Everytime I get into an argument with a gun grabber about firearms they always seem obsessed about bringing up the so...

Everytime I get into an argument with a gun grabber about firearms they always seem obsessed about bringing up the so called "gun show loop hole". I tell them it doesn’t exist, but they just refuse to believe it and cite the media/politicians as their source. What would be a good argument to use when they bring this up?

Attached: B440ABB4-FC3C-4019-9EE1-70F2CEAB46EB.jpg (640x638, 92K)

Other urls found in this thread:

govtrack.us/congress/votes/99-1985/s142].
youtube.com/watch?v=78c2o79Ohyo
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>It doesn't actually exist in the form you think it does, but I too am against what the "gun show loophole" is commonly misunderstood to be

Private sales aren't a "loophole." They have been around for hundreds of years. If they don't like that, its not your problem.

Guns are private property. Do they believe that all cars must be purchased from dealerships, and people should be prevented from selling their used car to other people?

All commercial sales of firearms have to be accompanied by a federal 4473 background check.
There is no federal background check requirement for private sales. That's the "loophole" they're talking about. They think if all guns were (federally) background checked they would be magically tracked by the government and nobody would be able to commit crimes with them. Some states implement their own laws on this, demanding private sales go through an FFL and a 4473 anyway.

The government should have no hand in how you sell private property. If whoever you're arguing with doesn't give a shit about property rights, no argument will work on them.

Probably the most direct way to attack this is the government shouldn't be obligated to know of every firearm transaction in the country. The principle of it is more beneficial than any lives saved. This is an argument that will not only confuse them but anger them. But it is the truth.

While this is good, I feel like it will just make the case for them to say “well, even more need for regulation! It’s a gun not a house!”.

There’s some way of framing this we’re missing here.

>thing that was specifically done with full intent
>it's a loophole
explain to them why they're retarded.

>This is an argument that will not only confuse them but anger them
What? How is that confusing?
>I disagree, given the deadly nature of firearms, the government should absolutely be concerned with their regulation. It would be irresponsible of the government to allow them without more stringent screening processes. I know you're going to say "BUT IT IS," but if better screening and accountability for every gun purchase were a possibility without being the slippery slope everyone always retreats to, what are the actual, pragmatic cons of enacting this kind of legislation?
Nobody can reasonably defend against this question without falling back on some degree of SHALL, because it's an actual good point.

>But cars don’t kill people user! I can’t believe you’d literally compare cars to weapons of war! WTF is wrong with you?

Ask them to explain the loophole and what it is. Most of them are just parroting that it exists and don't even know what to say.

Really dumb and poorly conceived example. Cars on the road are all registered. You need to have a license to operate them.

Reminder that .50BMG is shit for precision though.
.338 LM is patrician choice for anti-personnel.
.300WinMag will get the job done 90% of the time though.

>InB4 .375, .408 & .416

>exactly and that’s why we should register all guns to everyone
You don’t seem to understand what I’m doing. This is how a braindead person will respond to anything you say. If you point out a fallacy they will not acknowledge it, they will find something else to focus on

lol what faggot? Because governments are not to be trusted.

I'm not saying it is confusing, perhaps I should've worded it differently. The kind of people who would bring up the point in OP in the first place would be confused by what I said in . "Shall not be infringed" is completed disconnected from people with this perspective. That is why saying what I posted would result in confusion and anger from the other party in this case. Not because its wrong, but because its so far away from the narrative that they believe to be true.

Attached: ss190.jpg (640x480, 112K)

Op your photo is retarded. The other point of view is a heavy cover, higher elevation area while yours is an open field.

>not if you’re wearing an invisibility cloak

Attached: F7AF8CC3-DAA2-40C7-A006-AA7FC73A6835.jpg (396x396, 22K)

Not a great rhetorical tool considering they don't see it that way

Warrants, if a person has committed no crime then why treat them criminally?

There isn’t one. A lot of them are too far gone to bring back and if you’re telling them they’re outright wrong, then it’s game over because at that point they have their ego on the line.

Because "slippery slope" is only a logical fallacy because you cannot definitively see the future. Pragmatically, the issue is that the slippery slope is real, and that when you give the fed the power to restrict further firearms ownership you destroy the purpose of the 2A. That is: the citizens must be armed to prevent and/or remove a tyrannical government with force.

Once the government has the right to tell anyone what they can and cannot do with their private property, they become the property of the state. It's the sane reason socialism is the most immoral economic system ever devised because it is literally (as in without hyperbole or exaggeration) slavery.

