HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Webster, N.Y., sniper's e...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:26 PM

Webster, N.Y., sniper's ex-neighbor charged with buying him guns

By Richard A. Serrano, Washington Bureau
December 28, 2012, 5:21 p.m.
WASHINGTON A former neighbor of the Webster, N.Y., sniper who killed two volunteer firefighters on Christmas Eve illegally bought the guns used in the killing, federal authorities charged Friday.

Dawn M. Nguyen, 24, of Greece, N.Y., was charged in federal court with acting as a straw purchaser for William Spengler, who as a felon could not legally buy guns for himself. Spengler was convicted of killing his grandmother in 1980. Nguyen also faces state felony charges on allegations of falsifying business records.

U.S. Atty. William J. Hochul Jr. said Nguyen purchased a Bushmaster .223 semiautomatic rifle and a Mossberg 12-gauge shotgun from the Gander Mountain store in Rochester on June 6, 2010. But in truth, he said, she "knowingly made a false statement in connection with the purchase of the two firearms" and actually was acquiring them for Spengler.

She did not immediately enter a plea in the more serious federal case, in which she could face 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

more
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-webster-guns-20121229,0,3915051.story

108 replies, 7282 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 108 replies Author Time Post
Reply Webster, N.Y., sniper's ex-neighbor charged with buying him guns (Original post)
n2doc Dec 2012 OP
atreides1 Dec 2012 #1
MichiganVote Dec 2012 #2
Bake Jan 2013 #100
Throd Dec 2012 #3
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #55
Bohunk68 Dec 2012 #89
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #91
Glassunion Dec 2012 #92
JohnnyBoots Dec 2012 #70
Chorophyll Dec 2012 #4
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #7
Chorophyll Dec 2012 #9
JI7 Dec 2012 #18
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #24
AgingAmerican Dec 2012 #87
krispos42 Dec 2012 #27
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #32
krispos42 Dec 2012 #46
Taverner Dec 2012 #20
Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #61
spanone Dec 2012 #65
Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #72
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #77
Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #85
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #86
Chorophyll Dec 2012 #69
Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #71
Chorophyll Dec 2012 #76
sir pball Dec 2012 #94
Chorophyll Dec 2012 #96
bongbong Dec 2012 #5
Ghost in the Machine Dec 2012 #49
Puzzledtraveller Dec 2012 #59
thucythucy Dec 2012 #84
thucythucy Jan 2013 #105
Ghost in the Machine Jan 2013 #106
thucythucy Jan 2013 #107
whistler162 Dec 2012 #52
bongbong Dec 2012 #75
whistler162 Dec 2012 #81
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #6
jmg257 Dec 2012 #8
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #11
Hoyt Dec 2012 #16
krispos42 Dec 2012 #31
Hoyt Dec 2012 #57
krispos42 Dec 2012 #68
forthemiddle Dec 2012 #54
Hoyt Dec 2012 #58
forthemiddle Dec 2012 #66
Hoyt Dec 2012 #67
jody Dec 2012 #10
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #13
Hoyt Dec 2012 #17
Taverner Dec 2012 #21
jody Dec 2012 #23
Taverner Dec 2012 #25
jody Dec 2012 #28
Taverner Dec 2012 #30
jody Dec 2012 #35
Taverner Dec 2012 #37
jody Dec 2012 #39
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #40
Taverner Dec 2012 #41
Iggo Jan 2013 #108
geckosfeet Dec 2012 #33
jody Dec 2012 #36
Major Nikon Dec 2012 #88
geckosfeet Dec 2012 #90
jberryhill Dec 2012 #42
FarPoint Dec 2012 #51
Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #78
Loudly Dec 2012 #12
Loudly Dec 2012 #14
jmg257 Dec 2012 #15
Taverner Dec 2012 #22
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #56
Robb Dec 2012 #64
Dems to Win Dec 2012 #19
Pretzel_Warrior Dec 2012 #26
On the Road Dec 2012 #29
budkin Dec 2012 #34
aikoaiko Dec 2012 #38
jberryhill Dec 2012 #43
aikoaiko Dec 2012 #45
jberryhill Dec 2012 #47
alcibiades_mystery Dec 2012 #82
Nevernose Dec 2012 #63
Blue_Tires Dec 2012 #74
Comrade_McKenzie Dec 2012 #44
jberryhill Dec 2012 #48
alcibiades_mystery Dec 2012 #83
no_hypocrisy Dec 2012 #50
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #80
lynne Dec 2012 #53
Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #62
HappyMe Dec 2012 #60
Dr_Scholl Dec 2012 #73
Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #79
sir pball Dec 2012 #95
Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #97
sir pball Jan 2013 #98
Jeff In Milwaukee Jan 2013 #99
Glassunion Dec 2012 #93
BeyondGeography Jan 2013 #101
Historic NY Jan 2013 #102
Carolina Jan 2013 #103
liberalmuse Jan 2013 #104

Response to n2doc (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:29 PM

1. This is good

At least now we know where he got the weapons from...someone who could legally purchase them...wonderful!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to atreides1 (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:30 PM

2. But its her 2nd amendement!!!!

Poor families of the firefighters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to atreides1 (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 06:18 PM

100. She COULD legally buy them, but she DIDN'T legally buy them.

It's not legal to buy them for someone else, ergo, she broke the law.

