been far more difficult in comparison. Cannabis, a plant, has been deemed to be far more dangerous to society than firearms.

We say, "yes", to pistols; but "no", to pot....oh yeah, we have a priorities problem in America today. This is mass hysteria, my friends....and it's not likely to end anytime soon, it's going to get a lot worse....professional zealots are stoking the fires of passion in the bellies of the agitated gun-owners....some disgruntled gunners are apt to snap.....stay tuned for more carnage.

By: Loner on 1/14/13 at 6:42

I'm OK, Captain Nemo....how are you? It was in the 60's outside yesterday...very Springlike....but Old Man Winter is coming back soon. The tease was nice....but we knew it wasn't going to last....so, we partied a bit. I fired up the DJ-5 and took it for a short drive....it's been sitting for several weeks....I try to keep it off the road in the Winter....potential salt damage is a concern....it's my pride and joy vehicle.

By: yogiman on 1/14/13 at 6:53


If you're in favor of our nation going under dictatorship I understand your desire to abolish the 2nd amendment because that's Barry's goal now.

If you aren't familiar with the situation that happened in Athens TN in 1946 I suggest you look at a 13 minute show. It was an incident when the politicians tried to takeover the county and the veterans stopped them.


By: Captain Nemo on 1/14/13 at 6:55

Restricting guns is only part of the problem, Loner. Our society as a whole needs a reboot, from guns to mental health. There is no one solution to this problem, but many. Restricting who should be legal to be near a gun is something that should to be a high priority.

James (Buck) Yeager is a good example of someone that should be keep from guns, let alone carry one. Just think if he was this angry at someone and he had a gun.


By: Captain Nemo on 1/14/13 at 6:59


It has been wet here and flooding is a problem, plus freezing on the roads is a worry. It is not safe to drive in Tennessee on good days and Black Ice only makes it worse.

By: Loner on 1/14/13 at 7:14

If the NRA resents the term, "gun-show loophole", then it must be an accurate term...the truth hurts....and the NRA howls in feigned agony every time their feelings get hurt.

It wasn't always like that.

In the beginning, the NRA was all about hunter safety...then it was about gun safety in general....then it morphed into a firearms promotion lobby, basically, a front for the gun manufacturers....the well-financed NRA mastered the art of political blackmail.....and how to legally bribe lawmakers.

The NRA started out with good intentions, but it has evolved into a loud and threatening monster lobby....members of Congress genuinely fear the NRA...once a politician gets in the NRA's cross-hairs, they are politically doomed.....this is not what I call a working democracy in action; this is fear-based governance.....governance by way of special interest group.....a sort of minority rule.

The People need to take back the government from the special interests...or face the consequences.

By: Captain Nemo on 1/14/13 at 7:22

The road to Hell is paved with good intention.

Total power corrupts all.

The NRA is no different.

By: Loner on 1/14/13 at 7:26

If the state Governors can't or won't do it, then the President, needs to put a bullet-hole in the gun-show loophole. It's Boot Hill time for the Loophole.....there's a new sheriff in town.

After all, this is one nation, indivisible, with no internal border checkpoints, and we enjoy relatively unfettered freedom of movement across the nation; therefore, in my opinion, federal action is long overdue.

By: govskeptic on 1/14/13 at 7:36

I have no idea how many bad intentioned minded folks buy their guns at these type
shows, and wouldn't trust most studies that attempt to tell us the numbers. I wouldn't,
however, mind background checks being a requirement to satisfy those that find it
so important, along with magazines for rifles over 5-6 shots and handgun over 15
rounds (which a large number of 9MM & 10MM now have) including my own. Loner's
suggestion of abolishment of the 2nd amendment along with his fellow celebrities
on the far left is a foolish statement for our country, per the Constitution and several
rulings over the years by the Supreme Court.

By: yogiman on 1/14/13 at 7:47

Well, Loner,

If you would favor a nation like Germany when Hitler was in dictatorship, or any other nation that was/or is/ under dictatorship then I suggest you give your full support to Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama. After all, congress began supporting him from the beginning. If not, why hasn't anyone in congress brought his eligibility to question from the day he threw his hat in the ring with no known background and only limited political experience?

Question: Why did congress question John McCain's natural born citizen status but did not question Barack Obama's natural born citizen status? Why did they decide McCain was a natural born citizen because both of his parents were American citizens and accepted Obama's natural born citizen status knowing Obama's father was a British subject?