Because they firmly believe that for having interests they don't like, they are in fact a criminal and should be beaten comatose for it

A background check for gun purchases only seems to make sense if you accept the underlying assumption that we will allow people who are proven to be dangerous to go free.

There are two kinds of people in the world: 1. those who have been proven, with due process, to be a continuing threat to public safety, and 2. everyone else. People in category one should never be allowed to walk freely among us and people in category two should be left the fuck alone. A background check only makes sense if you first stupidly violate this common sense approach.

Trying to make the world safe by having the clerk in the sporting goods store separate the proven murderers from the rest of the population is stupid beyond belief.

Just say they have to go through multiple background checks (because that's what NICS is, through various criminal and mental agencies) to sell at a gun show. Also bring up the same exact fact when they call for universal background checks.

Just don't bring up private sale, because all it will do is educate them to tighten the noose.

private sale isn't a loophole but it is still a very easy way to get a gun when you aren't supposed to, ie being a felon.

Technically the black market is a private sale, they don’t care who they sell to or what the law says, are we just going to pretend criminals don’t exist? Are we just going to punish good people for the acts of the lawless? I’m no fan of mass punishment, I got enough of that in the muhreens

It does exist, but it isnt a loophole nor does it have anything to do with gun shows. It's just private sales that dont require a 4473.

It was a compromise and concession in the Brady bill, something offered as a consolation prize so that more rights could be taken away, and now they want to take that too.

Now none of this would be an issue if regular Joe schmoe could access the NICS system and do an instant background check on whoever the private sale was going to, but that was deemed too unreasonable and shot down by... you guessed it, the dems, because they wanted it to be far more restrictive.

Not that you should have to run a background check anyway, but the option would be nice and put an end to that debate. But they dont want a solution, they want the entire damn cake.

ok but the black market is a totally nebulous term. armslist is hardly 'the black market'. The best you can do as a seller on armslist to be safe and legal is do a bill of sale and ASK the buyer if they can buy a gun legally, neither of which stop someone from getting a gun illegally.

First of all, there's NO WINNING with these people unless you can talk to them overtime about it and slowly show them the truth. So in passing? Don't even bother beyond stating your views.

The X loophole, where X is anything, is really just people talking about private sales. Saying it's a loophole makes it sound like it's skirting the law and was not by design which is an intentional, malign move by politicians to get popular support for closing such "loopholes".

I've never had a stranger bring it up around me but friends have and I ask them what shootings they know of that were the result of an exploitation of a gun show loophole. They don't know any.
I've shitposted about this with brits before who say America has a white murderer problem (cucked limeys, no surprise) and I linked the FBI crime stats to show how neither white boys or rifles are the issue, and they simply said ban them anyways because why not.

Not all fights are worth fighting with retards, much like it's not worth fighting with a lot of anons here over the 2nd Amendment and anyone who tries is a tard.

PS you can also explain that the vast majority of sales at gun shows go through NICS and they probably won't even know what NICS is.
It's the extremely ignorant telling someone who's more involved how things should be.

My point is you can’t stop the criminal from getting a gun, there will always be another criminal there to sell him a firearm, you accomplish nothing by infringing on the rights of someone who isn’t a criminal except making him a victim for the criminal who has acquired a firearm because he does not care about the law. There are plenty of guns in circulation in the IS so you can’t just act like all guns will magically disappear at the passing of a law criminalizing private sales or the black market.

One problem: humoring a dialogue with a "gun grabber" in the first place. To win the argument, do not give them the time of day. Spend that time reloading, purchasing items, training alone and with other like minded individuals.

Their minds have been made up and are fixed in their ways.

42666241
>everyone not of my ideology is a hivemind
No (You)s for shitposters

End the gun show “loophole” / Ban private sales / Universal background checks

As it turns out, Universal Background Checks is the same as ending the gun show “loophole”, which is the same as simply banning private sales. First allow me to explain why that is, and then why it’s not a justifiable goal without strict, often ignored stipulations.
Let’s begin with the gun show “loophole”. I have been putting the term in quotations because it actually is not a loophole at all. In fact, it was a compromise of the past. The “Firearm Owners Protection Act” of 1986 had very explicit language regarding clarifications of private sales and FFL regulations, and passed 79-15 in the senate [govtrack.us/congress/votes/99-1985/s142]. Essentially all the “loophole” is, is the ability for a private citizen to conduct a sale of private property to another private citizen, the private property being a firearm (given that it wasn’t an NFA device).