Having said that, I'm not sure how you enforce that particular provision if someone is going to lie (sign a form saying you're not buying it for anyone else).

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:36 PM

3. She should be charged as an accessory to murder.

I say this as someone who is rather pro 2nd ammendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Throd (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 09:40 AM

55. I think she will be

I think she will be in Federal prison for the entire ten years, and then have serve time in a state prison for 5-20. It's not even like she can plea bargain.

WTF would anyone do that for someone who should STILL be in prison for BEATING his grannie to death.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #55)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 06:45 AM

89. When I heard this,

the first thing that popped into my mind was: did the guy threaten her in some way if she didn"t? Was there an abusive relationship there? Her last name appears Vietnamese to me. Hmmmmmmmmmmm Let's wait for some more information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bohunk68 (Reply #89)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:58 AM

91. I was wondering that, too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bohunk68 (Reply #89)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:35 AM

92. The last name is Vietnamese

That said, it is an incredibly popular last name (if not the most popular Vietnamese last name) and personally I have seen many folks of different ethnicities that have that last name. My guess is through marriage. If I am not mistaken, and correct me if I am, but from what I understand is that the family name (what we refer to as our last name) in the past was often taken on as a sign of respect for a king or to avoid persecution or prosecution in some cases.

So you could have thousands if not hundreds of thousands of folks take on that name without any relation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Throd (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 11:59 AM

70. They

 

should throw the book at her and make her case widely known. Hopefully that would serve to put fear of prison into anyone thinking about making a straw purchase in the future. If they enforced all the laws on the books and made a few examples of people who broke those laws on a nation level, I think it would go a lot further than banning a metal box with a spring in it or a rifle with a pistol grip.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:37 PM

4. This is the kind of stuff that MUST be addressed.

An assault weapon ban alone is not going to prevent this kind of thing from happening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:40 PM

7. The NRA has opposed any toughening on these laws

Quelle surprise, I know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:45 PM

9. Yeah.

Well, enough's enough. NRA = Not Relevant Anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:51 PM

18. why would one oppose something like this

it's like people who support pot legalization being so against taxing it. or even against selling to minors.

why oppose such reasonable things ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #18)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 12:31 AM

24. The NRA is in one business only

Sell more guns.

Punishing straw buyers goes against that goal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #18)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 03:55 AM

87. The NRA opposed banning gun sales to people on the terrorist watch list

They would be all for this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 12:39 AM

27. It's my understanding that these things typically get pleaded out.



Obviously, we need to punish straw purchasers. But getting more ATF agents is currently impossible; hell, they can't even get a head of the ATF through the Tea Party assholes in Congress.

We need more agents, and more prosecutors. Legalize pot, and free up prison space for straw purchasers.

We're spending $40,000 a year to put a stoner in prison? Instead of straw purchasers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #27)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 12:46 AM

32. And the NRA and friends are making sure things stay this way

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #32)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 02:30 AM

46. Yes, they are.

Bad government is a hallmark of the modern conservative movement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 12:24 AM

20. Yep.

 

But will the gun nuts listen...nooooooooooo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 10:04 AM

61. How do you stop someone from lying on app to buy a gun?

It should be stopped, but how? You're talking about people who have no problem lying when they know it's a criminal act, and no problem lying when they know the person they're buying the guns for killed someone before.

So how would you stop it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #61)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 10:19 AM

65. perhaps if they know there is a 10 / 20 year jail sentence for that lie. good start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #65)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 06:26 PM

72. I would be ok with that. But care would have to be taken that she didn't

just turn around and sell them to someone later. Maybe her dad said, "What, are you crazy, buying those guns? No way...I'll buy 'em from you, and don't go buyin' any more guns."

So it'd have to be a restriction that the purchaser cannot "give" the guns to anyone for at least one year or something like that. Although she'll say she just loaned them to him.