Question: Why does "Barry" refuse to show his official birth certificate? Could it possibly be because the only legal birth certificate he has was issued in Kenya?

There's many why's in the question that congress has ignored. Why?

By: Captain Nemo on 1/14/13 at 7:49

Loner I don’t see where the Governors could or would get together on any meaningful solution to gun control. This is a national problem and needs a national solution. I would hate to think that one Governor that would sympathize with the likes of someone like Yeager would let a much softer law pass.

By: Rasputin72 on 1/14/13 at 7:50

It will be not too many years until the re-population of Deer kill more people on the highway in a single month in Tennessee than have been killed by guns in Belle Meade since 1950.

I certainly think there should be serious and I mean a serious look at gun control. I do not own guns but I would wager that 95% of the males in North Nashville and Bordeaux own guns. They may not have bought them but they are in their possesion

By: Captain Nemo on 1/14/13 at 7:52

I also think that owning a gun for hunting and or protection is one thing, but the need an assault weapon or weapons (along with 100 round clips), is for war. Is the NRA attempting a take over? There seems to be a lot of talk from the fringe right about separation from the Union or a complete take over.

How about it Ben? You have talked about moving to Texas, but that won’t do you any good, because it will turn Blue soon.

By: Captain Nemo on 1/14/13 at 8:00

Our Funny Racist comes on with facts from the dark corners of his limited brain.

It is a fact hat there is a deer problem in places in cities. Nashville (Davidson County) at one time had a deer population of 4,000 and a healthy herd could double in size every year. But do we need assault weapons to defend off this?

By: Loner on 1/14/13 at 8:06

The 2nd amendment enabled the Great Secession and the subsequent war between the state militia....the Congress should have connected the dots, but nobody seems to have done so....the 2nd amendment survived the war between the states....618,000 soldiers and sailors perished in the senseless conflict.

Today, 2nd amendment advocates talk about a "2nd amendment solution" to an overly oppressive federal government in Washington, DC. These delusional gunners are signing petitions that call for the right for states to secede from the union. This kind of stuff was not what the Founders had in mind.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to protect and defend the newly formed nation from foreign invaders; it was not intended as constitutional grounding or justification for sedition, treason, rebellion and/or anarchy.

The NRA's current interpretation of the problematic amendment is a sordid perversion of the original intent.

By: BenDover on 1/14/13 at 8:29

Many people don't want to do the background checks because it is a de-facto registry. The government has made clear its aim to restrict ownership of certain weapons. The 'background check' tells them where to start looking for those weapons should government grant itself the authority.

There is much historical precedent for this. Our 2nd amendment has simply slowed the process down a bit in America.

By: yogiman on 1/14/13 at 9:01


Our founder made two bad mistakes: They permitted slaves to be bought and sold in the nation and put a particular restriction to become president without specifying the restrictions
and the citizens of this nation have been paying for their errors ever since.

Over half a million lost their lives over the bad slavery policy and the survivors' heirs have been paying for slavery ever since.

Concluding you're an expert interpreter of our Constitution, can you explain what our founders meant when they put a certain restriction on becoming the nation's president?

Not specifying the definition of a natural born citizen has created argument after argument on the President's requirement. Can you please explain their meaning? Thanks.

By: yogiman on 1/14/13 at 9:09


History shows when the citizens of a nation are not allowed to have a firearm to defend themselves, a dictator takes over their government and kills the citizens that they feel don't want to live under their control.

The USA is just around the corner on that issue today. If not, why has "Obama" refused to identify himself and why has congress raised no questions? Why has "Obama" been talking about the 2nd amendment since he usurped the office. Why has congress made no mention about it? Why is his first move after "re-usurpation" to be gun control under the United Nations?

By: budlight on 1/14/13 at 9:15

Exactly how will gun control stop criminals from obtaining weapons illegally? Most of the weapons used in crime are obtained illegally.

Please address how we had a Columbine during an assault weapons ban? If you can address that, you might win me over to the "ban" idea. However, at this time, I just do not see what the ban will accomplish except prohibiting law abiding, honest citizens from obtaining a gun. It will not stop criminals.

And Loner, I do not think removing the 2nd amendment will solve any crime problems. Criminals will still get weapons.