Nowadays, people are led to believe that a loophole exists where a licensed firearms dealer can sell guns “under the table” without a background check at a gun show. What isn’t explained is that only guns personally owned by the licensee can be sold in that way, and that makes sense if you think about it. Would it be right if, just because you worked at a gun store, you would have to go through the same process to sell a personal collection item as you would a gun off the shelf of your store? Some may be concerned that a licensee might just sell a gun store’s inventory under the guise of it being a personal firearm, but I would assure them that guns in the official inventory of an FFL are diligently recorded, tracked, and traceable. Persons found to be violating the law in this way would be caught and punished severely.
(1/?)

The other notion people have is that a private citizen selling a firearm to another without a background check is a cause for great concern, possibly imagining a shady alley deal of sorts. To those people I would first say that persons dealing guns in shady alleys are not the persons who would conduct a background check regardless of if it were required, and I would also like to tell them the consequences of limiting private sales that are not often given representation in the greater discussion, and then offer them an alternative solution that would respect freedoms while also increasing public safety.
Imagine if you will the classic scene of a father or grandfather passing down a family heirloom to their son or grandson. Let’s say an antique firearm that has been in the family since it was brought back from overseas following a war. If private sales/transfers would be made illegal due to closing the gun show “loophole” or passing a law mandating universal background checks, then the father would have to go to the gun store with the son, and would be forced to run a background check on their own kin to make sure that he was not barred from owning a firearm as per ATF Form 4473 [XXX]. Not only would this be insulting, it would also be redundant (as I would hope a father would know if their own son was involuntarily committed to a mental institution, a felon, or domestic abuser).
(2/?)

Another example is a person who wants to hike in bear country and asks to borrow a gun for protection from their friend. If he wanted to do that, he would have to subject himself to a background check (and accompanying fee), and when he was done, subject the original owner of the gun to a background check as well (and accompanying fee). The original owner! Or how about another scenario, two firearm collectors meeting to trade vintage guns. Despite the fact that they already have arsenals and are exchanging (relatively) impotent weapons, they would both have to run background checks on each other (and yes, again, pay the accompanying fees involved). All of these situations are examples where background checks are unnecessary and intrusive, even if “they would have passed anyways”. Similar to the false adage “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”, just because one would pass a background check does not mean one should be subjected to it. In addition, in my eyes If you own something, then as proof of ownership you have a right to do with it as you wish including the right to sell it. For example as proof that an apartment tenant does not own his apartment, he can use the apartment however he likes, but he can’t sell it.
(3/?)

And to explain the intersection between the private sale restrictions and universal background check proposals, understand that once private sales are eliminated, the only way for a law abiding citizen to sell, buy, or transfer a firearm would be through a gun store. And as that is the only method, background checks are therefore “universal” (ignoring the criminal sales of firearms that would be unaffected by these changes). It would also have negligible effect on the largest source of guns used in crimes, “Straw Purchases”, where one person who can pass a background check buys a gun and then sells it to their prohibited person friend under the table. So in a practical sense, background checks are already as “universal” as they need to be given that all firearm sales at gun stores are already subjected to background checks.
Finally I want to explain the longer range implications of a Universal Background Check system. Specifically, that if such a system were implemented as commonly proposed, it would create a defacto national registry of firearms and their owners. The reasons for why a registry would be nothing short of disastrous was discussed earlier in this very chapter, but I just want to make clear to any reader that for the proposed system to function, it would require a log of the specific firearm transferred down to the serial number, the personal details of the new owner, and the personal details of the past owner. In other words, a national registry (which as a reminder, is illegal as of the FOPA of ‘86).
(2nd to last)

But I do want to end on a nuanced note here and say that there are ways to improve the firearm transfer process in terms of public safety that also protects our rights. Specifically, making the NICS (the background check system FFL’s are required to use) accessible to regular citizens, where two consenting parties can access a background check system without having to go to a gun store which might have inconvenient hours or high fees (important because a universal background check would function as a tax on the exercise of a right, which is flagrantly unconstitutional). People like myself and many others would gladly make use of it in situations where we think it appropriate, and still be allowed to sell or transfer a gun without a background check in situations where we are confident in the good character of the other party involved, just as people should be able to do in a free society.

(Fin)

I dont want ZOG tracking gun purchases

Attached: 1567724252382.gif (429x592, 2.75M)

Invite them to a fucking gun show, dumbass. Goddamn k is fucking retarded nowadays.