It's a vicious circle. This is unusual, though. I've never heard of anyone buying guns for a released but convicted murderer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #72)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 08:14 PM

77. Just ban private sales.

All used gun sales would have to be brokered through a dealer, who could handle paperwork for background check, and hold the gun for the waiting period. While this wouldn't completely eliminate guns getting in the hands of felons (there would be a black market), it would make a serious dent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #77)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 01:50 AM

85. I'd be okay with that. It'll never happen in this country, though. But it SHOULD be that way.

Any person who can't go thru a background check can buy from an individual and not have to go through a background check.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #85)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 03:48 AM

86. It could happen.

Contrary to popular belief on DU, most gun-owners aren't a bunch of yahoo cowboys, and don't want guns to fall in the hands of criminals. Now the NRA is going to oppose it, but gun dealers might support it, since they would be making a bit of money brokering all the former private sales. Of course, if the antis insist on targeting legal registered owners, nothing meaningfull will happen. The two extreme positions will never find a common ground, they should just bow out of the discussion and let reasonable people come up with a workable plan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #61)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 11:17 AM

69. Perhaps part of any gun application should be:

"Why EXACTLY do you need this gun? Please provide at least five valid reasons. If your answer is found unsatisfactory, the gun license will not be issued."

People who really need a gun shouldn't have a problem with that, should they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #69)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 06:24 PM

71. I wouldn't...if I could think of five reasons. One reason should be enough. But if I can think of 5

valid reasons, so could the criminal, which is what that woman is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #71)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 07:41 PM

76. Which is why it should be more than one reason,

and why she should have been denied.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #69)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:02 AM

94. Except it's not "issuing a license"

It's just a background check, nothing more, to theoretically ensure that you aren't legally banned from owning a firearm. Once the check comes back clear, that's that. Some states/municipalities do require a license but that's something you acquire separately and just present at the time of purchase, when you generally still undergo the background check. Upstate New York does not require a license for owning long guns, so she didn't need to offer any reason.

NYS DOES have an Assault Weapons Ban though, stricter than the 1994 national one, and anything that would have a prayer of passing today...I guess that means the rifle wasn't an "assault weapon"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #94)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:17 PM

96. Right. Well, I'm generally of the opinion that this should no longer be a state-by-state issue,

since with the exception of Hawaii we are all physically connected to one another. I wasn't arguing fine points of any state law with anyone; I was merely stating what I thought would be a better system for all 50 states. Which would be: You've said you need this gun. Tell us why.

To me, a legitimate answer would be that you hunt or just enjoy shooting as a sport. Or you live someplace rural, own livestock, and have a predator issue.

And as you've probably guessed my definition of what defines an assault weapon would be wider than in any current law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:38 PM

5. For the Delicate Flowers

 

She was a "good law-abiding RTKBA enthusiast" exercising her 2nd Amendment rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #5)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 03:18 AM

49. Your snide comments aside, which won't help the situation anyways, and are ludicrous 2 top it off,

just makes you a laughingstock to start with. As a person who has been a law-abiding gun owner for 43 out of soon to be 50 years on this planet, this lady was NOT a "good law-abiding RTKBA enthusiast" exercising her 2nd Amendment rights."

She was a CRIMINAL who was KNOWINGLY filing false papers for someone whom she knew wasn't allowed to purchase a gun, but was probably making enough to pay her mortgage payments and have plenty of money left over to enjoy other things in life. It still didn't change the FACT that what she did WAS A CRIMINAL ACT! Now she has to be prepared to take the punishment that goes along with her crimes I personally hope she made an example of and pays a HUGE fine *AND* does jail time!!!

I wonder if there is some kind of group we could broad brush people like YOU in????


Ghost



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ghost in the Machine (Reply #49)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 10:00 AM

59. I would have fun thinking of names for this group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ghost in the Machine (Reply #49)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 09:06 PM

84. You owned a gun when you were six years old?

"...as a person who has been a law-abiding gun owner for 43 out of soon to be 50 years on this planet..."

Now that's just plain scary. What the hell were your parents thinking?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ghost in the Machine (Reply #49)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 08:43 PM

105. Still waiting to hear how you became "a law abiding gun owner"

at age six.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #105)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 08:26 AM

106. Well excuse me for not jumping when you snap your fingers! It's not llke I would, anyways,..........

..... but I digress. Where to begin??? Let us try here:

thucythucy (725 posts)
84. You owned a gun when you were six years old?

"...as a person who has been a law-abiding gun owner for 43 out of soon to be 50 years on this planet..."

Now that's just plain scary. What the hell were your parents thinking?


