HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » If we outlaw guns, only o...

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 01:42 AM

If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. "The problem with this talking point is that it

is patent nonsense. Most recent mass shootings in the United States were done with legally purchased (some were purchased at gun shows, with their notoriously lax background check policies, or online, where there are few if any background checks required) and registered firearms. This indicates that our regulations are not stringent enough to make it difficult for those who intend to use guns to hurt other people to acquire weapons."

Also, “criminals will just ignore the law, so let’s not change the law” is a terrible excuse. Some people disregard the speed limit when driving, and people still steal from, assault and rape other people even though there are laws that prohibit these transgressions. Few sensible people suggest that these laws should be made less stringent or be repealed.

Wonkblog author Ezra Klein explored some statistics about guns in the United States in an article for the Washington Post. One fact he discovered: ”States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.”
***


the above starts about 1/3 way down here:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/12/17/john-mccain-receives-the-most-lavish-nra-donations/

lots of Rs in that top 20, hmm?
i counted 20!



55 replies, 5255 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 55 replies Author Time Post
Reply If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. "The problem with this talking point is that it (Original post)
farminator3000 Dec 2012 OP
spin Dec 2012 #1
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #38
sendero Dec 2012 #40
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #41
spin Dec 2012 #44
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #45
spin Dec 2012 #48
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #49
spin Dec 2012 #53
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #55
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #50
Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #2
DCKit Dec 2012 #3
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #24
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #22
pipoman Dec 2012 #4
Oasis_ Dec 2012 #5
pipoman Dec 2012 #7
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #9
pipoman Dec 2012 #10
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #12
pipoman Dec 2012 #15
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #19
TheCowsCameHome Dec 2012 #6
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #8
pipoman Dec 2012 #14
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #18
pipoman Dec 2012 #27
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #29
pipoman Dec 2012 #36
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #37
pipoman Dec 2012 #42
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #43
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #39
shadowrider Dec 2012 #11
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #13
pipoman Dec 2012 #16
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #20
pipoman Dec 2012 #25
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #26
pipoman Dec 2012 #28
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #31
pipoman Dec 2012 #35
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #46
pipoman Jan 2013 #54
shadowrider Dec 2012 #17
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #21
cherokeeprogressive Dec 2012 #23
pipoman Dec 2012 #30
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #32
pipoman Dec 2012 #34
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #47
Jenoch Dec 2012 #51
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #52
treestar Dec 2012 #33

Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 02:03 AM

1. The premise of the argument, "If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" is accurate ...

Of course criminals who illegally own firearms will not turn them in.

Honest citizens will turn in their weapons but currently honest citizens who do not turn in their firearms will become criminals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 09:31 PM

38. look at post #22, the part after hello

NOT an argument in the least. PROPAGANDA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #38)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 09:58 PM

40. You are..

... someone who cannot parse simple and obvious logic.

God, get a clue or shut up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #40)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 10:03 PM

41. absolutely right.

hello

nobody is actually saying outlaw all guns, so it isn't technically an "argument", it is more of a distraction or "bullshit"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #41)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:32 PM

44. Many posters here on DU have suggested banning all guns in recent days. ...

This idea has also been floated in newspaper columns and editorials in recent days.



Ban all guns, now
Nobody needs to have a handgun in America — period


By Jack Lessenberry
PUBLISHED: DECEMBER 19, 2012


Nobody needs to have guns in their home, period.

That should be the starting point for any discussion about gun control in our insanely murderous society.

***snip***

Nobody, apart from the police, needs to walk around with guns. What about guns for target shooters and hunters? Fine. Long as they keep them locked away at the club or lodge.

Nobody needs guns in their homes. When the entire story surrounding the Connecticut elementary school massacre is sorted out, many will blame the mother of the shooter.
http://metrotimes.com/columns/ban-all-guns-now-1.1418281





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #44)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:46 PM

45. but the government isn't saying that, and they make the laws, so...

the point is MOOT!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #45)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:12 PM

48. I actually do agree with you. ...

In our current political environment it is totally impossible to pass any law that would ban and confiscate any class of firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #48)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:16 PM

49. cool

Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:

Background check of owner and any transferee;
Type and serial number of the firearm;
Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/27/alert-sen-diane-feinstein-releases-gun-ban-summary-for-2013/


you can trust the feds with your SS#, you know?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #49)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 04:15 PM

53. The "feds" probably already know that I own firearms as I have a concealed weapons permit ...

in Florida.

