HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » So the firefighter shoote...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 12:16 PM

 

So the firefighter shooter was using a Bushmaster .223

Just now on CNN.

Police: "Gunman had an Arsenal"

I'm calling it now, this guy bought every weapon via private transactions.

It's the gun show loophole.

160 replies, 8584 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 160 replies Author Time Post
Reply So the firefighter shooter was using a Bushmaster .223 (Original post)
RomneyLies Dec 2012 OP
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #1
Walk away Dec 2012 #3
cantbeserious Dec 2012 #2
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #4
politicat Dec 2012 #30
Yavapai Dec 2012 #37
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #41
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #45
zzyzxter Dec 2012 #96
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #97
uppityperson Dec 2012 #106
Yavapai Dec 2012 #112
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #115
uppityperson Dec 2012 #122
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #124
SemperEadem Dec 2012 #52
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #70
SemperEadem Jan 2013 #160
wordpix Dec 2012 #79
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #99
politicat Dec 2012 #110
booley Dec 2012 #158
Dirty Socialist Dec 2012 #13
morningfog Dec 2012 #22
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #5
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #6
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #8
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #10
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #34
Logical Dec 2012 #87
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #94
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #101
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #149
Logical Dec 2012 #103
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #148
LP2K12 Dec 2012 #154
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #7
Chorophyll Dec 2012 #9
aikoaiko Dec 2012 #11
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #14
hack89 Dec 2012 #17
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #21
hack89 Dec 2012 #23
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #33
hack89 Dec 2012 #46
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #49
hack89 Dec 2012 #51
pipoman Dec 2012 #67
former-republican Dec 2012 #27
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #43
former-republican Dec 2012 #48
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #50
former-republican Dec 2012 #53
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #54
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #73
kwassa Dec 2012 #114
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #71
hack89 Dec 2012 #95
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #102
hack89 Dec 2012 #131
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #139
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #111
hack89 Dec 2012 #132
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #134
hack89 Dec 2012 #135
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #138
hack89 Dec 2012 #140
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #141
hack89 Dec 2012 #142
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #143
hack89 Dec 2012 #144
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #145
Matt_R Dec 2012 #151
Logical Dec 2012 #89
hack89 Dec 2012 #93
Logical Dec 2012 #104
hack89 Dec 2012 #133
Logical Dec 2012 #136
hack89 Dec 2012 #137
aikoaiko Dec 2012 #64
atreides1 Dec 2012 #12
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #58
SidDithers Dec 2012 #15
slackmaster Dec 2012 #16
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #18
slackmaster Dec 2012 #19
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #20
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #28
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #26
Atman Dec 2012 #44
lexw Dec 2012 #56
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #59
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #24
slackmaster Dec 2012 #39
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #61
99Forever Dec 2012 #36
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #38
slackmaster Dec 2012 #40
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #25
Atman Dec 2012 #29
slackmaster Dec 2012 #31
Paladin Dec 2012 #35
Patiod Dec 2012 #146
Lady Freedom Returns Dec 2012 #32
LisaL Dec 2012 #42
MrMickeysMom Dec 2012 #47
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #55
melm00se Dec 2012 #63
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #66
MrMickeysMom Dec 2012 #88
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #92
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #57
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #76
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #113
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #116
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #121
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #123
former9thward Dec 2012 #125
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #127
former9thward Dec 2012 #129
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #130
beevul Dec 2012 #147
MrMickeysMom Dec 2012 #90
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #74
MrMickeysMom Dec 2012 #91
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #117
The Straight Story Dec 2012 #60
bettyellen Dec 2012 #65
The Straight Story Dec 2012 #68
bettyellen Dec 2012 #69
The Straight Story Dec 2012 #72
bettyellen Dec 2012 #75
The Straight Story Dec 2012 #77
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #81
bettyellen Dec 2012 #83
The Straight Story Dec 2012 #119
theKed Dec 2012 #126
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #128
Matt_R Dec 2012 #152
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #156
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #82
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #78
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #80
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #105
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #108
catbyte Dec 2012 #62
Jenoch Dec 2012 #84
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #85
Travis_0004 Dec 2012 #153
uponit7771 Dec 2012 #107
eilen Dec 2012 #86
Cronkite Dec 2012 #98
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #100
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #109
malaise Dec 2012 #118
geomon666 Dec 2012 #120
Cronkite Dec 2012 #159
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #150
LP2K12 Dec 2012 #155
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #157

Response to RomneyLies (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 12:17 PM

1. Yup

Gun shows are great if you cannot pass a background check

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 12:18 PM

3. And buy all the ammo you want over the internet! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 12:18 PM

2. Yes - Do We See A Pattern Now - Just Waiting For All The NRA Apologist Excuses

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 12:19 PM

4. They'll say he still obtained them illegally

 

because technically he wasn't supposed to buy any guns even though he could do so with no problems at a public venue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 01:26 PM

30. A law without a means of enforcement is nothing more than a suggestion.

Gun shows have to be regulated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to politicat (Reply #30)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 01:44 PM

37. How about Paroles have to be regulated?

 

He served 17 years in prison for the 1980 hammer slaying of his grandmother. He was a parolee! He was a killer! It was against the law for him to possess any firearms!

How many more fucking laws do you need to pass before it occurs to you that they also need to be enforced?

Time after time, these incidents occur and you gloss over the fact that they broke existing laws. You then proceed to
scream that we need more fucking laws that will not be enforced.