Yes, I got my first air rifle at 6, did a lot of practicing, plus had tons of safety drilled into my head by my dad and uncle, both who had just gotten out of the Navy, and another uncle who was still active Air Force. After a year of using the air rifle with no accidents or incidences, I got my first .22 rifle. Living in Miami, it stayed locked in a gun cabinet in my dads room, until we had the chance to spend a day, on the weekend, out in the Everglades where there were places to shoot. Every time we went shooting, I had safety drilled into my head.

When I was 13, we moved to Tennessee, and had a place with some acreage.. I was allowed to use my .22 much more often, usually under supervision of a parent, until they KNEW that I had listened to all their safety talks, plus I had taken the Hunters Safety course offered at my school. Yes, we had a local Game Warden who came to the school every year, twice a year, to teach Hunters Safety *and* Boaters Safety. I got my first deer rifle, for xmas, when I was 15. I got my first shotgun for my 16th birthday.

What is so scarey about that?? As for what my parents were thinking, you would have to ask them, but I would venture to guess they were thinking they were raising a well adjusted kid who knew how to pay attention and wasn't a psycho nut.

Is there anything else I can help you with??

Peace,

Ghost

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ghost in the Machine (Reply #106)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:36 AM

107. No need to "jump",

it's just been my experience here that once a thread is more than a few days old people tend not to revisit, and I was genuinely curious about your answer.

Unless you had the key or combination to the gun cabinet, it was actually your parents who were the responsible gun owners, at least until you were of age--sixteen or so. It may sound like a technical point to you, but I think it's an important one.

As for them "thinking they were raising a well adjusted kid who knew how to pay attention and wasn't a psycho nut"--well, that's probably the case with most parents who introduce their kids to guns at an early age, including the ones who turn out to be, shall we say, "less well adjusted." We don't know too many verifiable details, as yet, about the Connecticut shooter's family, but I doubt his mother or anyone else were thinking, "Adam is growing up to be an absolute sociopath with homicidal tendencies, let's teach him how to shoot." Same deal with the man who killed John Lennon, who was "mentored" as a child by an adult who taught him how to use a firearm. I recall an interview with the guy who said, basically, "I never expected him to kill anybody." Well, let's hope not.

Which is the whole point. In your case it turned out well (thus far), but I still think six or eight or even twelve years old is a little young to be training anyone how to use a lethal weapon. Gun safety, yes, but not anything like firearms proficiency.

Just my humble opinion.

Best wishes,

Thucy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #5)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 07:31 AM

52. Ah another roller...

you do seem to love to roll around in death and destruction while pretending piety!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whistler162 (Reply #52)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 07:17 PM

75. You mean like the Delicate Flowers?

 

Who revel in every story of some "thug" (wink wink - to a gun-nut that means a black person) getting gunned down when doing something that a Delicate Flower finds objectionable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #75)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 08:29 PM

81. They are likely from the same resource pool!

anything to stop creating a actual solution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:39 PM

6. Wait...one of our resident gunnies

Bet five bucks we'd never find the straw purchaser, let alone see actual prosecution.

I hope saith person donates those funds to a victims fund somewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:42 PM

8. Good for her, quite sad for the people her actions got killed.

Hope she gets the full 10 years, and that this gets LOTS of air time as an example for other potential asses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #8)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:01 PM

11. I do too...and she deserves every last second of it.

Last edited Sat Dec 29, 2012, 04:42 AM - Edit history (1)

Her actions are directly complicit in homicide. I consider ten years to be getting off easy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #11)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:42 PM

16. How about if some cultist had sold the guns from his abundant weapons cache?


I see little difference in that and this, yet even our resident gun cultists admit to selling their guns without going through a licensed dealer for background checks and proper paperwork. Mention registration so we can track where weapons came from would have Gungeoneers screaming and calling on Wayne LaPierre to suggest a half-arsed solution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #16)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 12:43 AM

31. There's a difference...

...between buying a bottle of rum for a 18-year-old, and buying a bottle of rum for yourself and having your kid swipe it from the liquor cabinet 3 months later.

Not a perfect analogy, but you get the idea.


Registration is a crap idea, but I support background checks for all transfers, even intrastate private sales.

You'll notice that the police were able to track down the original purchaser of the gun, without registration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #31)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 09:54 AM

57. Not much of a difference when one of your brothers-in-arms sells a gun for a fistful of cash without


a background check (too cheap to go to a licensed dealer, or more likely just doesn't give a dang), or has one stolen because of improper storage or just having too many of the dang things.

Registration is an excellent idea, but gun owners are really afraid it will let law enforcement either track them down if they shoot an unarmed teen, have one stolen, sell it to a non-law-abiding fun buddy, etc. Same for micro stamping, etc.

Ask anyone in law enforcement how registration would help them.