I agree with some of your ideas such as:

Background check of owner and any transferee and positive identification including photograph and fingerprint.

However I disagree with any requirement that local law enforcement be involved in who can own a firearm as that could lead to discrimination. The local sheriff or police chief in my small rural town in north Florida might have no problem with my owning a firearm but might be hesitant to allow several of my Black acquaintances to own one even though they are honest and responsible members of my community.

I also disagree with any form of registration which is illegal in my home state of Florida.

The 2012 Florida Statutes

CHAPTER 790
WEAPONS AND FIREARMS


***snip***

The Legislature finds and declares that:
1. The right of individuals to keep and bear arms is guaranteed under both the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and s. 8, Art. I of the State Constitution.
2. A list, record, or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners is not a law enforcement tool and can become an instrument for profiling, harassing, or abusing law-abiding citizens based on their choice to own a firearm and exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the United States Constitution. Further, such a list, record, or registry has the potential to fall into the wrong hands and become a shopping list for thieves.
3. A list, record, or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners is not a tool for fighting terrorism, but rather is an instrument that can be used as a means to profile innocent citizens and to harass and abuse American citizens based solely on their choice to own firearms and exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the United States Constitution.
4. Law-abiding firearm owners whose names have been illegally recorded in a list, record, or registry are entitled to redress.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?app_mode=display_statute&url=0700-0799/0790/0790.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #53)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 04:30 PM

55. you can trust them more than the local sheriff (unless you are sidney poitier!) (movie joke)

However I disagree with any requirement that local law enforcement be involved in who can own a firearm as that could lead to discrimination. The local sheriff or police chief in my small rural town in north Florida might have no problem with my owning a firearm but might be hesitant to allow several of my Black acquaintances to own one even though they are honest and responsible members of my community.

The Heat of the Night...great movie...

they keep your SS# safe, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #40)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:17 PM

50. explain the logic, there einstein

cause it's beyond me...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 02:09 AM

2. I would point out two things.

Just a notation about their argument that I think may be missed, and makes it different from assault, rape, etc. is that it is mainly a gun that is a match for defense against a gun, so when you take away all guns, but criminals still get them, that leaves the law abiding public with no weapon to defend against a gun. That's the basis of the argument, I think.

States with fewer guns have fewer gun deaths - that makes sense. I wonder, though, if he mentioned any stats on whether those states had increases in other types of deaths? I suspect it was a total death decrease, no matter the weapon, but I was wondering if there are stats on that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 02:45 AM

3. Adding DC into that equation will make it fall apart.

 

Our hoodlums have guns, they just don't use them to shoot up elementary schools. It's "business use" only.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCKit (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 04:03 PM

24. no it won't

did you not read the 2nd part, there?

"Also, “criminals will just ignore the law, so let’s not change the law” is a terrible excuse. Some people disregard the speed limit when driving, and people still steal from, assault and rape other people even though there are laws that prohibit these transgressions. Few sensible people suggest that these laws should be made less stringent or be repealed. "

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 04:01 PM

22. hello

nobody is actually saying outlaw all guns, so it isn't technically an "argument", it is more of a distraction or "bullshit"

look up you own stats, probably not, because its so much easier to kill someone with a gun in many ways. in fact all ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 02:54 AM

4. "Patent Nonsense"..LOL

Here's patent nonsense.."some were purchased at gun shows, with their notoriously lax background check policies, or online, where there are few if any background checks required", then there's this bit of "patent nonsense" equivocation..."people still steal from, assault and rape other people even though there are laws that prohibit these transgressions. Few sensible people suggest that these laws should be made less stringent or be repealed.".

Patent nonsense...lol..suggesting "outlawing guns" in the coarse of what was supposed to be a serious discussion..

"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 03:16 AM

5. Anyone...

caught with an illegal or unregistered handgun and/or firearm should receive a sentence of life imprisonment with no possibility of parole.

Lets get the illegal guns and firearms off of the street for good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oasis_ (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 09:36 AM

7. If you are talking about some sort of Federal registration

you first have to overcome the constitutional hurtle of registration, which I am not sure would be possible. Then you have to find a way to fund the monstrosity you have created, which again I am not sure would be possible. Check out the nightmares associated with the Canadian registry. I mean funding is the excuse used as to why we aren't enforcing current laws..laws, which if enforced would result in numerous (thousands) arrests of illegal gun buyers annually...but alas, there just isn't funding because we are too busy spending our limited law enforcement budgets tracking down tokers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 11:14 AM

9. we are saying there is GOING TO BE fed. registration, deal with it!

there is no constitutional hurdle- please post a link

fund the monstrosity by charging special taxes for all new fancy special guns, and a registration fee for all 300 million plus existing.