How was it Einstein described insanity? something about doing the same thing over and over again, and then expecting a different outcome???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavapai (Reply #37)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 01:51 PM

41. If you require all private transactions to have a background check and go through an FFL dealer

 

then the only way for the parolee to obtain weapons is for somebody else to collude with them to illegally obtain them, making them as guilty of the crimes committed as accessories, or they must steal them, which is far more difficult than walking into a gun show, laying down your cash, and being handed the firearm.

Parole happens. That's how our system works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavapai (Reply #37)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 02:02 PM

45. have you ever heard of pissing in a cup?

Time after time, these incidents occur and you gloss over the fact that they broke existing laws. You then proceed to
scream that we need more fucking laws that will not be enforced.


who is 'you'? please explain how 'they' broke existing laws, by identifying these laws. or if you are talking about NOT OWNING A GUN and GOING ON A PSYCHOTIC RAMPAGE as the laws he broke, who the f is glossing over that. wtf is glossing, anyway?


How many more fucking laws do you need to pass before it occurs to you that they also need to be enforced?

do you have any friends who are cops? ask them that question. better yet, ask any cop on the street
excuse me, officer? and then say that really loudly.

How was it Einstein described insanity? something about doing the same thing over and over again, and then expecting a different outcome???


that is how he described YOU, last time i checked

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #45)


Response to zzyzxter (Reply #96)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:03 PM

97. You joined today to post that?

 

Frankly, I don't believe a word of what you claim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #97)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:25 PM

106. What was it? Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #97)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:57 PM

112. ...and you are believable?

 

Not a Star member: +0
7 posts hidden in 90 days: -35
TOTAL: 12

Hmmmm....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavapai (Reply #112)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 07:05 PM

115. And you are sticking up for a one post wonder

 

who deleted his post as soon as he was called on it?

I see you love the gungeon.

Have you hugged your guns today?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavapai (Reply #112)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 07:44 PM

122. Reading what the hidden posts were, I'd say yes. Insulting perhaps, but believable? yes.

Did you know we can easily find and read the hidden posts?

Hmmmm........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #122)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 08:07 PM

124. I have little tolerance for CT

 

and can be far too insulting when I confront it. It comes from several years of dealing with birthers on various boards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavapai (Reply #37)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 02:41 PM

52. now you're talking about raising the tax revenues

to pay to staff parole officers to keep up with parolees... or to cut off other state/municipality services such as trash collection, snow removal, street repair in order to keep up with them. The thugs are adamant that taxes not be raised in any way shape or form.

Thing is, that which you complain about costs money that no one wants their taxes raised to pay for it. THAT is the hurdle once needs to clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SemperEadem (Reply #52)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 03:48 PM

70. no, he isn't. neither one of you make sense

there are already parole officers doing their jobs

the problem is a crazy man had a gun

who are these 'thugs'? are they real or did you make them up in your head?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #70)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 07:16 AM

160. republicans

really... does it have to be spelled out for you?

and I make perfect sense. YOU don't have to read what I write if you don't like it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavapai (Reply #37)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 04:06 PM

79. he wasn't supposed to have weapons but just waiting to hear how he got them. Taking bets here...

gun shows, internet sales or had a private gun dealer sell to him off the record. Take your pick.

You don't need a background check for #1 and 3 and #2 I'm not sure of but just use a fake name and that is probably good enough for internet dealers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wordpix (Reply #79)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:06 PM

99. And all three are easier than stealing them n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavapai (Reply #37)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:34 PM

110. We're on the same side on this --

We have some of laws. It's enforcement we're failing at.

But it costs -- parole officers need a much smaller case load for high-contact observation, which means more parole officers, which means more money. We're not paying for that. We have two options for enforcement -- the expensive, high contact version, or a cheaper, technocratic one that means limiting the hardware for everyone.

The expensive version requires higher taxes that people aren't willing to pay now.

And I am not screaming, nor swearing. That's you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavapai (Reply #37)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:03 AM

158. but isn' that the point?

That he may have been able to buy these guns because there is this huge loop hole in it that makes the law almost next to useless.

If he could buy at a gun show and buy ammo on the internet, then clearly the problem is the current law is insufficient. We need to change the law.

It's suspect to me how the gun lobby says we need to enforce the laws we have .. while at the same time weakening and / or repealing the laws we have.

yes insanity can be doing the same thing over and over.. but I don't think it's the people who want tighter gun regulation that have that problem

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 12:38 PM

13. Now is not the time for a gun control debate!!!

Last edited Tue Dec 25, 2012, 01:46 PM - Edit history (1)

Two firefighters were recently killed in Rochester, so knock it off!

And given the frequency of gun related deaths, it will never be the time for a debate. Nya Nya!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 12:54 PM

22. We must first rehash, distract and bemoan the definition of assault.

And then do it again and again and again. At some point in the distance future when the definition of assault weapon has been canonized and understood by all you ignorant gunless, we will then proceed to tell you why no gun reform legislation will ever pass or ever work.

End of debate. Repeat as necessary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 12:22 PM

5. All private gun transactions should require a background check.

It would be a relatively simple matter to provide access to the NICS database online. For those w/o internet access, they could go through an FFL dealer for a nominal charge.