BTW -- Never had a chance to congratulate you on "allowing" your gun buddy, rdigital, back into Gungeon after being forced to ban him -- only to have admin can his rear for being a right wing troll. I find that hilarious and proof of the what the Gungeon has become.

Oh, how did you feel about LaPierre's brilliant solution?

Enjoy your guns in the New Year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #57)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 11:08 AM

68. More stereotypes from you, I see.

Because all gun owners jack off to the idea of being able to kill somebody and get away with it, right? Either with "stand your ground" or "castle doctrine" laws, or just eluding the police investigation.




Registration doesn't help. "Oh, we've got a dead body shot by a 9mm handgun. Let's check the list of 9mm registered handguns in town!" Real helpful. I mean, I know you get all red-faced and excited when gun registration is helpful in tracking down a killer in Law&Order: Special Victims Unit or whatever, but c'mon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #16)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 08:42 AM

54. In this case though the guns were obviously registered!

If the sale wasn't originally registered, the police wouldn't have caught her.
The woman broke the law, and should be prosecuted as an accomplice to murder. She KNOWINGLY bought a gun for someone who should not have had one.
In this case, two laws were broken.
1) You have a felon who knows it is illegal for him to possess a firearm.
2) You have a neighbor, who seemingly knows that she is buying a gun for someone who shouldn't have one. (straw purchase which is illegal).
I am not an NRA supporter, and I am ignorant on past lobbying actions by them, but what law are they blocking that made this tragedy possible? That is an honest question.
If these two laws above were broken, they were obviously laws already. Is the NRA actively trying to overturn those laws?

To go after a whole group like the NRA is like the Freepers going after the whole of Planned Parenthood for championing late term abortions. Remember to them, abortion IS murder, and even though 95% of Planned Parenthood is helping poor women with contraceptives, they are convinced that the group is a bunch of murderers (that does nothing but contribute, and try and get Democrats elected). It is almost as bad as some on here that forget that the NRA does a HUGE amount of outreach hunter safety, and gun safety with the Eddie Eagle program.
They also champion domestic abuse victims rights to self protection.

Again, I AM NOT AN NRA MEMBER, or even an apologist. I just wanted to know which of these laws they are trying to overturn (straw purchases, or murderers being able to possess guns).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forthemiddle (Reply #54)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 09:58 AM

58. Lots of things are legal- like selling one your guns in back alley for fistful of cash -but immoral.


Sorry I criticized the right wing, bigoted NRA and upset you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #58)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 10:53 AM

66. Didn't upset me.....

According to the article, this woman KNOWINGLY bought the gun for someone she knew could not possess one...
That is against the law already, and I was wondering (quite honestly since I don't keep up with their memes) if the NRA was actively trying to overturn that law.
How is that standing up for them? If they were trying to overturn them, then they are scum, but as far as I know they advocate more strongly enforcing the laws already on the book.

In this case I am trying to figure out what NEW law would have prevented this? That was all I was asking. I think this board so vehemently despises the NRA only because they support Republicans. That was the reason I brought up Planned Parenthood. 95% of what they do is helping women. I think most Freepers hate the PP NOT because of the small amount of abortions they do (after all we know they don't want to help support the BORN babies, only the unborn), but because they financially support Democrat candidates.

I am also not against some new gun control laws. Especially the magazine size, and allowing the general public access to the background data base, but I honestly want to know what laws would have prevented this case.

I also agree with someone who talked about providing alcohol to a minor. If they then go and get a DUI, the person who supplied the liquor is criminally charged. I think this woman should be charged as an accessory to murder.

I just get leary of overreacting with laws after a tragedy, just look at the Patriot Act......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forthemiddle (Reply #66)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 11:05 AM

67. If gun owners were truly responsible as we are told, we wouldn't need laws.


I am not for allowing general public access to background checks, they aren't responsible enough and will not keep proper paper work as required.

Further, I'm not sure joe blow should be able to check on his neighbor under the guise of a background check.

Right this minute, any truly responsible gun owner can go to a gun shop, pay a fee, and have the gun shop do the check.

Of course, most gun owners only care about the cash they can get by selling an undocumented weapon, and couldn't care less about what happens afterwards, or that it might help law enforcement track down someone who shoots someone with a second-hand gun.

You are so wrong about the NRA. Look at their board -- which includes Grover Norquist, Ollie North, John Bolton, Teddy Nugent and worse and their subservience to gun manufacturers. Then look at their mostly right wing members. They are a bunch of right wing, bigots pushing more guns in more places, stand your ground BS, and worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:00 PM

10. When will the DOJ authority that approved Fast & Furious be charged? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #10)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:04 PM

13. Ah, should I be shocked

At the NRA inspired, RW talking point? Nope.