300 million x $50= 15 billion dollars, thats a lotta scratch!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #9)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 11:38 AM

10. good luck with that..

Planning a Constitutional Convention or just gonna quick amend the BoR? Taxing and registering civil rights/liberties will be challenged. If that works, next will be a new poll tax brought to you by the owners of government, the 1%, in an effort to keep out the rif raf. No, don't hold your breath..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #10)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 12:08 PM

12. thanks, won't need it! there ARE some GOOD politicians...

Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment
Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes and
Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons
Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
Background check of owner and any transferee;
Type and serial number of the firearm;
Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/27/alert-sen-diane-feinstein-releases-gun-ban-summary-for-2013/

your gun is NOT A RIGHT OR LIBERTY.

it is an OBJECT. it is a PRIVILEGE. start saving up for your (reasonable) fees that will be imposed..

thanks! oh, the NRA is PART of that 1% you speak of, LaPew, $1 million a year for bullshit, cool, good for you. he gets your money...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #12)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 12:56 PM

15. Are we both talking about the US?

your gun is NOT A RIGHT OR LIBERTY

Seems like pretty settled law...in the US anyway..

LOL..Never been an NRA member. There are 100 plus million gun owners and what? 4 or 6 million NRA members? There are a lot of people on both sides of this issue who know and understand the gravity of the 2nd amendment...as I said, we'll see, now won't we?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #15)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 03:54 PM

19. i am, you are on some other planet, apparently...

remember SCALIA wrote this, not me

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 08:50 AM

6. "in the coarse"..LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 11:10 AM

8. keep reading

Wonkblog author Ezra Klein explored some statistics about guns in the United States in an article for the Washington Post. One fact he discovered: ”States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.”

the suggestion of "outlawing" is the TALKING POINT INVENTED by THE NRA.
they suggest it is a terrible emergency, even when nobody is saying "outlaw all guns"
it is a distraction, and meaningless

the article is talking about GUN LAWS and making MORE of them:

More from Klein’s article:

Last year, economist Richard Florida dove deep into the correlations between gun deaths and other kinds of social indicators. Some of what he found was, perhaps, unexpected: Higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence. But one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly predictable: States with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths. The disclaimer here is that correlation is not causation. But correlations can be suggestive:

“The map overlays the map of firearm deaths above with gun control restrictions by state,” explains Florida. “It highlights states which have one of three gun control restrictions in place – assault weapons’ bans, trigger locks, or safe storage requirements. Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).”

So much for that pro-gun conservative talking point. Perhaps stricter gun control is not a bad (or useless) idea after all
.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #8)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 12:36 PM

14. ..

Yeah...let's see..

"Some of what he found was, perhaps, unexpected: Higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness ."were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence"






According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in 2008, 303,880 victims of violent crimes stated that they faced an offender with a firearm.

Incidents involving a firearm represented 7% of the 5.1 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2008.

The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 68% of the 16,929 murders in 2007 were committed with firearms.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/guns.cfm


Apparently, all violent crime including gun crime is down, so none of those things caused increased gun crime, eh?..Interesting. What else happened during the same time they were "studying" "Though the sample sizes are small"? Every day of their study period there were more guns in private hands than the day before, that's what. Further, those guns didn't result in more gun crime either. Why? Because there wasn't more gun crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #14)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 03:51 PM

18. too bad you wasted your 30 seconds pasting all that crap about a poached quote

pipoman
14. ..

View profile
Yeah...let's see..

"Some of what he found was, perhaps, unexpected: Higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness ."were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence"


is how you quoted this ACTUAL STATEMENT: (see how you left out the BUT, there, slappy?)