This wouldn't do much to prevent access by common criminals, but is sure would have made it more difficult for ex-con lunatics like that guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 12:23 PM

6. The only answer is to require ALL transactions to go through an FFL dealer.

 

It's the only choice.

All transactions that do not should be federal felonies with mandatory minimum sentences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 12:26 PM

8. Why would that be the "only" answer?

What's the difference, as long as the background check is conducted?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 12:30 PM

10. Anything can be claimed if a private citizen uses the internet to run the check.

 

An FFL dealer is not going to do anything to put their license in jeopardy. There's no skin in the game for somebody who has no license on the line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #10)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 01:39 PM

34. Perhaps if the transfer query were tied to a registration.

That is, if the specific weapon was a part of the background check query (which would also include the SSN of the person who wanted to buy the gun), if that weapon were later found to be in the possession of a denied person, the weapon's immediately previous registered owner would be criminally liable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 04:50 PM

87. Conducted by who? The seller? You trust sellers??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #87)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 05:03 PM

94. If the seller's not trustworthy...

...they're not going to make the sale through a dealer, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #94)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:16 PM

101. If they do and it is discovered down the road

 

they would face a five year mandatory minimum prison sentence for doing so.

That's incentive for "law abiding gun owners" to abide by the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #101)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:09 AM

149. I concur.

If we're going to require private citizens to conduct background checks (or to employ an FFL holder), then failure to do so needs to be a felony crime. Again, habitual career criminals will still ignore the provision, but most others would consider it a genuine deterrent, I'd suspect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #94)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:21 PM

103. Well the seller has no incentive to do a background check. The FFL dealer does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #103)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:07 AM

148. They do if you institute significant criminal penalties for not doing so...

...and for having the weapon turn up in unauthorized hands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:47 AM

154. Agreed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 12:25 PM

7. I wish I could recommend more than once

But summary, Lanza did not use a licensed gun (to him).

This guy obviously obtained it at a gun show.

Ok, the guy in Aurora bought his legally, as in a gun store, that no longer carries them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 12:27 PM

9. They always have an "arsenal."

These guys are in a permanent war against everyone and everything, and they walk among us, enabled by the NRA and the wimp-ass politicians who take its blood money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 12:36 PM

11. For the record, gungeon folks have been calling for an open to public NICS



For a long time. I forget who but someone suggested a number on the back of state IDs to use when a private seller calls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 12:38 PM

14. That's a non-solution soluiton

 

Nope, all transactions need to go through FFL dealers. Somebody's license to sell firearms must be on the line in EVERY transaction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 12:45 PM

17. The federal government cannot mandate that

intrastate private sales are a state issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #17)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 12:53 PM

21. Oh yes they can!

 

Those private transactions in Virginia can end up in Maryland or DC.

Damned straight the Feds can regulate commerce like that. Long standing SCOTUS precedent on the issue. The Marshall court dramatically expanded the capacity of the Federal Government to regulate intrastate trade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #21)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 01:14 PM

23. So why didn't they?

they passed legislation tightly regulating every other aspect of gun sales and manufacturing. I don't think it was an oversight - they knew they couldn't do it. Notice how, among the multitude of gun control laws introduced over the past 20 years, not a single one of them addresses private intrastate sales?

You are wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #23)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 01:38 PM

33. Three letters explains why they didn't

 

N
R
A

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #33)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 02:09 PM

46. How does that stop someone from introducing legistlation?

Lots of laws are introduced knowing they have no chance of passing but are introduced to make a point. Look how many times the AWB has been introduced.

So tell me again, why has no one introduce legislation to regulate intrastate private sales?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #46)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 02:26 PM

49. HAH!

 

Legislation has been introduced multiple times to close the gun show loophole. It never even comes up in committee.

The NRA insures it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Show_Loophole_Closing_Act_of_2009

Stop sticking up for the NRA. It's unbecoming of you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #49)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 02:32 PM

51. But that does not regulate private sales beyond gun shows

they can stretch the commerce clause far enough to cover gun shows. But no further. It proves my point as to the limit of Federal power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #49)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 03:40 PM

67. They don't make it out of committee

because the committees have always determined that they wouldn't pass constitutional challenge because of limitations on the federal government imposed by the "commerce clause". The only people/sales effected are between private individuals who have no collective voice.

Here is a step in the right direction...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022063309

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #21)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 01:22 PM

27. hack89 is correct

 

The states can though.
A lot of gun control will have to be a state issue.

That's why if Obama is serious he needs to have a conference with every governor in the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #27)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 01:52 PM

43. There has been calls for a federally mandated closure of the gun sho loophole for the past decade

 

The only reason it hasn't happened is the NRA will not allow it to happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #43)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 02:20 PM

48. It's not the NRA

 



off subject just a little.........

Remember the discussion we had on Executive orders a while back and how they work?



Just because you really, really, really want something to be legal , doesn't make it so.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #48)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 02:27 PM

50. It is the NRA.

 

The calls to close the gun show loophole has resulted in legislation being introduced

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Show_Loophole_Closing_Act_of_2009

The NRA insures it dies an ignominious death.

Just because you hug your guns doesn't mean we cannot regulate private transactions of guns on a federal level.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #50)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 02:46 PM

53. Any one in congress can introduce any bill they want.

 

There's a reason why it never is considered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #53)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 02:47 PM

54. And that reason is spelled N-R-A n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #53)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 03:55 PM

73. no, they can't

they can't introduce a bill that says "you have to annoy people on the internet everyday for no reason"

and there are $300 million reasons, which are the dollars in the nra budget

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #73)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 07:01 PM

114. They can introduce a bill that says "you have to annoy people on the internet everyday for no

reason."