To say this is all but surprising though would be a lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #10)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:43 PM

17. You have to be kidding with that BS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #10)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 12:25 AM

21. AND WHERE IS THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE???????

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #21)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 12:30 AM

23. Taverner why don't you go back to your OP that insults vets & enjoy the beating they are giving you.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #23)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 12:31 AM

25. Exactly what does that have to do with this thread?

 

Nothing.

That's what.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #25)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 12:39 AM

28. #10 has everything to do with the OP because DOJ firearms were used in a murder. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #28)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 12:41 AM

30. You're obfuscating

 

What does one thread have to do with the other?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #30)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 12:54 AM

35. Angry vets miss you. They want to tell you how they appreciate your use of freedom of speech for

 

which they fought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #35)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 12:58 AM

37. The Republican plant gets mad!

 

I was going to write a kiss off post - then I realized, you're obsessed with arguing this

You think our military can DO NO WRONG

Obviously we disagree on this

You would love a military dictatorship, because then dissent against our most holy and high troops would be banned

I like free speech, and I FUCKING USE IT

Listen to me very clearly: we are not the fucking good guys when it comes to our military

Have you ever heard about how many rapes there are around foreign US military bases by soldiers?

Did you read any of the reports that Abu Gharaib was "just the tip of the iceberg" and how the ACLU was prevented from publishing hundreds of pictures by our government.

So you support this?

IF you do, I spit in your eye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #37)


Response to jody (Reply #39)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 01:10 AM

40. Look, this is not needed or warranted

But hey, whatever.

Personal attacks are fine though. And that is what you are doing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #39)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 01:10 AM

41. What part of "locked out of thread" do you not understand????

 

Really, are you that dumb?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #41)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:43 AM

108. lol...nope. just locked out of the thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #28)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 12:52 AM

33. But it is two very different cases. Two seperate incidents. Linked only by homicide.

What is the point you are trying to make? It may be obvious to you but I am not seeing it.

This woman broke the law plain and simple. It is less clear that the DOJ broke the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geckosfeet (Reply #33)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 12:56 AM

36. "less clear that the DOJ broke the law" So aggressively investigate, then prosecute, and let a jury

 

decide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #36)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 06:01 AM

88. It has been aggressively investigated

...and the only case found where an ATF agent personally bought weapons and sold them to a straw purchaser was made by none other than ATF agent John Dodson, who is the same John Dodson who contacted Grassley. If anyone is to be prosecuted, that would be a great place to start, but I suspect those who are so interested in this case would cry even louder if that happened. It's also very telling that the same people who are just recently so concerned about guns making it across the border, never seemed to have a problem with it before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #36)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 03:31 PM

90. I think that the DOJ may have some level of immunity from prosecution.

Something that us little people don't rate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #10)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 01:54 AM

42. No, no, no, no... It's "Benghazi" now. Check your memos

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #10)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 07:11 AM

51. Jeepers!

What's up with that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #10)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 08:17 PM

78. So much ignorance, so little time...

Stop watching Fox News.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:01 PM

12. What this reaffirms is that gun control at the possessor level is a charade.

 

We just need to shut down the product itself.

Please people. Take a lesson from the kiddie porn crusade. We don't give a damn how you got it. If you've got it, we're seizing it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #12)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:08 PM

14. Okay maybe we do care where you got it.

 

So we can work our way back to where it's coming from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #12)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:08 PM

15. Yep - a wee bit satisfying, but certainly too little too late. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #12)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 12:27 AM

22. Pretty much

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #12)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 09:43 AM

56. gun owners = kiddie porn users

Getting really tired of this new meme.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #12)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 10:17 AM

64. Bingo. Every one of them is a law abiding gun owner, until they're not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 12:22 AM

19. In a land of more guns than people, anyone can get anything. It's foolish to pretend otherwise.

Throw her in prison for the max time allowed. Those poor volunteer firefighters.

The gun deaths will continue as long as we are awash in guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 12:33 AM

26. This should carry sentence of life in prison.

 

If you buy guns for felon and they go on to kill with them, you are complicit and should do HEAVY time in prison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 12:40 AM

29. The NRA is On Record as Promoting

better enforcement of current gun laws as an alternative to increased regulation.

They should be pleased with this prosecution. Want to bet a lot of them are outraged?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 12:53 AM

34. "Criminals will get guns anyway blah blah blah..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 01:01 AM

38. Straw purchasers for known prohibited persons deserve the full ride.

And any additional charges that may be possible if that person, like the Webster shooter, commits crimes with the illegally purchased firearms.

