[johnforbes]

Liberal Chicago Sun-Times Journalist Reporter Neil Steinberg attempted to purchase an AR-15 "assault weapon" rifle from a local gun store, in an attempt to display how easy the process is, but failed in an epic way, then he attempted to bury the story. The reason why he failed would not normally have been disclosed, but the editor of the story made an inquiry to the actual gun shop, and it was the editors' decision to publish the reason along with the story. Which was the fact that Mr. Steinberg failed his background check due to a history of alcoholism and a charge of domestic violence against his wife in the past.

The gun control point Neil Steinberg attempted to make with this story wound up being an accurate representation of laws that are already on the books which prevent people from being able to buy guns. Sometimes law-abiding citizens get caught up in the mix, sometimes people with somewhat shady pasts, but not completely criminal pasts, like Neil Steinberg, also get caught up in the mix.

[RealJustme]

a history of alcoholism and a charge of domestic violence against his wife

What kind of reporters does that rag hire? Do they not care about women or victims of drunk drivers?

[Clownkicker]

It's really good to see you guys finally supporting the elimination of the gun show loophole for background checks.
They really do work, don't they.

What I don't understand is why you couldn't get behind doing so after the last mass shooting when both Democrats and Republicans proposed it to Congress.

[johnforbes]

This thread is not about that so-called loophole.

Which is pointless anyhow.

Chicago has the strictest gun laws, and look at the Wild West shooting there in Obama's home town.

[Clownkicker]

You tried to show us how effective the existing background check laws are with your plagiarized post.
"...this story wound up being an accurate representation of laws that are already on the books..."
(One would think a supposedly educated man would know how to use quotation marks and citations. I guess not)

So if the laws are effective for people trying to buy through gun dealers and they stop bad risks from purchasing guns, then it is reasonable to think that the same effective laws applied to gun shows would do the same.

To be fair, the existing laws failed in the case of the Florida shooter, so maybe "the existing laws" aren't as effective as you're trying to make it appear in your OP, and just maybe they should actually be strengthened to be even more effective.
For example, the waiting period could be longer to allow more time to complete checks.

[sillydaddy]

I'm thinking Steinberg must be a real asshole for his editor to publish the reason along with the story :lol: :lol:

[RealJustme]

I'm thinking Steinberg must be a real asshole for his editor to publish the reason along with the story

Yep no doubt, he could have just he failed the background check but he wanted everyone to know he's a drunken wife beater. Maybe his editor is a woman?

[elklindo69]

So what's the point.

He could have gone up the road to a gun show and got a gun no questions asked.

[Clownkicker]

The point is, johnforbes stuck his foot into his mouth again. :lol:

[johnforbes]

If only I had the flexibility to do that.

Although my somatic habitus is taut and fit, I can barely touch my toes.

They say flexible people can avoid athletic injury, but I was able to do that very well without being flexible.

On the other hand, Clowntoker -- like Hillary -- has the burning charisma of Al Gore.

[sillydaddy]

Elk needs to read the first post....again.

It will answer his question of, "So what's the point".