Scroll Top
19th Ave New York, NY 95822, USA

social media crumbles again

Sort of. You can’t make efforts to avoid the law. You must be over 18 to talk about guns. (if someone could explain that bit of nonsense to me, I’d appreciate it) and in a bold move have issued this pointed statement that simply could *never* be misrepresented.

“will not permit people to post offers to sell regulated items that indicate a willingness to evade or help others evade the law.”(reference)

Well that should clear everything up, to be sure.

But what *is* the law exactly? Well gun control activists call this the “gun show loophole” because you see, if you are a private seller, you don’t need to ask for a background check. Nope. Not a single thing needs to be done to validate the person you are selling to is legally able to purchase the gun.

Some say it should be this way, some say it’s a huge glaring problem with the system that needs to be addressed immediately. The questions this raises to me are:

1.       Do I want to sell my guns to just anyone without some form of paperwork?

2.       Do I want to buy a gun from someone without knowing what they did with it?

3.       Is this a huge problem that needs to be addressed?

4.       If so, how?

Now these are all valid questions and in my mind, simply no good answer in sight. I have bought a gun from a private seller before and through sound advice from experienced people, I wrote up a document with both of our contact information on it, model of gun, serial number and our signatures for date of sale. He got a copy, and I got a copy.

Why is this sound advice? Well the gun could still be linked back to me and if used in an unsavory manner, I’d have some splainin to do. On the flip side, when you buy a gun, in most instances it’s *not* registered to the individual who purchased it but in the off chance something got stuck in the system you at least have yourself covered.

Since 1968 all US manufactured firearms have had to get “branded” with their serial number. That can be tracked from the factory, to the retail outlet, and *perhaps* to the original purchaser and that would be it. Since you won’t have to do a background check in a private sale, the buck stops here at most. This is why getting that piece of paper, while likely not needed, is vital to just ensure your own coverage.

But none of this really addresses the “loophole” now does it? To be honest, it’s also not just Facebook showing an incredible strength in their power to go both ways on the issue.  Craigslist, eBay, Instagram, Google+ and many other social media sites won’t allow it. So where’s the backlash at these places? Why is Facebook being looked at as a last haven of a way to market guns through private sellers? In my mind, Facebook isn’t the issue.

Their valiant effort to please everyone, while amazing, is far too common of thought these days as the liberal anti-gun movement goes into overdrive on their ability to be vague.

How vague?

Damn vague. How’s that for clarity?

We all know some weapons are too dangerous for civilian use. That’s why, for nearly 80 years, federal law has banned machineguns, sawed-off shotguns, silencers, very high-caliber firearms, grenades and bombs. Military-style assault weapons—like the one used to murder defenseless children in Newtown—are versions of military weapons that are designed for rapid fire. They are weapons of war, and like machineguns, too dangerous for civilian use. Our communities will be safer if we stop their manufacture and sale.  (reference)

Using emotional ploys to make an AR-15 a “military style” assault weapon is far too common and of course, tugs at the heart and pushes people onto action. Now if that action would be education, not banishment from the kingdom, we’d be making some form of progress. But “Military style”.

A Springfield M1A is a military rifle, so if you have a rifle that looks like it, is it military style? Dunno and this is where the problems come in. The liberal crowd simply can’t pin down enough of what needs to be defined as what should be banned or made illegal. An AR-15 shoots no faster than a semi-automatic 22, it’s just as fast as you can pull, let go and pull. The idea of people using fully automatic rifles is shoved down the heads of people who don’t know better as those weapons are very illegal, or very very very tough to get and you better have a damn damn damn good reason.

This plays into the issue because the liberals use overkill, blurred lines, mis-representation and of course, the children, to make their point. No need for logic, no need to better understand the other side, just make the bad man go away, and certainly no need to work towards common ground on both sides on what can and should be done to improve things.

So it’s not really Facebook backing down from the good fight, and it’s not Facebook that’s selling a single thing. Since you can buy a gun from a private citizen without a background check, maybe that needs to be looked into and not leveraging any pull you can to pick on sites who allow it and try to force them into oblivion.

Believe me, if Facebook could be forced into oblivion I’d certainly donate to kickstarter to help it out. I can think of a lot of reasons to hate Facebook. How they’re dealing with this social issue, while comical, is just one of many online sites that are being forced to not allow what is known to be a legal practice. It’s a “you can obey the law but you can’t do it here” sort of thing.

The question is “how would I feel if I sold my AR-15 to someone I didn’t know and they went on a rampage somewhere. Well if I got the paperwork before the sale, now I know it was my sale that did that and I don’t know how well I’d function on my own knowing I did that. On the other hand, he was going to buy it somewhere. Why? Because he can.

Now it’s not fair to ask a private citizen to ask for a background check and there’s no real way to ensure you’re being given the right information anyway. Then you have to pay to run the check or do a LOT of online searching yourself and in the end, it may be easier just to have an FFL dealer broker the sale. But the law says you don’t have to, so is the law the problem?

While I can certainly see where being able to buy a gun without a background check is a problem, the radical left should be attacking the problem itself and working to find a “solution” vs. just bitch whine moan and force their views on law abiding citizens. But that’s just not what radical liberals do. They demand, they coerce, they threaten, and they just MUST have their way. The way they see things is the ONLY way it should be and they get genuinely confused when others simply don’t see it like they do.

If they would spend time to WORK WITH the NRA or other associations to find a better way that what we currently have we’d likely get more action and sympathy from *all* sides in how to fix what I view to be a loophole, as well as they do.

How about having the state governments have a site where you can run a quick check on someone before selling them a gun? Maybe even on the federal level if they ever get the healthcare site ironed out. Hell, maybe even work something out with a site that already does background checks so that if someone wished to do it on someone buying a gun from them, it would be free. I *do* understand the concern. I appreciate it and agree that’s a hole in the system.

So let’s work to change it, not shut down people currently operating legally according to the laws we either have, or don’t have. But STOP shouting at the top of your holy mountain that people stop, websites stop, and other places stop doing this. They’re doing NOTHING illegal. Instead put your massive amounts of ongoing energy into finding a solution that doesn’t involve up to making guns illegal and every butt-nugget stupid law in between.

Working together for common ground solutions, what a concept.