By: slacker on 1/14/13 at 9:20

In addition to new gun laws, the authorities should pass the: ''Register Your Nutty Kid'' law.
Parents should be required to register their ''nutters''.. and take a course in proper psychopath management.
Parents will be forbidden from having additional children, as chances are.. they'll produce another nut.
Under no circumstances shall the parents leave the nut alone, in a car, parked at any school, or business site.
TV viewing will be limited to cooking shows, The Joy of Painting, Home Time, This Old House, etc.
Absolutely no: Dexter, True Blood, C.S.I, Quinton Tarantino, Jerry Springer.
Any violation of this law, will result in another unenforceable law, to correct the previous.unenforceable law.

By: BenDover on 1/14/13 at 9:22

Don't forget FPS games slack.

By: pswindle on 1/14/13 at 9:48

We need to do whatever it takes to protect our children and the public in general. It is time to take our country back from the NRA. They have ruled long enough with disastrous results.

By: Adman on 1/14/13 at 10:03

I for one am interested in real solutions, not feel good hey look at us we did something even if it doesn't work solutions. This situation is way beyond liberal/conservative talking points. One adage I believe is if you want more of something subsidize it and if you want less of something tax it. I have heard the idea advocated to raise taxes to very high levels on the sale of assault rifles and ammo. That might make sense.

The gun shows are more problematic. The issue being that the sales at gun shows are considered "private' sales. If I want to sell someone my 12 gauge I don't have the ability to run a background check and it would be impossible to enforce a law requiring one. Gun shows fall into this category. We need separate legislation changing the status of gun show sales.

By: yogiman on 1/14/13 at 10:14

The NRA isn't our problem, pswindle. Our problem is the federal government. We need to keep them under our control, not follow their orders.

They're our employees, remember? We aren't their servants.

Adman, Bill Clinton raised taxes to a ridiculous level to "stop" people from smoking. BS. It was just to get more money in his budget's pocket. It also created a high cost "stop smoking" kit. How many people quit smoking by taking such a kit. Of all that were "invented" which one worked?

By: Rocket99 on 1/14/13 at 11:01

Barack Obama does not want to take everyone's guns away. If you believe that, you are stupid and maybe you shouldn't own a gun.

Going by some people's reasoning, we should be able to purchase any gun manufactured, even those issued solely to the military. Since when do you need a machine gun or a high powered assault rifle to go hunt rabbit, duck, deer, etc.? You don't.

What I'm mainly hearing is, the sales of the high powered assault type weapons should be banned from public sale, or at least severly restricted, not that all gun sales period should be banned.

People should have the right to own weapons of certain types, just not everything that's available.

By: BenDover on 1/14/13 at 11:22

You don't need a car that will exceed the speed limit. Nor does anyone really need more than a couple hundred square feet of living area. Does anyone really need fast food or, let alone, the excesses of a steak dinner from Ruth's Chris?

Are we limited in society now by what we need. What if someone simply enjoys owning a finely made weapon? Are we going to let the actions of a mad-man determine what reasonable free adults are allowed to enjoy in this society? Or are we using them to advance an emotional agenda against gun ownership.

By: yogiman on 1/14/13 at 11:23

You need to "read between the lines" when Obama say's anything, Rocket99.

First, he's in that office illegally. Second, he's a bigger liar than any man before him that's been in there.

His goal is to become dictator. Will Barry be a Hitler followup?

Remember, Hitler wasn't a citizen of Germany when he became dictator of Germany.

By: yogiman on 1/14/13 at 11:28

Maybe they need to tell us what kind of car we should own, BenDover. After all, they know the issue better than we, don't they?

How about what kind of clothes should we wear? You know, one might cause us to trip and fall and break our neck.

We must obey our masters. BS. They're working for us, not us for them.

By: BigPapa on 1/14/13 at 11:34

Our first priority should be reform the mental health laws regarding crazy people. Looks at the woman in NY that pushed the man in front of the subway car, no gun needed there.

Of all the people that own gun what percentage use them to commit crimes? I dunno, don thave the state. But I know that when it comes to mass shooting they were all committed, 100% by crazy people.

Allowing folks with very very serious mental disorders to roam around freely is dangerous for us, bad for them (street people), and a serious neglect of our duty to other humans. We allow them to live like stray dogs in the street all in the name of individual liberty. We are way off base on this and it needs to change.

By: Adman on 1/14/13 at 11:43

I agree with you Big Papa. Unfortunately there is a clash between the privacy rights of mentally ill patients and society taking proper care. many mental health issues don't show up in standard background checks for that reason.

By: yogiman on 1/14/13 at 12:29

I don't remember why they shut the place down, BigPapa, but there used to be a mental facility in Nashville out on Murfreesboro Road. They such facilities in all states back then but were shut down for some reason.

Did the government decide all they needed was "pills to pop" and it was the families responsibilities to taker care of them?

By: Kosh III on 1/14/13 at 12:37

Ben "History shows when the citizens of a nation are not allowed to have a firearm to defend themselves, a dictator takes over their government and kills the citizens that they feel don't want to live under their control."

Really? Where? Canada? UK? Australia? Sweden?
Please cite factual evidence to this claim---factual meaning not Hannity, Drugbaugh or.....

By: Kosh III on 1/14/13 at 12:40


"“The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years."


"He continued: “Their assertion that they need these guns to protect themselves from the government — as supposedly the Jews would have done against the Hitler regime — means not only that they are innocent of any knowledge and understanding of the past, but also that they are consciously or not imbued with the type of fascist or Bolshevik thinking that they can turn against a democratically elected government, indeed turn their guns on it, just because they don’t like its policies, its ideology, or the color, race and origin of its leaders.”

By: Blanketnazi2 on 1/14/13 at 12:51

The NRA once supported gun control

It may seem hard to believe, but for decades the organization helped write federal laws restricting gun use


For nearly a century after, its founding in 1871, the National Rifle Association was among America’s foremost pro-gun control organizations. It was not until 1977 when the NRA that Americans know today emerged, after libertarians who equated owning a gun with the epitome of freedom and fomented widespread distrust against government—if not armed insurrection—emerged after staging a hostile leadership coup.

In the years since, an NRA that once encouraged better markmanship and reasonable gun control laws gave way to an advocacy organization and political force that saw more guns as the answer to society’s worst violence, whether arming commercial airline pilots after 9/11 or teachers after the Newtown, while opposing new restrictions on gun usage.

By: Rocket99 on 1/14/13 at 1:31

yogiman apparently drinks the FAUX NEWS koolaide way to much.

By: Blanketnazi2 on 1/14/13 at 1:35

Rocket99, he replaced his blood with it. You can show him facts and he STILL keeps spewing that crap. Unbelievable.

By: dargent7 on 1/14/13 at 1:58

As MADD was formed in 1980, a coilition can be formed TODAY by parents of murdered children.
MADD forced laws into effect where 0.08 BAC was deemed, "drunk driving", in an accident or not.
This Internet sales, gun show sales, parking lot sales, 30 round magazines is EXACTLY like/ analogous to, "have one for the road" mentality. After the patron was shit-faced already.
America will tighten it's gun sales. Eventually.
It took 50 years of Vietnams, Iraqs, Afghanistans to change our war mentality.
30 years since MADD I guess isn't enough.
In 2016 if we elect another/ any other crazy Republican, we can kiss any gun control thoughts GOOD-BYE.

By: dargent7 on 1/14/13 at 2:00

s/h/b coalition. No, I don't have coitus.

By: yogiman on 1/14/13 at 4:27

What facts have you shown me, B2? I don't recall reading any facts from you.

By: Loner on 1/14/13 at 4:33

Mothers Against Guns & Ammo Nuts....MAGAN?

I would support such a group....enough of this madness....the NRA is a domestic terrorist group.

By: Loner on 1/14/13 at 4:36

Yogi? Oh yeah, certifiably insane....a white supremacist who cannot accept a black man as POTUS...no more to it than that.....unfortunately, he claims to own guns and has the ammo....we will have to wait until AFTER he kills, to put him down....that's the law....the fringe's rights take precedence over our rights....in America, gunners rule.

By: dargent7 on 1/14/13 at 4:47

How about MAFIa.....Mothers' Against Freakin' Idiots. Rhymes with "the mafia", as in La Costra Nostra.
As far as Poindexter saying BN-2 "doesn't show me any facts..that I recall."
She CONSTANTLY posts web-site URL's.
"yogi" needs to change his brand of Depends.

By: Loner on 1/14/13 at 4:59

Round up the guns....shoot those who refuse to give up their arsenals.....messy at first, but it's the only way forward when dealing with brain-dead gunners.