Some of what he found was, perhaps, unexpected: Higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence. But one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly predictable: States with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths. The disclaimer here is that correlation is not causation. But correlations can be suggestive:
“The map overlays the map of firearm deaths above with gun control restrictions by state,” explains Florida. “It highlights states which have one of three gun control restrictions in place – assault weapons’ bans, trigger locks, or safe storage requirements. Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #18)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 04:52 PM

27. The reason none of your ideas will ever work

and nobody will listen to them seriously is because you and others on your side can't communicate civilly ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #27)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 04:56 PM

29. your only idea is more guns and it sucks

try using facts if you want to be treated a certain way

why are my ideas on the news every night?

why do most americans support gun control? <----

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #29)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 08:47 PM

36. Gallop has the stats..

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

And, you have no idea what my idea is, you simply have no grasp of constitutional possibility on this issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #36)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 09:28 PM

37. what stats am i supposed to look at there?

pipoman (9,005 posts)
4. "Patent Nonsense"..LOL

Patent nonsense...lol..suggesting "outlawing guns" in the coarse of what was supposed to be a serious discussion..



http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx


i'm not getting the connection between your "idea" and these stats?

explain?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #37)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 10:06 PM

42. Response to your post 29

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #42)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 10:19 PM

43. did you miss #37?

hello?

facts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #14)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 09:52 PM

39. read this maybe it is called facts

Further, those guns didn't result in more gun crime either. Why? Because there wasn't more gun crime.

74% seems a bit HIGH...


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/private-gun-sales-sandy-hook_n_2347420.html
As lawmakers in Washington examine gun control measures in the wake of last week's school massacre in Connecticut, many advocates and researchers are pushing to extend federal regulations requiring background checks and registrations to private gun sales.

"Fixing this would be one of the single most important things we could do to address overall gun violence," said David Kennedy, director of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.


**

Although the NRA has historically opposed such measures, public opinion may be shifting. A poll of NRA members and gun owners, conducted earlier this year by GOP pollster Frank Luntz, found that 74 percent of NRA members and 87 percent of non-NRA gun owners supported mandatory background checks for all gun purchases.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 11:50 AM

11. or online, where there are few if any background checks required

While true for the words written, you simply don't order a weapon online and it shows up at your house.

It MUST be shipped to a FFL, where you provide ID and the background check takes place there.

You cannot buy a weapon online without getting a background done when you go to pick the weapon up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shadowrider (Reply #11)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 12:14 PM

13. google 'craigslist' and 'ak-47'

true, an illegal gun-dealing scumbag prob. won't do home delivery, unless he's REALLY dumb.

um.

ever hear of a parking lot? at a gun show, even?

don't be foolish, i could have a gun by dark today if i wanted one. which i don't, a .22 is plenty for me, thanks!

and i live in a place WITH gun laws!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #13)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 01:09 PM

16. Nobody denies that private sales within the same state

between 2 citizens of the same state is illegal or regulated at the federal level...states can and do require this..back with that pesky constitution again..commerce clause and all that..

Craig's list is the minutest part of "online sales"..not exactly internet sales in the truest form..more akin to newspaper advertising...gun forums, gun stores and auction sites are actual internet sales and account for most (I would guess high 90%s) internet gun sales. I have never seen a site or seller in any of these places who didn't follow the law and mail purchases in other states to a FFL for the buyer to pick up. No, the whole internet thing is yet another moniker attached to the complaint formerly known as "the gun show loophole" which most people now know has nothing to do with gun shows...why don't they simply acknowledge the problem honestly and seek ways to mitigate the problem. I have suggested just such a way several times...nobody cares..too much of the money the gun control advocacy groups raise is based on this oft repeated lie...if it actually got better those donations may go away..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #16)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 03:56 PM

20. go away you have no chance this took me 30 seconds

Both incidents point to a major loophole in the nation's system of regulating firearms, experts say: Private parties can buy and sell guns in many parts of the country with little or no scrutiny from state and federal authorities. Nearly 40 percent of gun transactions in America occur through so-called private party sales, creating a secondary firearms market that is largely invisible.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/private-gun-sales-sandy-hook_n_2347420.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #20)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 04:38 PM

25. Exactly

it isn't "internet sales", it is private sales between 2 people of the same state..at a gun show parking lot, a garage sale, on/in a local classified section (newspaper, craigs list (which I now believe doesn't allow firearms, backpage, etc..), between neighbors or co-workers, etc. The reason NICS checks are not required on intrastate sales at the federal level is because it does not constitute interstate commerce, therefore the feds do not have jurisdiction to regulate those sales. As a private citizen who wishes to sell a gun, if I sell it to someone I know to be prohibited , I have violated most state laws and federal law. If I sell a gun to a resident of another state, I am required to mail the gun to an FFL dealer in the buyers home state and the buyer has to have an NICS check before taking possession..if I do not do this, I have violated federal law. If I am a FFL dealer, it doesn't matter where I sell a gun, I must do a NICS check on residents of my state, and I must mail the gun to an FFL in the buyers state who will do an NICS check before delivering the gun (I believe there is an exception for long guns which allows an out of state buyer to do the NICS thing in the state of purchase). Anyone who sells a gun through gunbroker, auction arms, or forum classifieds from a seller in another state, the seller must mail the gun to a FFL in the buyer's state. The only sales not required to have an NICS check in every state are sales between two private parties of the same state in their home state..this is the "gun show loophole/internet loophole". Democratic congresses have considered requiring NICS checks on private sales but it has never made it out of committee..not because of the evil NRA, but because they cannot find a way around the "commerce clause"..this is really not as complex or sinister as people would like to believe..