Attached: 1567854271805.png (500x522, 95K)

they already know what guns you have based on your shopping and search history anyway.

Presented without comment

Attached: Screenshot_20190919-110054_Facebook.jpg (810x2688, 1012K)

Google searches arent admissible as court evidence. And anything that makes these kikes jobs harder is good for me.

Attached: ak2016-vepr12-lead.png (684x384, 455K)

Threadly reminder that hitler legalized all long guns for civilian ownership, including machineguns.

Attached: You+know+who+else+was+antismoking+truly+_15f6ee84e50aa10fcdab307abb3d1177.png (1000x615, 696K)

Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. Selling my rife to my neighbor does not constitute interstate commerce

This is the only answer. The vast majority of anti-gunners just hate guns and everything masculine in general. No amount of logic will change their mind.
When they bring this crap up the only answer should be "lol, just stop being such a faggot". They'll get mad and they'll pitch a fit but the fact of the matter is social shaming is far more effective than logic in matters of politics. All of this only applies to men.
The only reason any women are anti-gun is that they're not currently fucking a guy who is pro-gun.
It's really that simple.

Link or didn't happen

Attached: 4a355df6ed1ab873100772b9b5e34c2e.jpg (344x283, 10K)

Based. Only boomers and kikes will respond negatively to this blessed Fuhrer-post.

Eurofag here, the UE exige since 1995 that every guns must be registered in the country where the owner reside. The guns belong to the state from a absolute legal status due to that.

Most of guns grabber in USA, in fact, dosen't like the fact that a gun can be a "private property". From that, everything that is granted by their private property status is a "loophole".

Here, it's impossible to sell or buy a gun without the approbation of a licenced gun dealer (which directly link the gun to the police).

TL;DR : Americans gun grabber have the European Firearms Directive point of view about guns, "Privilege, not a right".

Attached: 343.jpg (4032x2116, 2.37M)

EU, not UE*

Where's the proof though?

Attached: 1566855653841.jpg (848x460, 65K)

It is less of a problem now, but you used to see unlicensed gun dealers at gun shows, moving dozens of firearms every weekend for 30+ weekends a year. They claimed to be private sellers and actively flaunted it with signs saying "this table doesn't call the FBI! No paperwork needed!" They exploited their unlicensed status to give them an advantage over FFL tables. They just happened to be private collectors of brand new unfired guns who sell at 35 gun shows a year and restocked their inventory monthly.

The legit licenced dealers were pissed and they were the ones who complained the loudest to gun show organizers. It seems way less blatant now than it used to be and the feds put more pressure on the ones who flaunt ted it the most.

Attached: 1351 (1).jpg (930x558, 34K)

When you deal with people like this, you can’t be angry with them or call them stupid, they just shut down. You don’t want them to double down on their position. You want to build a bridge via common ground, say recognition of a commonly held belief or fact such as “there are bad people who want power.” Then you start to draw them to you. This isn’t a pushing fight, don’t hammer them. Draw them to you with reason. Phrase it as “I don’t support mass punishment of law abiding citizens and giving more power to the feds. If something is true and good it naturally coheres. Forced gun buybacks involve threats and theft and violence.” Stand your ground but be sympathetic, they aren’t stupid they have just been conditioned.

Don't even know if it's true. I'm just shitpostin. I know for non-Jews NSDAP gun regs were, in general, looser than the Weimar Republic's but no idea if full auto was legal.

As a result of that more and more gunshows and venues outright ban private sales on their property. The bad PR that the unlicensed dealers brought (along with strawmem who worked the floor) ended up fucking over legit one-time private sellers and estate sale tables. The gunshow community began self policing so they would not lose venue access or bring about new state laws.

Attached: download (2).jpg (1280x720, 116K)

>lowering yourself to actually debating the legitimacy of your rights

So what if there's a loophole? There is absolutely nothing an unarmed individual can do to stop an armed individual from having their way.

Ask them how much longer do they think the civility of gun owners' will last. Ask them how much longer do they think they deserve.

Attached: hRiGXZm.jpg (2250x3000, 841K)

Fuuuuuuuuuuck those people. Gun show douchebags create more problems for us than anything.

Those unlicensed dealers made it very difficult to counter the "gun show loophole" narrative when they had big printed signs flaunting it.