It just won't pass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #48)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 03:52 PM

71. you are the NRA

Just because you really, really, really want something to be legal , doesn't make it so.

have you ever heard of civil rights? and how owning a gun ISN'T one of them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #71)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 05:05 PM

95. So what kind of rights are in the Bill of Rights? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #95)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:18 PM

102. How many other rights in the BOR contain a constraint?

 

WELL REGULATED

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #102)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:29 PM

131. Meaning well equipped and trained.

stop using the modern definition.

The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment
From: Brian T. Halonen <halonen@csd.uwm.edu>

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #131)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 10:41 PM

139. Then use the original arms. Muskets are fine. Anything else is not.

 

you don't get to have it both ways, especially once one of your SCOTUS gun heroes are off the court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #95)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:51 PM

111. didn't see anything about a right to be intentionally obtuse. go away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #111)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:30 PM

132. Every right in the BOR is a civil right.

stop denying reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #132)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:36 PM

134. Only ONE right in the BOR has a restrictive clause

 

WELL REGULATED

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #134)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:37 PM

135. Which does not mean what you want it to mean.

The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment
From: Brian T. Halonen <halonen@csd.uwm.edu>

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #135)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 10:39 PM

138. It means what the SCOTUS says it means

 

Get one, JUST ONE, of your SCOTUS heroes gone, and it means WELL REGULATED/

Of course, losing Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Alito, or Roberts from the court is YOUR biggest fear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #138)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 10:44 PM

140. You keep believing that

just like all those anti-abortion folks that thought that a Scalia court meant Roe V Wade would be overturned overnight.

No proposed gun control laws will take away my weapons. Go read Feinstein's AWB. With friends like her and the president, I don't worry about the makeup of the SC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #140)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 10:51 PM

141. Nobody wants to take away your weapons

 

We just want them registered and tracked at a national level.

Thinking we want to take away your weapons is possibly the height of paranoid behavior, which makes me think you may possibly be in a category who should have no access to weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #141)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 10:55 PM

142. Do I really have to point out all the posts calling for a ban and confiscation?

why all the post about why no one needs a semi-automatic rifle?

Registration and tracking would not have prevented Sandy Hook, now would they? They were registered. And there was no need to track them - they were laying next to the body of the shooter. Show me a single mass killing where registration would have made a difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #142)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 11:00 PM

143. Combined with a proper database it sure as hell would have

 

If you have mentally ill peolpe in your household, you've got no business owning guns.

Period.

But then again, the more the gun huggers try to fight it the more I'm convinced banning and confiscating may be the only answers. The gun huggers simply will not be reasonable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #143)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 11:10 PM

144. So you advocate the government tracking all mentally ill people in America?

that's your idea of reasonable?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #144)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 11:12 PM

145. Yes

 

If you are on anti-psychotic medications, you've got no business being anywhere near guns.

Period.

If somebody in your household is on anti-psychotic medications, time to give up your guns.

Period.

On edit: This would ahve stopped VA Tech, Auroa, AND Sandy Hook,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #145)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:38 AM

151. are anti-depressants on your list as well? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #17)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 04:52 PM

89. Can't they hold back federal funds for states that do not comply? Like they do for drinking age, etc

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #89)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 05:02 PM

93. Why do you think Congressmen would ever consider such a thing?

have you forgotten who actually passes laws?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #93)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:22 PM

104. To fix the background check issue. This should not even make the NRA mad really.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #104)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:32 PM

133. Congressmen will not punish their own states.

the NRA has not oppose states regulating private sales. There are states that have passed such laws without opposition. But the Feds will never force the states to do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #133)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:54 PM

136. They do for other issues. Like alcohol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #136)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:56 PM

137. Time will tell, I guess. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 03:22 PM

64. I'm not sure why. The penalties could be the same.



If someone isn't going to comply with a law that requires a private seller to call NICS, then they'll not comply with a law requiring private sellers go through an FFL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 12:36 PM

12. Interesting

But until the police have confirmed that he purchased the weapon from a private seller...I'm going to wait.

Jumping to conclusions has never done any good for anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to atreides1 (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 03:11 PM

58. jump to this- and what difference does it make where he bought anythin? that isn't THE SUBJECT HERE

we are trying to talk about the fact that it was the SAME GUN AS CT here- so go somewhere else if you can't manage

I'm calling it now, this guy bought every weapon via private transactions.-romneylies

i see that, and raise you that it was his sister who he hated, but lived with, AND burned up in the house that HELPED him!-me


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5haV0q9KW1gKvnD3W4sk-yxAVf_ew?docId=545f47cd49d7490495c87869825d9ee9

Man who killed 2 firemen left note on killing plan

By By GEORGE WALSH, Associated Press 24 minutes ago

WEBSTER, N.Y. (AP) The ex-con who lured firefighters to their deaths in a blaze of gunfire left a typewritten note saying he wanted to burn down the neighborhood and "do what I like doing best, killing people," police said Tuesday.

Police Chief Gerald Pickering said Tuesday that 62-year-old William Spengler, who served 17 years in prison for the 1980 hammer slaying of his grandmother, armed himself with a revolver, a shotgun and a semiautomatic rifle before he set his house afire to lure first responders into a death trap before dawn on Christmas Eve.