Check this thread..

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/10022063309

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #25)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 04:43 PM

26. exactly my ass! 40-50% of guns are sold illegally. deal with it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #26)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 04:54 PM

28. Your reading comprehension skills are woefully lacking

if that is what you are reading into anything you have posted or I have posted..Private sales in most states are completely legal transactions without a NICS check.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #28)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 04:58 PM

31. "Private sales in most states are completely legal transactions without a NICS check."

well, there's your problem, right there!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #31)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 08:36 PM

35. And what's your solution...I posted a link to mine..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #35)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:50 PM

46. i'm not a senator...

Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:

Background check of owner and any transferee;
Type and serial number of the firearm;
Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration


http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/27/alert-sen-diane-feinstein-releases-gun-ban-summary-for-2013/

but she is!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #46)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 04:11 PM

54. LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #13)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 01:27 PM

17. That's a goalpost move. You didn't specify IN STATE or private sales.

FWIW I DO support NICS checks for private sales, inter and intra state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shadowrider (Reply #17)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 03:57 PM

21. see #20 above

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 04:03 PM

23. Guns cannot be banned until the borders are sealed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #23)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 04:57 PM

30. And until there is a constitutional amendment..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #30)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 04:59 PM

32. there is

remember SCALIA wrote this, not me

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #32)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 08:18 PM

34. I simply am not getting your point..

Scalia obviously is speaking of current law and not ruling out new laws but new laws still have to stand with SCOTUS prescient and constitutional intent or risk the very real possibility of being overturned or, as in the case of "the gun show loophole" never make it out of committee because they obviously (to people qualified to be on the judiciary committee) would be deemed unconstitutional. Further he is not limiting states, nor is he empowering feds. I don't think this says what you think it says..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #34)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:51 PM

47. how is selling guns illegally protected by the constitution???

it says EXACTLY what it says. i can read.

how long do you think it will take for the NRA to fight the new laws? to get an appeal into the SC?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #47)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:44 PM

51. Have you written a post describing illegal

gun transactions? If you have, I missed it. Currently, private gun sales are done without the NICS background check, because the law does not allow for it. Most gun sales at gun shows comply with federal and state gun laws. If I sell my neighbor a gun and the exchange is made in my garage, that is no different than if the exchange were done in the parking lot at a gun show. If you wish to make those sales illegal without a background check, fine, then say so. But those sales are not currently illegal. Hyperbole dies not help you make your point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #51)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:55 PM

52. here's one. i didn't write it. i am a farmer. but i worry about it. my bolds.

(BATF)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/a-broken-system-for-tracking-guns.html?hp&_r=0

One immediate task for Vice President Joseph Biden Jr., who is heading the new White House group on gun violence that will report recommendations in January, is to focus on dismantling the senseless obstacles impeding the bureau’s day-to-day functioning.

The bureau — which should have a lead role in protecting the nation from gun crimes — has been severely hindered by an array of N.R.A.-backed legislative restrictions. For example, a 1986 law prohibits A.T.F. agents from making more than one unannounced inspection a year on a gun dealer, a rule that serves no purpose other than protecting unscrupulous dealers. (As it is, a lack of agents means that a gun shop can go years between inspections.)

The same law makes it extremely difficult to pull the licenses of rogue gun dealers. The government must show not just that the conduct was intentional but that the violator knew it was illegal.

Language included in every A.T.F. appropriations bill since 1979 has prohibited the bureau from putting gun sales records into a central computer database. That means workers at the bureau’s tracing center often must call gun makers and sellers and go through paper files to identify the buyer of a gun linked to a crime.

Finally, the so-called Tiahrt amendments, attached to federal spending bills, require the federal government to destroy the background check records of gun buyers within 24 hours of approval. That makes it very hard to identify dealers who falsify sales records.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 05:56 PM

33. If the gun laws were enforced, it would still be more difficult

for criminals to get them too. A lot fewer criminals would have them. And criminals use them against each other more than they might use them against victims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread