Man assaulted outside of Philadelphia gay bar

[Admiral X]

So question. Does gun rights to you mean absolutely no regulation?

I'm for the background check currently in use and wish it would be improved upon so that people wouldn't slip through the way they have (mainly from authorities failing to report them). I'm for "shall issue" CCW licensing and also the $200 tax stamp and extra vetting needed for a fully automatic weapon or a cannon. I am against the ban that restricts this to only what was imported or manufactured prior to 1986, though. That's about it. I also think there should be a mandatory firearms safety class in schools.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

So question. Does gun rights to you mean absolutely no regulation?

I'm for the background check currently in use and wish it would be improved upon so that people wouldn't slip through the way they have (mainly from authorities failing to report them). I'm for "shall issue" CCW licensing and also the $200 tax stamp and extra vetting needed for a fully automatic weapon or a cannon. I am against the ban that restricts this to only what was imported or manufactured prior to 1986, though. That's about it. I also think there should be a mandatory firearms safety class in schools.

So why do gun shows get to circumvent background checks?

[Admiral X]

They don't. I've purchased three different guns at gun shows and every single time I had to do the background check.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

They don't. I've purchased three different guns at gun shows and every single time I had to do the background check.

I was talking about the gun show loophole specifically, which is an understood circumstance where people can buy guns at gun shows without required background checks. Like you can google it exactly and get to the wiki.

[Admiral X]

I was talking about the gun show loophole specifically, which is an understood circumstance where people can buy guns at gun shows without required background checks. Like you can google it exactly and get to the wiki.

Yeah, and I'm telling you this "loophole" doesn't exist. The only way to purchase a firearm at a gun show without a check is if it's old enough to be classified as an antique, as in like say a black powder rifle.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Well I'm familiar with why that is. That being said, enacting policy that requires people who sell guns at gun shows be licensed would not be anti-gun rights as far as what you're saying.

[Admiral X]

There is already existing law stipulating that if one sells a particular number of firearms they need to have a Federal Firearms License, which are also quite handy for purchasing them, especially if it involves crossing state lines. Of course to get one, your local county sheriff has to sign off on it, and depending on the politics of that person, that might not happen even if you pass the background check.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

There is already existing law stipulating that if one sells a particular number of firearms they need to have a Federal Firearms License, which are also quite handy for purchasing them, especially if it involves crossing state lines. Of course to get one, your local county sheriff has to sign off on it, and depending on the politics of that person, that might not happen even if you pass the background check.

This is hardly reasoning against requiring licenses for anybody that sells guns to the public.

Again, this is based on reasoning supported by your stated stated position.

Not sure what cross state has to do with anything. And if a biased Sheriff acts illicitly, that hardly outweighs the potential lurker looking for an unlicensed dealer at a show.

[Admiral X]

*You* "They should require licenses for that."

*Me* "They already do. Here's one of the flaws of it, though."

*You* "This is hardly reasoning against requiring licenses for that."

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

I'm a bit... dubious here.

...
The trouble with rights like the second amendment is that it's often dead paper for those who are most likely to be oppressed. If you belong to a class who are likely to be shot on sight by police if you're armed or presumed to be armed, and it's well known that those shooting you will face no consequences, then being armed makes you more vulnerable, not less. More people will be willing to shoot you, and the consequences of your firing back are ever more dire.
The question then becomes if queer folk, generally, would fall into that category (independently of other factors). And honestly I'm not sure we really have that data? Intuitively however, I suspect it would simply depend on visibility. That is, straight passing white gays would probably benefit, trans women of color would be turbo-fucked, with the usual sliding scale in between.
...

So straight-passing queer white males would benefit from being armed? That should help, anyway. Though I thought more men than women were being shot by the police?

There's no such thing as "straight-passing", just hetero normative assumptions and being closeted.