I don't know anyone who would disagree with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #38)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 01:59 AM

43. Why "known"?

I don't buy liquor for that 21 year old man outside the store who unfortunately lost his ID.

Why buy a gun for anyone who, for whatever reason they tell you, is not buying one for himself or herself?

Recording ALL transfers does not deprive anyone of a gun. It does, however, make make perspicacious transfors out of prospective transferors.

The point is to reduce the availability of these things to criminals, and making "responsible gun owners" responsible for the consequences of their bad judgment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #43)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 02:10 AM

45. I think someone who straw purchases for a known prohibited person


Is more culpable than someone who doesn't.

But I Am ready to accede to all transfers going thru an FFL or at least a NICScheck.

But it would be nice to be something in exchange like lifting import bans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #45)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 02:38 AM

47. That's fine, as long as we are penalizing both


The degree of intent can, like any other crime, increase the penalty. That's fine.

But when you limit to "known", you get into elaborate subterfuges, and difficulties of proof. Sure, sometimes there is clear evidence of that knowledge. But, the bottom line, is to limit availability to shady characters and those who make it their business not to "know" things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #47)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 08:31 PM

82. Exactly right: any straw purchaser should be on the hook for all subsequent crimes as accomplice

before the fact, at the very least.

Jesus: there's a dude who got life without parole in Florida because he lent some dudes his car to do a brek in, and they killed a person at the house. Guy wasn't even near the scene, and he caught a murder rap. But we have professional straw purchasers and their accomplice gun store owners feeding weapons directly to inner city gangs, and nobody does anything? if we're going to have "felony murder" charges for the first case, we should have it for the second, and that INCLUDES the GUN STORE OWNERS. Anyone who thinks they're ignorant of what's going on is a damn fool or a liar. They're getting rich off the legal-to-illicit market, and everyone - chief among them the gun nut assholes - knows it.

There should also be severe penalties (in the range of large fines) for failing to report your gun stolen or missing as soon as you know it is missing. $5,000 at a minimum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #38)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 10:15 AM

63. The murder law in my state is very similar

If anyone dies during the commission of a felony, the other felons can be charged with murder. A couple of cases that come to mind: in one, two guys stole a car, got drunk, wrecked it on the freeway. The driver was charged with the murder of the passenger, because someone had died while committing two felonoes. In another case, three guys broke into a house they thought was empty. It wasn't. The homeowner shot and killed one of the burglars; the other two burglars were charged with murder, because someone ad died during the commission of the robbery.

We could also just prohibit private gun sales, mandate federal & state weapon registrations (public or otherwise), institute civil liabilities, and mandate a database of gun barrel forensics (what they do when they "match the gun" on Law and Order, except performed by the manufacturer before the gun ever leaves the warehouse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #38)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 06:31 PM

74. yeah, she deserves any sentence Spengler would have gotten, imo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 02:07 AM

44. Register all guns and anyone caught with a gun not registered gets 10 years...

 

20 if it's loaded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #44)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 02:51 AM

48. You know, it's kind of strange...

...no fascist thugs run around busting into people's garages to see if they have auto insurance, and despite that fact, we have a remarkably high rate of compliance with the requirement to have auto insurance.

What some people don't get is that there are measures that do not interfere with "responsible gun owners", but do (a) require them to actually be responsible gun owners and (b) limit the channels through which irresponsible ones get them.

You know, there was a lot of controversy when the law started holding bars and hosts responsible for clearly serving an intoxicated guest who then got behind the wheel. But you know what? It has made a dent, and it further helped to reduce tolerance of drunk driving.

Nobody needs to go into your basement and search for your 30 round clip. But you aren't going to take it out on the public range. You better not be pulled over for a traffic stop with one on the back floor. You better not sell it to anybody. As long as it stays in your basement, nobody needs to come looking for it. The point is to reduce the availability of things like that, and nobody has to run around confiscating anything in order to accomplish that.

If responsible gun owners don't sell to, or buy for, criminals - and every responsible gun owner assures me that is true - then they don't have a problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #48)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 08:37 PM

83. We can regulate the target and shooting ranges on just about anything, and we should

It's a choke point: regulate the shooting range, and the "responsible" will have to fall in line.

Clip size. Registered and ID'd firearms only. All guns scanned for owner and checked against ID at the door.

Whatever needs to be done. Amendment 2 does not say anything about business establishments. Of course, this would be a state issue, but adequate pressure could be placed by the federal government on law enforcement funds. Get your shooting ranges regulated, or they're gone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 07:06 AM

50. My guess is that she'll be initially charged

with conspiracy, felony murder, and aiding/abetting and it will be reduced to facilitation (providing the instrumentality for a crime to be committed by a third party).

That and lying on a weapons purchase.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to no_hypocrisy (Reply #50)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 08:21 PM

80. That would be a stretch.

Since she arranged the purchase over two years before the shooting, its doubtful she knew a murder was going to take place. Most likely she'll be charged with lying on the paperwork, and conspiracy to commit fraud, and perhaps providing a gun to a convicted felon. She might do two years of a six year sentence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 08:11 AM

53. Obviously criminally insane, why was this convicted murderer on the streets in the first place?

He beat his 92 year old grandmother to death with a hammer, for crying out loud! It doesn't get more sick and brutal than that. Yeah, he got and served 18 years but he needed to be kept behind bars for life for such an insane act.

Hope this girl gets convicted and serves a full sentence for her part in this crime but we need to keep the proven criminally insane behind bars instead of on the streets if we want to prevent them from killing again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lynne (Reply #53)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 10:13 AM

62. Yes, why wasn't that guy imprisoned for life? He murdered someone. BTW....he's not insane.

This "insane" comment keeps popping up in posts, that someone would have to be insane to do something that horrible to such a defenseless, vulnerable person (elderly person, child). No, they don't have to be insane. These are the sorts of victims that violent criminals go after....the defenseless, the vulnerable. These types of criminals seem to me to generally be cowards. They do not go mano a mano with armed men their own size. No planned High Noon duel for these creeps. They might lose!

They depend on the element of surprise AND that their victims are vulnerable and defenseless, so that they are assured a victory.

Elderly women....unarmed firemen at a distance caught by surprise.....children. This is how they get their jollies. They focus on their supposed success, and avoid looking at the obvious aspect of the unfairness and cowardice of their attack, sidestepping the fact that it takes no skill or bravery or character to kill such a victim in such a way.

They are not insane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 10:01 AM

60. She provided the murder weapons.

She bought them knowing that he couldn't, and handed them over to him.

Accomplice. Lock her ass up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 06:30 PM

73. Lock her ass up.

 

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr_Scholl (Reply #73)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 08:19 PM

79. Negligent Homicide...

Charge her as an accomplice. If nothing else, her legal bills will leave her bankrupt. Sort of a warning to the next asshole who tries to do this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #79)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:05 AM

95. Felony murder

Max sentence. If NYS had the death penalty, the needle...but life w/o (this was Murder 1 after all) will suffice. I want the warning to be loud and crystal fucking clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #95)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:07 PM

97. Can't do that...

Whatever it's called in New York, to be considered a capital offense there would have to be actual intent to commit murder. The person bought the gun two years ago, and clearly had no specific knowledge of what the new owner planned to do, but clearly knew that something unpleasant was going to happen -- and just didn't care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #97)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 02:57 PM

98. Checked the NYS statutes..

Looks like it's a blanket charge of Murder 2 - 15, 20, or 25 to life. Given the complete egregiousness of this woman's actions (I'm assuming she knew the guy was a psychopathic murderer), I'm fine with giving her 25ta. I have very little tolerance for this kind of bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #98)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 04:51 PM

99. That would be a big assumption...

And if I'm her defense attorney, I'm going to hammer away at a) she bought them for her own use and later sold them to her neighbor (not a crime, BTW) and that b) she had no way of knowing that her neighbor was a threat to the community.

One juror doubts the prosecutor's story, she walks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:58 AM

93. THIS

is the #1 avenue on how criminals get guns.

Roughly 30% of all "illegal" firearms begin their life as a straw purchase of some sort. Yet for some reason straw purchases are rarely or only lightly punished.

Remember Columbine? The straw purchaser for some of the firearms used only spent 19 months in jail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 06:22 PM

101. Bad timing, plus first responders were killed...she'll get the max

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 06:27 PM

102. They went together to buy the guns, he picked them out she made the purchase....

she swore she was buying them for herself and penned the documents so stating that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 06:30 PM

103. Good

she has blood on her hands and deserves punsihment!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 06:39 PM

104. People who buy guns need to be held accountable.

I wish all guns were registered and insured. If a person's gun is in an accident killing a kid, or is stolen and used in a crime, that person needs to pay for all damages incurred, and possibly face jail time. Anyone who owns a weapon created specifically to kill needs to take full responsibility for that weapon. I've never met a responsible gun owner - there are little to no consequences for gun owners who are careless with their weapons. Maybe if they were held fully accountable for that gun until it was registered in another name, they might be a bit more mindful. We do as much with cars, and with beer and cigarettes, yet drop the ball when it comes to guns. Doesn't make sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread