• NABDad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    88
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    19 hours ago

    No. That wouldn’t happen in a gun store.

    You’d have to go to a gun show.

    Edit: a gun show is like comic con, only for guns.

    • Metz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      53
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      18 hours ago

      I mean Terminator 1 takes place in 1984. As far a quick search goes, there were no background checks, no assault weapon ban, no waiting period, …etc

      • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Background checks started in '68, they didn’t become instant until like '93 because internet but they still existed, I think it was by phone back then. The rest of that isn’t around now either except for some states, the national AWB expired 21yr ago, and there’s never been national waiting periods.

        • Not_mikey@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          13 hours ago

          Background checks started in '68, they didn’t become instant until like '93 because internet but they still existed

          They may have existed and some states imposed them but they weren’t required federally until the Brady bill in '93 .

          there’s never been national waiting periods.

          There was a 5 day waiting period required nationally between when the Brady bill was first enacted in '93 and when the national instant criminal background check system came online in '98

          • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            12 hours ago

            Huh no shit TIL about that waiting period, thanks! I can’t look it up until later (at work, can fire off a message but not do research y’know) but would you happen to know how long it lasted?

            Though the questionnaires in the 60s were largely ineffective and took time, unless I am mistaken they were stored by the FBI until the ATF started existing in the early 70s, but yes “NICs” wasn’t until “I” was possible as I mentioned.

    • taladar
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 hours ago

      a gun show is like comic con, only for guns.

      So people dress up as sexy guns?

    • SupraMario@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Private sales are private sales. Has nothing to do with gun shows, that shit is just ignorance from anti-2a groups/people. The pro2a people have been asking for access to the NICS for years. Even if we had to pay $10 for a BG check to come back as clear or not, but they don’t want that because it takes away from their wedge issue.

      • IMongoose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 hours ago

        It’s required in Illinois to use a private seller portal for private sales through the state police site. It does some kind of check and it’s free to use.

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 hours ago

          That’s awesome, does it do the national database? That’s one of the downfalls I’ve read about. Local BGCs end up being just local, so someone can just hop the state line and then it’s pointless. Every gun owner I’ve ever talked to has wanted access to the NICS, we want to know who we’re selling to. Most of the people I talk with won’t sell unless the person buying has a CCW.

      • jaxxed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        14 hours ago

        even as a foreigner, it is clear to me that gun-wary Americans tend not to be anti-2a, but want background checks and gun limits. Maybe politicians fit your narrative, especially Democrats, but if you are talking about citizens you are likely straw-manning.

        • SSTF@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          11 hours ago

          The point is that private sellers have been asking to access NICS (the background check system) but politicians, who are in charge of giving that access through laws, have not allowed it. It is not “strawmanning” to be talking about the people with the actual ability to provide the access.

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        16 hours ago

        but they don’t want that because it takes away from their wedge issue.

        Who is “they” in this case?

        • stringere
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          15 hours ago

          Republicans and Democrats. They both require wedge issues to keep us divided and easily steered.

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 hours ago

            Yep. Republicans don’t give a fuck about gun rights, they just use it as a wedge issue. The same for the dems on abortion, they could have solidified roe into law a good number of times now, but they didn’t because it’s a wedge issue that got votes. Even RBG said the roe was a weak verdict to be holding up abortion rights.

          • mindbleach
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            14 hours ago

            Both sides, someone still insists, as one side may start street raids that send people to Gitmo.

            • stringere
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              10 hours ago

              Yes, both sides require wedge issues to perpetuate a two party system in which neither has to enact the will of the people if they can campaign on divisive issues that effectovely change nothing.

              I did not say both parties were the same.

              Republicans are actively marching towards oligarchy, autocracy, and evil.

              Democrats have shown they are too cowardly to rock the boat and fight back. As the opposition party they have shown their true colors: ameaningless foil beholden to the same wealthy donor class as those they purport to oppose.

            • ace_of_based
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              14 hours ago

              As the “other” side crushes leftist movement and worker power, provides no real resistance to the right wing (that they’re totally not a part of at all). They smush leftist politicians from joining the DNC and stymie and primary out leftist members already within the DNC in favor of moving to the right/moderate members. then one of their premier members says things like how “America needs a strong republican party”

              Yo we’re all like: “when will you get it”?? it’s 2025 alright and ya still don’t see, even tho they keep showing ya.

              Now if you’re not ready to put down the happy fantasy you grew up with, that beautiful dream that the world will be fixed without your personal effort and sacrifice, cool. It’s a scary prospect.

              In the meantime, stop shouting down the people who have made the step? It’s a tough enough ask already without the endless whining and disbelief at how much the truth sucks by those like you who haven’t accepted it yet.

              • mindbleach
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                13 hours ago

                Liberal bickering is morally equivalent to fucking Nazis, says someone who cannot figure out why their message won’t catch on.

                • ace_of_based
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  12 hours ago

                  “My” message is catching on without my help, since its, yaknow, true.

                  More importantly, you misunderstand my purpose in speaking to you. Your personal understanding of my “message” is not required. Folks like you, folks who figured they learned enough about politics and history in highschool, will believe whatever theyre told if it’s someone they trust. You’ll come around when and if “my” message becomes common sense. Only then. And you will at that time claim to have always known what I’m telling you, right now.

                  • mindbleach
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    12 hours ago

                    You’re having a whole other conversation inside your head.

    • iowagneiss@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Except Comic Con is rare, and they don’t have to take down their “gun show this weekend!” signs here in Iowa because that’s every weekend, or so it seems.

      Agreed though. I was actually worried about what maga might do if Harris won, so I made my first purchases before the election. I had to provide ID, enter some personal identifiers into a website and be approved by a federal agency. It took an extra 30 minutes or so.

      • ZombiFrancis
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        14 hours ago

        I live next to fairgrounds. Every Saturday: Gun and Knife Show.

        But I also remember working at a marina and where I saw far more transactions take place between two parked vehicles than anything that requires paperwork.