Two firefighters were shot dead and two others are hospitalized. Spengler killed himself as seven houses burned around him Monday on a narrow spit of land along Lake Ontario.

One of the weapons recovered was a .233-caliber semiautomatic Bushmaster rifle with flash suppression, the same make and caliber gun used in the elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn., Pickering said.

The chief said police believe the firefighters were hit with shots from the rifle given the distance but the investigation was incomplete.

The two- to three-page typewritten note left by Spengler didn't give a motive for the shootings, Pickering said. He declined to divulge the note's full content or say where it was found, but read one line from it: "I still have to get ready to see how much of the neighborhood I can burn down, and do what I like doing best, killing people."

Pickering said authorities were still looking for Spengler's 67-year-old sister, Cheryl Spengler, who lived in the house with him. Their mother, Arline, also lived there until she died in October.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 12:39 PM

15. Inb4 'he was taking antidepressants too'...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 12:44 PM

16. The firefighter shooter should never have been released from prison

 

Only that would have solved the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #16)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 12:47 PM

18. He was convicted of first degree manslaughter

 

so I guess he would have gotten out sooner or later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #18)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 12:49 PM

19. Yeah, he didn't really mean to kill his grandma when he beat her repeatedly with a hammer.

 

He must have had one heck of a good lawyer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #19)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 12:51 PM

20. More likely the prosecuting attorney was crap. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #20)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 01:22 PM

28. or related to him

inbreeding perhaps?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #19)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 01:21 PM

26. don't you mean sarcasm master, slack?

Yeah, he didn't really mean to kill his grandma when he beat her repeatedly with a hammer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #19)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 01:52 PM

44. He was just trying to hang a picture of the grandkids, and missed.

"Honest, your honor. I missed twelve times! I don't know why she didn't get out of the way!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #44)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 02:58 PM

56. Wow!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #44)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 03:12 PM

59. ha

hammer? i thought it was a bagel!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #16)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 01:16 PM

24. So rather than regulate semi auto weapons, just have mandatory life sentences for all crimes?

Or just for some 20-20 hindsight subset of all criminals?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #24)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 01:49 PM

39. No, only for heinous crimes like beating one's grandmother to death with a hammer

 

That sort of thing is a good predictor of future criminal activity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #24)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 03:13 PM

61. please explain

what that means, i don't get it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #16)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 01:44 PM

36. Shoulda... coulda... woulda...

Extremely violent offenders and yes even mother and grandmother murderers are released virtually each and every day. Sorry, there isn't an unlimited amount of prison space now, nor will there ever be. I rather that these types have an EXTREMELY difficult time arming themselves, than having to get into firefights to stop their weekly shooting sprees. It about priorities and it's pretty clear what yours are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #16)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 01:49 PM

38. don't you have to kill multiple people to get life?

so..

show us a list of what you can get a mandatory life sentence for, if you are the expert

and

explain how you arrived at the conclusion that it is the one and only way.

also

here is another way so solve 'the problem'

a violent person (i don't care if be beat her with a hammer or a fucking zucchini and gave her bruises. but i DO care if he ever so much as punched his girlfriend, if he ever had one)

SHOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO OWN A GUN EVER. THE PUBLIC SHOULD KNOW THE PERSON IS DANGEROUS AND STAY AWAY FROM HIM.

here's a few more questions-
why is it 99% men that do these things?
do you own a prison?
life sentences are a good thing?
how many thousands of killers get released from prison a year and don't do on killing sprees?
so are saying releasing people from jail turns people into lunatics, really. ever heard of a parole board?

have fun with the ???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #38)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 01:50 PM

40. I believe that in New York premeditated murder with a weapon enhancement can result in a life...

 

...sentence.

Hammers don't count.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 01:20 PM

25. for pete's sake. WTF?????

I'm calling it now, this guy bought every weapon via private transactions.

i see that, and raise you that it was his sister who he hated, but lived with, AND burned up in the house that HELPED him!


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5haV0q9KW1gKvnD3W4sk-yxAVf_ew?docId=545f47cd49d7490495c87869825d9ee9

Man who killed 2 firemen left note on killing plan

By By GEORGE WALSH, Associated Press 24 minutes ago

WEBSTER, N.Y. (AP) The ex-con who lured firefighters to their deaths in a blaze of gunfire left a typewritten note saying he wanted to burn down the neighborhood and "do what I like doing best, killing people," police said Tuesday.

Police Chief Gerald Pickering said Tuesday that 62-year-old William Spengler, who served 17 years in prison for the 1980 hammer slaying of his grandmother, armed himself with a revolver, a shotgun and a semiautomatic rifle before he set his house afire to lure first responders into a death trap before dawn on Christmas Eve.

Two firefighters were shot dead and two others are hospitalized. Spengler killed himself as seven houses burned around him Monday on a narrow spit of land along Lake Ontario.

One of the weapons recovered was a .233-caliber semiautomatic Bushmaster rifle with flash suppression, the same make and caliber gun used in the elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn., Pickering said.

The chief said police believe the firefighters were hit with shots from the rifle given the distance but the investigation was incomplete.

The two- to three-page typewritten note left by Spengler didn't give a motive for the shootings, Pickering said. He declined to divulge the note's full content or say where it was found, but read one line from it: "I still have to get ready to see how much of the neighborhood I can burn down, and do what I like doing best, killing people."