>NRA press release claims gun show loophole is a myth
>local channel 7 news reporter goes to midwest gun show on weekend
>sees the booth run by Billy Bob from alabama with signs saying "dont let obama win! Get your gun here with no background check!"
>reporter buys an AR15 and exclaims "it was that easy!"
>reporter takes gun to be destroyed in a buyback program to "get it off the street"

It was a fucking gongshow. This happened a lot in 2009/2010 during obamamania.

No he didn't

He also made a Nationwide registry.

"I'll bring you to a gunshow and we'll try to buy a gun there."

Remember that reporter that tried to show how "easy" it is to buy a gun at a gun shop without background checks and got shut down by the employee? Do the same.

>that reporter that tried to show how "easy" it is to buy a gun at a gun shop
???
That is a licensed dealer. That has nothing at all to do with private sales that make the alleged gun show loophole possible.

Explain it to them using a Nintendo switch.
>I buy a Switch from amazon
>I show them my card, fill out the appropriate information, then wait for it to be delivered so I can pick it up
>I get my switch, have fun with it, and after year, I want to sell it
>I make a listing on facebook marketplace, wait a bit, and eventually, someone pings me stating they want to buy it
>I check him out, talk to him to make sure he's legit, then arrange a meeting so we can exchange
>He arrives, he gives the cash, I give him the switch and the deal is done
>What you are suggesting is that, in order for me to sell my switch, reps from Nintendo have to fly all the way from Japan to here, facilitate the deal, then put us both on a waiting list for the deal to come through
>As the switch has a serial number from the manufacturer, and it all has to be recorded.
>I should be able to sell my switch to anyone I please, i bought it, so I can sell it, I shouldn't need oversight by Nintendo themselves to manage the buying and selling of my gaming system

You're not going to convince anyone using this analogy.
They're just going to say a Nintendo switch isn't a gun and shouldn't be treated as one.
Gun owners see guns as toys and tools. Items.
Anti gunners see them as weapons of mass destruction and that is hardly hyperbole
Don't compare it to any property they own because it is not going to register the same way in their head as it does yours

You need to have a license to operate them in public.
You don't need shit to build a car from parts and break the speed limit on private property.

The difference between the black market and a regular sale is that the black market sells illegal weapons (which shouldn't be, SHALL.) and stolen weapons.

>pointedly ignoring half the fucking sentence
Fuck off cunt

You aren't going to convince anyone by screeching SHALL in their face repeatedly either
This could work on sane but ignorant people
Nobody had any intention on debating a cultist
Now you've been here for hours now, desperately trying to get everyone to give up being rational people for no good reason, and should just fuck off instead

??
I never said to go full shall. I have 3 posts itt and the first one is me saying you can't convince these people of anything by just arguing.
Your analogy is shit get over it. It's just as bad as people saying we already regulate cars so what's the big deal

Long as fuck, but relevant

Attached: Screenshot_20180328-033310.jpg (804x6411, 3.25M)

As someone before has said, you don't need a license to operate vehicles on private property. You also don't need a license to own a car. Should we require licensing for selling cars, yes or no?

Yes and an intermediate transfer who has been authorized to do this. They're required to run your license to make sure it's valid before you can transfer a car
And a 3 day waiting period just in case someone is angry and drives recklessly right after the purchase

>best you can do
>just ask
No you can sell through a dealer after they show you their ID, passport, dd214/military ID, do a home visit, friend you on Facebook, drug test you, penis inspection and whatever else they want before they sell to you, but you can say no, and not buy from them that simple

then you just get "close the private property loophole"

Bitch I kill people

I'm trying to render material antimaterial here, not win a fuckin stuffed panda on the midway.

>irst of all, there's NO WINNING with these people
this /post /thread

Attached: gun control mindset in a nutshell.jpg (2048x1536, 832K)

>Cars literally kill more people than guns. And there's nothing in the Constitution that protects them. At all. And nobody needs to drive at 90mph, let alone 200mph. So why don't we crack down on the deadly machines that ACTUALLY kill people before the ones that don't?

>tl;dr
kek

Attached: 1564651619850.jpg (499x700, 113K)

Stop arguing with them. You will never get anywhere, they aren't discussing the issue in good faith, and you will get red flagged.

Which part? You described a reporter going to a gun store, not a gun show, and the employee wouldnt sell him a gun without a background check.

m8 you're preaching to the choir here- we're fully aware of all that, but the disarmament party turbo-progressives just shut down and AT BEST will go "I disagree" and return to their argument. It's a lot better to just call them racist for supporting gun control, and that they want the poor black inner city folks disarmed, and since they cant trust the police because of discrimination / police brutality / insert whatever, they're on their own.

Calling them racist, and claiming they're "pro-gun control because they don't want black people to have guns" puts them on the defensive, and if they pull a "not ALL guns, just xxx", you counter with "Not ALL white people are privileged, not ALL police beat minorities" etc.- They're not logical arguments, but they're not meant to be; it's playing by their own rules and they have no way out.

this entire explanation is irrelevant when you consider the context of the argument

this is the 2A. The second AMENDMENT. it is a constitutional guaranteed right that >shall

requiring paid background checks on any firearm purchase should be illegal, as it is tantamount to a poll tax or any other form of financial barrier levied against a constitutionally guaranteed right.

imagine if you had to pay for a background check before showing up to a protest, or pay a licensing fee to print picket signs.

grubbers will whittle away at protections for the 2A as diligently as they can to bar as many as possible from gun ownership.

City/county "officials" deny and dissuade people from protesting all the time though.

Why should we change it from the way it is? YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT IS BASED OFF THE WORD "SHOULD" SO IF I WANT TO COUNTER WITH THE PHRASE "SHALL NOT" A DIRECT GRAMMATICAL OPPOSITION ENUMERATED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS YOU CAN TAKE IT STRAIGHT TO THE BANK BITCH!

>we need to crack down on fully automatic assault cars
>also miltary grade semiautomatic rapid shifting DCT cars
>nobody needs a vehicle heavier than a motorcycle
>there needs to be a ban on scary black cars

But seriously, the police should crack down on distracted driving and there are some people that shouldn't drive a car at all.

Honestly the more I see these threads the more I just think buy your guns, take fencesitters to the range, get fencesitters to spend $500 on a basic AR-15 or Wonder 9, rinse and repeat.

If push comes to shove, push back and shove back. You're not going to convince gun grabbers to buy guns themselves in any significant quantity; the best you can do is just hold onto them and fight if they decided to work up the guts to get police (the only thing they protect and serve is their pensions) to take them.

Private sales at gun shows no longer exist, at least within the confines of the gun show itself. You can go just off site and privately sell it.

What they mean is private sales, but it doesn't carry the same scary connotations as "gun show loophole." Gun shows are scary to them, bunch of white men meeting together and checking out killing machines, that's the mental visual they want to induce when the say "gun show loophole," and also to imply that it's a loophole or some type of exploitation of the law. When in reality it's just private sales, but how scary does private sale sound? They are pretty stupid though if you think about it, I would prefer to sell my gun to someone who can pass a background check. I'm not going to flip shit when that gets shut down desu. At least then you can tell libshits that they're completely wrong, but you can't say that now because they really mean "private sales without background checks" which still exist in many states.

>I would prefer to sell my gun to someone who can pass a background check

would you also prefer that every background check is saved into a database of firearms ownership so the government can know how many firearms you own and the exact models and types you have purchased, so that one day in 10 years when kamala is president and they decide that "x" model is not allowed for ownership they can know you have it and demand you give it up? what do you think happens to every 4473 copy and NICS check? it just goes into the secure shredder and the hardrive is wiped immediately after?

why dont you just keep people who cant pass a background check in prison, segregated from society? if they cant be trusted to buy a firearm, why are they roaming freely in your neighborhoods? why is that tolerable? isnt people control a better solution than gun control? if someone is deemed safe to release from prison, they should be deemed safe to own a firearm. if you cant trust them with a weapon, why are they out in public where they can do harm?

The argument would go that even though felons have served their time, the nature of their offenses would make allowing them to own weapons unsafe to people around them and therefore not a good idea. Just because they wouldn't go and shoot someone doesn't mean they'll automatically go around getting knives, explosives, or baseball bats. (There'd be the inevitable comparison to European countries as well.)

then they havent served their time because they arent rehabilitated and safe to relase you absolute mindlet

Taking people to the range does a lot of good.
Aside from safety the most important thing is they have a good time

would you rather have a felon move in nextdoor to your house who cant buy weapons legally because of his record, or a non-felon ?

>why dont you just keep people who cant pass a background check in prison, segregated from society?

you can get a felony for shoplifting. it's not all rapes and murders my dude.

I'm trying to think if there is anyone I know that I would trust with a gun, but not a car...

Yes, but how does the not criminal know he is not selling/buying a gun to a criminal, and then could get in trouble himself, if now one check that the two persons are regular citizens?

Don't argue. You cannot win. Listen to Chris Rock here: youtube.com/watch?v=78c2o79Ohyo