Pickering said authorities were still looking for Spengler's 67-year-old sister, Cheryl Spengler, who lived in the house with him. Their mother, Arline, also lived there until she died in October.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #25)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 01:26 PM

29. "...served 17 years in prison for the 1980 hammer slaying of his grandmother."

And somehow he was able to purchase guns. Amazing. But of course, with a hammer, he was only able to kill his grandmother. With his Bushmaster, he was able to hide out nearby and pick off multiple innocent victims from a distance. There IS a difference, I don't care what the gun nutters say. Sure, there will always be psychos. But why should we make it easy for them to obtain such weapons? Why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #29)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 01:32 PM

31. If he had shot his grandmother rather than beating her to death, he might still be in prison

 

But he probably chose a hammer because he didn't want to get in trouble.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #31)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 01:39 PM

35. Shame On You. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #29)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:04 AM

146. the article I read this am speculated he stole them

It was in the NY Daily News. I would link if I knew how to cut and paste on this pad

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 01:33 PM

32. Any word on the sister he was living with?

They had no word of her last time I heard. I think that she may be victim #3.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lady Freedom Returns (Reply #32)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 01:51 PM

42. No, they haven't found her yet. I don't have much hope she is alive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 02:17 PM

47. I'm ignorant of the "gun show loophole"... We have gun shows here often...

Sorry if I sound ignorant, but I am.

So, if I go to the next gun show, how do I vet this activity? Really... I would love someone to tell me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #47)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 02:47 PM

55. In most gun shows, there is no requirement for a background check prior to selling a gun. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #55)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 03:16 PM

63. not entirely accurate

any licensed firearms dealer must perform a NICS background check on a firearm sale whether done in a retail storefront or a gun show.

if I (a private individual) want to sell you (another private individual) a gun, whether its done at/near a gun show or thru a newspaper ad or you come to my house, I am not required to perform a background check, in fact I am legally prevented from accessing the NICS system.

in my state(NC), however, if I am selling a handgun I am obligated to obtain either a state issued pistol purchase permit or CCW permit from the purchaser.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to melm00se (Reply #63)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 03:24 PM

66. Which is why tons of "private owners" put their arsenals on display at gun shows

 

and openly sell their wares.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #66)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 04:51 PM

88. How do they do this?

Do you have to lean over and say the magic word? I would expect exhibitors signing up would have to have to show that they have the legal process to sell in hand and a receipt of what they sold. The only way they might get around it would be to "say the right thing", which seems a bit risky, but then, there you are.

I should ask if anyone reading this is from PA, because it may be better regulated here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #88)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 05:01 PM

92. PA is better regulated.

 

But not many states are as well regulated at PA, and even PA is not the best regulated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #47)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 03:00 PM

57. "gun show loophole" is a misnomer.

 

Last edited Tue Dec 25, 2012, 03:56 PM - Edit history (1)

Basically, if you have an FFL license (licensed dealer) you must do a background everywhere you sell a gun. In their gunshop, at home, in the car on train, even at a gunshow.... anywhere they sell a gun, they have to call in the paperwork on the spot for the background check. An FFL dealer can legally sell new guns from manufacturers and distributors in addition to used guns and all guns a dealer holds is inventoried with the ATF. Guns sold on the internet must be shipped to another FFL dealer in the buyers state where that FFL does the background check. Simply put, if a gun is bought from a licensed dealer in any fashion then it absolutley gets a background check before a citizen gets it.

If you have no FFL license (private citizen) you are barred from accessing the NICS background check system. Private citizens have no requirement (or access) to performing a background check when selling their PERSONAL guns. It doesn't matter if the private-citizen sale happens at home, Dennys, a gun show, the mall parking lot or a public park. A private citizen cannot sell new guns directly from a manufacturer/distributor... the guns must be their own personal guns.

I'm not sure why anyone calls gun shows a "gunshow loophole". A gunshow does not have some magical set of laws surrounding it. The laws at a gunshow are the same there as everywhere else in the nation - no exceptions. There is no loophole unique to gun shows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #57)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 04:02 PM

76. so we are just supposed to believe what you type? weird, i found those words on the internets

Unfortunately, only six states (CA, CO, IL, NY, OR, RI) require universal background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows. Three more states (CT, MD, PA) require background checks on all handgun sales made at gun shows. Seven other states (HI, IA, MA, MI, NJ, NC, NE) require purchasers to obtain a permit and undergo a background check before buying a handgun. Florida allows its counties to regulate gun shows by requiring background checks on all firearms purchases at these events. 33 states have taken no action whatsoever to close the Gun Show Loophole.

now, you can't argue with mine and i can't argue with yours(because i PROVED YOU WRONG)! go find it and tell me why its wrong and stop wasting our time

if anybody wants to find that just type 'end gun violence' into google, it'll be your 2nd link

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #76)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 07:00 PM

113. What I wrote were the federal requirements.

 

I'm pretty sure the 1968 CGA and 1986 FOPA outline the federal minimum requirements for gun transfer. States themselves may enact stricter rules regarding intrastate transfer of firearms for non-FFL holders. In those states which require even the private sales to obtain an NICS background check (referenced in your post) it is the FFL Dealers that still end up performing the background check as a third party (because the private citizens still don't have background check access).

I support legislation requiring background checks on ALL firearms transfers, through commercial or private sale. I would also strongly consider support nation-wide uniformity for most all firearm regulations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #113)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 07:08 PM

116. That's why the FOPA needs to be repealed, including the Hughes Amendment

 

Anybody who can pass through the hell that it takes to be licensed to own automatic weapons is the LEAST of our worries and a federal registry is needed more now than ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #116)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 07:42 PM

121. I don't mind the FOPA. I think a 100% background check would be good though.

 

I think such a measure would be EASY to pass through congress now. The person selling the gun and the person receiving the gun should BOTH be checked. An failures should be reported to Authorities for investigation as to why a felon was either trying to sell or receive a gun (or why the system incorrectly flagged someone).

The people with guns we need to worry about first are the criminals. That would be easy legislation with little resistance and would not infringe on qualified gun owners rights at all. As it stands now, there is black market for guns, and a grey market. The grey market is all the guns that we have no idea about because private sales have no indication of legal or illegal. If you require ALL guns sold, gifted or inherited to pass though a FFL then as time marches on you eliminate the grey market - everything is either obtained legally or illegally.

Next hurdle, without registration, the system is obviously limited. But gunnies are scared of government or civil misuse of the list. So let the owners keep the "list". A good FFL check yields a "permit"... like your tax receipts. As long as you own the gun, you keep the NICS ticket. Your NICS ticket is the proof your gun was obtained legally. If you lose the ticket, you must visit the FFL who did the transfer (or ATF) to get a new check and ticket.

We should repeal the Hughes Amendment just for good measure too... hehe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #121)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 08:06 PM

123. Only way to let go of the Hughes amendment is to require federal registration.

 

I simply do not see the system working without a federal registry.

A central repository for every gun in the country and who owns it.

That, alone keeps things in line. That is the line in the sand that insures "law abiding gun owners" actually abide by the laws.

I could give a shit about gunnies being scared of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #76)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 08:08 PM

125. Your post contradicts your own OP.

You say this shooting was the result of the "gun show loophole". Your post says NY requires universal background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows. This shooting was in NY.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #125)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 08:32 PM

127. Your erroneous assumption is, he bought the guns in NY

 

Vermont is not that far away from this town, nor is New Hampshire and it has some of the most lax gun laws in the nation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #127)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 08:47 PM

129. An out of state resident can't buy at gunshows.

I am not making any assumptions erroneous or otherwise. But you are making a boatload of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #129)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:10 PM

130. Depends on the state.

 

Which is the biggest argument there is for a federal registry and tracking of ALL guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #130)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:32 AM

147. Uh, thats federal law. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #57)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 04:55 PM

90. Thanks...

I should look into this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #47)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 03:59 PM

74. where are you? are you in america, or..

??

see, diff states have diff laws so...it depends. that part of the problem

which is why we need a FEDERAL GUN STANDARD THAT IS SANE

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #74)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 04:57 PM

91. I reside in PA

Read your post on that already. I need to check in to the strength of PA's law, which, according to what you said upthread is not as bad as other laws, but there are NO standards nation-wide, then, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #91)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 07:09 PM

117. Correct, you live in one of the better states.

 

Some suck hard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 03:13 PM

60. Ok, let's say you pass a law that requires such checks

I buy a gun. A few years later a buddy wants it and I sell it to him.

How would anyone know? Would I be arrested? What would be the punishment? What happens when I die and leave my guns to someone else (I don't own any currently)?

What else do we want to track when people sell it to other people? Do we need to monitor garage and yard sales now? Should people have to have a full permit and list to the government all items they are selling?

And when, if ever, will people actually talk about the people doing these crimes and not their tools and blame them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #60)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 03:24 PM

65. you're suggesting people be allowed to sell guns at garage sales, FFS?

or was what you wrote about garage sales pointless? And who the fuck has NOT been talking about and blaming Lanza or this freak who killed his grandma with a hammer? You been watching the news at all?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #65)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 03:41 PM

68. Not suggesting anything, but see here: (you can sell them at garage sales)

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/15083040/garage-sale-guns-get-around-the-paperwork

"If someone wants to sell a gun at a garage sale, it's their right to do so. It is what it is: personal property," said Tom Mangan, a special agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #68)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 03:47 PM

69. You appeared to be supporting it, and that shit needs to stop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #69)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 03:53 PM

72. So my question stands then:

How do you stop people from selling them at garage sales?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #72)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 03:59 PM

75. registration regulations, and enforcement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #75)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 04:03 PM

77. Now we are getting somewhere....

How would this be enforced given all of the yard sales in the US each day?

Should people register their yard sales and all they have for sale?

If we assume we are all potential terrorists and all gun owners are killers then we should also guess that everyone having a yard sale may sell a gun there and perhaps a new variant of the TSA to drive around checking out yard sales and reporting on them would help?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #77)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 04:08 PM

81. Just firearms. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #77)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 04:34 PM

83. wow, paranoia and willful ignorance of what gun control advocates are asking for....

throw in a suggestion to arm everyone or split hairs of gun tech secs and you hit the NRA trifecta!
Are you proud of the way you play stupid?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #83)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 07:15 PM

119. Ignorant of what they are asking for? Yes...WHAT are they asking for?

I have seen everything from confiscate all guns to mental health screening to banning, etc and so on.

What are you asking for?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #72)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 08:17 PM

126. Liability

If that gun gets used in a crime, the last registered owner is on the hook as aiding that crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Reply #126)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 08:33 PM

128. Both criminal and civil liability.

 

The liability ends so long as it was a legal transfer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #128)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:41 AM

152. What if the seller removes any identifying marks?

Serial number, manufacturer, firing pin microstamping, barrel rifiling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Matt_R (Reply #152)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:33 AM

156. Cannot be done

 

The serial number is stamped. Even if you file it away, it can still be detected and read.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #65)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 04:08 PM

82. jinx, buy me a coke!

we both used pointless at the same time!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #60)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 04:06 PM

78. You would be committing a crime

 

Once discovered, the penalty should be a mandatory minimum of five years in a federal pen.

For each count.

that gives you incentive to take your buddy to an FFL and pay a fee to transfer.

Since death involves probate, it is easy to get an FFL involved in the transfer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #60)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 04:07 PM

80. answer your own questions

they are kind of pointless, i think

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #60)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:25 PM

105. Your "buddy" robs a liquor store, gets caught, gives you up, you go to jail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #105)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:28 PM

108. Better yet, his buddy does not even HAVE to give him up.

 

His first purchase is a part of a federal registry so his name automatically comes up when they check on the gun.

Now he's facing a federal felony with a five year mandatory minimum, PLUS the state can charge his as an accessory in the liquor store robbery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 03:13 PM

62. I guess his Man Card was re-issued.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 04:38 PM

84. I believe the focus should be why

this guy ever saw the light of day after beating his grandmother to death with a hammer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #84)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 04:39 PM

85. ANYTHING to take the focus away from the guns.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #85)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:23 AM

153. Its still a vailid point

He should have been in jail for the rest of his life. If he was in jail, the odds of him killing two firefighters would have been 0%.

Even if he was let out, and there was an AWB, I'm sure he still would have managed to get a gun and shot some people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #84)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:25 PM

107. All would be moot if his access to guns was made 123 time harder

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 04:49 PM

86. This is a gun

that is made by many different manufacturers. Hubs says that he could have just ordered the parts on line and built it himself, they are common and easy to obtain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:05 PM

98. There is no "gunshow loophole"- it is a private sales loophole. We need to fix it.

 

One of the gun laws I would like to see is that all transfers of firearms ownership be conducted through a licensed dealer. Full background check. I would also like to see mental health data being included in the database for approval.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cronkite (Reply #98)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:14 PM

100. That's the colloquial name given to the private transfer loophole.

 

And you're proposal is 100% reasonable, which means the gun huggers will tear it to shreds and demand harsher legal penalties for people convicted on manslaughter and no parole for people covicted of manslaughter because FREEDOM and it's about ANYTHING except the guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cronkite (Reply #98)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:28 PM

109. It is called a gun show loophole because all disqualified individuals know

they can go to the nearest gun show to buy a gun without a background check.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 07:09 PM

118. And he left a note saying that he wanted to kill everyone in the neighborhood

Go NRA - defend your Bushmaster!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 07:36 PM

120. What video games was he playing?

That's the real question!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geomon666 (Reply #120)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 10:22 PM

159. Seriously.....

 

I can't help but think some of these young idiots are being influenced by violent video games. When I was a kid way back when I had the pleasure of playing "pong"; now kids kill 100 people on their computer screens every day. Does that develop healthy minds?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:51 AM

150. i'm just gonna throw this out there

i think the fact he was using the same gun means we HAVE to do something about those guns, something major and put in into the media as fast as possible to counteract pandora being out of the box. don't try to put her back in. just close the box and forget about her, if you ignore her she'll go away.

why not make it so you have to register federally for say, anything over two handguns and any semi-auto over 10 shots, and EXPLAIN why you need the gun, get a license, insure it, etc
target practice, hunting, whatever, but every person who owns one should be responsible for it- the latest guy's sister probably bought him the guns. at a bar.

if the laws were just done right, everybody could have all the guns they wanted- a collector shouldn't have to be limited because some goon wants to show off, right?

let the states take care of handgun laws.

does that seem logical- two handguns AND a long gun are state level(only one can be semi-auto, 20 round total for 3 guns), anything over is feds? what could you possibly need more firepower than that for?

the important thing is how do these looneys get guns? people aren't responsible enough, which is why we have laws

so the above with:
RomneyLies )
108. Better yet, his buddy does not even HAVE to give him up.
His first purchase is a part of a federal registry so his name automatically comes up when they check on the gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #150)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:49 AM

155. These suggestions

are part of the solution. I still think the magazines should be limited to 10 rounds or less. If s/he's a collector they wont need 20+ rounds.

If they're a hunter and can't make they're target with 10 rounds... reload and try and again. Or, maybe... you're not a hunter.

If it's for self defense. One shot, one kill. That's what the military teachers. You don't need to spray someone in public or your home with 20+ rounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LP2K12 (Reply #155)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:50 AM

157. there has to be a very distinct line drawn between state and federal

to keep the states(talking to you, AZ) from giving people the impression that army rifles on public streets are sane

i'd say 8 rounds instead of 10-

two 6 shooters+8 shot long gun=20

two 8 round semi pistols+4 shots hunting gun=20

10 round semi-anything- FED

and mandatory background check for EVERY purchase @ state level- red flag means mental evaluation

you don't need a chainsaw to break a stick, exactly!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread